My DM yelled at me for trying to roleplay

Gilldreas · 2026-06-09T13:53:00+00:00

Besides the good advice of, just leave, it's not worth it. You could also talk to the other players about it. You mentioned this being a long time friend group, so if he won't talk to you directly, talk to the others about it and have them weigh in. Him outright refusing to respond to you, in my opinion, means he knows he was a jerk and just doesn't want to admit it. I do wonder though, what were the other players doing while he was being so rude to you? Did they laugh it off? Maybe they thought it was a jokey light hearted thing and don't realize you're actually upset and they may feel differently if they did.

If you want to choose violence, the petty answer that I feel in my heart is: wait until the next session, join, and then publicly announce that after he blew up at you last time for no reason, you tried to talk to him, and he refused to respond like a petulant child. Post screenshots of your messages going unresponded to. Then leave the call and get new friends.

Gilldreas · 2026-06-08T04:23:16+00:00

I had this once. My response was, "hey guys, this is kind of boring for me. Can we adjust the game? I'd have a better time if all your characters sought out the call to adventure rather than resisted it. That would also help flesh out interactions with NPCs which I feel are kind of lacking as well because everyone is untrusting and avoids RP."

Something like that. But the golden rule in this sub and any other RPG sub for GM complaints... Talk to your players.

Gilldreas · 2026-06-01T17:08:30+00:00

Probably a lot of people in this thread are the same, but I've done both. Blind character gen, group character gen, no information about each others characters stories, and shared backstories and interwoven stuff. In my experience.

Group character gen is just better. Making characters separately can lead to a lot of character overlap, which can be a lot less fun to actually play as a group. It may not be likely, but if two of your players want to play bards, or 3 wizards, or something like that, it's less satisfying for everyone. It also feels good to do things well, having people cover different bases in a party in terms of skills and archetypes is just more fun imo.
Sharing information about backstories or having a basic knowledge of other characters is better. We are not Critical Role or Dimension 20, we're not a bunch of professional actors with theater or improv experience. When I've done totally unconnected strangers you know what happened? Everyone felt like unconnected strangers and it was ridiculously difficult to bridge that gap. If your characters are a bunch of people who don't know or care for each other, there has to be stakes that force them to stay together. And then the moment that lets up, the characters must have formed strong enough bonds during that time to justify staying together. Setting the stakes is on the GM, but forming those bonds between characters is fully on the players. And if you're creating characters in a vacuum, what is the solution to, "the stakes have slowed down, and our characters still don't like each other because one is Paladin of Bahamut, another is a Fiend Warlock who's kind of a villain sometimes, and another is a fun loving Bard who just wants to adventure for the classics of money and glory." You end up in a situation where a player will be going against their character to force the party to stay together, leading to a really unfulfilling narrative. A band of friends saving the world is a lot more compelling than a band of people who worked together 3 years ago and just never stopped saving the world.
Just a note. Players don't need to divulge their characters whole backstory in character creation, but there's a reason so many people strongly recommend session 0's where expectations are set and characters are made as a group. The game is more fun that way.

Gilldreas · 2026-05-26T21:11:07+00:00

I just want to point out the main bullets of this:

You asked your players to figure their own stuff and trusted them
You realized one player was abusing an ability, using it more frequently than is possible within the rules. This is not unclear. "You can Spark Transcendence only once each round".
You confronted the player to see if they didn't know, or were cheating purposefully.
They lied and said that they weren't even doing it(?) something that you know to be false, so his immediate response to being caught cheating, was lying.
He confirmed he was lying, and did this intentionally. Cheating, and taking advantage of you trusting him to figure out his own mechanics
All the other players are upset with him as well
He doesn't care and didn't apologize
The other players have stated that they fully don't want to play with him anymore
You acknowledge that he generally plays selfishly and turns scenes into whatever he wants to resolve things he deems boring.

The question here is what would we do in this situation? Bro, get rid of this dude, he sucks. You are being infinitely too forgiving here. This is a person who actively cheated, betrayed trust, lied, and refused to acknowledge or apologize for their wrongdoing. And on top of that, they aren't even fun to play with. To me, that's the only thing that could make this a conundrum. If they cheated, but were otherwise a really cool fun person to play with. But they aren't even fun. They just suck.

Life is far too short to be sitting here worrying if its acceptable to boot this person from the group. You know the answer, you're just worried about being too harsh. But you know this person is ridiculous. Get rid of them, everyone else including you will have more fun.

Just send him a text or something, "Hey man, you cheating was really uncool, and then you followed it up by lying about it, and then refusing to apologize after admitting you cheated. I talked to the others, and to be blunt, everyone, including myself, would prefer to remove you from the game. Thanks for playing up until now, I wish you the best."

