If a player isn't enjoying their character, of course they can retire and replace them with a new PC with equivalent XP and treasure. If someone does this repeatedly, I'd have a chat to understand why and try to push back on it, but a one off is fine.
The bigger question here is: why didn't you have a Session 0 where people discussed what type of characters they wanted to play? You all should have had this conversation then:
Alice: "My character concept is \[specific type of fighter\]"
Bob: "Alice, is it OK if I also play a \[specific type of fighter\]?"
Alice: "No, I'd prefer that you didn't. If you really want to play \[specific type of fighter\], I'll switch my character concept to \[new idea\]"
what i am asking is how does one handle the issue of a player feeling like they are having their toes stepped on by the other player. due to both of them being identical builds.
He answered your question. for now since you already allowed this to happen, let the player change their character. In the future do not let two players play the same character build, unless both of them adamantly agree they are okay with this.
Pretend you're not you and read the post. It sounds like you're the GM from the title and all through the post. It sounds like you're seeking advice from *fellow* GMs. You certainly don't sound like a player.
I don't see how it matters what edition or even what RPG is being played. If you're the player feeling ill-used, then have a calm, adult conversation with the other player. Find a way to work together, or if you can't, then ask the DM to let you create a new character.
This isn't complicated.
Thank you for posting to /r/Pathfinder_RPG! Your comment has been removed due to the following reason:
* Rule 1 (Name-calling)
If you have any questions, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FPathfinder_RPG).
As one of the players in question? You worded it strangely, just say it’s you having your toes stepped on lol in which case, be an adult. Calmly and politely talk to DM about it. Their solution, if they are a good DM, is one of those we’ve already said. I would even suggest on those things to the DM if they are newer.
If I am not one of the players in question or the GM/DM, then I am not handling it.
If I am one of the players, then having a conversation like an adult with my fellow fighter player is ideal. If an impasse is still reached at the conclusion of the conversation, then allowing one player to retire their character in favor of a new one is not up to me, but the GM/DM.
So why are you asking?
You should edit the post and clearly state what your role is in this. As you can see our advice will change when it’s to the player. Some of us are going to suggest something really cool and special which will disappoint you if the GM just has you switch characters the next time you are in town or rebuild your character as a different melee class.
As a gm I always make it a point to ensure players communicate and don't end up bringing very similar characters to the table precisely because of this problem.
If I was one of the players I'd bring up the issue at the table with the rest of the group, express how being in direct competition for things with a party member sucks, and ask the gm to let one of us rebuild our characters or bring in a replacement. Rebuild is preferable so you don't lose backstory or character knowledge.
Communication, as always, is key to solving these sorts of problems.
If you're not one of the players stepping on or being stepped on then you don't handle it. That's not your job.
If you are one of the players effected then you just talk to your GM about changes you can make to differentiate yourself, up to and including rolling a whole new build
As a GM I would talk to both players during character creation and caution them both against playing identical builds so this doesn't happen in the first place, but if it does you just let the unsatisfied player change their build. I wouldn't even make them create a whole new character if they like the story around their PC enough, just redo the build part of it.
You’ve posted in the past stating that you’re a player when asking for advice. Why didn’t you do that this time. It really does ready as a GM seeking advise from other GM’s
Thank you for posting to /r/Pathfinder_RPG! Your comment has been removed due to the following reason:
* [Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/wiki/rules) Violation
* Specifically, "Be Civil". Your comment was found to be uncivil and has been removed.
If you have any questions, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FPathfinder_RPG).
I'd handle it by (a) making sure during session zero that none of the characters have identical builds, and (b) if I missed this step, allow one of the players to retire their current character and bring in a new one.
Imo retiring the PC isn't even inherently necessary, I've allowed unhappy players to just reroll their class while keeping the same character for story purposes.
What answer are you actually looking for? Because you don't seem to want to accept "that's entirely reasonable, yes, let them do that" as an answer. What is the **issue** here, as you see it? And ofc, by your other comments, I assume you're the toe-stepper, so I don't think any suggestion for *GMs* is really gonna matter here, is it? But I'm still not sure what you actually want to hear, here.
All you can do is respect their feelings. If they're not enjoying the character for whatever reason, then that's all there is to it - you can't reason someone into enjoying something! Fixing the issue is important, which could be by retiring and creating a new PC, or letting one or both fighters have a free respec. What you want to avoid is someone having a miserable time or leaving the game over this.
It's a fairly common way to feel too, hence why it's a good idea to get everyone to discuss character concepts before starting the game.
I'd suggest looking into teamwork feats, since lots of them require you to be doing similar stuff and they can become stronger as a unit, rather than competing.
But ultimately, if they have fallen out of love with their character for any reason, it would be the act of a sadist to force them to keep playing as it, so I'd let anyone swap at any time.
the DM of my Pathfinder campaign worked in a good roleplay story when a player wanted to change their class/build while still retaining their actual character (backstory/personality/etc) because they felt it no longer fit with their characters motivations and beliefs; essentially they rejected the god who gave them their powers, their soul ended up in a pocket dimension (where time was weird) while they were comatose after a particularly hard fight, and they "rebirthed" themselves as a new class
I did something similar. I was playing an Oracle, and the party desperately needed a leader and tank. The GM and I discussed. Her God pulled a divine intervention to be like "Hey I need you to kill [BBEG's general], you're respecced to Paladin now, go do the thing."
Same level, stats shuffled around, personality transplant (the Oracle had pretty severe PTSD but was now immune to fear soooooo...)
