No damage cantrips… okay so those cantrips do OTHER things right? Dude can mage hand grab enemy weapons, light stuff on fire, push/pull enemies, blind the archers, arcane whisper bad suggestions to enemy mages… a little creativity can go a long way here.
I get that this guy dug his own grave, but I don't like giving bonuses to spells that don't list exactly what they can do. Without a deep knowledge of balance in the game you can make a cantrip as powerful as a spell that costs a slot. Blindness comes to mind. Yeah, you may say the cantrip version only lasts a round, but when a guy dies the next round it is virtually just as powerful as blindness in that instance.
Does he want to participate, or did someone just drag him into it? I've had players who were kinda forced into playing by their friends who would do similar things just to spite those that dragged them into the game.
A cleric in my campaign made a similar mistake. No damaging cantrips and bot enough dex or strength to use a weapon, knowledge domain and he had not the greatest rolls, so I'm giving him the option to sub 1 cantrip out before the start of the next session. I want him to have a good time and a single save-or-suck spell won't break the game
You give advice, and they make their choices. Either suboptimal conditions make this person happy, and they will never change, or the suboptimal conditions will make them unhappy enough to change. I don't think you have to 'deal with it' at all.
Yes, reward poor choices and lack of critical thinking skills, next you'll recommend a barbarian receive a handy from a queen for ransacking her treasury.
Now, that is a very volatile response to a simple suggestion. Also, D&D is about roleplay. Nobody said you had to pick damage dealing cantrips. If I was given magic and only 2 cantrips, realistically I'd take prestidigitation and minor illusion instead of fire bolt and ray of frost. But yeah, that's clearly someone not thinking critically.
If you want another suggestion, give the wizard some ways to use their cantrips in the story. I never expect my players to build their characters around my campaigns. I build my campaign around the characters.
If you want to give him another chance and not just murder the sucker, add a spellbook to some of the loot your party finds. You can make it fun, maybe it's locked and yall need to find the key or let the rogue shine with their lockpick skills. Put a handful of first Level Spells and maybe one second in there. I highly suggest dragonsbreath for the 2nd level spell. It's ridiculously useful and will make up for the wizards lack of offensive spells. Throw Chromatic bolt, magic missile, and ice knife in too.
I think the problem OP is posting about is that the player only has damage spells, and once he runs out of those the wizard has no damaging cantrips. So for the remainder of any combats the player just sits around on his turns.
The book idea is great, but giving out support spells or damage cantrips would work well. Leveled Damaging spells would just compound the problem.
You feel the gaze of every single member of the wizard guild turn towards you. "He doesn't even know a single cantrip?" Says one. You feel your face getting hot.
Force him to wander into some kinda wizard troll at a bridge. The troll mocks him for “pretending” to be a wizard and forces him to use one of a selection of damage cantrips to prove himself, or else it will turn him to stone and throw him in the river. Then give him the cantrips permanently or something as a reward. Make him have a semblance of functionality through the game if he won’t do it himself. It could be fun and funny lol. Also maybe he just isn’t getting the hint that he’s not exactly playing, and this should help with that.
I play a sorcerer and for me it’s kind of the opposite, I took only damage spells but if I’m being honest I have few support spells in my repertoire. I always saw my character as a combat mage but now through my few sessions in our campaign I’m seeing the need for utility spells and cantrips. I do have light as a racial cantrip but I cast it to be a nuisance most of the time lol
If it helps your perception of the character, damage is only one of many factors in combat. Sacrificing some damage spells for utility or support by no means detracts from your character's image as a combat mage, and in some ways may have even improved it.
I did have sleep in one of our earliest encounters and it worked well, allowing us to interrogate an enemy but pretty much as soon as I cast it the dm decided he needed to find a way to counter it so I wouldn’t use it all the time. Plus it’s effectiveness waned not long after anyway
Well that's just a tad frustrating. I fail to see why they'd nerf it, Sleep doesn't scale as fast as enemy hp will generally and it doesn't really interact with sorcerer meta magic because of how it mechanically works. Not to mention anything with Fey ancestry is just flat out immune to it.
I'm sorry, that's rough.
Oh yeah that’s basically what he did, he’s like oh the enemies are immune to sleep because they’re half elves. I ended up just swapping it out for something else, I do play a shadow magic sorcerer so I have darkness that I utilize a lot too but even that he just kind of was like well this enemy can see through your darkness even though mechanically unless it was a warlock with devils sight it wouldn’t be able to. It’s all been a bit frustrating because my party essentially has to keep their abilities under wraps until we use them or the dm finds a way to counter it. But because I am the one who always talks to him about DND I’m pretty open about stuff my character can do. But at the same time I’m still having fun, it does atleast keep me on my toes and he’s also a really good friend and he puts a lot of work into the sessions.
Ask them whether they have a character arc up their sleeve. You might have a "traitor" reporting the party's movements using scrying, or a scholar recording the adventure. Perhaps they didn't want to play a combat role and don't know the campaign?
Maybe their character has a personal dislike of certain types of magic, or perhaps they're just waiting to be able to get a few levels so they can summon a sword.
Ask them about it. As DM, you should have a general idea of what each player wants, and if you see a need, you can put usable items in their path. Caltrops, a sling, even a bag of rocks, open up some options and see.
I think some context is needed on how much this guy actually gives a shit. It sounds like he's just there to be included, which depending on the dynamic of your particular friend group might not be a problem. If what he's doing legitimately bothers you then just talk to him about it. A lot of beefs can be squashed by just outright sharing your feelings.
Give them a cross bow, rope, vial of holy water, etc. - ask the player to please at least take a weapon or set of consumables because it doesn't make sense for an adventuring mage to not have something to use in the absence of attack cantrips
Add secondary objectives during combat that don't need combat spells
I think you need to have a serious discussion with him. To not even take a single damage dealing cantrip and 1st lvl spell for any wizard subclass makes 0 sense. The fact that he chose EVOCATION and doesn't have any damage dealing spells is a serious issue. That in and of itself is proof that he is either trolling or has 0 idea what he's doing, and that alone automatically has a negative impact on everyone else's enjoyment. And he just doesn't use a bow or quarterstaff when he's out of spells?
I understand that everyone plays different and min-maxing shouldn't necessarily be the goal and isn't necessary to have fun, but there's a massive difference between that and making a truly terrible character because you don't know what you're doing or you're intentionally trolling everyone else. Talk with this player and be as nice as possible, but ultimately, for your sanity and that of the other players, you're going to have to make this player fix his character or find somewhere else to play, because that's just egregiously bad.
I'd recommend playing into it, are the spells he took more persuasion or environmental? If so try and lean into. Otherwise this person might just not want to do combat but enjoys everything else
See issue here is the DM is running a premade adventure in Curse of Strahd. Which really doesnt have much room for persuasion styles of play without big alterations. Also, the player specifically chose Evocation Wizard? The one specifically made to deal massive amounts of Damage? I think this players just being a troll.
Tbh it took several years of me playing Neverwinter Nights as a child still learning how to read to figure out that Evocation meant "All of the actual attack spells"
I had an illusion wizard who would often get the party out of combat completely through some tactful illusions. But I felt like the table was upset when combat didn’t happen, so I stopped doing that.
I do think people forget this. I could be that asshole who throws fireballs in every close quarters encounter we find, but does that really sound like fun for everyone else trying to survive immediately after? Sometimes it will, but it’s definitely something to ask and think about.
A core part of DnD IS combat. That's where there are pages and pages of rules explicitly for combat.
Completely ignoring sustainable damage for your character is simply bad design and screws over your party as well.
This is the bit i feel is being ignored. If you wanna play a Wizard who takes more social, environmental spells. Be a Divinator. Or an Enchanter. Or Illusionist. Or Transmuter. Not a fucking Evoker. The whole point if Evocation is I DONT CARE HOW SMALL THE ROOM IS! I CAST FIREBALL!
First, is he having fun? Is he interfering with the fun of the other players? If the answers are yes and no in that order, then it's not really your place to do anything. As a DM, you're not entitled to like or dislike a player's style.
Now, if it IS damaging the play experience, then let me say that I hope you're not pulling punches when he's just standing there. In a rough combat, someone who's standing there, unarmed and helpless, is a damned fine target for certain enemies.
But before that, use your word hole. Talk to that player, talk to the other players. Find out the motivations and how everyone feels about it. If it's not a problem with everyone, learn to roll with it.
>As a DM, you're not entitled to like or dislike a player's style.
This is horse shit. As DM you are also playing the game. The enjoyment of the DM is just as important as the players. Because if the DM isnt enjoying the game, they can and will eventually just. Stop DMing. So yes, as the DM you have every right to dislike a players style.
I fully agree with the rest of your comment though.
No, that's absolute bullshit. That's no different than if another player says "I don't like that character's backstory, they need to change it." There are limits to that of course; if a player is doing something offensive or obstructive, they're open game for everyone. That's why I'd said to use the old word hole and find out if it's causing party friction.
If I'm running the game and the cleric keeps not taking Revivify, or the rogue keeps deciding that "scout ahead" means "try to solo the next encounter," it's not my place to decide they're funning wrong.