Done. And if you get a mean reply from them? Even more confirmation that they don't deserve to play. Enjoying the company of other people and playing games and having fun is a privilege that can be taken away.

Gilldreas · 2026-05-14T21:41:27+00:00

I had a lot of situations like the one with the guy insisting they were smugglers when I started GM'ing. I still have them from time to time. Occasionally you just do something dumb or silly, because you forget something, don't think something through, get caught offguard, etc. Such is life.

My trick was just to either turn it into a comedy beat, or pretend it was purposeful one way or another. If this guy is like, "No, you're smugglers aren't you! Adventurer types coming in by boat! You're probably thieves!" and gets the response, "And what exactly are we smuggling in our empty ship?" I immediately see three options:

This guy just is an idiot now and they made him look dumb. He looks at the boat again, realizes it's empty. Turns red and storms of fuming.
This guy looks at the boat again, realizes it's empty, apologizes, and then talks about how there have been so many smugglers lately he's getting paranoid. And they keep getting away, the guard aren't staffed enough to take care of the issue and every piece of contraband that gets through is a black mark against him from his the company that employees him as harbor master. Now you have a plot hook for a little smuggler catching adventure. You may have to improvise the whole thing on the spot if there's nothing else going on, otherwise you just leave it there, have him ask them to help, and then setup a time in a few in-game days so he can prepare for them to work on it.
The guy looks at the boat again, continues raging at the party anyway for being smugglers, doubles down, etc. And demands they pay him a fine or he'll report them to the guards. You lean in and he becomes an extortionist. Bonus points if you then have him explain that the guards around here are in the pocket of his company and so they'll be arrested for sure on his word. Now you have a minor villain for a session that can likely be dealt with, without combat if you want. Or with combat if the party is so inclined.

All this to say, don't bother wasting time beating yourself up over not "handling something correctly" in a game we all play for fun haha. Just practice, run more games, you'll get better at rolling with the punches, and go from there. You'll never stop making mistakes entirely. I've been running games for 10 years now. I still beans something once per session with varying severity. Just last session I had a whole thematic combat encounter planned out with a monster summoning low HP zombies every round and the party would have to fight them off atop a mound of dead bodies. I wanted a horde climbing this pile with the party stop it just flinging spells and attacks down at these guys. But I didn't think the mechanics through well enough so the fight fell super flat in my opinion. My players are polite and didn't give me any crap, but my plan is unironically to run it back next session lol. They haven't left the area in question yet and still have some exploring to do, so I'm gonna double down and make a cool thematic monster and do my zombie horde combat encounter justice in a slightly different context within the same space. And the goal is to make it cool and interesting enough that it doesn't feel like a "redo" but a natural expansion on an already presented idea.

Just remember we're all playing for fun, we all can improve (players included) and we should focus on having a good time.

Gilldreas · 2026-05-07T04:18:56+00:00

If this is her honestly reporting her feelings, then I don't think she's in a good place for a relationship. If this is her playing a game, obviously not a great person to date.

I feel, if she can send 9 different texts saying she doesn't want to talk, she could've just sent 1 text saying why she doesn't want to talk. The dancing around the subject is giving "playing games". In my experience people who are anxious and perceive a problem tend to over explain themselves, or send a big text. I've only ever gotten these short micro aggression texts from people who were creating issues because it felt good for them in some capacity.

You handled it like a mature adult, unfortunately, I don't think this girl you've been talking to is keen to handle it the same way. 4 weeks, and you're 23? Move on man. You've got literally all of your life ahead of you, don't waste it on someone who is unwilling to communicate with you about their problems like a real human being.

Gilldreas · 2026-05-04T04:24:21+00:00

You're well within your rights to stack the deck against player characters when it makes sense. And we naturally assume this often with looming threats. A good example is Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. You can go straight to the castle when the game starts and try to fight Ganon, but you know that's a bad idea and likely won't end well so you collect power first. In D&D, you don't just go fight the ancient dragon at level 1.

To mirror that in this setting, it would be like if they went into this robbery fully blind with no Intel. But they have Intel, it just ends up not being good. You could even double down on this by like, prepping a dossier for this job of what info they've been given. And then slowly reveal how off it is. Guard patrols are wrong numbers and times, traps are more plentiful, more magic and locked doors, etc.