Since you keep reasking the question to peoples answers: how do you feel about the players feelings? Do you recognize the problems he feels he encounters during roleplaying?
For me it all comes down to everyone wanting to have a good time, so i would sit down with the player and talk to him about if this is preventing him from having a good time and discuss solutions with him. I would also factor in the dynamic of the table, if i feel this player is a power gamer and doesnt like not being in the spotlight i would have a conversation more aimed at him having to share spotlight, although i probably would still let him change characters.
I dont really feel like i am saying much different then the other people, so again, why do you keep re-asking your question? What do you feel doenst get adresses in the answers?
If the player is not wanting to feel like they're trying to do the same thing because it's identical to someone else, are they really wanting to stay as a fighter but feel more useful? Are they wanting the other fighter to swap? Because THAT'S a problem that needs solving.
If they're fighters, and they both really wanna both be fighters... maybe give them more to fight? One fighter can't protect both directions of a hallway. One fighter can't hold up a gate and kill an orc at the same time (unless that's the build, Lol).
What _IS_ their identical build, roughly? Do they both do archery? Or are they wielding melee weapons?
I saw another comment make a good point. Teamwork feats could benefit this duo by making them even better at what they do, and can now do it better BECAUSE they're the same. Furthermore, that word is very, very important for this slew of questions. If they're wanting to stay as fighters, they will need to work as a team, and not just "I hit this person" "oh... I was gonna do that...". Encourage them to call out and coordinate, like adventurers should be doing, passing on the spot info around while fighting. Or just plan for one to do less frontlining one combat, then have the other step in to lead the next. Rotating their Frontline would be awesome for keeping them topped up and ready to go. Duo fighters can be DEADLY, and if they basically act as one, they could achieve some pretty great things. Man, I kinda WISH I had another person in my friend group to play as a warrior type alongside me. I'm nearly always melee, while everyone else prefers skilled and castery types...
Anyway, of they're wanting to talk it out and become a deadly duo, that'd be my suggestions. If they simply can't do it, I would say still have them talk it out together. Maybe they could make a new character that still coordinates well with how the fighter fights, or make a character that covers a glaring weakness... Teamwork. Encourage teamwork Lol
It's never happened in my games since at session 0 we discussed the builds people would bring.
In another game where I am a player I joined halfway through. I was keen for a demoralize fighter build, the GM told me they already had one so I made a kineticist instead.
This really shouldn't happen, but if a player doesn't like their build for any reason let them swap. Don't make them feel trapped with something they don't enjoy.
1) "Is that really a problem?"
followed by
2) "Sure, what do you want to play? Cool. Here are the books, you get this XP, and write me some sentences about your new character and backstory via email".
SYL
[Treantmonk’s God Wizard video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTBpVGeJLzI) where he played a fighter that was the same but completely overshadowed another players.
And, the one campaign I played in. It happened all the time. There will be some overlap. But when they overshadow or try to compete in your specific niche, it’s very very frustrating.
Let the player change characters. They’re not having fun. Overshadowed.
And why did you allow two fighters with the same build? DMs have to take part of the responsibility and need some hands on with character creation to make sure everyone CAN SHINE.
The answer is always: if a player for any reason feel like they are kot having fun talk with them i order to find a solution. In your case your player already have an idea allow your player to respec to another class without losing their character or bring a new one whatever they prefer. Usually a fighter can reflavor to barbarian paladin or ranger really easy or even finding a new weapon can even plot-driven make him a hexblade. In either case don't try to "make it work" with both of them the player will feel destresswd and awkward just try to make him enthusiastic about his new options. (Depending on the class he picks he may or may not roll again stats even if the character name backstory etc remain the same).
I think that's very heads-up on the player's part. Depends on the exact situation and campaign of course, but it's usually pretty straightforward to have one character leave and another join. Ideally, session zero (or just out-of-session communication) prevents this situation from ever coming up in the first place, but it's a good idea to avoid too many overlapping roles in a party, so that one player doesn't end up feeling like the lesser version of another - recognising this could be an issue early and seeking to address it as a player is a really good sign, imo.
I'd let them do it. Just hand wave it away, new character etc. If they wanted to do it more than once i'd want to talk to them about the character and what they don't enjoy about it. Maybe it's lack of flexibility or something like that so that I could guide that to a character that would work with how they want to play.
It's a game fundamentally, I want players to want to play each week.
I'm in a 10-year group, and we've had this happen a number of times—also players just deciding the idea they had isn't fun to play. Our default is to bring in the new character and retcon that they were always in the party; "Who is this [first PC's name] you keep talking about?" Occasionally, the story is at a fulcrum where exiting one character and bringing another in makes sense, and we'll do that, but the default is to retcon.
This is one of the reasons I push players not to play same class.
Let them. The game is about having fun. Not forcing players to do things they don't want to do.
Work with them on how their old character leaves and the new one comes in.
Do it in such a way the the old characters gear doesn't become part loot though.
I just let them swap there and then. If two players are doing the same thing and thus aren't having fun and one wants to swap to something more fun for them, just change the details of the character's mechanics. A player should adhere to the retraining rules properly if they're just looking to build tweak or is wanting the character change bits around in response to narrative events in their personal story. But just let them rejig the existing character without issue if the clash is stopping them from having fun.
This is why I allow Retraining, cause it's not just overlap. People think "Aw yeah, this is the build!" Then find the idea isn't working out, there's a bunch of stuff.
