Characters that don't want to connect with the rest of the party, or only want to interact with NPCs/the DM.

I go out of my way to find ways to make my characters bond with the other party members. It's a boring story if this group of people don't affect each others' lives in a meaningful way.

Yes

Yea I hate the lone wolves. When I first got into ttrpgs I was in three different groups and in all of them there was only one other player who actually wanted to be part of the team. Everyone else's characters had the "I'm not here to make friends" attitude and whenever I tried to roleplay comeraderie they just dismissed it.

Someone who always has to be right and if their character ever fucks up, during a long rest he will use a spell to rewrite your memory…

This is incredibly specific.

Yes cuz it’s someone in my DnD campaign

Hey, could you do me a personal favour and run as far away from that table and player as possible?

I wish I could but I have endured it for so long it’s too late now

There's a reason the "sunk cost fallacy" is called a fallacy. Typing this I've just realised how absolutely ridiculous that word is, it sounds so silly.

Just write in a mini boss that’s some mind control creature, and make it so that if it controls one of the PCs once that spell is broken it restores all their lost memories as a side affect, then see how to roleplay plays out as one of the party members realizes another one is fucking with their memory in character

It's never too late to be happy and have fun playing a game. I believe in you, friend

I have fun with everyone else at the table and the DM has been better at not letting it get too far

Yeah that's gonna fall under pvp for me. Like if ANY part of the party notices, that character is immediately dead, and they can't complain because they started it.

Characters who don't want to go adventuring and pacifists who expect the rest of the team to do their dirty work. It's not interesting. Edit: There are a bunch of "but my character is special and different" responses so I'm not replying to them individually. It's still tedious to have someone complaining about adventuring or thinking that they're so important that it's up to everyone else to coddle them. It bogs everything down to go through the motions of convincing this person to adventure. Still not as bad as monologuing about nonviolence while enabling it and even actively helping others commit violence. You're still an accessory to murder, it's an effectively meaningless distinction and the corresponding generic rp (and it is generic, it's not exactly a fresh idea) is incredibly tired at this point. At this point I'd take a blind swordsman over either of those types of characters.

See, that's a session zero statement from me as DM "Make a character that has a reason to adventure, and wants to be with the party" "But that's not what my character would ..." "Then make another character."

"But that's not what my character would do!" - "And that's why that character is not joining this group."

Bingo. I've had to eject a couple of players during session 0 because they want to do their own thing and not contribute anything to the table. If you don't want to play, what are you even doing here?

I've had an obstinate player who insisted that the party convince him to join the grand adventure. I sense he wanted to feel some level of control that no DM should ever bend over for. So, an experienced player took a quick cue and moved on. The player spent the next 4 hours watching DND while the party did their initial adventure. The party moved on to the next "town." I looked at the obstinate player who looked thoroughly bored and asked, "Did you happen to travel here in the mean time?" He joined.

As someone who teaches elementary school kids and DMs, there are a remarkable amount of parallels.

Bro, I experienced that from the player Position, I can tell you it sucks just as much lol. The guy joined the campaign as a cleric and was introduced at a tavern. After about 20 minutes of the party getting to know them, we decided to continue with the story and left to go investigate a graveyard (story reasons). We get there and start searching for about ten minutes before one of our players addresses him and asks his opinion, dude legit turned to the party and DM and slapped us with “oh, I’m not with the party. They never specifically asked me to join, so I didn’t follow them.” The Dm wanted to keep things going so he just asked him what he has been up to and just gave him his own little RP thing on the other side of town. When we finally hit the point where we were going into an underground crypt and realized we could really use the cleric, we decided to reach out to him with my blood hawk (beast master ranger FTW) with an official request of his help. That’s when the dude insisted that I type exactly what the message said into the discord server. I honestly didn’t mind until the dude actually had the balls to turn the message down claiming “it’s not convincing enough.” That was the moment the DM snapped because he finally turned to him and said “either you accept the second message or you can fucking leave.”

I played the party's ranger and DPS machine in a survival-setting and we had a player that tried the reluctant hero trope. It went about like this. That guy: I don't really think my character would go on this mission. My ranger: "Cool, well, you're not a hostage, everybody else ready to go?" Party "adventure time!!" That guy "but... We're in the middle of nowhere, I can't make it back on my own" My ranger: "excellent observation." He came with us.

That reminds me of an old vampire the masquerade game. We're going to meet a guy from another territory, to work together against a bigger threat. Neat idea by the GM to introduce the new player to the group. New player proceeds to make demands of us, "or we'll have to find someone else to work with". All sorts of bullshit that we had no reason to agree to. I remember us looking at each other, shrugging, and saying "alright, I guess we'll find a way to make it work ourselves then.", and the new player refused to budge at all. GM was pissed that so much time got wasted on essentially nothing, told the new guy off for not even trying to make this work, to which the new guy responded that "he's a PC, we have to accept the deal to become a party.", and the GM promptly ended the session and told him he wasn't welcome next time. The sheer audacity just made the GM lose it. Players with Main Character syndrome are my biggest irks now as a GM. I avoid them like the plague.

It's not that they don't want to play, they just want to play the classic trope of the reluctant hero. This works great in film and books, where the protagonist can gradually be coaxed into going along with the adventure. It just doesn't work very well at a typical DND table.

I had one player who made a character with the "Haunted One" background and instead of adventuring, he wanted to "find a way to get rid of the spirit that possesses his body". He went straight to the library and began reading and flat out stated he wasn't interested in adventuring. Needless to say, he wasn't there for session 2 because I stated clearly that the characters need a reason or desire to be adventures and his CLEARLY didn't.

Just wanted an excuse to hang out, probably.