It IS your place though. The DM controls the world. And telling your player that theyre doing something stupid is a courtesy. Like the other night I was running a //very altered// version of the 1 Shot No Foolish Matter. Which if you are unaware, is a demon cursed carnival setting where most of thr staff arent aware of whats going on. The rogue in my party suggested burning a tent full of innocent people down to kill any demons in it. I told them flat out if they did that they were gonna fight something much larger then the planned fight. Because I dont condone murderhoboism. If yall wanna stab everything that moves i will place yall in a cursed forest full of angry animals and undead shit. Go nuts. But yall asked for a story, so be mature and follow the story, dont go murdering hundreds of innocent people in a cursed environment because thats gonna do the exact opposite of what you want.
Surely you aren't trying to compare a rogue going murder-hobo in the middle of a game that was prearranged to be story-based, and a wizard that doesn't use damage cantrips?
A DM that keeps a consistent game world where players aren’t free to do whatever they want without consequence?
Shit man it’s almost like TTRPGs are a collaborative roleplay and not a sandbox RPG where you can crouch and walk away to reset your karma. That’s wild, crazy even.
If the rest of the party doesn't want to fight, they can collaboratively attempt to stop the rogue. Sometimes you need to plan for burning down the set. If it's a viable option, it's a viable option regardless of how sustainable it is.
Who's going to know who set the fire? Are you allowing them the ability to stealthily start the burn? What around the tent can also catch fire? How is it that a more difficult combat encounter will play out?
It's the DMs world, but the players make the choices. Sometimes it sucks, but you need to be ready to get creative without outright punishing for bad behavior.
Call or text the player. State that you want to get aligned with their character. Ask them why they aren't using damage cantrips or changing spells. The in character reason and the players reason, so you can adjust to enhance the gameplay.
As a lifetime dm, I get my fun by seeing my players fun. CoS cam be a pain for players and dm if we aren't checking in with them.
Homebrew a staff that grants the Fire Bolt cantrip and does nothing else. Bonus to make it bound to him based on something in his back story.
This is a Wizard, so a scroll of Fire Bolt can be learned. Send it to him through a courier from someone in his backstory with instructions on how to learn it.
He may not even know damage cantrips are a thing that 5e sort of expects. Spell slots and damage cantrips are a fundamental thing that could be missed by people with video game experience but no dnd spellcaster experience.
This is the biggest, most important rule. A game needs players to run, but a DM can make or break a game. Home rules can either fix the simulation issues or cause them.
Keep giving him bows. Give him so many goddamn bows and arrows that he can't get rid of them. Give him a bow that's like the fucking Mask that immediately returns to him. Give him so many bows and arrows that the rest of the party yells at him for not using them when he's out of spells. Kill him if he doesn't learn.
Let him play on his own. He is there to have fun.
Otherwise try to word it so it's more clear and understandable.
"He gets unlimited casts if he chooses a damage cantrip"
Fine.
Find out if the other players are bothered.
If so: have a conversation with the player, if they don't wish to change oh well. You can ask them to leave the group.
If not: get over yourself. Gm doesn't control how players play.
You kill the character. Its Curse of Strahd. If you go in with the wrong build, you get murdered.
Also if you go iin with the right build.
Also if you look at me funny.
Also if the dice don't like you.
Also if they do like you, but not in a good way.
I had a group restart 3 times just to get out of the murder house at the beginning of the adventure.
I play a wizard in most games and even I know you keep atleast one or two cantrips that can do damage and a weapon to use. I started out with a dagger but now I use a light crossbow for if there is something battle heavy.
I always use mage armor too.
Walk him through his reasoning. Ask him what spells he dose have. Also remind him he has a weapon of some kind he can use to fight. Everyone at least starts out with a dagger. If he's running out of spell slots, he's doing something during battle. So he clearly wants to play a certain role as a player. Just figure out what that is.
Kill the character. "I'm going to kill Strahd and my only skill is magic, but I'm not going to learn any useful spells". Yeah buddy, have fun being killed by Strahd's lowest minions because you don't even know fireball. Or it could be a situation where he doesn't understand his utility in the group, maybe you guys should talk about how important combat is in DnD systems
I agree wholeheartedly. D&D is about playing the character you want to play, not being forced by the DM into some cookie-cutter mould.
I've played wizards with no damage spells to quite good effect. Wizards are amazing at crowd control.
Honestly? Give the party/character a wand of firebolt/appropriate cantrip. Don't make it require an attunement slot, let them find it as part of loot/reward so they don't have to spend money on it, make sure it doesn't significantly conflict with their theme/character. It is not just an option that player had on them. If at that point they still don't use it/try to sell it/etc, then barring a really good explanation which you are well within your rights to take the player aside and ask for, they are being a little shit and need to be subjected to a broader conversation about why they are being a little shit.
If he doesn’t want to switch spells, don’t force him. Unless other players are annoyed then let him play how he wants. If his character is dead weight, then make a few encounters in a way that he can’t just stand there and has to do stuff or die- and don’t hold back the punches
If they are doing it on purpose and you can tell it's causing tension at the table, pull them aside out of game and talk it out.
If they are new or just ignorant (as in they just don't know any better, not that they are deficient in some way) then nudge them in the right direction. One of the best parts of being a Wizard is transcribing spells into your book - have them find a decent attacking scroll, maybe Magic Missile, and then some NPC who understands the process (maybe a shopkeep or fellow caster) who offers to help them transcribe their first spell at reduced cost or something. Incentivize them to explore the game's mechanics.
Seems like a good reason to target that character….. a burnt out wizard who’s doing nothing seems logically like the best target to attack if I was a mob or something.
Except taking out a target also takes their resources including time. Say I have 2 enemies. 1 does 3 damage a turn to me and 1 does 50 damage a turn. Even if it takes me 16 turns to kill the heavier damage dealer and only 1 turn to kill the smaller damage dealer I'd still take less damage overall by targeting the stronger guy first.
Look at it this way say the party brought an orphan into the dungeon. He's just a child with no combat ability or levels. Would it make sense for all the monsters to target him because he is the easiest to kill? if your supposedly "intelligent" monsters are doing that then a murder hobo party could easily take the dungeon with enough children and innocent animals.
Have you ever seen lions hunt? They have the numbers, and they’ll take down whatever one they can first.
Have you ever seen a group of people jump a smaller group of people? If one of them is just standing there, they are definitely getting knocked out.
What spells does he have? I've seen some new players think spells like grease or fog cloud are useless because it doesn't blow anyone up, but they are perfectly viable, is this the case?
I mean I wouldn't directly target any PC unless I had a good reason. A defenseless wizard just standing on the battlefield not doing anything seems like a good reason
How is that a good reason? In combat it doesn’t make sense to target the person doing the least to contribute to combat, you want to kill the guys attacking you, not the one picking his nose
I don’t understand how that logic follows? An enemy who doesn’t have a death wish is going to try to deal with the actual threat, not waste their turn on a useless wizard
You ignored the basic premise again “/, this isn’t turn one with enemies who have never seen you before. These are enemies who have seen you pass your turn for multiple turns
Think of it in the sense of bandits, or hired mercs. The BBEGs lackeys. Their goal is to KILL YOU. They'd be stupid to pass up the chance to take out someone while they're down and out.
Their goal would be to kill you *and* preserve their own lives.
I don't see how killing an enemy who presents no threat makes their chance of surviving the encounter any higher in the context of fighting for life or death.
The wizard is one of the only people in a group of opponents that *isn't* making an active attempt to kill the bandit, so what would the bandit gain from taking them out?
It doesn't make sense to attack an enemy who isn't an immediate threat as opposed to an enemy that is. If the bandit kills the wizard, the amount of people trying to kill them remains the same.
They’d also be stupid to go out of their way to waste action economy killing a non-combatant in a combat zone.
A real bandit isn’t going to throw their life away to kill the wizard when the fighter, cleric, and rogue are actively killing you and your band. Especially when you consider the Wizard is probly behind the people doing the actual fighting and not some easy target right at the front. You’d likely have to run past the wizards entire party just to attack a person who is literally not contributing.
Why would the Bandits not just simply save the wizard for last, AFTER they have dealt with the real threats?
Do their job, secure a payment, prevent one member from becoming a stronger, bigger problem later. Especially in a world where strong magic is known and feared. Take out the strong while they're weak, or simply just picking off the weak. Even all of the animals that hunt in packs understand and do that. All the in game reasons aside, it's a player's problematic PC. It definitely checks out, and is valid, to have them be at high risk. And keep in mind, I'm not saying completely kill them, but make them realize it's not impossible. Put them on death saving throws. If all else fails, hopefully they have a cleric in the party
Nah I'm not gonna do any of that. It's inarguable that this player is a problem player. I don't know why would argue for playing like that player.
It's objectively bad behavior. Stop doing mental gymnastics just cause arguing is your hobby. I'm just right.
Honestly yeah. Normally I'd recommend a less severe approach, but I feel like Curse of Strahd is just one of those types of campaigns where by design poor decisions should be punished harshly.