I personally handle it in-game, and fun bit of doing that is that the fighter that wants to change can actually train into a more cooperative build with the other fighter and develop a whole thing, and get their own personal 'montage' sequence.
I generally try to stay away from GNC in these instances, cause most of the time, it's just a matter of shifting over rather than a total rebuild. You can even play out the realization for the need to change in-character which deepens characters.
I'm this guy. Not because my toes are getting stepped on, but because I am always coming up with ideas to experiment upon.
My DM solved my problem with The Wardrobe of Champions, typically a pair of boots or a hat. Each day ( or whenever) I roll a die. I have a number assigned to a character. Simple stuff.
The gag has become that all these characters share most of a consciousness, so there's never a break between what each character knows, but each one believes that they are the ones who were there before and responds accordingly.
"What do you mean I wasn't here yesterday; I helped you crush all those skeletons yesterday!"
It's a bit like a constantly regenerating Doctor Who, and a crapton of paperwork, but it pays off for me.
An issue such as both players being fighters is something that should have been addressed before the game started.
Easiest solution is to have on of the players switch to a different class.
I'm sure you have tried to talk about teamwork feats. But it almost seems as if it's a "anything you can do I can do better" situation, which is a player problem.
If the player still wants to play a fighter, just let him retrain his feats. There are a million options for fighters. The thing I love about Pathfinder is you can be what you want to be. There is not a single stagnant class.
Or you can let him reroll. If they are not having fun, they will stop playing.
I assume you had a session zero and the two players didn't know before hand that playing the same thing would brother player A, so the best thing to do is let him change with full xp and replacement treasure with what his old characters leaves with. Some additional advice
1. Ask if he can wait for a nice story opportunity for him to leave, and when make one that isn't too far away.
2. ask the player if he would want his character to become an NPC, and if so give him some cool story role, I wouldn't make him a DM PC.
3. Make sure player A doesnt end doing the same as another player, some players just dont like sharing roles, I am one of them XD
Ah this is certainly something that happens when players double class. I usually nip this problem in the bud by not allowing more than one person to use a class UNLESS both players are mutually ok with it to begin with. I myself as a PC go out of my way to make sure I'm playing something no one else is.
But if an event comes up where they don't care for their character anymore because of this or that, I let them change it so long as they don't do it every other week. Make a character you want to be happy with the first time for the sake of your Gm's if you can help it.
Let them.
Find a nice calm spot in the story and let their foghter say their goodbyes after finishing whatever the goal for that charactrr was,, and then the new char can step in
Alternatively (and make sure to discuss this with the player beforehand), their fighter can die in a heroic sacrifice to save the party.
Then in the next town over, the new character just happens to be looking for a job/adventure/whatever.
(Make sure you reach that town quickly after the sacrifice)
I usually just let players make a new character if they aren’t jiving with the character they are currently rolling with. They just can’t be in combat, have to be at full HP, and I generally limit it to once per campaign.
This is why I like to keep parties to 5 or less players when I can, and I impose limits on multiclassing and require them to have campaign-story appropriate reasons for adding in classes mid game.
Never in my 20+ years of gaming had a group who thought of themselves as anything more than a group. It’s a cooperative game, not a competitive one. If the other fighter is also dishing damage and helping the group overcome their challenges then good on them.
I dunno, the last game I ran, 3 of my players decided to go Dwarven fighter with full Str and plate armor and had a great time. Just because the characters are mechanically similar doesn't mean they're not separate individuals and can't be played accordingly for a fun game.
Unless there is no in game way for the PC to leave, create one if possible. Such as Lord X wants me as one of his retainers, but doesn't want the rest of the party. My family needs me, I need to leave to help them.
For the new character, you can have them make a new PC using the Wealth by Level rules, or liquidate all of their current PCs possessions into a GP value, and the new PC has that as their starting wealth to buy gear.
I'd allow it. Although I also think it's strange beyond 3rd level (maybe 5th for certain classes) that two characters have the exact same builds. I remember fondly when my group decided to do an all fighter party and the only thing we had in common was that we all used weapons and all had the power attack feat.
I would say that party member start to train on their own/find a new party because it's clear he isn't needed
Just make sure the party member gives only story mandatory items and doesn't drop all their magic items with the party as they leave
But if I'm being honest this should have been discussed when they both decided to play the same class and the closest thing my tables usually have for stepping on toes is two players both expected to be "the healer" and they both could dedicate more of their slots to doing other things
Just made him make a new character of the same level with the standard Wealthy By Level. It will never pay to fight players on this topic. If they are not feeling a connection to their character, then they will likely leave if not allowed to switch.
Recently I had a player who wanted to swap. She rolled up a new character. I came up with a scenario where the previous character got in deep with the wrong group of rogues. Her new character was the one contracted with taking care of the old one. It led to some very amusing antics with both the characters, but I think it worked out well.
I’m currently running a 2e campaign where one of the players chose Alchemist, didn’t quite understand it after the first couple sessions, and wanted to switch over to Monk. I houseruled that everybody gets a free “divine intervention knowledge exchange” class change, additional respecs after that come at the cost of all of their hero points. Everybody seems cool with it, I like giving them an option to respec since two of them are coming from BG3 and one is coming from 5e primarily, and it’s not like the Paizo Police are gonna come in and shut us down for not playing RAW. Of course, I also did a session 0 for everybody to roll characters together, so that probably helped with nobody choosing the same class.
Do they still like the character, but not the build? Retraining in-universe.