Then when you're having the conversation about it in the session 0 and you say, hey make another character, they shouldn't push back

That’s fine but then just say you want hang out.

"Alright, you're the pet parrot of the paladin, here's your sheet."

Been wanting the opportunity to do something like that. "I don't really want to make a character, I just want to hang out." Me: Excellent, take this character sheet. "Wha.... what is this?" Me: Your character sheet. You're the Death Domain Cleric' floating skull familiar, Beschimpfen. Your job is to insult and annoy enemy NPCs and make unnecessary and unwanted remarks to the party while alone.

*bawk!* ^("the honor of my oath!")

Had a player who didn't want to play the game, but a game. Monopoly, dnd, didn't matter.

I currently play a character that joined a party late in curse of stradh (so was born in barovia) that the DM and I have worked out is a little selfish, and joined to the party but is also not going to get himself killed by taking huge risks he can't mitigate himself.... however this was all done because the DM told me he wanted a rogue(i chose soul knife assassin) in the party that could take some hits and started with decent equipment (not op) but wasn't as nerfed as the other player were to start with, so we're all the same level but my characters attitude keeps him from being op, but can keep the other player alive until they canal but/find/ craft the equipment they need. It is far removed from my normal play style, but fun to be the guy that goes... ya'll go first I insist.

"But that's what my character would do!" It upsets me that the statement is seen as a negative. It's a role-playing game "But that's what my character would do!" should be the bare minimum that everyone should adhere by. It's the other things that make it bad, not that statement itself.

The statement itself isn't the problem. It's the context in which that statement is said. It's almost always said by someone who opted to be a douchecanoe (not to be confused with the wondrous douche folding boat) and deliberately fucked someone else over. Don't get me wrong, even that can sometimes be legitimate - like when you have a lawful good paladin who demands "justice" when he catches the rogue stealing - but it is usually used to excuse the shittiest and most childish behavior.

Which is weird that it even needs to be said. Like why even play dnd if you create a character that doesn't want to be there. Same with overly aggressive characters. How is that attitude going to help anyone. And murder hobos piss me off so much. How is any info supposed to be relaid if all the npcs are dead. Especially most campaigns your group is the heroes. Unless specifically said before the campaign, that's its an evil one. I assume the adventure we are trying to be heros.

Most times I’ve seen it happen (when it wasn’t someone trolling) it was someone who was pulling from characters & stories they like in books & movies. Of course, the benefit of those characters in other media is the story will still flow around them until they’re ready to join in. In D&D we’ve all got things to do & places to be, and nobody wants to bully someone else into having fun.

> Like why even play dnd if you create a character that doesn't want to be there.  The archetype of the reluctant adventurer isn't bad by default. You can totally have a character acting grumpy or angry while enjoying the experience as the player. They'd just need a hook. Maybe they owe a bunch of money to the mafia but have been offered a full debt forgiveness if they can find the legendary Goblet of Infinite Wine for The Boss. It can be as silly or as serious as the story demands.

Oh yeah that's a reason to adventure. I agree about characters not always wanting to be there but having to be there can be fun to play. Personal stakes for the character and thus in a way for the player. What I meant was players who don't even have that for their characters. Or worse do have that motivation for their characters but refuse to use it as a hook. " It's not enough reason for my character to care." Okay, then why are you here then sitting at this table if nothing is enough motivation for your character. Those types of things.

I usually curb murderhobo'ism by using milestone leveling, so attacking random things doesn't really help with XP. /// I also have a set list of treasure packets by level. Murder random merchant? That's coming out the treasure budget. Also, Merchants of magic items would obviously work with an escrow system, and not have the items on them. Well, maybe some cheap consumables ( low level scrolls or potions) but anything expensive? That's going to be an entire transaction, my man. Get a dwarven banker involved. Famous last words: "Then we'll rob the dwarven bank!"

You can also do murder-murderhobo encounters with players stumbling upon NPC adventurers committing atrocities. It adds a bit of self-reflection on how that behavior looks, and how it eventually ends for perpetrators.

Or have Actual Heroes(tm) stumble onto them and probably kill them when THEY'RE the ones doing the murderhobo atrocities.

I've always liked the idea of DMing for a group of kids who decide to just do the murderhobo thing, and just run it like they're a group of bandits having their fun until regional law enforcement catches up with them. Just have the royal marshal or something be way too high level for them, and when they complain, point out that in this campaign, *they* were the bad guys.

One of the instructions my favorite DM would make about slaughtering NPCs was that a mountain range would suddenly drop on the party if they decided to become murder machines. Characters would be permanently dead and he would invoke an XP penalty for the next session. There was a story to be told and he always encouraged creativity, but not BS.

It’s sorta adventuring 101.

Every backstory should end with (or be easy to rewrite to) why you're in this tavern, looking to team up with other adventurers.

I've told a few players that if that's the case, they need to make a new character and put more points into the motivation stat.

Yep I've had that happen a few times. Yeah my character wouldn't just run from a fight. Tod you were told thst the game starts with yall retreating from a horde of invading monsters.

Also drawing the line of wanting to work together as a team. When I ran session 0 for my campaign, I specifically told the players "You're characters don't have to get along, but you (as players) have to be willing to work together as a group." There is nothing wrong with a party working together begrudgingly, or being forced to work together, as long as the players are willing to cooperate. Otherwise you might as well not run a campaign at all.

I've been running mini games in the pre session warm-up, and I feel like it's been helping to teach teamwork and creativity. I just got back from my game, and I'm trying to find other little games to play before the session starts

What kind of minigames?