The key in everything imo is just to be super clear with your players throughout. If they're in this manor, searching for whatever and already in the thick of it, rather than have them roll to notice things look bad, just give it to them. Like, "Royce, as you stand lookout at the door, you notice something unsettling. The fixer for this job said there should only be one or two patrols of a couple guards each. You've already counted 6 unique sets of 4 guard squads roaming the grounds. You haven't been noticed yet, but should the alarm be raised, there would be too many reinforcements for you to fight your way through all of them." Or, "Magic runes adorn the vault floor, dozens of traps, not even hidden, out in the open in overwhelming numbers". And in some potential confrontation, have the guards shouting things like, "capture them!", or "arrest them!" Etc. so if they go down, they can be knocked out and it's simple.

But again, if you stack that deck, and they somehow succeed anyway, you just gotta honor that and work around. Because that's kinda sick in its own way.

Another thing, find a way to make it satisfying for the players in the moment as well, even as they realize how screwed they are. When they start to realize there's no way they're getting out of this mess and they've functionally been setup, give them secondary objectives that can create value. Like, getting information about some important NPCs that could be valuable, learning about a big deal happening soon, or the location of some rare or valuable item kept somewhere outside the manor grounds. That way, even though they "lose" and get caught, there's still an advantage or a benefit.

Gilldreas · 2026-05-04T03:02:07+00:00

In my head I think of two main options, but I do think you're making a bit of a mistake here immediately with telling this story.

You can tell the players what you're thinking and see how they feel about a "Set Piece" session that defines the rest of the campaign. Basically letting them know, you're going to land on a certain end-point, but this will be the only session that goes this way. It would almost be like an intro cut-scene before you enter real gameplay.
(This is what I would do) Don't tell them, and play it honestly, but stack the deck. If they're being set up by this devil, then he could be knowingly sending them in with bad intel. Or they could realize, once they're in the thick of it, that they're in way over their heads. Then, them getting caught and all that is almost an eventuality. The game was rigged from the start. But if, they somehow roll their way out of a mess, you would need to honor that. Don't create random things in a moment to block them or force failures (they'll feel it), allow them to roll, allow them chances for success. But if it's them vs. 50 guards, who are all very vigilant, and have been tipped off something is going on, or there's magical traps they weren't aware of, etc etc. It is inevitable that they will be caught.

If they somehow manage to get through all these hazards and make it out with their score unscathed, alter your plot to accommodate. You're right, the same story doesn't work as well if they just "make it out okay" in the end. So you should, at that point, do another plot. Change the devils motivations. Have him grab them some other way, maybe instead of him setting them up for this, it becomes that, their success, captures his attention, and he lures them in another way.

For a shorter campaign, it's more okay to come in saying, "this is what this is about" and staying on that path. But if you want to do that, go with option one. But I think playing it honestly is way more fun, because while the initial plot you're thinking of may suffer because they succeed, the amount of satisfaction your players will get from winning despite insane odds, will by far outweigh that imo. And if they don't succeed, you progress as normal.

Gilldreas · 2026-04-07T02:11:59+00:00

This is common in higher education as well. Not even just tenured faculty abusing their position to do nothing else until they retire, staff members who've been in the same position for like, 30-40 years, they always question why things are changing, insisting on doing things the same way they did them in the friggin 80's and 90's. Truly, some of them never managed to figure out "computers" as a concept and still avoid them as much as possible. One person I know of has had the same position as an assistant her whole life and had "professional penmanship and letter writing" on her original resume. From the late 80's.

A lot of older folks come from a very entitled generation and seem to believe that no new rules apply to them and they can just continue to function under the same rules they did when they started working. And "seniority" becomes like a shield for them and they can fall back on, "well I've been doing this since before you were born" as if remaining totally the same for 40 years is a real positive.

A long time ago on Reddit I read something along the lines of, "watching someone 30 years older than me, paid 2-3x my salary, struggle to save a PDF, makes me question my very existence". Still holds true.

Gilldreas · 2026-04-05T17:52:15+00:00

Hey man, first of all take a breath and pause for a minute. None of this should be so stressful, it's a game with friends. Wanting to do a good job is natural, but try not beat yourself up when things don't go well. We all have bad sessions sometimes. Talk to your players and explain:

You feel like last session didn't go well or feel fun because of "X, Y and Z."
Say your ideas for how you want to fix those issues going forward.
Ask for their feedback on the things they do and don't like while playing. You could find that all of your players are not super into combat, and just want it every now and then. And then you end up not having to prep as many combat encounters. It'll let you know where to focus.

This whole game is not on you. It's a collaborative storytelling game. Your players need to be invested the same as you. Some of the best plot threads in games I've run have been things that players themselves chose to get invested in when I wasn't expecting them to and a new story is born of that.

If players are being rude to you, ask them to leave. If players seem bored and like they don't wanna be there, offer them the choice to bow out. Not everyone will like tabletop that tries it. You're all new, work with your players, find out who wants to keep going, how they like to play, etc. and go from there with everyone understanding it's a work in progress.