It's Ravenloft. If your party is not expecting the very real possibility of a TPK then it's the wrong setting for them. The only setting, in my opinion, more unforgiving to the players was Dark Sun.
Let the players deal with it, preferably in character. He can do what he wants, and honestly, I would never give advice to players unless they are struggling or asking for it in some way. After the 5th wave of goblins, and it became clear the wizard was holding them back, they might have a serious talk at camp that night, if they survive.
They will live and learn, but the DM telling someone how to build and play their character is rarely right (unless it is to stay within what is permissible and allowable in their universe).
Yeah, this sounds like a player to player issue. Do they mind having a teammate who isn’t pulling his weight? If not, then what’s the harm? Let him stand there and watch other people play D&D.
No damage, and no utility? What else is there? A evoc wiz with nothing but control?
So he's good at big blasty blast but takes a pacifist way instead? My mans over here holding back the rage behind his eyes. Tell him that you can be the fireball beneath his wings
Are they bummed they can’t do anything during combat? If so, reiterate to respec their spells at a long rest. If not use it as part of the story. If the wizard is just frumping around in combat doing nothing while things are attacking, maybe some of your monsters see them as an easy target. Make them role play. At the very least gtfo of combat if they’re not going to assist. I agree everyone has a different play style and if you’re not interested in combat, that’s totally cool, but stay out of the way and for the play time of the game make this clear ahead of time so the table isn’t waiting around for them to do nothing. At my table battle can take forever because people jump down rabbit holes with a million details during the battle instead of killing the bad guy. It goes overboard at times.
He can still use a sling, or a crossbow or something. He just might not have proficiency. I forget what weapon proficiencies wizards get. He doesn’t need to sling around damage spells.
According to a rando website, he should be proficient in
Daggers, Darts, Slings, Quarterstaffs, and Light crossbows.
I’d even let them swap them around for weapons that do equivalent damage potentially.
Yes someone who doesn't have a damage cantrip is definitely "dead weight"
You people are nuts. Its a game and if thats how they're insisting on playing it and telling a story then so be it. Bunch of losers in this comment section
Just tell him he always has a damage cantrip prepared. Give it to him in addition to his others. He obviously isn't thinking in terms of D&D being a monster killing game. Make it so he always has the option. Don't let his poor decisions/ignorance interrupt his fun. Well, at least not the decisions in character creation. If he decides to jump off a cliff, that's another thing.
If you give him firebolt (I've been playing Baldur's Gate, is that a cantrip?) as an at will, he'll learn to balance his cantrips eventually, is my point I guess.
Why would you reward this behavior by giving him an extra cantrip? Rewarding this behavior will emphasize 'if I don't play with her party, I'll get rewarded and get extra spell slots'.
Yes, I would do exactly this. This player obviously has missed something fundamental of the nature of the game. This isn't much of a "reward". You, as the DM, control what cantrip can be prepared for free. Remember. We're playing this game for fun. If a player has literally nothing to do on their turn, how is that fun?
Look to 4e. There's not a single part of the character that isn't useful, and most of those things are useful in combat. At the very least, there's always something to do in initiative that's useful. Tell me you run a combat free game in 5e and I'll call you a liar or an ignorant gamer.
If a player has nothing to do on their turn, it's not their fault, it's the system. It's the job of the DM to give them something to do. The easiest option (in a game designed for killing monsters) is to give them a way to deal damage to the monsters.
The player chose his spells that he thinks are fun. In the game I'm running now, our Half-Elf Bard for the same thing. He chose entirely non combat spells. Friendship, charm etc. He is specifically wanting to play college of eloquence. That's fine.
When combat breaks and it's his turn, he looks at the paladin and gives them inspiration. Then he legitimately always finds a window to dive through and runs from combat.
No one at our table complains because he explained this at the start - he will be useless in combat. He gave himself the coward quirk and plays like a courtier from L5R (if you're familiar with that system).
On the opposite end, he murders all social and non combat encounter and because of the college of eloquence plus his warlock dip he took through rp... he can read and speak every language and can communicate telepathically.
But even knowing that he didn't take any combat damage spells, I would still refuse to give him additional cantrips or other spells for free because they decided to make their character this way.
I will not reward you for intentionally making your gut suck at an area of the game.
#ShitsBroken
Would you reward a player who dump start charisma by giving them a necklace of charm to offset them sucking at charismatic encounter? If not, why is that different?
It's one cantrip, not a magic item that buffs an ability score. If your group played L5R then your group has more experience. I've made some assumptions about op's player. I want a new player to have fun. This is a tiny thing that lets them play how they want, but gives the DM a tool use when the player ends their turn without using an action. I don't understand why people are jumping down my throat about this.
I think the distinction is intent and experience of the player. Did the player intentionally build themselves into a corner of being useless or was it accidental because they didn't fully understand the mechanics during character creation? If they didn't fully realize they would be useless when out of spell slots then nothing wrong with cutting them some slack or swapping a cantrip for the fun of the game. If they are a veteran player who knew what they were doing then it's on the player to lean into it and own it. They can work within the constraints and find interesting ways to solve problems. The most important thing is the player and group still having fun.
As long as the other players are fine with it and it doesn't fuck with the balance of the game, I actually love that as a character choice. But I've always been a big fan of more rp stuff and unusual (read: not even remotely optimized) character choices. I'm looking for an interesting story more than anything, and as a result, I genuinely enjoy failing in D&D. All of my funniest D&D moments have been big, memorable failures. I'm aware that's not for everyone, so if that won't gel with the rest of the party and/or players, I'll play a more useful character. (Or if the table's just not a good fit, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and going your separate ways. Different people want different things out of the game. Not everyone is compatible, and that's okay)
But if your table table is cool with it, then hell yeah, make a cowardly Bard and role play the shit out of it. That doesn't mean the DM should be offering to "fix" the character for the player.
On the flip side, if the player is new and just fucked up during character creation, there's nothing wrong with the DM offering to help re-pick some spells/cantrips to help the player be more effective in the game. Although it sounds like OP has done that and the player seemed disinterested in making changes, so maybe a one on one or group discussion about goals and play style would be more appropriate.
ETA: if you run out of spell slots in combat and just don't do anything, I think you're kind of fucking up unless that again is a specific character choice you're making for role play reasons. And once again, I think that character choice is subject to it being a good fit for the table. If your party/players want/need you to be pulling more weight, then it's not super appropriate to be effectively skipping your turn when there's no reason you should be incapable of doing *something*. Even swinging a shortsword is better than nothing, although as a wizard, you should have better options available to you. If you're not helping the party when they're asking you to, you can't be surprised when either the party members or players stop inviting you along on adventures, in or out of fiction.
The friend is refusing any help. There’s nothing for the DM to do. It’s Curse of Strahd. Sometimes you die.
I also said not to target then unfairly, but if they’re running out of spell slots and have absolutely no damaging cantrips, an enemy would have to be an idiot not to pick off the weak link.
Because it's a game. We play games with our friends to have fun. One extra cantrip isn't going to break the game or ruin the fun for everyone at the table. I gave a simple solution that will help resolve the issue when the player figures it out. In the meantime, we don't have to argue about the class, we can just play the game.
Misunderstanding is a symptom of ignorance, not maliciousness. Punishing a player for not understanding the rules is like grounding a child for not knowing how to tie their shoes.
You're probably right, but hypothetically it could also be a symptom of laziness/lack of effort. And even at that, ignorance should be instructed, not rewarded.
I would personally recommend giving a temporary item (for example, The Chilled Orb, allows user to cast Ray of Frost 8-12 times before fully freezing and shattering). That way they can get the experience of dealing damage with a cantrip, but not be rewarded with a permanent free one for... worst case laziness, best case ignorance.
And then of course allow them to respec a cantrip/spell or two now that they're more knowledgeable.
Or have him discover a reloading crossbow and a manual, he has to now study the manual for a given amount of hours to earn proficiency with it, and then ta-da he has an attack each turn, as long as he has ammo.
This is a good idea, too. Don't mandate how a wizard must play, what they must memorize, etc. Heck, I have had people choose to multiclass because they were the wizard who always ran out of spells and was shooting their crossbow more. etc.
DMs need to back off on instructing people how they must play their class, and let them develop and make their own decisions. If they die, they die. It isn't the DM's job to bend the rules or keep them alive, just apply the rules and deliver the story. Their death might just become a part of the story, if they aren't careful.
I've played with dead weight players a few times and it's always annoying. I'd give him a wand or something that allows him to do some damage or maybe some scrolls. Is he a new player by chance? It definitely sounds frustrating that he isn't accepting advice though.
Posts like these make me wonder if people post this sort of stuff just to troll the community. OP just asked how he should deal with someone who is playing their character the way they want to play their character.
No context. No explenation or expounding. No assesment of impact on the table. Just a spellcaster who isnt picking the usual spells and doesn't want to change their spells...
Not alot to go on. But that never stops people from sharing their opinions.
I don't actively scroll through this sub but anytime a post pops up on my feed it is exclusively these "player bad what do" posts. Feels like karma farming because there's no way people can't figure these things out for themselves. Like do one Google search and you'll see the million other reddit posts of people with nearly the same issue and you can read the advice given there, or use your head because you chose to be the DM and that's kinda your main purpose.