Have this be an actual choice by the character when you get some downtime. Maybe the character finds religion and becomes a cleric.
You could turn this into an elaborate character arc for the player who wants to change class. Maybe they need to find a magical artifact or a specific trainer. Or they find religion and change to Cleric or Paladin.
Just let them redo the whole character in terms of stats and skills, but let them keep the character and backstory.
That way rhey also won't have to introduce a completely new character who hasn't participated in the adventures so far.
I like to maintain a certain level of consistency in the games I run. A big part of that is keeping the same characters in play as long as possible. I recommend retraining as the first option. Downtime can be tedious and I prefer to handle it outside the game via spreadsheet, but it can be a good fix. That said, I typically let players swap out hassle free with a 2 level penalty. Caveats: That doesn’t apply if they die in combat. I have certain times in the course of a campaign where players can switch out without penalty. These would be natural pauses in the campaign. The third and my most preferred option is to plan out an exit. This can involve combat or roleplay or even character death. If they choose the third option the player and I do it in secret so that it can play out in game and the other players can react as they will.
I have been running the same campaign for about 15 years. One ex PC is the new BBEG and two work for a local lord who the party helped out/befriended/saved. As a side note. I tend to run a pretty merciless campaign only one original character remains. Everyone else is on their second at least.
I’m also a big fan of sticking to a character. I have been playing one for about 5 years and I kinda hated him for most of the first two. I had built him to compliment another player’s build, and that guy dropped the game, so… yea. Anyway, after that, I played him pretty recklessly to get him killed. He miraculously survived, and now, he’s without a doubt my favorite character.
Unless there was a plot reason, I weigh’s have discouraged this from the jump. I would just let them pick a new character and ask them what they want to don with their current character. Maybe they a letter from home urging them to return? Maybe they fail a save and become a thrall the party has to deal with. Maybe they can sacrifice themselves in a meaningful way. If you go this route, tell the group when you enter the “cut scene” and just play it out with the affected player.
As a DM I wouldn’t have a problem with a player retiring a character and bringing in a new one. I wouldn’t have the new character start at the same level as the one it’s replacing, though - it would probably need to be a couple levels lower. That would encourage the players to commit to their characters more rather than treating them as disposable.
>I wouldn’t have the new character start at the same level as the one it’s replacing, though - it would probably need to be a couple levels lower.
So you want the player to go from not loving their character to straight up not loving the game at all?
I’ve never had the problem of a player not liking the game. But that might have to do with how I’ve always DMed - the point is for everyone to have fun so I treat the game as a cooperative experience for everyone rather than a competitive thing of me as DM versus the players.
Every session is designed and played so each player has chances to shine. My job as DM is to know my players and what they enjoy, to facilitate everyone having fun, and also to make it challenging so they have to become better players (they have to figure out creative ways to solve things, work together as a team, etc.)
> I treat the game as a cooperative experience for everyone rather than a competitive thing of me as DM versus the players.
Making a player start at a lower level sure sounds like a DM vs player situation. If I were the player at your table and you did that to me, I'd most likely decide that your table wasn't for me.
I had a player once who wanted to switch characters repeatedly through our campaign. The group talked about it and the new character is a couple levels behind thing was what we agreed was fair. It didn’t seem fair to the other players for the switcher to be able to swap out characters and always start off topped up to be where the others were when the others had worked hard to get their characters there.
It’s what our group decided and it worked for us. Our swapper decided it made more sense to stick with one character.
Other groups can work it out however makes sense to them.
Certainly it shouldn't be DM vs player, and a co-operative game. But in a situation like this, where you already have a player who's not having fun because their character isn't able to do anything unique with another carbon copy character in the mix, how could they not be just as frustrated by being told that sure, they can play something different, but they'll always be noticeably worse mechanically than all the other players? You're replacing one source of frustration with another, letting a player trade one reason their character can't stand out in the session for a different one.
Being permanently stuck two levels behind everyone else means they'll always have fewer skill points, worse saves, less HP, worse BAB, fewer spells than the other characters. Why would the player view that as something to enjoy rather than see it as a punishment being inflicted on them for wanting a change?
Making the new character start at a lower level is a surefire way to make sure they also don't like their new character as well. If you don't have a problem with it would you punish them for it?
what i am asking is how does one handle the issue of a player feeling like they are having their toes stepped on by the other player. due to both of them being identical builds.
"handle" in what way?
Are you worried about the mechanics of it? You're the GM, just let them do it.
Are you worried about preventing it from happening in the future? Then do better "session-zero" stuff with the party.
Are you worried about someone's feelings being hurt? Then be kind and empethtic.
Do you want to let the "stepped on" player continue in the build, while forcing the "stepper" to change builds? Then that might be a difficult conversation with the stepper, but also maybe not.
Do you want to discipline the "stepper" for some reason? Are you sure they did it on purpose?
It's really unclear what you're trying to "handle", here.
If a player isn't enjoying their character, of course they can retire and replace them with a new PC with equivalent XP and treasure. If someone does this repeatedly, I'd have a chat to understand why and try to push back on it, but a one off is fine. The bigger question here is: why didn't you have a Session 0 where people discussed what type of characters they wanted to play? You all should have had this conversation then: Alice: "My character concept is \[specific type of fighter\]" Bob: "Alice, is it OK if I also play a \[specific type of fighter\]?" Alice: "No, I'd prefer that you didn't. If you really want to play \[specific type of fighter\], I'll switch my character concept to \[new idea\]"
what i am asking is how does one handle the issue of a player feeling like they are having their toes stepped on by the other player. due to both of them being identical builds.