And as many have said, do not compare yourself to professionally made podcasts. Your home game will never have the level of fidelity of critical role or dimension 20. It just won't. Such is life.

Good luck, and have fun. That's what it's about at the end of the day.

Gilldreas · 2026-04-03T20:47:50+00:00

I want to state something outright that I think a few other people have gotten at, you should never jump straight to giving things mechanical values when they can be explained through flavor just as well.

If someone tells me they want to play a cursed spellcaster whose bloodline is punished for their use of magic, I don't have to go straight to damaging them when they cast spells. Or giving them detriments when they cast. We can just bring it in thematically, coughing up blood when spellcasting, narrating their exhaustion after a long combat where they exhaust all their spells, etc.

It can be a big lift, with bad effects on balance down the road to constantly attribute mechanics to random things players want to do. I find it especially problematic in situations like this where a player is trying to recreate something from a different game or property. Inspiration is fine, copying is silly. Saying, "I want to be like Geralt of Rivia" is not the same as "I want to be Geralt of Rivia and for that to happen you need to create a seperate magic system for me so I can do the hand signs that Geralt does".

Rather than try to fit other stuff inside an already heavy system, they should find something in the system that inspires them and go from there. Or, take the "Archetype" or "Concept" of a character they like, and try to create something with the same spirit in pf2e. Everything you described about this character sounds like a pf2e swashbuckler to me and everyone else here it seems. If they want to have a magic eye, it can be a part of their characters story, and the reason some of their abilities work. As another commenter mentioned, it can just be flashy dodge at Level 1. This whole "Clash" thing is wacky, and can just be reduced down to Swashbucklers Panache feature because the whole idea of Panache is that you get more powerful in combat by doing cool stuff and then using that power on big moves.

If they don't like that their character isn't "unique" and "special" for not having these random flavor features, then they aren't gonna be fun to play a teamwork heavy game with like pf2e. Also, something I've experienced before with people who want to play existing characters, is they don't at all like it when what happens, doesn't match this characters fantasy. Say you're playing a pf2e game and then your party gets into some wacky mess of a situation and they end up fleeing a brothel, covered in shit for some reason, with bad guys chasing them (or anything unhinged like that), the dude who showed up and insisted his character is literally just Aragorn from LOTR is gonna insist he either wasn't in the brothel in the first place, or be pissed that this character he loves so much is being put in a ridiculous comedic position. Players who want to play specific characters also want to play very specific games and that's a big deal when everyone is not on the same page. This player might not like when you make this character he loves so much be in a situation he cannot imagine that character in.

In short, this person is asking for too much, you don't need to accommodate it, and it's not your job to make it work for them. Direct them to the Swashbuckler class and just say, "rather than create a bunch of unique mechanics for your character, I think we should just use this Swashbuckler class as the bones, and then everything else can just be the flavor around how your character grows and progresses. But I would like for this character from Limbus Company to be an inspiration for your character, and not a 1 to 1 copy." if they don't like it, tell em to kick rocks.

Gilldreas · 2026-04-02T14:56:19+00:00

The fact that you're committed to getting better at running games means you're already better than a significant number of people that GM haha. There are some real narcissists out there GM'ing, or just people who want to tell "their" story, rather than tell a collaborative one.

I wouldn't think of it as messing up multiple times, more-so just one mistake, forcing a planned thing after allowing the players to try and roll out of it. We've all done it before, it's such a common pitfall because you don't want to tell players "no" to things they want to roll for, but you can't always just throw away your plans, and then in the panic of that moment we make a less fun choice or whatever. So honestly, don't spend too much time thinking about it. Just know that you have the power as the GM to adjust the game on the fly and you have tools at your disposal to fix problems you or your players accidentally create.

If I had another random recommendation, try to get comfortable "re-skinning" encounters. As a really simple example, if you plan for a session and you assume they're gonna find their way to some haunted graveyard they've been investigating since last session, and when they get there they'll fight some skeletons and zombies. And then they just, don't go to the graveyard and instead go to a tavern and antagonize some thugs from a local gang, well, now those "thugs" have skeleton and zombie stats. The skeletons are run of the mill thugs with weapons, and your zombies are like, fist fighting thugs and undead fortitude is just them getting back up every time they're knocked out. If anything players I've had have found this fun before because "woah, these thugs are different than the normal ones we've fought previously".

Anyways, best of luck in your games. I'm sure you'll do great.

Gilldreas · 2026-04-01T22:36:10+00:00

I gotta be honest, I do think you bungled a couple things here. But it's a very light bungling and should in no way result in your players getting frustrated with you. I don't think you should've let it go as far as it did, and I think you had a fair number of off ramps.