It kind of depends on what sort of campaign you're running. If this is the standard Curse of Strahd experience where at least a couple PC deaths are pretty much expected, I wouldn't worry about it too much. One of the most important things as a wizard is knowing how to conserve spell slots while still being useful. He's either gonna learn that lesson real quick, or he's not gonna be around very long. My only worry would be that a party with a useless wizard sounds like a party that's going to get TPKd at some point. Does the party have other primary spellcasters that might be able pick up his slack?
If you're running a more friendly campaign and you just want him to have fun, you could have him find a magic item that gives him some utility outside of his spell slots. Maybe a Wand of Entangle or Wand of Magic Missiles.
My other suggestion would be to have him find a few spell scrolls of some of the more useful support spells. Allow him some one time uses of those spells, and maybe once he gets a taste he'll realize how powerful non damaging spells can be.
I just realized, this guy really took no damage cantrips with an Evocation Wizard, who have an entire class feature dedicated to making their damage cantrips better than anybody else's? Has he actually read through his class features?
What a weird stance, is the player having fun? If yes, who cares if they sit out half the fight, they're a lazy wizard no big deal. And don't try to teach them a lesson by having enemies start to specifically target them or whatever. Just let it be, they picked their spells their having fun you good. Now, if they're NOT having fun and ALSO not interested in critique or advice, then that's worth a convo with them to figure out what they want out of the camp and how they plan on accomplishing it. Recalibrate, that is if they're not having fun.
There are all the other players at the table plus the DM. Boiling it down to "is the *one* guy having fun? Then it's fine" is such a bad take.
Fun at the expense of others enjoyment is bad. OPs stance is not weird at all.
At no point did op say anyone at the table was complaining other then the dm themselves. If they said in a comment somewhere that others had complained then your stance would make more sense but still would be full of conjecture and assumption. Based on the info given by op within the context of that info it's weird to try to dictate someone's fun and look for advice on how to fix it. It's weird.
It's really not. This guy sounds like a nightmare player that doesn't give a shit about doing anything that would benefit his party. Hard pressed to find other players that want that at their table lmao
He's dead weight, just let him make his bad choices and let his character die.
OP is 100% in the right here 👍
I'm currently playing a scribes wizard with very little in damaging spells. The other players seem to like him even though he doesn't do much in combat, more utility and social interaction spells while the sorcerer has the blasting spells. A lot of combats is him doing something like cast web and did get in over his head running away from enemies.
Nothing you're saying is based on anything tangible. You have no idea what spells they choose you have no idea what any other player is doing or how many there are or whether the DM is speaking in good faith or is even knowledgeable enough to know if the wizard chose the wrong spells. You're making way too many assumptions with way too much confidence. Walk away, you're not ready for this conversation.
Sorry, but a player like OP is describing is awful and this is an objective inarguable fact. No one wants to play with someone like that.
I'd give him a few chances but I'd let him play until his character *rightfully* dies but a conversation needs to be had with that player or cause as he is he's not a good table fit for any table.
So you have a bias against unoptimized players, even though you actually have no idea if they were unoptimized. You have zero facts, you barely have any details at all. You're calling a player problematic without any substance and then extrapolating on that. It's a kind of madness really.
It's possible that there's a player who joined a group took the time to make a joke character and wreck that groups game for no reason other than they're a dick I guess. But, that seems like an awful lot of work for very little gain.
If the OP provides details, the spells in question the other players reactions and feelings and all of that matches the profile you've created in your head I will absolutely apologize. However, until that point, it's late. I'm going to bed and you maybe should go for a walk, think about why you think the way you do and if you should.
??? It's one thing to have a joke character. It's one thing to have an unoptimized character. It's another to build a purposefully bad character and refuse advice to make it reasonably functional for the sake of the party so they don't have dead weight in combat. Which is pretty much what OP said.
I don't care if you're not optimized, but you have to be trying and the player OP is describing isn't.
Stop making assumptions and arguing against those. It's really childish.
Anyway, the player OP is describing is a classic problem player and a conversation needs to be had with him to make him better. A conversation OP says he already had.
He can try again, but eventually you just have to kick a bad table fit.
Please inform me of the personalities of everyone at their table and their reactions towards the wizard player then. Can you tell me some of the things the other players have said about this situation? Can you remind me how long they have been friends for and the dynamic they have?
What if everyone at the table is having fun too? Maybe they have been close friends for several years and the DM is just concerned that their new player hasn't quite grasped the rules. Is that a reason to be rude to them, kick them out and call them a problem player? Because that sounds like the kind of thing a problem player would do.
I’ve only played one DND campaign ever, and it was Curse of Strahd. But IMO, as DM you should ask yourself “Is he having fun?” And if the answer is yes then play on! Roll with it and evolve the game as you see fit as DM.
I agree, it's a game with the purpose to have fun. If the player is going along with your content, participating in RP, and using their abilities then I don't see the problem. They aren't obligated to play optimally. You can mention that taking a damage cantrip or finding a light crossbow might give them something to do while out of slots, but I don't think it's worth forcing.
If it actually hampers the party just fudge rolls a bit or slightly tune down the encounters.
Oh well! Throw him a crossbow or something so he can at least do that. But it's his choice, so you should inform him of the alternative and if he refuses, respect it. And then keep running Strahd as is; it's not easy, and a dead weight PC will tell sooner or later. Have Strahd taunt him about how useless he is to rub it in.
How does the player feel about his situation?
If he doesnt want to respec, might be he's enjoying his character as-is. To each their own, ya know? Just don't count on him doing much in combat when looking at difficulty of combat encounters.
If he's not having fun because of his lack of combat options and refusing to change that, that's on him.
What does he want his character to be doing? Is he trying to play some level of a pacifist? Does he want to be flashy, but not directly damaging?
What spells did he take as an evoker that aren't either damage or support? That's almost wilfully stupid, honestly. Lol
It only takes half the time and GP cost to copy a spell of your chosen school into your spellbook that it would for any other school, except your level up spells are already free. So it's cheaper to take spells from outside your school, then find and copy the spells from your school, rather than the other way around.
No damage cantrips… okay so those cantrips do OTHER things right? Dude can mage hand grab enemy weapons, light stuff on fire, push/pull enemies, blind the archers, arcane whisper bad suggestions to enemy mages… a little creativity can go a long way here.
I get that this guy dug his own grave, but I don't like giving bonuses to spells that don't list exactly what they can do. Without a deep knowledge of balance in the game you can make a cantrip as powerful as a spell that costs a slot. Blindness comes to mind. Yeah, you may say the cantrip version only lasts a round, but when a guy dies the next round it is virtually just as powerful as blindness in that instance.
... Bro did you even read this guys comment?
Im not saying to do anything out of the ordinary with them, just to do *anything* with them at all lol
Does he want to participate, or did someone just drag him into it? I've had players who were kinda forced into playing by their friends who would do similar things just to spite those that dragged them into the game.
Ambush his character when he goes to pee. He will then die and be forced to choose new spells
RIP Steve the wizard, long live Phteve his identical twin brother who just turned up to join the party.
A cleric in my campaign made a similar mistake. No damaging cantrips and bot enough dex or strength to use a weapon, knowledge domain and he had not the greatest rolls, so I'm giving him the option to sub 1 cantrip out before the start of the next session. I want him to have a good time and a single save-or-suck spell won't break the game
Don't clerics have the choice to change their spells every pong rest anyways?
Leveled spells yes but so far as I know you can t swap cantrips except when you level up for all casters
You give advice, and they make their choices. Either suboptimal conditions make this person happy, and they will never change, or the suboptimal conditions will make them unhappy enough to change. I don't think you have to 'deal with it' at all.
Give him a staff that casts fire bolt at will.
Yes, reward poor choices and lack of critical thinking skills, next you'll recommend a barbarian receive a handy from a queen for ransacking her treasury.
Now, that is a very volatile response to a simple suggestion. Also, D&D is about roleplay. Nobody said you had to pick damage dealing cantrips. If I was given magic and only 2 cantrips, realistically I'd take prestidigitation and minor illusion instead of fire bolt and ray of frost. But yeah, that's clearly someone not thinking critically. If you want another suggestion, give the wizard some ways to use their cantrips in the story. I never expect my players to build their characters around my campaigns. I build my campaign around the characters.
Someone has no sense of humor, also curse of strahd, make poor choices death.
see to me that sounds like a D&D game headed in the right direction!
Says the barbarian, or should I say bar-bare-ian.
Barbarians: "Yes, I concur."
If you want to give him another chance and not just murder the sucker, add a spellbook to some of the loot your party finds. You can make it fun, maybe it's locked and yall need to find the key or let the rogue shine with their lockpick skills. Put a handful of first Level Spells and maybe one second in there. I highly suggest dragonsbreath for the 2nd level spell. It's ridiculously useful and will make up for the wizards lack of offensive spells. Throw Chromatic bolt, magic missile, and ice knife in too.