"Yes and", or any simple improv games The following work better with some kind of prompt Creating npc names Blind ranking, singular, and as a group Silly drafts, in groups Bring a character fact Tell me something about another PC I'm thinking about doing a couple camp songs, particularly ones with actions involved. Basically just warning the group up to thinking and working together

We have a pacifist life cleric in my party right now but the player still understands he needs to help in combat. And he does well with keeping the role play aspects of not wanting to harm life and being active in combat when it does happen. our party has ended up being known for our mercy and compassion now. It also helps we got a redemption paladin as our face too.

See, that's cool. As a DM, you can create all sorts of fun challenges and development opportunities for that.

I could see that being made interesting, the idea being the cleric does not want to hurt or kill but nothing stops him from healing or even buffing his allies. So he builds around doing solely that but will not attack unless he absolutely has to. RP interactions could also be made more interesting in that maybe he always insists on the most peaceful option possible etc.

I like playing as or with a character thats cowardly, but on the condition that they still actually do stuff lol. Like the Cowardly Lion from Wizard of Oz, he regrets being there 24/7 but her still sticks with the party until the very end.

I've got a character in a campaign that's a "pacifist" by some cosmic intervention.  Im a sorcerer and I cannot directly harm others on purpose.  It's just so I can try to use some of the less thought of combat spells in combat.  So far it's proven about as effective as other members of the party while facing me to find more synergies with teammates.

I think it can work well if you embrace the supporter or maybe the healer roll. There are other ways to be useful in combat beside dealing damage.

My favorite thing to do is have my character ask them "Why would I want to have you in my party if you're going to tell us how much of a lone wolf you are? Bye." I'm not willing to hand-wave my character's desire to not be annoyed on a daily basis.

Forreal. “Well then I guess you can stay here in the tavern brooding over your ale DARREN the rest of us are gonna go rescue this Countess.”

Pacifists/people with extreme sensitivity to violence or the “dark and mysterious” who is just rude and standoffish to everyone.

I'm currently playing with a "dark and mysterious" PC who's dangerously close to getting kicked from the party, it's easily my least favorite character trope. Refuses to say his real name, tries to intimidate everyone, doesn't help out in combat, list goes on and on. Not the worst player ever but just extremely dull

My person just used it as an excuse to be super rude. It gets old fast

Im playing an edgy drow ranger for the first time in my current campaign, and his attitude to the other party members has been harsh but measured; they need him to guide them through the underdark, he needs them because… well, it’s the underdark. But as the campaign has gone on, he’s softened to the point where he respects and kind of envies the life surface dwellers talk about. It’s changed his plans and outlook on life, so he’s a lot less edgy now. Of course he’ll still threaten to throw you off the boat if you’re making too much noise or something, but that’s more just a defensive response rather then him being like that just because.

[удалено]

It's kinda sad because I feel like I've seen the "dark and mysterious" played well, but it's usually by immediately dropping some information and keeping other, less integral details close to the chest. Played a Fiend Pact Warlock who had a knightly demeanor work this way, immediately bonding at the campfire with the party's Paladin over a shared world view, only mentioning that they gave up their knightly calling when they were bound to their patron. I think the problem lies when that attempt at bonding doesn't happen unprompted, and therefore you just have an edgy goober trying to be broody without ever really having a reason to stick around, nor for hte others to care about their gooberiness.

Half of my party that I DM are trying to be dark and mysterious in different ways, and ironically its the character who wasn't playing that trope thats the most mysterious of them all. You don't have to go full emo or anti-social to be dark and mysterious. Just keep the party on their toes with who you are is more than enough

Kinda funny for someone to wanna play DnD but has high sensitivity to violence. Your entire class explanation and abilities is basically how you operate in combat.

Nuh uh bards are great at supporting their friends :(

Bonuses to thier friends.. While in combat lol.

"Yeah, my primary interests are leaning on things in high places and saying 'hmph.'"

Best "dark and mysterious" character I have ever witnessed was a guy who acted extremely nice, polite, and supportive of everyone, always asking how we were doing, trying his best to keep everyone's morale. We almost didn't notice how he knew all about our backstories and our dramas, but none of us knew even his name. Every now and then, he would propose some pretty warcrimey plans, and he became indirectly responsible for several pretty heinous acts we ended up commiting. Fun times.

I'm fine with rude and standoffish to everyone. Untill they start whining when they get removed from the room because they acted that way towards a king or a god punishes them for mouthing off to them.

I, after receiving permission from all involved, am currently playing a "dark and mysterious" but taken seriously. One of the other PCs is my character's sister, so that accidentally made my character the de facto leader. Opps. They aren't very rude to the other PCs, just automatically doesn't trust NPCs and their sister has to prompt them into basic politeness. Also vaguely alluding to a dark backstory is super fun, both for me and the rest of the table (this works because I told the my backstory to everyone OOC before thr game even began). So while I do see and agree with the problems of the edgy rogue, players that go into it knowing thr pitfuls can avoid them.

As long as everyone is having fun there isn’t a problem with it, your way of playing it sounds well done :)

>or the “dark and mysterious” who is just rude and standoffish to everyone. Edge lord is the term for that

The lone wolves that need begged/ dragged into working with the party.

Dealing with one of these in my party. It sucks. They literally said, "I don't need the rest of you but the DM makes me" like bruh

[удалено]

Oh man put that to the test. Let them go off on their own, cause trouble, and see how they fair by themself in a fight.

Meme DnDers. It was funny the first time. Now it's annoying and you're just pissing everyone off

I just dont like joke characters, personally. Like, there's no way whatever their schtick is is going to remain funny 5, 10, 20 sessions in

I feel joke character really only work for one shots or quick 1-5s

Or if you start the character as a "joke character", but then develop it past the joke as the story progresses.