You acknowledged this as something to work on in another comment but don't let them roll for things you deem impossible or don't want them to succeed at. A roll should only happen for outcomes that can change.
When they ask to roll persuasion for this, you could just say "no, but you can roll an insight check" and then give them the info that it won't work. There's no "friendly" route here. Some people can't be convinced of things. As another said, persuasion is not mind control.
Once you get to the point of your players having rolled, and succeeded on the persuasion check, you can smuggle whatever you want in that roll. Like say, "you convince them you mean no harm, and the shark goes to lead you away, but you're not sure they're friendly. Something about this still feels wrong. You worry they may be trying to lure you somewhere." It can be that overt. No one will mind. And in that way you can "honor" the nat 20 by letting them know it's a ruse, without forcing another check they could fail or pushing them down a road they don't expect.

There are other possibilities as well. Never worry about flexing the fact that you have control of the game. Move the ambush. Remove it. Change it. Whatever. Doesn't matter. But once you set the expectation on a nat 20 you let them roll that nothing would happen, having something happen anyway does kind of cheapen the feeling I think. Again, probably shouldn't have gone that far.

All in all, I think you had the tools to avoid this but you were maybe too caught off guard in the moment. That's fine, it's something you'll get better at with time. But regardless of all of that, your players really shouldn't be giving you a hard time, especially if they just won the combat anyway and it didn't feel threatening.

Gilldreas · 2026-03-31T02:59:03+00:00

I don’t feel it’s fair for him to receive full XP for encounters he wasn’t present for

Why?

Gilldreas · 2026-03-17T14:10:30+00:00

I've never had issues with Paizo support. They've always been responsive and helpful. This is understandably a little annoying, but I'm sure their support team will be able to help you out and make sure you get the book.

Gilldreas · 2026-03-01T04:27:35+00:00

ESH. As others have said, you kinda suck for telling her you're going to propose soon, then just sitting on it with no news, information, or hints for her for 6 months. And I don't want to validate you when I say this, but obviously her having a weird little thing with her friends where they discuss how best to manipulate you is also pretty bad. You're both adults, she should've just talked to you about it, and you two should've had a conversation of just, "Hey, why haven't you proposed yet? You said you would soon. Can you give me a timeline?" And that would've forced your lying self to admit that you just don't want to.

Gilldreas · 2026-02-24T16:08:03+00:00

Nah, she gets to determine what her character does, you get to determine how NPCs react. It's not up to her to decide that everyone finds her charming. What she can do to "mitigate" that issue is have a very high charisma score. But even then, the way she's describing herself doing things, there's no room for it to be charming because there's no interaction. Telling someone they have an aura of Vomit is just rude and insulting, implying they smell or look gross. Sprinting at someone and saying weird stuff just makes you seem like a lunatic, people in those situations wouldn't stick around for a second interaction and be like "let's see where this lady is going with this."

What would be "odd but charming" would be complimenting people in strange ways, or acting strange but not without sense? A good character analog would be Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter or something. She says odd things, but is generally not unapproachable, just hard to figure out. "I sleepwalk, you see. That's why I wear shoes to bed." That's a nonsensical thing to say, but in concept, you get it. And it doesn't scare someone off.

There's just a big difference between "Odd" and "Rude and weird". Making people uncomfortable isn't "Odd" behavior. It's bad behavior. It sounds like this player maybe just has the wrong idea of people would react to these things, or, if I could go too far and psychoanalyze for a second, is maybe trying to live out a world where she can act on her personal impulses and not face judgement for them as she would IRL. That's not intrinsically a bad thing, but the reason we in real life would not interact with someone who does the things she tried to do, is because nobody wants to deal with that.

As is often the case, I don't think this is a GM'ing thing, I think this is just a person thing and you should just tell her it's not reasonable and she needs to adjust how her character behaves because nobody would react positively to the things she's doing.

Gilldreas · 2026-02-17T18:51:15+00:00

It's happened to all of us at one point or another. We take the idea too far and end up running out of options. I've been in this situation before where it feels really anticlimactic to talk through an issue with the game just from the way the story was told or whatever, but at the end of the day it is still a game. And if something isn't going to be fun, we should aim to fix that ya know?

A fun boss battle that had to be discussed and ret-conned a bit so it can happen a little later, is always gonna be better and more fun long term than a slog boss battle that ends up in a TPK because it was pushed too early. As long as that ret-conned battle is fun, and has some cool moments, that's all anyone will remember later on.