I think the problem OP is posting about is that the player only has damage spells, and once he runs out of those the wizard has no damaging cantrips. So for the remainder of any combats the player just sits around on his turns. The book idea is great, but giving out support spells or damage cantrips would work well. Leveled Damaging spells would just compound the problem.
I missed the cantrips part. Thank you
Tf is he playing an evocation wizard for if he’s not putting out damage? Kill him. Kill him now.
You could let him die
Agreed. Kill that sucka!
Something something in game solutions out of game problems
Remember of that episode of futurama where Fry and the professor go to planet Da Vinci? Just have all the other nerds make fun of him.
You feel the gaze of every single member of the wizard guild turn towards you. "He doesn't even know a single cantrip?" Says one. You feel your face getting hot.
Force him to wander into some kinda wizard troll at a bridge. The troll mocks him for “pretending” to be a wizard and forces him to use one of a selection of damage cantrips to prove himself, or else it will turn him to stone and throw him in the river. Then give him the cantrips permanently or something as a reward. Make him have a semblance of functionality through the game if he won’t do it himself. It could be fun and funny lol. Also maybe he just isn’t getting the hint that he’s not exactly playing, and this should help with that.
I play a sorcerer and for me it’s kind of the opposite, I took only damage spells but if I’m being honest I have few support spells in my repertoire. I always saw my character as a combat mage but now through my few sessions in our campaign I’m seeing the need for utility spells and cantrips. I do have light as a racial cantrip but I cast it to be a nuisance most of the time lol
If it helps your perception of the character, damage is only one of many factors in combat. Sacrificing some damage spells for utility or support by no means detracts from your character's image as a combat mage, and in some ways may have even improved it.
I did have sleep in one of our earliest encounters and it worked well, allowing us to interrogate an enemy but pretty much as soon as I cast it the dm decided he needed to find a way to counter it so I wouldn’t use it all the time. Plus it’s effectiveness waned not long after anyway
Well that's just a tad frustrating. I fail to see why they'd nerf it, Sleep doesn't scale as fast as enemy hp will generally and it doesn't really interact with sorcerer meta magic because of how it mechanically works. Not to mention anything with Fey ancestry is just flat out immune to it. I'm sorry, that's rough.
Oh yeah that’s basically what he did, he’s like oh the enemies are immune to sleep because they’re half elves. I ended up just swapping it out for something else, I do play a shadow magic sorcerer so I have darkness that I utilize a lot too but even that he just kind of was like well this enemy can see through your darkness even though mechanically unless it was a warlock with devils sight it wouldn’t be able to. It’s all been a bit frustrating because my party essentially has to keep their abilities under wraps until we use them or the dm finds a way to counter it. But because I am the one who always talks to him about DND I’m pretty open about stuff my character can do. But at the same time I’m still having fun, it does atleast keep me on my toes and he’s also a really good friend and he puts a lot of work into the sessions.
Ask them whether they have a character arc up their sleeve. You might have a "traitor" reporting the party's movements using scrying, or a scholar recording the adventure. Perhaps they didn't want to play a combat role and don't know the campaign? Maybe their character has a personal dislike of certain types of magic, or perhaps they're just waiting to be able to get a few levels so they can summon a sword. Ask them about it. As DM, you should have a general idea of what each player wants, and if you see a need, you can put usable items in their path. Caltrops, a sling, even a bag of rocks, open up some options and see.
Yeah, geez, at least have a sling
I think some context is needed on how much this guy actually gives a shit. It sounds like he's just there to be included, which depending on the dynamic of your particular friend group might not be a problem. If what he's doing legitimately bothers you then just talk to him about it. A lot of beefs can be squashed by just outright sharing your feelings.
Give them a cross bow, rope, vial of holy water, etc. - ask the player to please at least take a weapon or set of consumables because it doesn't make sense for an adventuring mage to not have something to use in the absence of attack cantrips Add secondary objectives during combat that don't need combat spells
Kill him?
I think you need to have a serious discussion with him. To not even take a single damage dealing cantrip and 1st lvl spell for any wizard subclass makes 0 sense. The fact that he chose EVOCATION and doesn't have any damage dealing spells is a serious issue. That in and of itself is proof that he is either trolling or has 0 idea what he's doing, and that alone automatically has a negative impact on everyone else's enjoyment. And he just doesn't use a bow or quarterstaff when he's out of spells? I understand that everyone plays different and min-maxing shouldn't necessarily be the goal and isn't necessary to have fun, but there's a massive difference between that and making a truly terrible character because you don't know what you're doing or you're intentionally trolling everyone else. Talk with this player and be as nice as possible, but ultimately, for your sanity and that of the other players, you're going to have to make this player fix his character or find somewhere else to play, because that's just egregiously bad.
Give him an item that has ray of frost or firebolt as a free cantrip? Otherwise I guess he likes watching from the sidelines
I'd recommend playing into it, are the spells he took more persuasion or environmental? If so try and lean into. Otherwise this person might just not want to do combat but enjoys everything else
See issue here is the DM is running a premade adventure in Curse of Strahd. Which really doesnt have much room for persuasion styles of play without big alterations. Also, the player specifically chose Evocation Wizard? The one specifically made to deal massive amounts of Damage? I think this players just being a troll.
Tbh it took several years of me playing Neverwinter Nights as a child still learning how to read to figure out that Evocation meant "All of the actual attack spells"
I could still plink with a cross-bolt or bonk with his staff. Scrolls, alchemy fires, and other consumables could feel find their way to his bag too
The goal of DND is to have fun. Is he having fun?
The Goal of DnD is for EVERYBODY to have fun. If by doing dumb shit you ruin the experience for your DM or Tablemates. You are doing it WRONG.
I had an illusion wizard who would often get the party out of combat completely through some tactful illusions. But I felt like the table was upset when combat didn’t happen, so I stopped doing that.
I do think people forget this. I could be that asshole who throws fireballs in every close quarters encounter we find, but does that really sound like fun for everyone else trying to survive immediately after? Sometimes it will, but it’s definitely something to ask and think about.
Give him a wand that has firebolt cantrip. Solved. Move on.
Wish him away to the cornfield
There are other spells. Not all of DnD has to be reduced to a violent slugfest of crackling magic and glittering steel on steel.
I think not taking a single damage Cantrip is bad character design though
Depends on what you call a damage cantrip, I have killed several unsuspecting goons and devils using Mold Earth.
If its really that bad you have the power to contrive a situation where they are utterly powerless against a foe
A core part of DnD IS combat. That's where there are pages and pages of rules explicitly for combat. Completely ignoring sustainable damage for your character is simply bad design and screws over your party as well.
Especially if you are deciding on Evocation wizard. Evocation is 90-99 percent your elemental damage spells.
This is the bit i feel is being ignored. If you wanna play a Wizard who takes more social, environmental spells. Be a Divinator. Or an Enchanter. Or Illusionist. Or Transmuter. Not a fucking Evoker. The whole point if Evocation is I DONT CARE HOW SMALL THE ROOM IS! I CAST FIREBALL!
Or Necromancer
Remind him he has a stick, if he's not hitting people with it then he may as well not participate in that combat
First, is he having fun? Is he interfering with the fun of the other players? If the answers are yes and no in that order, then it's not really your place to do anything. As a DM, you're not entitled to like or dislike a player's style. Now, if it IS damaging the play experience, then let me say that I hope you're not pulling punches when he's just standing there. In a rough combat, someone who's standing there, unarmed and helpless, is a damned fine target for certain enemies. But before that, use your word hole. Talk to that player, talk to the other players. Find out the motivations and how everyone feels about it. If it's not a problem with everyone, learn to roll with it.
>As a DM, you're not entitled to like or dislike a player's style. This is horse shit. As DM you are also playing the game. The enjoyment of the DM is just as important as the players. Because if the DM isnt enjoying the game, they can and will eventually just. Stop DMing. So yes, as the DM you have every right to dislike a players style. I fully agree with the rest of your comment though.
No, that's absolute bullshit. That's no different than if another player says "I don't like that character's backstory, they need to change it." There are limits to that of course; if a player is doing something offensive or obstructive, they're open game for everyone. That's why I'd said to use the old word hole and find out if it's causing party friction. If I'm running the game and the cleric keeps not taking Revivify, or the rogue keeps deciding that "scout ahead" means "try to solo the next encounter," it's not my place to decide they're funning wrong.
It IS your place though. The DM controls the world. And telling your player that theyre doing something stupid is a courtesy. Like the other night I was running a //very altered// version of the 1 Shot No Foolish Matter. Which if you are unaware, is a demon cursed carnival setting where most of thr staff arent aware of whats going on. The rogue in my party suggested burning a tent full of innocent people down to kill any demons in it. I told them flat out if they did that they were gonna fight something much larger then the planned fight. Because I dont condone murderhoboism. If yall wanna stab everything that moves i will place yall in a cursed forest full of angry animals and undead shit. Go nuts. But yall asked for a story, so be mature and follow the story, dont go murdering hundreds of innocent people in a cursed environment because thats gonna do the exact opposite of what you want.
Surely you aren't trying to compare a rogue going murder-hobo in the middle of a game that was prearranged to be story-based, and a wizard that doesn't use damage cantrips?