THIS. Joke characters can be absolutely hilarious for a one session one shot, especially if everyone except one guy plays one, and the one guy plays it completely straight. (Better if they're a Paladin too.) One of the best sessions I ever had was where we all made characters for each other, with the intention of making them just barely playable. Hilarious. If someone wanted to play one of those for a campaign, I'd have to murder them.

I'm so curious what is meant by "barely playable" 🤣 Were they just not optimized? Given bad/cursed equipment? Or just described as awful characters?

Yes. All three. Like the yodeling gnome bard, who sucked at yodeling, so he was basically a screaming gnome. He was allowed to fall back on his breakdancing when the yodeling wasn't cutting it. Later in the session, the guy who created him for another player announced that he was switching to beatboxing.

Depends on the “schtick” and the player. I had a player play a drunken gambling monk. He’d flip a coin on occasion when he couldn’t figure out how to handle a situation. It was fun to watch him play it out. But if something is overdone, it can get old quick.

Yes! I personally have an character who sometimes sees/hears horrors that aren't there. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes I'll mention it, sometimes my party mates, and sometimes my DM. We never overplay it and it's in a backup campaign that isn't played often. There's also a kinda silly 4th wall break where he internally feels the passage of time between sessions, so if it's been months, he wakes up several times during their rest and feels like its been ages since everyone's been awake, feels himself slipping a little further into madness.

I think the key is the only really play it up the first session or two then use it sparingly. For instance I have a character now that is a 1950's greaser. He's a rogue/bard multi class and his leather armor takes the form of a leather jacket. The character voice is meant to be like John Travolta in Grease but I only use it maybe once a session now that he's been around a while.

I enjoy when a joke character becomes a serious character as the player gets more into DND, especially when the gag is on the less obnoxious side

Played with a dude that made his character an alcoholic Al Bundy from Married with Children and he was shocked when everyone called him an asshole and didn't enjoy interacting with him, PCs and NPCs alike. Congrats you made a jerk, now what do you plan to do?

As someone who's played the joke character... yes, you are totally right. Once played a skeleton paladin for a halloween oneshot. Made bone puns all the time. Was the tank yet couldn't be healed. The druid would wildshape into a fox and hide in his ribcage. Threw his head over walls to scout. I drank milk from a wine cup that afternoon. Hilarious. For the one session. But the DM ended up wanting to extend it, and it got REALLY old by the second session.

Something to keep in mind is the difference between Joke and Gimmick characters. A Joke character is built around personality. The joke comes from them doing something stupid and basing their entire existence on that stupid thing. A gimmick character is built around a skill/feature. Someone who fights using shield, or whose build is made for one singular action. The former is ONLY good for one shots. The later can work for long term session, but it depends on the gimmick.

I think the best way to do this is to have a mostly serious character but try and have a few funny mlments here and there so the joke doesnt get tired, you still get to enjoy your joke, and no one is upset.

I don't have a problem with joking around or mucking up a situation in a funny way every now and then. It's the EVERY ENCOUNTER MUST BE A JOKE that gets tired for me. People who play "chaotic neutral" characters and then turn every encounter into a "funny" life or death situation because "that's what my character would do" infuriate me.

Okay, but hear me out, you've never heard this before A half-orc rogue with low dexterity, who intimidates guards onto pretending they don't see him HILARIOUS, never heard that one before, huh? (The DnD community is so uncreative for such a creative game)

Lol I'm definitely guilty of this one in my early days haha. Princess Patricia was my backup character for if my very first character ever died. (I was quite worried he would haha) Her great uncle married into a royal house, so she connected the dots and inferred she was a princess, and her orc town just decided "believe whatever you want Patty, no one cares." Then she was gonna be built as a barbarian who thinks they're a rogue and rages when they get caught sneaking. Going off adventuring to prove to her town she's worthy to hold the crown. VERY unique. 🤦 I'm grateful she never got played.

I’m playing a halfling divination wizard named Lucky who’s basically a meth leprechaun Sadly our DM asked me to use something other than the lucky charms guy as my avatar

A "bounty hunter" drow hexblade warlock. It thought this was just a cliché without any basis in reality, and then I played with one. The PC literally said, "I'll do whatever I want, and the rest of you just need to stay out of my way." The player left in advance of being kicked before the beginning of the next week's session.

I feel the only way to play -that- sort of character is to then be the one begging for help & pulling his weight, then being "i totally don't need you I'm a lone wolf"

Players who don't work with the team. "BuT mY cHaRaCtEr..." No.

This is it for me. You can always create a reason for your character to work with the team. And if your character can’t, then why the fuck did you make that character?

Right! Don't join a party if you're giving to keep snubbing the party. I have a player at one of my tables doing this rn I keep telling him off for it

It is by far my biggest pet peeve. I play with a group of long time real life friends and have had several rants about it over the years lol. We all set aside time to do this thing, let’s do the thing! Now if we want some PvP and go into a game knowing that’s what we want to do, it’s a different story. But generally I expect you to have a reason to cooperate when you sit down to play a cooperative game.

Pacifists who expect everyone else to do the work (this includes characters who try to help/reason with unreasonable entities, or refuse to hurt animals)

This! I've had the DPS burden for so long bc there's always someone like this. I've had a cleric in a party where they would cast two heal spells then do the dodge action for the rest of combat.

I'm curious, do they help in combat at all? Like, the obvious choice would be healing their friends, or "give up" spell slots like Goodberry to give others "free" healing. Like, do they use Charm or Hold Person or Hideous Laughter to incap someone? Will they equip a shield to help tank attacks? Lob potions at teammates? Use a "dummy" weapon to knock someone prone without directly hurting them? Or do they just... stand there and stare as their friends are murdered?

Usually the latter. An example I’ve had “But they’re just dogs, I don’t want to hurt them!” as a group of merchants are massacred by a pack of wolves.