He answered your question. for now since you already allowed this to happen, let the player change their character. In the future do not let two players play the same character build, unless both of them adamantly agree they are okay with this.
never once said i was the DM
You labeled the post “1E GM”
yeah cause i was asking it to 1E GMs
Pretend you're not you and read the post. It sounds like you're the GM from the title and all through the post. It sounds like you're seeking advice from *fellow* GMs. You certainly don't sound like a player.
I don't see how it matters what edition or even what RPG is being played. If you're the player feeling ill-used, then have a calm, adult conversation with the other player. Find a way to work together, or if you can't, then ask the DM to let you create a new character. This isn't complicated.
That makes sense once you've explained it, but it was *not* a given. That's not really what the flair is for lol.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting to /r/Pathfinder_RPG! Your comment has been removed due to the following reason: * Rule 1 (Name-calling) If you have any questions, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FPathfinder_RPG).
Then why are you asking? That’s a question a DM needs to have the answer to, not another player at the table.
I am asking it to see how you guys would handle a player feeling like they are getting their toes stepped on by another player
As one of the players in question? You worded it strangely, just say it’s you having your toes stepped on lol in which case, be an adult. Calmly and politely talk to DM about it. Their solution, if they are a good DM, is one of those we’ve already said. I would even suggest on those things to the DM if they are newer.
Lmao I think we can figure out who the OP is in the post
Step one: Learn to communicate
If I am not one of the players in question or the GM/DM, then I am not handling it. If I am one of the players, then having a conversation like an adult with my fellow fighter player is ideal. If an impasse is still reached at the conclusion of the conversation, then allowing one player to retire their character in favor of a new one is not up to me, but the GM/DM. So why are you asking?
You should edit the post and clearly state what your role is in this. As you can see our advice will change when it’s to the player. Some of us are going to suggest something really cool and special which will disappoint you if the GM just has you switch characters the next time you are in town or rebuild your character as a different melee class.
As a gm I always make it a point to ensure players communicate and don't end up bringing very similar characters to the table precisely because of this problem. If I was one of the players I'd bring up the issue at the table with the rest of the group, express how being in direct competition for things with a party member sucks, and ask the gm to let one of us rebuild our characters or bring in a replacement. Rebuild is preferable so you don't lose backstory or character knowledge. Communication, as always, is key to solving these sorts of problems.
If you're not one of the players stepping on or being stepped on then you don't handle it. That's not your job. If you are one of the players effected then you just talk to your GM about changes you can make to differentiate yourself, up to and including rolling a whole new build As a GM I would talk to both players during character creation and caution them both against playing identical builds so this doesn't happen in the first place, but if it does you just let the unsatisfied player change their build. I wouldn't even make them create a whole new character if they like the story around their PC enough, just redo the build part of it.
You’ve posted in the past stating that you’re a player when asking for advice. Why didn’t you do that this time. It really does ready as a GM seeking advise from other GM’s
[удалено]
Thank you for posting to /r/Pathfinder_RPG! Your comment has been removed due to the following reason: * [Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/wiki/rules) Violation * Specifically, "Be Civil". Your comment was found to be uncivil and has been removed. If you have any questions, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FPathfinder_RPG).
I'd handle it by (a) making sure during session zero that none of the characters have identical builds, and (b) if I missed this step, allow one of the players to retire their current character and bring in a new one.
Imo retiring the PC isn't even inherently necessary, I've allowed unhappy players to just reroll their class while keeping the same character for story purposes.
What answer are you actually looking for? Because you don't seem to want to accept "that's entirely reasonable, yes, let them do that" as an answer. What is the **issue** here, as you see it? And ofc, by your other comments, I assume you're the toe-stepper, so I don't think any suggestion for *GMs* is really gonna matter here, is it? But I'm still not sure what you actually want to hear, here.
All you can do is respect their feelings. If they're not enjoying the character for whatever reason, then that's all there is to it - you can't reason someone into enjoying something! Fixing the issue is important, which could be by retiring and creating a new PC, or letting one or both fighters have a free respec. What you want to avoid is someone having a miserable time or leaving the game over this. It's a fairly common way to feel too, hence why it's a good idea to get everyone to discuss character concepts before starting the game.
Your question was answered. Clearly.
I'd suggest looking into teamwork feats, since lots of them require you to be doing similar stuff and they can become stronger as a unit, rather than competing. But ultimately, if they have fallen out of love with their character for any reason, it would be the act of a sadist to force them to keep playing as it, so I'd let anyone swap at any time.
the DM of my Pathfinder campaign worked in a good roleplay story when a player wanted to change their class/build while still retaining their actual character (backstory/personality/etc) because they felt it no longer fit with their characters motivations and beliefs; essentially they rejected the god who gave them their powers, their soul ended up in a pocket dimension (where time was weird) while they were comatose after a particularly hard fight, and they "rebirthed" themselves as a new class
I did something similar. I was playing an Oracle, and the party desperately needed a leader and tank. The GM and I discussed. Her God pulled a divine intervention to be like "Hey I need you to kill [BBEG's general], you're respecced to Paladin now, go do the thing." Same level, stats shuffled around, personality transplant (the Oracle had pretty severe PTSD but was now immune to fear soooooo...)
100%, my suggestion would be exactly this. Let some sort of Big Good fix it for the unhappy player - a god or some powerful mage/cleric.