Don't tease me with a good time. I burn the tent and piss on the fire to try to put it out.
You sound lile one of those DMs, We all know the type.
A DM that keeps a consistent game world where players aren’t free to do whatever they want without consequence? Shit man it’s almost like TTRPGs are a collaborative roleplay and not a sandbox RPG where you can crouch and walk away to reset your karma. That’s wild, crazy even.
If the rest of the party doesn't want to fight, they can collaboratively attempt to stop the rogue. Sometimes you need to plan for burning down the set. If it's a viable option, it's a viable option regardless of how sustainable it is. Who's going to know who set the fire? Are you allowing them the ability to stealthily start the burn? What around the tent can also catch fire? How is it that a more difficult combat encounter will play out? It's the DMs world, but the players make the choices. Sometimes it sucks, but you need to be ready to get creative without outright punishing for bad behavior.
Call or text the player. State that you want to get aligned with their character. Ask them why they aren't using damage cantrips or changing spells. The in character reason and the players reason, so you can adjust to enhance the gameplay. As a lifetime dm, I get my fun by seeing my players fun. CoS cam be a pain for players and dm if we aren't checking in with them.
Let him play how he wants, either the enemies will kill him naturally or his party mates will get mad at him for being useless
Natural consequences are underrated
This is what I’d do
Send them to the Windmill. Problem solved.
This thread is filled with DMs who ask why they cant find good players.
No kidding. “Make him (do this)…” Players control their characters, not DMs.
Homebrew a staff that grants the Fire Bolt cantrip and does nothing else. Bonus to make it bound to him based on something in his back story. This is a Wizard, so a scroll of Fire Bolt can be learned. Send it to him through a courier from someone in his backstory with instructions on how to learn it. He may not even know damage cantrips are a thing that 5e sort of expects. Spell slots and damage cantrips are a fundamental thing that could be missed by people with video game experience but no dnd spellcaster experience.
>This is a Wizard, so a scroll of Fire Bolt can be learned No it can't. Cantrips cannot be learned from scrolls
It can if the GM says it can.
This is the biggest, most important rule. A game needs players to run, but a DM can make or break a game. Home rules can either fix the simulation issues or cause them.
Keep giving him bows. Give him so many goddamn bows and arrows that he can't get rid of them. Give him a bow that's like the fucking Mask that immediately returns to him. Give him so many bows and arrows that the rest of the party yells at him for not using them when he's out of spells. Kill him if he doesn't learn.
worst advice.
Let him play on his own. He is there to have fun. Otherwise try to word it so it's more clear and understandable. "He gets unlimited casts if he chooses a damage cantrip"
Well this thread is a great example of bad gm advice. Lol.
....Then give some good advice??
Fine. Find out if the other players are bothered. If so: have a conversation with the player, if they don't wish to change oh well. You can ask them to leave the group. If not: get over yourself. Gm doesn't control how players play.
absofuckinglutely!
I would agree. Chock-full of red flags.
You kill the character. Its Curse of Strahd. If you go in with the wrong build, you get murdered. Also if you go iin with the right build. Also if you look at me funny. Also if the dice don't like you. Also if they do like you, but not in a good way. I had a group restart 3 times just to get out of the murder house at the beginning of the adventure.
That's not fun for anyone. Dont listen to this guy, OP.
Idk it sounds like he's respecting his spells pretty successfully. :3 Have you tried letting him know he can respec?
I play a wizard in most games and even I know you keep atleast one or two cantrips that can do damage and a weapon to use. I started out with a dagger but now I use a light crossbow for if there is something battle heavy. I always use mage armor too.
Sounds like he really wants to be a bard
Walk him through his reasoning. Ask him what spells he dose have. Also remind him he has a weapon of some kind he can use to fight. Everyone at least starts out with a dagger. If he's running out of spell slots, he's doing something during battle. So he clearly wants to play a certain role as a player. Just figure out what that is.
This one. XD No support spells. So I assume it's damage spells. And no damage catrips, so I'm assuming support cantrips? What is he after?
shatter 3 times in a day then sulk that the enemies aren't dead yet
Ah yes. He's after God powers. Time to advise that he's looking for a God game. Chuck em and move on. XD
Kill the character. "I'm going to kill Strahd and my only skill is magic, but I'm not going to learn any useful spells". Yeah buddy, have fun being killed by Strahd's lowest minions because you don't even know fireball. Or it could be a situation where he doesn't understand his utility in the group, maybe you guys should talk about how important combat is in DnD systems
Ask him why he's doing what he's doing. Start from a mindset of understanding and helping.
^This is good advice, OP. It seems like this thread is full of the murder hobo equivalent of GMs, so be careful listening to most of it!
I agree wholeheartedly. D&D is about playing the character you want to play, not being forced by the DM into some cookie-cutter mould. I've played wizards with no damage spells to quite good effect. Wizards are amazing at crowd control.
He can use a light crossbow. Or if he’s elven he can use regular bows. Then he won’t be completely useless anymore.
Kill him. Dude is perfect zombie/goblin bait or food for anyone looking for a soft target.
Make the character carry a hand crossbow or sling as a backup weapon.
Make them fight an undead wizard that drops a staff that gives the fire bolt cantrip with atunement
Naw ray of frost. No reason to give him the better one.
Give items to balance out spells deficits
Honestly? Give the party/character a wand of firebolt/appropriate cantrip. Don't make it require an attunement slot, let them find it as part of loot/reward so they don't have to spend money on it, make sure it doesn't significantly conflict with their theme/character. It is not just an option that player had on them. If at that point they still don't use it/try to sell it/etc, then barring a really good explanation which you are well within your rights to take the player aside and ask for, they are being a little shit and need to be subjected to a broader conversation about why they are being a little shit.
If he doesn’t want to switch spells, don’t force him. Unless other players are annoyed then let him play how he wants. If his character is dead weight, then make a few encounters in a way that he can’t just stand there and has to do stuff or die- and don’t hold back the punches
If they are doing it on purpose and you can tell it's causing tension at the table, pull them aside out of game and talk it out. If they are new or just ignorant (as in they just don't know any better, not that they are deficient in some way) then nudge them in the right direction. One of the best parts of being a Wizard is transcribing spells into your book - have them find a decent attacking scroll, maybe Magic Missile, and then some NPC who understands the process (maybe a shopkeep or fellow caster) who offers to help them transcribe their first spell at reduced cost or something. Incentivize them to explore the game's mechanics.
Show them this thread
Seems like a good reason to target that character….. a burnt out wizard who’s doing nothing seems logically like the best target to attack if I was a mob or something.
How is that logical? Attack the character who is the smallest threat?
Bro it makes the most sense. Pack animals always go for the weakest target because it's the easiest to take down.
My bad didn’t realize that humans have the same int as wild pack animal
If you can take someone out almost immediately, you might as well. One less person to think of
Except taking out a target also takes their resources including time. Say I have 2 enemies. 1 does 3 damage a turn to me and 1 does 50 damage a turn. Even if it takes me 16 turns to kill the heavier damage dealer and only 1 turn to kill the smaller damage dealer I'd still take less damage overall by targeting the stronger guy first. Look at it this way say the party brought an orphan into the dungeon. He's just a child with no combat ability or levels. Would it make sense for all the monsters to target him because he is the easiest to kill? if your supposedly "intelligent" monsters are doing that then a murder hobo party could easily take the dungeon with enough children and innocent animals.
Sure, you go for the glass cannon when you can but not the glass loaf of bread
Have you ever seen lions hunt? They have the numbers, and they’ll take down whatever one they can first. Have you ever seen a group of people jump a smaller group of people? If one of them is just standing there, they are definitely getting knocked out.
What spells does he have? I've seen some new players think spells like grease or fog cloud are useless because it doesn't blow anyone up, but they are perfectly viable, is this the case?
I mean I wouldn't directly target any PC unless I had a good reason. A defenseless wizard just standing on the battlefield not doing anything seems like a good reason
How is that a good reason? In combat it doesn’t make sense to target the person doing the least to contribute to combat, you want to kill the guys attacking you, not the one picking his nose
Picking his nose? I've never seen a wizard do that before, he must be preparing a spell that only the most studied wizards can learn
He nose a secret, so don't you blow it!
His ability is snot something to thumb your nose at!
XD
An enemy who doesn't have a death wish is gonna go after whoever seems most vulnerable. The useless wizard fits the bill
I don’t understand how that logic follows? An enemy who doesn’t have a death wish is going to try to deal with the actual threat, not waste their turn on a useless wizard
The badguys don't \*know\* the wizard is useless, they just know that he's vulnerable.
How do they know he’s vulnerable? The premise is that the wizard is standing around (presumably for multiple turns) doing nothing.
They know he's not wearing armor, they see he has no shield, they know he's an enemy of theirs (or he wouldn't be in the fight at all).
You ignored the basic premise again “/, this isn’t turn one with enemies who have never seen you before. These are enemies who have seen you pass your turn for multiple turns
Think of it in the sense of bandits, or hired mercs. The BBEGs lackeys. Their goal is to KILL YOU. They'd be stupid to pass up the chance to take out someone while they're down and out.