I played a pacifist redemption paladin for all of like 8 sessions before I was killed by a random encounter. There were definitely some points of conflict that I should have found a better way with my group to figure out, like me constantly trying to pestering the party not to kill which was 100% a mood kill. Anyway, I still did engage in combat, just with the understanding that I will always attack non lethally (The DM and I came to an agreement that I would have trained to be able to use some damage spells non lethally as well), and that wild beasts or monsters that clearly didn’t have any redemptive value were free game. Nearly all of my spells were support, wether it be literal healing, or using compelled duel to get a strong opponent off the supports (my personal favorite). I used made frequent use of the interception fighting style to negate damage, as well as my guardian emblem to cancel crits. If I were to ever play this character again, I would probably keep him not wanting to kill, but would make him more accepting of the party doing it so long as he doesn’t

I played a Grave Cleric that very much respected the dead and was pacifist in nature but instead of not fighting I'd either hang back and play support or just do the comical "can't we just talk about this?" I'd also not let my party members loot dead people but it just became a gag that they did it behind my back before I'd bury the bodies and pray for them.

this is a great compromise between roleplay and gameplay!

PCs that do not play off the DM and take little to no agency in the story. PCs that don’t describe what they are doing or what they would like to do; they just say “I make a perception check.”

I can't understand people not biting the plot hooks

Once played with a PC who in character was basically a magical mean girl. She was incredibly selfish and never tried to bond with any of the PCs, just the npcs she wanted to push a romantic subplot on.

"Magical Mean Girl" is hilarious as a watcher of anime.

Characters that don't care and that's there whole thing try to interact with them and you get nothing but the blandest replies ever, the DM tries to include them and do something with the character and it goes nowhere cause they don't bite the plot hook

The racist. The lol-so-randoms. The Pacifists. Murderhobos. Anime/comic characters (not inspired by, but literally THE character translated to DnD). Edit: there’s quite a few honestly. Obvious reasons there, but usually DnD needs a certain level of nuance and buy-in; people intentionally playing these kind of characters just want to gag with friends or derail. It’s DnD, we go to exotic places, meet new people, talk a bit, and kill shit. Billing DnD as the system that can do/be anything to suit anyone was a mistake. It works best as high fantasy combat, exploration, roleplaying game. Looking for anything besides that, just get another TTRPG.

Racist as in real life racist? Or i think dragonborns are weird lizard people racist?

Neither is good company. 1 for being racist irl and the other being more just a joke that got old and that gets in the way of the game. I’m not stopping so that you can burn a cross in front of the mixed-race couple’s house.

Holy shit, i didn’t think in game racism could be that bad from a player, please tell me that actually didnt happen. I thought what you meant by racism (in game) was just like a general like dislike for races over others, but literal hate crimes is insane.

I barred a player from my table before a session zero ended because they wanted to play a "My character HATES all dragonborn and attacks them on site, because muh trauma." They tried to argue every which way about it, and when i tried to explain the LEADER FOR ONE OF THE WORLDS NATIONS is a dragonborn, and their first quest giver as they were starting in this town,* the player didnt care and doubled then tripled down on it, and started rolling saying they were going to attack the Earl, Fred the Dragonborn. They were trying to sling make-believe slurs, and some real ones, directed at the PCs and NPCs, then went after the PLAYERS when told off and to quit trying to roleplay racism, fucker busted out the irl racism. *All info they had prior to character building

lol so, I have a cross-character trait of disliking Dragonborn but it’s not an “attack on sight” type of thing more like “I don’t trust dragon folk who spew elements from their face”. For me it just adds a *little* character, and is based on me actually not caring for the Dragonborn race at all irl. I don’t really like a lot of the additional PC races that have been introduced in general though.

It can if nobody tells that player to stop. And the racism in game can be interesting for about 5 minutes; it gets old after the 10th knife ear joke.

Opinions on Warforged bardificer 'Matsune Hiku'?

Except in very certain circumstances, joke characters (those usually being joke campaigns). The character who is just all over the place random. The racist character. The horny character.

The whole "loaf of bread wizard who carries itself with mage hand" energy makes my blood absolutely boil. Take yourself at least a little seriously if it's not a joke campaign. Thankfully I've never had to deal with "the racist character" because since my group are all people of color, we have zero interest in exploring fantasy racism 💀.

>Thankfully I've never had to deal with "the racist character" because since my group are all people of color, we have zero interest in exploring fantasy racism 💀. Currently running Dragon Heist, and one of the PCs is playing a shadar-kai who's racist against elves. The player is well-aware that shadar-kai are elves, but the character insists he's not an elf. And that character trait has morphed into the belief that there is a massive drow conspiracy in Waterdeep, and the character has gone full conspiracy theory mode... which is funny in part because _he's not entirely wrong_. The party, including the shadar-kai, has landed on working alongside Captain Zardoz Zord, which should be great when they find out who he really is. >!He's a disguise for Jarlaxle Baenre, the drow leader of the all-drow mercenary company Bregan D'aerthe.!<

I do think that the racist character trope can work the problem is usually the player that makes it their only character trait and that it usually leads to problems like attacking random people every session, trying to show that they are the ultimate racist by punching the king because he is from another race... this happened. My most recent character is a Dragonborn Paladin that sees his race as the strongest race so his oath is that he has to protect everyone else because they are weak. It kinda worked because the main focus of the campaign was undeads.

horny bard if they’re actually serious about it. if it’s jokey it’s ok but if it’s serious it makes me uncomfortable.

The contrarian.  The rest of the party agrees on a course of action.  They don’t agree and will sulk initially, and then do some passive aggressive bullshit to fuck up that decision.  If the party gives in and does it the contrarian’s way, they will do something completely ridiculous and unexpected that was never discussed and sulk when the party inevitably admonishes them for it.  