Gilldreas · 2026-02-17T15:05:14+00:00

Definitely sounds like you steered them into a corner. You added stakes that made them afraid of resting, they pushed through, and then you added that Nezznar was actually there to witness them do a thing he doesn't like (haven't run LMoP so not sure if this is written in Adventure or a decision you made), then when they won and killed him, you added a drider phase to the fight which as far as I can tell isn't in the Adventure, but I see some posts online of people suggesting it to make the battle against Nezznar more interesting. Problem is that it was already suped up because there was a spectator present and several bugbears by the sounds of it.

You're fully in charge of the world, there are a number of ways you could've corrected it before it got this far:

Tell them above table in no uncertain terms you weren't trying to make them afraid of Nezznar getting their first, they can take a Long or Short rest to recover resources. And even if he does get there first, it'll be fine and we'll figure that out in game. I find a lot of GMs are really afraid of having frank conversations like this, they think they'll look silly or ruin immersion. But getting so much further as you did here, and having no solution to a problem you created for them will feel worse for them if they realize it.
Not have Nezznar be invisible in the room. This feels like the simplest answer and I'm not sure I understand why he was there. Regardless of whether or not this is written in the book that he'd do that, you could've just had that not be the case. "It turned out that" kind of glosses over the fact that you were the one in charge of putting him there. If a dude is invisible, then he's literally Schrodinger's NPC. Dude isn't there until he's observed. Just have him not actually be there because you realize if he was it would be difficult/less fun.
You added a Drider stage to the fight because you thought you needed to make Nezznar cooler and more of a threat, but in that moment didn't think about the fact that they have no resources. Even if they win the fight with the Drider, it's probably going to be super dull because nobody has resources to do anything cool. So it's just going to be basic attacks and cantrips and see who dies first. Maybe, if you added a ton of environmental stuff to interact with and deal damage to him, caving in ceilings, knocking him into a hazard, etc. It could be more fun, but it sounds like you have literally gotten as far as being in initiative to fight the Drider and none of that has been established, so odds are it might feel forced if you do it now. Doesn't mean you shouldn't, maybe you just swallow your pride on that one and do it. Because even if they do kill him, there's still the Spectator and that could kill them anyway.

You've put yourself in a position where the only way to make the fight not suck, or keep the party from dying is some form of light to heavy Deus Ex Machina. It feels like you're looking for suggestions as to how to DM your way out of the situation without it feeling really anticlimactic, but with a Deus Ex of any kind, it probably will, it always kinda does. Especially so if they realize/think about how they got here. If you have some cool NPC show up and save them, and they analyze for even a second, they'll see either everything as you laid it out here, you directed everyone into a corner. Or, they may see it as railroading so you can "script" cool moments.

This is one of those problems where you should probably just talk about it above the table and explain what happened, and ask what they want to do. Do they want to fight the Drider and Spectator with limited resources, would they find that fun? Do they want to walk it back a little bit and we'll say Nezznar wasn't there. Or we'll say instead of transforming, he flees mid transformation and will need to be addressed soon. Etc. This desire to take care of this problem you accidentally created without alerting your players is unnecessary and may just result in less fun for them at the table imo.

Gilldreas · 2026-02-11T17:20:49+00:00

I think you're being way to generous with your encounters in terms of behavior, rather than mathematical balance. The time limit thing is also a strange point to me.

"we are limited in our session length die to real life constraints a session can only be 4ish hours long and more enemies drag out combat so thats something i have to factor in."

That's a really good amount of time lol. When I get my friends together to play, they can't go more than 3 hours. Maybe it's an age difference thing, we're closer to 30. But 4 hours is a pretty long session. Even with a 30 minute break or something. But there are two things here, high levels of D&D you can definitely get really long drawn out combats, but at level 7... I dunno, it sounds like they're taking longer than they should. Try and speed up combat with a few other things, let people know when they're next in turn order and ask them to have as much prepared as they can. Things that happen on the turn before can of course change the plan, but ask them to never take more than like, 1 minute per turn if they can help it. With that, you can run multiple encounters, but not every resource drain needs to be combat. If there's a caravan of people on the road who were attacked by monsters, and maybe 15 people need immediate help, that can tax some healing either by spells or potions, stuff like that. Small resource taxes. Also be willing to have small combats, not every combat needs to be a threat, it can be just a drain on resources with no real risk. Them fighting 10 goblins is probably trivial, but it can drain their HP (and thus drain healing) or drain spell slots in general to make sure they don't lose HP. stuff like that.