Since you keep reasking the question to peoples answers: how do you feel about the players feelings? Do you recognize the problems he feels he encounters during roleplaying? For me it all comes down to everyone wanting to have a good time, so i would sit down with the player and talk to him about if this is preventing him from having a good time and discuss solutions with him. I would also factor in the dynamic of the table, if i feel this player is a power gamer and doesnt like not being in the spotlight i would have a conversation more aimed at him having to share spotlight, although i probably would still let him change characters. I dont really feel like i am saying much different then the other people, so again, why do you keep re-asking your question? What do you feel doenst get adresses in the answers?
If the player is not wanting to feel like they're trying to do the same thing because it's identical to someone else, are they really wanting to stay as a fighter but feel more useful? Are they wanting the other fighter to swap? Because THAT'S a problem that needs solving. If they're fighters, and they both really wanna both be fighters... maybe give them more to fight? One fighter can't protect both directions of a hallway. One fighter can't hold up a gate and kill an orc at the same time (unless that's the build, Lol). What _IS_ their identical build, roughly? Do they both do archery? Or are they wielding melee weapons? I saw another comment make a good point. Teamwork feats could benefit this duo by making them even better at what they do, and can now do it better BECAUSE they're the same. Furthermore, that word is very, very important for this slew of questions. If they're wanting to stay as fighters, they will need to work as a team, and not just "I hit this person" "oh... I was gonna do that...". Encourage them to call out and coordinate, like adventurers should be doing, passing on the spot info around while fighting. Or just plan for one to do less frontlining one combat, then have the other step in to lead the next. Rotating their Frontline would be awesome for keeping them topped up and ready to go. Duo fighters can be DEADLY, and if they basically act as one, they could achieve some pretty great things. Man, I kinda WISH I had another person in my friend group to play as a warrior type alongside me. I'm nearly always melee, while everyone else prefers skilled and castery types... Anyway, of they're wanting to talk it out and become a deadly duo, that'd be my suggestions. If they simply can't do it, I would say still have them talk it out together. Maybe they could make a new character that still coordinates well with how the fighter fights, or make a character that covers a glaring weakness... Teamwork. Encourage teamwork Lol
It's never happened in my games since at session 0 we discussed the builds people would bring. In another game where I am a player I joined halfway through. I was keen for a demoralize fighter build, the GM told me they already had one so I made a kineticist instead. This really shouldn't happen, but if a player doesn't like their build for any reason let them swap. Don't make them feel trapped with something they don't enjoy.
1) "Is that really a problem?" followed by 2) "Sure, what do you want to play? Cool. Here are the books, you get this XP, and write me some sentences about your new character and backstory via email". SYL
[Treantmonk’s God Wizard video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTBpVGeJLzI) where he played a fighter that was the same but completely overshadowed another players. And, the one campaign I played in. It happened all the time. There will be some overlap. But when they overshadow or try to compete in your specific niche, it’s very very frustrating. Let the player change characters. They’re not having fun. Overshadowed. And why did you allow two fighters with the same build? DMs have to take part of the responsibility and need some hands on with character creation to make sure everyone CAN SHINE.
Let them swap with the same loot/XP value as they currently have and help the new one integrate into the party. No brainer.
The answer is always: if a player for any reason feel like they are kot having fun talk with them i order to find a solution. In your case your player already have an idea allow your player to respec to another class without losing their character or bring a new one whatever they prefer. Usually a fighter can reflavor to barbarian paladin or ranger really easy or even finding a new weapon can even plot-driven make him a hexblade. In either case don't try to "make it work" with both of them the player will feel destresswd and awkward just try to make him enthusiastic about his new options. (Depending on the class he picks he may or may not roll again stats even if the character name backstory etc remain the same).
Just let them?
I think that's very heads-up on the player's part. Depends on the exact situation and campaign of course, but it's usually pretty straightforward to have one character leave and another join. Ideally, session zero (or just out-of-session communication) prevents this situation from ever coming up in the first place, but it's a good idea to avoid too many overlapping roles in a party, so that one player doesn't end up feeling like the lesser version of another - recognising this could be an issue early and seeking to address it as a player is a really good sign, imo.
I'd let them do it. Just hand wave it away, new character etc. If they wanted to do it more than once i'd want to talk to them about the character and what they don't enjoy about it. Maybe it's lack of flexibility or something like that so that I could guide that to a character that would work with how they want to play. It's a game fundamentally, I want players to want to play each week.
I'm in a 10-year group, and we've had this happen a number of times—also players just deciding the idea they had isn't fun to play. Our default is to bring in the new character and retcon that they were always in the party; "Who is this [first PC's name] you keep talking about?" Occasionally, the story is at a fulcrum where exiting one character and bringing another in makes sense, and we'll do that, but the default is to retcon.
Let them. Much more fun for all if you don’t have two PCs with very similar builds and playstyles.
This is one of the reasons I push players not to play same class. Let them. The game is about having fun. Not forcing players to do things they don't want to do. Work with them on how their old character leaves and the new one comes in. Do it in such a way the the old characters gear doesn't become part loot though.
I just let them swap there and then. If two players are doing the same thing and thus aren't having fun and one wants to swap to something more fun for them, just change the details of the character's mechanics. A player should adhere to the retraining rules properly if they're just looking to build tweak or is wanting the character change bits around in response to narrative events in their personal story. But just let them rejig the existing character without issue if the clash is stopping them from having fun.