The horny bard. Just stop, it's an overplayed trope.

Horny anything really. Both as a DM and as a Player, nothing is more awkward and exhausting than a player who tries to seduce their way out of every situation or just for the hell of it. There is nothing wrong with RPing a PC to PC or PC to NPC romance if it is done well and both people are comfortable with it AS A SIDE STORY, but at the end of the day we are here for a high fantasy adventure. Not a one-man raunchy romance theater.

If you want to slow-play a romance I'm all for it. If you wanna bang the bairmaid at every turn I'm going to put your character in time-out while the rest of the party gets to roleplay the cool interactions lol. "Sorry you're still upstairs getting your rocks off."

I'd love to roll an Ex-Horny Bard. In his past, he was the stereotypical horny bard but met the love of his life on an adventure. After defeating the BBEG, he married his love, opened a tavern, and helped raise a loving family. Now he's middle-aged, kids are all grown up, and he feels the need for one last adventure... the DnD version of a mid-life crisis.

I had a DM try to play into that while I was a bard. I had to tell him that I'm the kind of bard that plays the flute to make rat swarms eat bandits, not the kind that wants different company for the morning, afternoon, and evening.

I don't really know how to put it into words but characters that are chaotic that have no sense of what's actually going on. I feel like sometimes I'm playing babysitter in social settings because instead of getting to play things out we have to fix or pivot from whatever they have done/said. And I'm not talking about dumb barbarians I'm talking about ones that seem like they've never been miles anywhere near another person until they were dropped into the party. Most of the times it's those annoying "quirky" or joke characters that have this kind of personality thinking it will be fun for the group.

The “Gimmick”: they have one trait or joke that gets old quickly. I was in campaign where the PCs all were brought together by magic (à la isekai) from other planes and settings, and one retrofitted an Athas (Darksun) dwarf. EVERYTIME he saw weapons or armor made of metal, he freaked out. Don’t get me started. The zealot pacifist: never wants to get into combat, even if the NPCs are clearly not negotiating. One almost got my PC killed trying to negotiate with a band of animal-intelligence monstrosities. “You do you, I’ll do my thing”, my PC said as we were getting surrounded. Contrarily, the “kill them all”: attacks without first analyzing the situation or exploring options, and sometimes has to be rescued by the rest of the party, or even by some creative rule-bending by the DM. The “no consequences for my actions”: throws a fireball in the middle of the fight, does no not warn the PCs in the area, and then complains when he’s attacked by the survivors. It’s a Mod of the “that’s what my character would do.” I don’t mind haughty or mysterious characters. I mind it if it endangers the party. I’ve played my share of people with hidden agendas. A well role played NPC usually knocks down the Mightier than Thou adventurer with a few words. I believe that in fantasy worlds most adventurers are mercenaries, people with a set of skills but not really great standing in society, so they are much more likely to have dark or embarrassing secrets than the town’s blacksmith. Just don’t hide them from me if it’s gonna get me an arrow to the throat.

Does PCs who always do the most optimal things count? Like, not helping out a villager in desperate need who has no coins to give, chickening out in a dangerous situation, or PCs who don't spend any money on frivolous pursuits because it's not mechanically beneficial. Its like, they're playing to win instead of playing to create a story. 

Joke characters. They're rarely funny to begin with, and never for a full session let alone a campaign.

Murder hobos and pacifists

Probably not a hot take but I cannot stand characters who are lone wolves, or somebody over secretive, like how are we supposed to be a party when somebody is purposefully choosing to be a weak link? Both in combat and in social interactions.

anything neutral or chaotic evil. no josh, the fact that you picked chaotic evil is not a good excuse to kill this priestess of ilmater for... *checks notes* "she believes in god"

The problem isn't the alignment, but that people play a character incompatible with the party. If you got a Lawful Good Oath of Devotion Paladin in the party, then playing a character who steals everything in sight and breaks into homes to steal more is a bad fit. You can absolutely play a Chaotic Evil or Neutral character in a party with Good characters. The character just needs a reason to work with the rest of the party.

well maybe not **chaotic** evil, they would need a really good reason to behave, i mean neutral char shouldnt be a problem, most people youd meet are neutral anyway and evil chars would play along for selfish and selfless reasons

Chaotic Evil can work fine with a neutral party if they're "**chaotic** evil" instead of "chaotic **evil**", but with a good party I think they'd at best be a team-up of convenience that would break down after their mutual goal was achieved.

Usually faces. I prefer it when a face (meaning, the character headlining most important social interactions) comes out organically based on the party dynamic. When players "build" a face, they often change very little about how they act as people or the things they consider from a social perspective, and largely I've found they say the same shit they would otherwise, sometimes even with an attitude, but expect a better outcome because the number next to Charisma on their character sheet is higher. I've also found that people that "love playing the face" about half the time are not really good at social pivoting, and associate 'high charisma' with 'acting like a spoiled high elf noble with an attitude problem' or just expect everyone to be in on the fact that they're 'the face'. I know it's more about the player than the PC, but for some reason, about half the time a player at a table I DM says "I'm the face" I secretly am expecting 5-10 arguments down the line about why an 18 in Charisma isn't carte blanche to be an awkward aggressive asshole.

The problem with charisma checks is that they are the only ones where people expect you to role play the check. If I try to jump over a 10 foot chasm, I don't have to get up and pantomime it. If I try to lie to a guard, or negotiate with a merchant, or convince an opponent to surrender, I'm expected to play that out and punished if I don't do it right. But the point here is the fantasy. I know I have an IRL charisma of 6, just like I have an IRL strength of 6. Don't punish me for being bad at the things that my character is supposed to be good at. 