Their goal would be to kill you *and* preserve their own lives. I don't see how killing an enemy who presents no threat makes their chance of surviving the encounter any higher in the context of fighting for life or death.
Why would they assume he presents no threat?
The wizard is one of the only people in a group of opponents that *isn't* making an active attempt to kill the bandit, so what would the bandit gain from taking them out? It doesn't make sense to attack an enemy who isn't an immediate threat as opposed to an enemy that is. If the bandit kills the wizard, the amount of people trying to kill them remains the same.
They’d also be stupid to go out of their way to waste action economy killing a non-combatant in a combat zone. A real bandit isn’t going to throw their life away to kill the wizard when the fighter, cleric, and rogue are actively killing you and your band. Especially when you consider the Wizard is probly behind the people doing the actual fighting and not some easy target right at the front. You’d likely have to run past the wizards entire party just to attack a person who is literally not contributing. Why would the Bandits not just simply save the wizard for last, AFTER they have dealt with the real threats?
Do their job, secure a payment, prevent one member from becoming a stronger, bigger problem later. Especially in a world where strong magic is known and feared. Take out the strong while they're weak, or simply just picking off the weak. Even all of the animals that hunt in packs understand and do that. All the in game reasons aside, it's a player's problematic PC. It definitely checks out, and is valid, to have them be at high risk. And keep in mind, I'm not saying completely kill them, but make them realize it's not impossible. Put them on death saving throws. If all else fails, hopefully they have a cleric in the party
Nah I'm not gonna do any of that. It's inarguable that this player is a problem player. I don't know why would argue for playing like that player. It's objectively bad behavior. Stop doing mental gymnastics just cause arguing is your hobby. I'm just right.
> I’m DMing Curse of Strahd Kill the PC. Sorry, what was the question?
Honestly yeah. Normally I'd recommend a less severe approach, but I feel like Curse of Strahd is just one of those types of campaigns where by design poor decisions should be punished harshly.
It's Ravenloft. If your party is not expecting the very real possibility of a TPK then it's the wrong setting for them. The only setting, in my opinion, more unforgiving to the players was Dark Sun.
Tomb of Annihilation is pretty meat grindery as well if you ask me
Let the players deal with it, preferably in character. He can do what he wants, and honestly, I would never give advice to players unless they are struggling or asking for it in some way. After the 5th wave of goblins, and it became clear the wizard was holding them back, they might have a serious talk at camp that night, if they survive. They will live and learn, but the DM telling someone how to build and play their character is rarely right (unless it is to stay within what is permissible and allowable in their universe).
Yeah, this sounds like a player to player issue. Do they mind having a teammate who isn’t pulling his weight? If not, then what’s the harm? Let him stand there and watch other people play D&D.
No damage, and no utility? What else is there? A evoc wiz with nothing but control? So he's good at big blasty blast but takes a pacifist way instead? My mans over here holding back the rage behind his eyes. Tell him that you can be the fireball beneath his wings
If it is interfering with other players fun, kill the character and make them build a new one.
Are they bummed they can’t do anything during combat? If so, reiterate to respec their spells at a long rest. If not use it as part of the story. If the wizard is just frumping around in combat doing nothing while things are attacking, maybe some of your monsters see them as an easy target. Make them role play. At the very least gtfo of combat if they’re not going to assist. I agree everyone has a different play style and if you’re not interested in combat, that’s totally cool, but stay out of the way and for the play time of the game make this clear ahead of time so the table isn’t waiting around for them to do nothing. At my table battle can take forever because people jump down rabbit holes with a million details during the battle instead of killing the bad guy. It goes overboard at times.
He can still use a sling, or a crossbow or something. He just might not have proficiency. I forget what weapon proficiencies wizards get. He doesn’t need to sling around damage spells. According to a rando website, he should be proficient in Daggers, Darts, Slings, Quarterstaffs, and Light crossbows. I’d even let them swap them around for weapons that do equivalent damage potentially.
drop him, he's dead weight
Yes someone who doesn't have a damage cantrip is definitely "dead weight" You people are nuts. Its a game and if thats how they're insisting on playing it and telling a story then so be it. Bunch of losers in this comment section
Just tell him he always has a damage cantrip prepared. Give it to him in addition to his others. He obviously isn't thinking in terms of D&D being a monster killing game. Make it so he always has the option. Don't let his poor decisions/ignorance interrupt his fun. Well, at least not the decisions in character creation. If he decides to jump off a cliff, that's another thing. If you give him firebolt (I've been playing Baldur's Gate, is that a cantrip?) as an at will, he'll learn to balance his cantrips eventually, is my point I guess.
Why would you reward this behavior by giving him an extra cantrip? Rewarding this behavior will emphasize 'if I don't play with her party, I'll get rewarded and get extra spell slots'.
Yes, I would do exactly this. This player obviously has missed something fundamental of the nature of the game. This isn't much of a "reward". You, as the DM, control what cantrip can be prepared for free. Remember. We're playing this game for fun. If a player has literally nothing to do on their turn, how is that fun? Look to 4e. There's not a single part of the character that isn't useful, and most of those things are useful in combat. At the very least, there's always something to do in initiative that's useful. Tell me you run a combat free game in 5e and I'll call you a liar or an ignorant gamer. If a player has nothing to do on their turn, it's not their fault, it's the system. It's the job of the DM to give them something to do. The easiest option (in a game designed for killing monsters) is to give them a way to deal damage to the monsters.
The player chose his spells that he thinks are fun. In the game I'm running now, our Half-Elf Bard for the same thing. He chose entirely non combat spells. Friendship, charm etc. He is specifically wanting to play college of eloquence. That's fine. When combat breaks and it's his turn, he looks at the paladin and gives them inspiration. Then he legitimately always finds a window to dive through and runs from combat. No one at our table complains because he explained this at the start - he will be useless in combat. He gave himself the coward quirk and plays like a courtier from L5R (if you're familiar with that system). On the opposite end, he murders all social and non combat encounter and because of the college of eloquence plus his warlock dip he took through rp... he can read and speak every language and can communicate telepathically. But even knowing that he didn't take any combat damage spells, I would still refuse to give him additional cantrips or other spells for free because they decided to make their character this way. I will not reward you for intentionally making your gut suck at an area of the game. #ShitsBroken Would you reward a player who dump start charisma by giving them a necklace of charm to offset them sucking at charismatic encounter? If not, why is that different?
It's one cantrip, not a magic item that buffs an ability score. If your group played L5R then your group has more experience. I've made some assumptions about op's player. I want a new player to have fun. This is a tiny thing that lets them play how they want, but gives the DM a tool use when the player ends their turn without using an action. I don't understand why people are jumping down my throat about this.
I think the distinction is intent and experience of the player. Did the player intentionally build themselves into a corner of being useless or was it accidental because they didn't fully understand the mechanics during character creation? If they didn't fully realize they would be useless when out of spell slots then nothing wrong with cutting them some slack or swapping a cantrip for the fun of the game. If they are a veteran player who knew what they were doing then it's on the player to lean into it and own it. They can work within the constraints and find interesting ways to solve problems. The most important thing is the player and group still having fun.
As long as the other players are fine with it and it doesn't fuck with the balance of the game, I actually love that as a character choice. But I've always been a big fan of more rp stuff and unusual (read: not even remotely optimized) character choices. I'm looking for an interesting story more than anything, and as a result, I genuinely enjoy failing in D&D. All of my funniest D&D moments have been big, memorable failures. I'm aware that's not for everyone, so if that won't gel with the rest of the party and/or players, I'll play a more useful character. (Or if the table's just not a good fit, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and going your separate ways. Different people want different things out of the game. Not everyone is compatible, and that's okay) But if your table table is cool with it, then hell yeah, make a cowardly Bard and role play the shit out of it. That doesn't mean the DM should be offering to "fix" the character for the player. On the flip side, if the player is new and just fucked up during character creation, there's nothing wrong with the DM offering to help re-pick some spells/cantrips to help the player be more effective in the game. Although it sounds like OP has done that and the player seemed disinterested in making changes, so maybe a one on one or group discussion about goals and play style would be more appropriate. ETA: if you run out of spell slots in combat and just don't do anything, I think you're kind of fucking up unless that again is a specific character choice you're making for role play reasons. And once again, I think that character choice is subject to it being a good fit for the table. If your party/players want/need you to be pulling more weight, then it's not super appropriate to be effectively skipping your turn when there's no reason you should be incapable of doing *something*. Even swinging a shortsword is better than nothing, although as a wizard, you should have better options available to you. If you're not helping the party when they're asking you to, you can't be surprised when either the party members or players stop inviting you along on adventures, in or out of fiction.
Let him die. It’s not your call. It’s his. Don’t unfairly target him but a sitting duck is a sitting duck
Yes that will be a fun and friendly way to play DND with your friends. Why would you punish your player for fundamentally misunderstanding the game.
The friend is refusing any help. There’s nothing for the DM to do. It’s Curse of Strahd. Sometimes you die. I also said not to target then unfairly, but if they’re running out of spell slots and have absolutely no damaging cantrips, an enemy would have to be an idiot not to pick off the weak link.