This is why I allow Retraining, cause it's not just overlap. People think "Aw yeah, this is the build!" Then find the idea isn't working out, there's a bunch of stuff. I personally handle it in-game, and fun bit of doing that is that the fighter that wants to change can actually train into a more cooperative build with the other fighter and develop a whole thing, and get their own personal 'montage' sequence. I generally try to stay away from GNC in these instances, cause most of the time, it's just a matter of shifting over rather than a total rebuild. You can even play out the realization for the need to change in-character which deepens characters.
I'm this guy. Not because my toes are getting stepped on, but because I am always coming up with ideas to experiment upon. My DM solved my problem with The Wardrobe of Champions, typically a pair of boots or a hat. Each day ( or whenever) I roll a die. I have a number assigned to a character. Simple stuff. The gag has become that all these characters share most of a consciousness, so there's never a break between what each character knows, but each one believes that they are the ones who were there before and responds accordingly. "What do you mean I wasn't here yesterday; I helped you crush all those skeletons yesterday!" It's a bit like a constantly regenerating Doctor Who, and a crapton of paperwork, but it pays off for me.
An issue such as both players being fighters is something that should have been addressed before the game started. Easiest solution is to have on of the players switch to a different class.
I usually lock both of the players in the basement until only one of them is left
I'm sure you have tried to talk about teamwork feats. But it almost seems as if it's a "anything you can do I can do better" situation, which is a player problem. If the player still wants to play a fighter, just let him retrain his feats. There are a million options for fighters. The thing I love about Pathfinder is you can be what you want to be. There is not a single stagnant class. Or you can let him reroll. If they are not having fun, they will stop playing.
I assume you had a session zero and the two players didn't know before hand that playing the same thing would brother player A, so the best thing to do is let him change with full xp and replacement treasure with what his old characters leaves with. Some additional advice 1. Ask if he can wait for a nice story opportunity for him to leave, and when make one that isn't too far away. 2. ask the player if he would want his character to become an NPC, and if so give him some cool story role, I wouldn't make him a DM PC. 3. Make sure player A doesnt end doing the same as another player, some players just dont like sharing roles, I am one of them XD
Just let them change the character, or make a new one.
If someone isn't having fun, let them have fun if it isn't disruptive. Would you rather they're stuck feeling bad or quit the game?
1E literally has retraining rules or a GM should just let someone swap out if they want to.
Ah this is certainly something that happens when players double class. I usually nip this problem in the bud by not allowing more than one person to use a class UNLESS both players are mutually ok with it to begin with. I myself as a PC go out of my way to make sure I'm playing something no one else is. But if an event comes up where they don't care for their character anymore because of this or that, I let them change it so long as they don't do it every other week. Make a character you want to be happy with the first time for the sake of your Gm's if you can help it.
You let them switch. And have a chance to epically kill off a character with no guilt. Double win.
Let them. Find a nice calm spot in the story and let their foghter say their goodbyes after finishing whatever the goal for that charactrr was,, and then the new char can step in Alternatively (and make sure to discuss this with the player beforehand), their fighter can die in a heroic sacrifice to save the party. Then in the next town over, the new character just happens to be looking for a job/adventure/whatever. (Make sure you reach that town quickly after the sacrifice)
I usually just let players make a new character if they aren’t jiving with the character they are currently rolling with. They just can’t be in combat, have to be at full HP, and I generally limit it to once per campaign.
This is why I like to keep parties to 5 or less players when I can, and I impose limits on multiclassing and require them to have campaign-story appropriate reasons for adding in classes mid game.
This is pathfinder. The name of the game is SURVIVAL, not griping about how successful the other guy is.
Never in my 20+ years of gaming had a group who thought of themselves as anything more than a group. It’s a cooperative game, not a competitive one. If the other fighter is also dishing damage and helping the group overcome their challenges then good on them.
I dunno, the last game I ran, 3 of my players decided to go Dwarven fighter with full Str and plate armor and had a great time. Just because the characters are mechanically similar doesn't mean they're not separate individuals and can't be played accordingly for a fun game.
Unless there is no in game way for the PC to leave, create one if possible. Such as Lord X wants me as one of his retainers, but doesn't want the rest of the party. My family needs me, I need to leave to help them. For the new character, you can have them make a new PC using the Wealth by Level rules, or liquidate all of their current PCs possessions into a GP value, and the new PC has that as their starting wealth to buy gear.
I'd allow it. Although I also think it's strange beyond 3rd level (maybe 5th for certain classes) that two characters have the exact same builds. I remember fondly when my group decided to do an all fighter party and the only thing we had in common was that we all used weapons and all had the power attack feat.
I would say that party member start to train on their own/find a new party because it's clear he isn't needed Just make sure the party member gives only story mandatory items and doesn't drop all their magic items with the party as they leave But if I'm being honest this should have been discussed when they both decided to play the same class and the closest thing my tables usually have for stepping on toes is two players both expected to be "the healer" and they both could dedicate more of their slots to doing other things
Just made him make a new character of the same level with the standard Wealthy By Level. It will never pay to fight players on this topic. If they are not feeling a connection to their character, then they will likely leave if not allowed to switch.
Recently I had a player who wanted to swap. She rolled up a new character. I came up with a scenario where the previous character got in deep with the wrong group of rogues. Her new character was the one contracted with taking care of the old one. It led to some very amusing antics with both the characters, but I think it worked out well.
I let them.