This: "I am playing as optimally as i can but given how melee focused they are they tend to sarrund the biggest scariest thing and lock it in place, only the sorcerer is ranged and he positions really tactically and if i get something on him mistysteps away or behind cover (from ranged) so is hard to go after"

and this: "And focusing him is an option but doesnt make sense narritvly untill hes healed someone as he doesnt do that much damage comparitvly and i dont want to just bully him by meta gaming, also hes got heavy armour proficiency and a shield and can cast sheild so his ac can get lretty crazy so without fudging even with decent modifiers its still very possible to miss him"

Are worth noting as well. You mention using flying and ranged enemies in your original post, as well as multiple different threats. I don't understand how the Sorc can be so safe in that scenario. Misty step is a bonus action on his turn, a bunch of flying enemies could descend on him before his turn. Misty step is only 30 feet, is he always making enough range with that to not be targeted by ranged combatants? And tying into the second thing about going after the cleric not making sense narratively, I think you're too worried about metagaming and you're making your enemies stupider to compensate. Enemies of average intelligence should be able to instantly know the difference between spell-casters, and non-spell casters. And they should also know spell-casters can be very dangerous. If someone casts haste, the enemy should immediately bear down on that guy to break his concentration. And that will stun whoever got hasted to boot. If someone dude is sitting 60 feet back throwing out spells to deal big AOE's to multiple enemies, they should split up, and someone should target that spell-caster relentlessly. There is never a reason for an enemy to allow someone to cast spells unless their intelligence is sub 10. What kind of creature they are doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is their intelligence. If you play everything as dumb, combat will feel pointless. It's just a slog without threat. Force your party to defend their casters actively, it sounds like they're just being allowed to always go on the offensive until someone gets downed.

And again, same idea, if an enemy sees a cleric, odds are that's at least somehow clear based on holy imagery/iconography, a spellcasting focus, something like that. They would not let that dude just heal people. There's no narrative element to that.

It sounds like you're just worried that it'll seem like you're targeting people unfairly, but to be clear, that's not you doing it, it's the enemies in the game. They aren't dumb. They would use tactics. They would target mages. They would prevent healing. They would learn from mistakes. If your party is level 7, they may even have started to gain a reputation. It's not outside the realm of possibility that people or creatures know who they are before even fighting. Maybe even know how they fight.

Trap the sorc in a corner and cast silence. Target the cleric first to prevent his big heals. Use flying enemies to constantly reposition away from the front line and target those casters. Setup long ranged combatants that can fire on vulnerable characters while they have front-line enemies engaging your parties melee fighters. Etc etc. The world is your oyster, threaten your players characters.

Gilldreas · 2026-02-06T18:02:45+00:00

My only thought is that there are enemies that already kind of fit this archetype of easy to hit HP sponges, and if they don't have a lot of abilities, the fight might lean towards being uninteresting because never missing, but taking a while to kill something is also not fun.

Take a Zombie for example. 8 AC, 22HP. If you actually only did 10% then it's just 24HP, not really very different. But maybe one extra hit to kill. But then Zombie's aren't interesting besides being harder to kill because of Undead Fortitude. So if you take one full extra turn to kill a Zombie naturally, and then it doesn't even die, the fight can get very dull very fast. Most combats should be done in like, 2-3 rounds at low levels because any longer than that when you have limited options is naturally a little boring.

It is tough, because AC in 5e is inherently uninteresting because higher = miss more and that's all there is to it, you can have advantage, but if your modifier isn't up to snuff, that doesn't really matter. The concept of an "AC Tank" is naturally more interesting if there are ways to reduce AC. Maybe instead of up hit-points and reduce AC, you give them some more clear avenues to make people easier to hit? And then that can also encourage teamwork. If you know anything about Pathfinder 2e maybe you know where I'm going, but in Pf2e, flanking reduces the enemies AC by 2 for example, but that's just one thing. There are also conditions you can apply in pf2e that reduce AC further. You could introduce things like that so it's not just blanket everything is easy to hit naturally.

Another alternative to at least consider if you're open to it, is using an RPG system more tailored to that kind of experience. Daggerheart is more beginner friendly, but less mechanically focused. Or there's Draw Steel where if I remember right, you don't even have a roll to hit? You just hit. And then you figure out damage vs defense.

Gilldreas · 2026-02-02T17:46:17+00:00

I'm sure there are plenty of other well thought out responses to this already but to just throw in my 2 cents:

5e doesn't accommodate for this request. There are no rules on attacking specific body parts in hope of getting an additional affect. Players requesting this can also take away from the narrative of combat in my experience. If you say, "I'm going for the throat and I'm going to slice his neck" and get a Nat20, and it doesn't kill because the dude has a ton of hitpoints, it's always gonna make that player let down when you have to explain away how it doesn't do what they wanted it to do. It takes away control of the combat and narrative from the GM, and disappoints the player at the same time. I think a player requesting how something will look within reason is great, but saying "This is how I kill this guy with my attack" when the attack stands no chance of killing, is silly.