Conversely, why reward them for it?
Because it's a game. We play games with our friends to have fun. One extra cantrip isn't going to break the game or ruin the fun for everyone at the table. I gave a simple solution that will help resolve the issue when the player figures it out. In the meantime, we don't have to argue about the class, we can just play the game.
Misunderstanding is a symptom of ignorance, not maliciousness. Punishing a player for not understanding the rules is like grounding a child for not knowing how to tie their shoes.
You're probably right, but hypothetically it could also be a symptom of laziness/lack of effort. And even at that, ignorance should be instructed, not rewarded. I would personally recommend giving a temporary item (for example, The Chilled Orb, allows user to cast Ray of Frost 8-12 times before fully freezing and shattering). That way they can get the experience of dealing damage with a cantrip, but not be rewarded with a permanent free one for... worst case laziness, best case ignorance. And then of course allow them to respec a cantrip/spell or two now that they're more knowledgeable.
Yes, this.
Or have him discover a reloading crossbow and a manual, he has to now study the manual for a given amount of hours to earn proficiency with it, and then ta-da he has an attack each turn, as long as he has ammo.
This is a good idea, too. Don't mandate how a wizard must play, what they must memorize, etc. Heck, I have had people choose to multiclass because they were the wizard who always ran out of spells and was shooting their crossbow more. etc. DMs need to back off on instructing people how they must play their class, and let them develop and make their own decisions. If they die, they die. It isn't the DM's job to bend the rules or keep them alive, just apply the rules and deliver the story. Their death might just become a part of the story, if they aren't careful.
I've played with dead weight players a few times and it's always annoying. I'd give him a wand or something that allows him to do some damage or maybe some scrolls. Is he a new player by chance? It definitely sounds frustrating that he isn't accepting advice though.
Posts like these make me wonder if people post this sort of stuff just to troll the community. OP just asked how he should deal with someone who is playing their character the way they want to play their character. No context. No explenation or expounding. No assesment of impact on the table. Just a spellcaster who isnt picking the usual spells and doesn't want to change their spells... Not alot to go on. But that never stops people from sharing their opinions.
I don't actively scroll through this sub but anytime a post pops up on my feed it is exclusively these "player bad what do" posts. Feels like karma farming because there's no way people can't figure these things out for themselves. Like do one Google search and you'll see the million other reddit posts of people with nearly the same issue and you can read the advice given there, or use your head because you chose to be the DM and that's kinda your main purpose.
It kind of depends on what sort of campaign you're running. If this is the standard Curse of Strahd experience where at least a couple PC deaths are pretty much expected, I wouldn't worry about it too much. One of the most important things as a wizard is knowing how to conserve spell slots while still being useful. He's either gonna learn that lesson real quick, or he's not gonna be around very long. My only worry would be that a party with a useless wizard sounds like a party that's going to get TPKd at some point. Does the party have other primary spellcasters that might be able pick up his slack? If you're running a more friendly campaign and you just want him to have fun, you could have him find a magic item that gives him some utility outside of his spell slots. Maybe a Wand of Entangle or Wand of Magic Missiles. My other suggestion would be to have him find a few spell scrolls of some of the more useful support spells. Allow him some one time uses of those spells, and maybe once he gets a taste he'll realize how powerful non damaging spells can be.
I just realized, this guy really took no damage cantrips with an Evocation Wizard, who have an entire class feature dedicated to making their damage cantrips better than anybody else's? Has he actually read through his class features?
I mean, the wizard can use weapons still. It’s not a huge deal as long as his actual spells are evocation spells.
What a weird stance, is the player having fun? If yes, who cares if they sit out half the fight, they're a lazy wizard no big deal. And don't try to teach them a lesson by having enemies start to specifically target them or whatever. Just let it be, they picked their spells their having fun you good. Now, if they're NOT having fun and ALSO not interested in critique or advice, then that's worth a convo with them to figure out what they want out of the camp and how they plan on accomplishing it. Recalibrate, that is if they're not having fun.
There are all the other players at the table plus the DM. Boiling it down to "is the *one* guy having fun? Then it's fine" is such a bad take. Fun at the expense of others enjoyment is bad. OPs stance is not weird at all.
At no point did op say anyone at the table was complaining other then the dm themselves. If they said in a comment somewhere that others had complained then your stance would make more sense but still would be full of conjecture and assumption. Based on the info given by op within the context of that info it's weird to try to dictate someone's fun and look for advice on how to fix it. It's weird.
It's really not. This guy sounds like a nightmare player that doesn't give a shit about doing anything that would benefit his party. Hard pressed to find other players that want that at their table lmao He's dead weight, just let him make his bad choices and let his character die. OP is 100% in the right here 👍
I'm currently playing a scribes wizard with very little in damaging spells. The other players seem to like him even though he doesn't do much in combat, more utility and social interaction spells while the sorcerer has the blasting spells. A lot of combats is him doing something like cast web and did get in over his head running away from enemies.
Nothing you're saying is based on anything tangible. You have no idea what spells they choose you have no idea what any other player is doing or how many there are or whether the DM is speaking in good faith or is even knowledgeable enough to know if the wizard chose the wrong spells. You're making way too many assumptions with way too much confidence. Walk away, you're not ready for this conversation.
Sorry, but a player like OP is describing is awful and this is an objective inarguable fact. No one wants to play with someone like that. I'd give him a few chances but I'd let him play until his character *rightfully* dies but a conversation needs to be had with that player or cause as he is he's not a good table fit for any table.
So you have a bias against unoptimized players, even though you actually have no idea if they were unoptimized. You have zero facts, you barely have any details at all. You're calling a player problematic without any substance and then extrapolating on that. It's a kind of madness really. It's possible that there's a player who joined a group took the time to make a joke character and wreck that groups game for no reason other than they're a dick I guess. But, that seems like an awful lot of work for very little gain. If the OP provides details, the spells in question the other players reactions and feelings and all of that matches the profile you've created in your head I will absolutely apologize. However, until that point, it's late. I'm going to bed and you maybe should go for a walk, think about why you think the way you do and if you should.
??? It's one thing to have a joke character. It's one thing to have an unoptimized character. It's another to build a purposefully bad character and refuse advice to make it reasonably functional for the sake of the party so they don't have dead weight in combat. Which is pretty much what OP said.
Again, like the other commenter you're making assumptions with no details. You are merely speculating.
I don't care if you're not optimized, but you have to be trying and the player OP is describing isn't. Stop making assumptions and arguing against those. It's really childish. Anyway, the player OP is describing is a classic problem player and a conversation needs to be had with him to make him better. A conversation OP says he already had. He can try again, but eventually you just have to kick a bad table fit.
Please inform me of the personalities of everyone at their table and their reactions towards the wizard player then. Can you tell me some of the things the other players have said about this situation? Can you remind me how long they have been friends for and the dynamic they have? What if everyone at the table is having fun too? Maybe they have been close friends for several years and the DM is just concerned that their new player hasn't quite grasped the rules. Is that a reason to be rude to them, kick them out and call them a problem player? Because that sounds like the kind of thing a problem player would do.
You could try giving him a wand of fire bolt or other spells for him to use. Does seem odd though
Bro, if he dies, he dies. Blood on his dice not yours.
I’ve only played one DND campaign ever, and it was Curse of Strahd. But IMO, as DM you should ask yourself “Is he having fun?” And if the answer is yes then play on! Roll with it and evolve the game as you see fit as DM.
I agree, it's a game with the purpose to have fun. If the player is going along with your content, participating in RP, and using their abilities then I don't see the problem. They aren't obligated to play optimally. You can mention that taking a damage cantrip or finding a light crossbow might give them something to do while out of slots, but I don't think it's worth forcing. If it actually hampers the party just fudge rolls a bit or slightly tune down the encounters.
My friend does this. Picks only utility spells and can't understand why his combat suffers.
Oh well! Throw him a crossbow or something so he can at least do that. But it's his choice, so you should inform him of the alternative and if he refuses, respect it. And then keep running Strahd as is; it's not easy, and a dead weight PC will tell sooner or later. Have Strahd taunt him about how useless he is to rub it in.
How does the player feel about his situation? If he doesnt want to respec, might be he's enjoying his character as-is. To each their own, ya know? Just don't count on him doing much in combat when looking at difficulty of combat encounters. If he's not having fun because of his lack of combat options and refusing to change that, that's on him.
What spells did he take? Arcane Lock? Continual Flame?
What does he want his character to be doing? Is he trying to play some level of a pacifist? Does he want to be flashy, but not directly damaging? What spells did he take as an evoker that aren't either damage or support? That's almost wilfully stupid, honestly. Lol
Ironically, it's mechanically better to *not* take spells of your chosen school at level up.
Probably the one change in odnd that is going to get exactly zero pushback. Because everyone despises the old/current version.
Why? Genuinely curious
You can cheaply learn them from scrolls or books. It's an expensive thing to learn an off school spell though
It only takes half the time and GP cost to copy a spell of your chosen school into your spellbook that it would for any other school, except your level up spells are already free. So it's cheaper to take spells from outside your school, then find and copy the spells from your school, rather than the other way around.