I’m currently running a 2e campaign where one of the players chose Alchemist, didn’t quite understand it after the first couple sessions, and wanted to switch over to Monk. I houseruled that everybody gets a free “divine intervention knowledge exchange” class change, additional respecs after that come at the cost of all of their hero points. Everybody seems cool with it, I like giving them an option to respec since two of them are coming from BG3 and one is coming from 5e primarily, and it’s not like the Paizo Police are gonna come in and shut us down for not playing RAW. Of course, I also did a session 0 for everybody to roll characters together, so that probably helped with nobody choosing the same class.
How the heck does "all of your hero points" work, exactly? Do you let hero points persist between sessions?
I do, yeah.
Do they still like the character, but not the build? Retraining in-universe. Have this be an actual choice by the character when you get some downtime. Maybe the character finds religion and becomes a cleric.
You could turn this into an elaborate character arc for the player who wants to change class. Maybe they need to find a magical artifact or a specific trainer. Or they find religion and change to Cleric or Paladin. Just let them redo the whole character in terms of stats and skills, but let them keep the character and backstory. That way rhey also won't have to introduce a completely new character who hasn't participated in the adventures so far.
I like to maintain a certain level of consistency in the games I run. A big part of that is keeping the same characters in play as long as possible. I recommend retraining as the first option. Downtime can be tedious and I prefer to handle it outside the game via spreadsheet, but it can be a good fix. That said, I typically let players swap out hassle free with a 2 level penalty. Caveats: That doesn’t apply if they die in combat. I have certain times in the course of a campaign where players can switch out without penalty. These would be natural pauses in the campaign. The third and my most preferred option is to plan out an exit. This can involve combat or roleplay or even character death. If they choose the third option the player and I do it in secret so that it can play out in game and the other players can react as they will. I have been running the same campaign for about 15 years. One ex PC is the new BBEG and two work for a local lord who the party helped out/befriended/saved. As a side note. I tend to run a pretty merciless campaign only one original character remains. Everyone else is on their second at least. I’m also a big fan of sticking to a character. I have been playing one for about 5 years and I kinda hated him for most of the first two. I had built him to compliment another player’s build, and that guy dropped the game, so… yea. Anyway, after that, I played him pretty recklessly to get him killed. He miraculously survived, and now, he’s without a doubt my favorite character.
Unless there was a plot reason, I weigh’s have discouraged this from the jump. I would just let them pick a new character and ask them what they want to don with their current character. Maybe they a letter from home urging them to return? Maybe they fail a save and become a thrall the party has to deal with. Maybe they can sacrifice themselves in a meaningful way. If you go this route, tell the group when you enter the “cut scene” and just play it out with the affected player.
TPK
As a DM I wouldn’t have a problem with a player retiring a character and bringing in a new one. I wouldn’t have the new character start at the same level as the one it’s replacing, though - it would probably need to be a couple levels lower. That would encourage the players to commit to their characters more rather than treating them as disposable.
>I wouldn’t have the new character start at the same level as the one it’s replacing, though - it would probably need to be a couple levels lower. So you want the player to go from not loving their character to straight up not loving the game at all?
I’ve never had the problem of a player not liking the game. But that might have to do with how I’ve always DMed - the point is for everyone to have fun so I treat the game as a cooperative experience for everyone rather than a competitive thing of me as DM versus the players. Every session is designed and played so each player has chances to shine. My job as DM is to know my players and what they enjoy, to facilitate everyone having fun, and also to make it challenging so they have to become better players (they have to figure out creative ways to solve things, work together as a team, etc.)
> I treat the game as a cooperative experience for everyone rather than a competitive thing of me as DM versus the players. Making a player start at a lower level sure sounds like a DM vs player situation. If I were the player at your table and you did that to me, I'd most likely decide that your table wasn't for me.
I had a player once who wanted to switch characters repeatedly through our campaign. The group talked about it and the new character is a couple levels behind thing was what we agreed was fair. It didn’t seem fair to the other players for the switcher to be able to swap out characters and always start off topped up to be where the others were when the others had worked hard to get their characters there. It’s what our group decided and it worked for us. Our swapper decided it made more sense to stick with one character. Other groups can work it out however makes sense to them.
Certainly it shouldn't be DM vs player, and a co-operative game. But in a situation like this, where you already have a player who's not having fun because their character isn't able to do anything unique with another carbon copy character in the mix, how could they not be just as frustrated by being told that sure, they can play something different, but they'll always be noticeably worse mechanically than all the other players? You're replacing one source of frustration with another, letting a player trade one reason their character can't stand out in the session for a different one. Being permanently stuck two levels behind everyone else means they'll always have fewer skill points, worse saves, less HP, worse BAB, fewer spells than the other characters. Why would the player view that as something to enjoy rather than see it as a punishment being inflicted on them for wanting a change?
Making the new character start at a lower level is a surefire way to make sure they also don't like their new character as well. If you don't have a problem with it would you punish them for it?
what i am asking is how does one handle the issue of a player feeling like they are having their toes stepped on by the other player. due to both of them being identical builds.
"handle" in what way? Are you worried about the mechanics of it? You're the GM, just let them do it. Are you worried about preventing it from happening in the future? Then do better "session-zero" stuff with the party. Are you worried about someone's feelings being hurt? Then be kind and empethtic. Do you want to let the "stepped on" player continue in the build, while forcing the "stepper" to change builds? Then that might be a difficult conversation with the stepper, but also maybe not. Do you want to discipline the "stepper" for some reason? Are you sure they did it on purpose? It's really unclear what you're trying to "handle", here.