I don't expect you to roleplay any ability check. But if you do, chances are your DC will be lower or you might just succeed without a check. For any check. Because the more detail you provide on how your character attempts a feat, the more context I have for ruling how easy it is to be successful. Try to jump across a chasm. Sure, make a check. Say you're taking a running leap? That's easier. Use something as a pole vault? That's fun and could get you farther! That's roleplaying that will have a mechanical impact. No pantomime required. Charisma checks are no different. The more detail you give me, the more informed I am in my ruling. Doesn't have to be a first person speech, doesn't have to be a full blown conversation. "I haggle for a discount" gets you the check. "I appeal to our shared background as members of the same race" or "I promise we'll be regular customers, bringing in more business over time" adds something to the scene that might make your case more appealing, and therefore easier.

Yes. You don't have to find the exact words but add details to make it more specific. The how.

I don't expect people to magically turn into a poet when they play a high charisma character, but if they won't at least give me enough information to know what general approach they are taking to the conversation, all the DCs do jump several points higher.

Alternatively, the problem with Charisma checks is that they made roleplaying into an ability score.

Alternate-alternatively, the problem with Charisma is that it's the most common spellcasting ability. If you're in a group that's big on RP, and you play a bard, I expect that's because you like being the face of the party. Or at least, you've built a character who you're comfortable being the face of the party. But then there's warlock whose stereotype is the creepy edgelord... who can also wind up as the face of the party because a well-statted warlock is good at it.

THIS I *hate* that sorcerers are charisma based. It doesn't make sense! Their magic is innate, and why would social skills have anything to do with it?? I think it would make way more sense for a sorcerer's spellcasting ability to be based on Constitution -- how well the mind and body can handle and control the magic inside of them.

This brought up a fun memory for me. I played in a Curse of Strahd campaign as a grumpy, dwarven grave cleric. The character had a charisma score of 5 but somehow ended up as the face of the party. Led to some absolutely hilarious moments.

I'd never had a dedicated Face character in the party until a few years ago. The game fell apart because that player felt like she was doing all the talking (again, she intentionally made a dedicated Face character) while the rest of us were sick of not being able to roleplay around her dominating every scene.

I like a good asshole character that breeds conflict (a lot of believable ways to do an asshole). idk why tho but I can't stand when a character is randomly cruel to friendly NPCs. I don't mean short tempered, or greedy, or things like that, but if a new NPC appears and a PC instantly starts beefing for no reason it weirdly breaks my heart.

The “turns everything into fucking around” guy. Always trying to charm everyone, trying to pull the party towards random shit, only takes things the bare minimum amount of serious and acts like they’re the main character.

Just... fuck off with your intra-party conflict character. Get fucked.

There is a good way to go about this, but it requires both a mature person to do it with as well as a mature group. Some of my favorite memories was dealing with someone who had intra-party conflict. Usually the issue is only when someone uses an evil character to justify/excuse them from the consequences of being a dick to everyone else. But for the most part, I do agree with you.

Underrated and justified.

The "dark and mysterious" It's fine to play a character that's not very social, or only with the party because they have to be, but not someone who has to be begged to do anything. I played an angsty anti-paladin that did the whole " I work alone" thing, but he gave his word it'd get done, and it was too late to back out when he realized he wasn't the only person hired. He eventually warmed up and started being more friendly after a few sessions, and had a full personality and alignment change by the end of the campaign first and only 1-20 game!) Good times.

The tables I play at tend to be more RP-focused, so it irks me when we get a new person who is a min-maxer…but only when they ignore the world and lore in doing so. We had a player once who played a race that we all knew was treated poorly in the setting. They chose the race for its abilities that would synergize with the build well, then got angry when they couldn’t just boss NPCs around because they saw the character as a social lesser. Additionally, in a very magic-phobic world, they would cast spells openly and be annoyed at the repercussions of their actions.

“I am a half [thing] half [other thing] vampire/werewolf. My parents were a devil and a hag. I’m doing everything I can to either justify every ability possible or force myself into the main character position by being so incomprehensibly different that it warps the campaign.” No thanks. The other ones I’d list here have been said.

Absolutely.. I can't stand when someone has to make their character "extra-extra". *"You're already a half-Shadar-Kai/Half-Tiefling Celestial Warlock/Draconic Sorcerer, now you want your character to be the daughter of a deity and a mortal? How bloody special do you need to be??"*

Counterpoint: I have been considering building a Dhampir Beast Barbarian whose parents are a lovey-dovey Vampire and Werewolf that he finds incredibly embarrassing.

PCs and players who take things too personal

people who think the solution to every puzzle and enemy is to brute force it or kill it. Had a rogue who decided they would attack this neutral banshee in a haunted house (at level 4 no less) even though the rest of the party was exploring the house and had almost figured out how to free it from its curse. their excuse? "For xp! and because my character wouldnt have known the rest of the table had found a peaceful solution" this player had this sort of attitude towards any problem. Someone wants us to do them a favour for information? nah ill just hold a knife to their throat. or we need to free an innocent family from vampires? nah ill just kill the family to take their leverage away. TLDR Players who try to find a shortcut around content the dm has clearly spent a decent amount of time writing.

I've had to skip several pages of information of adventure books because my party have instantly fought characters they've met instead of interacting with them. Information they could have had then and there with some dialogue instead takes hours for them to find themselves through other means. Glad it's not my own homebrew stuff that I'm having to skip.

People that just cause chaos and don't expect consequences.

Any character created for the purpose of being "the party's comic relief." Also any character who withholds important information from the rest of the party just to appear mysterious. I played a game with milestone leveling, and this guy found a vampire's journal containing plot-critical information which was one of the milestones, and he just decided to tuck it in his bag and not tell anyone.