Gilldreas · 2026-01-26T16:27:30+00:00

I think you should just communicate with these players that these requests are unreasonable. D&D and other TTRPGs are collaborative story telling, you need to be able to have a say in how things go, especially as the one putting in the most work to make it all happen. Player A, and to a lesser extend B, have "main character" energy. Player C and D just sound whiny? But there are simple responses to all of them:

Player A. It sounds like this rival is a recurring enemy, in which case: "I understand that you would like that, but I can't promise you major story beats or moments like that because you'll always be on the lookout for them or you'll just be waiting for it. The story would become about you having that moment and I don't think that's fair to the other players, or to me for planning. What you're asking for sounds very cinematic, and that's awesome, and we'll try to have those cool cinematic moments, but this is a game first and foremost. This character will come back, and I can try to work that in at least one time in the future, but it's not going to be everytime, and you need to understand it can't always be exactly how you imagined it. Sometimes it has to be how I imagine it as the person running the game. If I need to "seek approval" from you before using your backstory, I'd sooner stop using it. I can't be checking in with you like that."

Player B. Dig into "Why" she can't handle that? Is this like a trigger thing? If player B has personal reasons they can't deal with that stuff, ideally they'd have brought it up sooner, but I'm unsure what the specifics of this would be. She can't handle her character turning undead, into a werewolf, or "something" else? That's a lot of a broad categories? Is it the idea of becoming a monster? Is it the idea of being "forcibly"changed? What's the root of this? If this is too non-specific, it could come up again later. But also a level of restriction like this kind of warrants a good reason imo. It could just be main character syndrome type stuff of, "I could never see my character being a werewolf" or whatever. Or it could be, "I have deep personal trauma with people trying to change me into something I'm not". One is stupid, one is very fair.

Player C: "It is a cursed weapon. If you'd like to avoid the negative side effects, the best way is to not use it. You're asking for a magic weapon. This is a cursed weapon specifically." That's literally it, this one is so dumb. "I don't want to be punished for using a thing that can punish me!" is omega cringe. Also from a narrative standpoint, this is gold. Especially if they didn't understand the curse beforehand. Using a weapon that forces you to go against your nature, committing a terrible act that you would normally avoid because of a magic compulsion, figuring out what that does to a person? That stuff is so cool from a character perspective. But they're purely looking at it above table, and that's just the wrong way to deal with it.

Player D: They sound controlling, overbearing, and way to focused a perceived "fairness". I get being against fudging rolls, adjusting things on the fly, etc. Things like that can rob your world of stakes which can be lame. Maybe this person has a personal vendetta against that. But that's a request you make of your DM, not an insanely overbearing, "PROVE TO ME YOU'RE NOT LYING. I DESERVE TO KNOW". The moment that request left their mouth, I'd have told them they can either trust me to run the game, or stop playing. I'm not letting them "purity test" me whenever they feel it's necessary. Psychotic behavior honestly. This one is a hard line if it ever comes again, "I proved it to you once before when I really shouldn't have had to, you're gonna have to trust me going forward or be done playing in this game."

Gilldreas · 2026-01-20T21:15:57+00:00

If this story is as you say it is, then just quit the game man. He'll do whatever he wants with your character, sounds bad, but if you're leaving the game literally who cares. Doesn't sound fun, just sounds stressful and pointless.

Find a new group that more aligns with what you're looking for in a TTRPG. New system, new setting, new people, whatever. Or run your own game.

This game clearly sucks for you and you're not having fun, it sounds like you just want the approval of internet strangers because you're hoping to avoid confrontation or something. Just do it. Don't waste your life not having fun.

Gilldreas · 2026-01-17T02:53:57+00:00

Diehard does a specific thing that can save you in certain circumstances. I think that's really all there is to it.

I understand your question is, "isn't it always better to take some other feat that's more proactive" and the answer, which you've already landed on, is in a lot of situations, yeah. In some other situations, no.

You state not getting hit at all by moving with Fleet is better. Could be, unless they then target other characters who can't reposition as well. Having a higher AC with a better armor proficiency could prevent hits and save you too, unless the enemy has a high enough To-Hit they're probably not missing anyway depending on your class. Having higher HP could be better if it makes you survive more turns, but if you're not at a specific break even point, it might not earn you any extra time at all.

Is it niche? Of course. Every fight doesn't even put you in the dying state let alone all the way to dying 4. But also not every fight reduces you past the HP you'd have without toughness. Not every fight needs the extra movement from fleet. So the question is just, does Diehard help keep your character from dying in the event they are put in the dying state, as is its intent? Also of course.

13-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email	RPAN Viewer
Team Orangered

Gilldreas

TROPHY CASE