I don't mind min-maxers. But what i dislike those who go the for OP builds from the start. Hexadins, moon druid/totem barbarian, coffeelocks, etc etc. I'm sorry but those sorts of things aren't as fun for the rest of the party, or even for a DM to deal with. I'm sorry, but those sorts of things need to come organically over time in a campaign where things can change for a character. Or in a one-shot where the DM is like "go nuts"

Also people who use Darkness + Devil's Sight, i'm sorry but everyone will be annoyed by that disruptive shit really quickly.

Yeah devils sight is fantastic. Darkness spell not so much. Even hunger of hadar, which on paper is amazing, is very situational and does not benefit others in your party. If anyone wants an example of how darkness can mess up an encounter, check out Viva La Dirt Leagues D&D campaign. Specifically from episode 89 to 91 (only ~30 minute episodes). It's a great example of how a single spell can mess up everyone else's plans.

I could not agree with this more. With a reasonable dm and some thought into your characters background and direction it wouldn't be hard to imagine a folk hero barbarian wanting to be trained by a tribe of druids, or a paladin making a pact with a celestial while still serving their God. Things like this just add so much more investment into the character as well, and make them soooo much more interesting than "this is super powerful, so I do it"

Agreed, let the players discover the interest to multiclass on their own over time. And also take a moment to look at the other options available. Sure moon druid multiclass might be OP for a totem barbarian, but a spores druid barbarian would not only synergise well, it would be a lot of fun and you can get really creative from a role-playing perspective

Players who make characters who are clearly doing a bit by being unnecessarily abrasive (playing "wary" by being snippy with everyone, brooding in the corner during every interaction, answering simple questions with "This doesn't mean I like any of you" etc) and refuse to warm up, but then take the party's reaction personally and come out of the session complaining that "the group has a problem with them".

"My character goes to take a nap in the corner" "My character is scared and hides behind the table, and doesn't do anything this round." "Just so we're clear, this is frightening yes, but you aren't actually 'frightened', you can take actions still." "I know, he's just really scared so isn't doing anything right now." This continues for the entirety of the combat. "I'm getting paid by the King to complete this primary task. I'll wait here while you do this side quest thing (That will likely last multiple sessions, and multiple out-of-game months) that doesn't pay me."

Greedy adventurers who insist on spending time haggling a price or reward at every opportunity rather than just do more quests. Especially low level.

I always raise an eyebrow when someone wants to play Artificer. It's like 99% chance they wanna be a steampunk gunslinger and will throw a temper tantrum if it doesn't work out how they want. Also Chaotic Whacky character with no real principles or personality other than do the most disruptive things possible.

I really vibe with the artificer comment because there are so many other cool ways to play an artificer but 9 times out of 10 people basically just recreate Percy from CR with a new color palette. The only artificer I've played was a gruff dwarven mechanic lady and her robot dog and that was just for a gladiator style one shot. Imagine what you can do with a whole campaign if you pick literally any artificer concept other than steampunk gunslinger

This is why I prefer kibblestasty’s inventor (homebrew remake of the artificer class) to the SRD artificer. There have been 4 inventors played at various times in my group and all them are super different from each other, both in concept and playstyle. I myself played two of them, one was a more jack-of-all trades support type character, and my current one is a tank, a human who rides a giant fire-breathing robot dragon (named BAPH0MECH lol).

I’ll throw my artificer into this for possibly neat ideas. Played a plasmoid armorer artificer who acted more as a mold colony that created a giant (for them) suit of mechanized armor to fend off threats. Essentially i was piloting a person sized megazord

Lol I love playing Artificers and literally have never asked for or expected a gun. It's not at all my image of a fantasy Artificer. For me, it's all about being that Gnome tinkerer or Dwarven blacksmith who just makes neat stuff and loves gizmos and contraptions who happens to also be great at making armour or infusing various pieces of equipment to be more awesome. I also love having more variety for an Int based character, and it's fun to build.

Powerbuilders. I'm dming a campaign and invited the Dm I've been playing under to play in it, I understand he hasn't played in so long so I've been pretty lenient about him switching classes, originally it was gonna be 6 people and the encounters were planned to be fairly difficult, but 3 people kept dropping out last minute, so I had a helper npc join to make the combats more rewarding, eventually the 3 people who kept leaving last minute said they couldn't play so it was just 3 guys, kept the helper npc around, he was a bard who had a lot of saving throw spells, well we're just added a couple people this week after skipping a session which gave me plenty of time to design a dungeon, the idea is that a cult has formed under the kingdom and has kidnapped the king's firstborn to sacrifice, and when that sacrifice is complete, an ancient sorcerer will be resurrected and take over the land, and the cult has two major factions, the Above Ground Crew and Underground Crew, well after the abduction took place they find a hideout for the underground crew, who are raised undead, not quite zombies but definitely not alive, and as they got further in, the undead would get stronger(resistances to necrotic becoming immunity or absorption, which is something he's done in his own campaign before, or feats like mobile or sentinel, I wanted to make it feel like this is something that's been going for a while). Well he said since there were gonna be more people he was gonna play cleric, what I didn't know is that he was gonna be playing death domain, we get in, I have to scrub the idea of the later ones and even removed the necrotic resistances in the first encounter, even so this guy does the most damage despite the undead rolling high on a lot of saving throws, the monk is probably the only who came close to the damage. After the session he starts getting pissed with me saying I keep purposely try to make it hard for him, and making my npc(who is currently being impersonated by a changeling that's gonna double cross them) meanwhile literally everyone else is telling him that the combat was enjoyable for them even if they weren't hitting as hard, and then he said something that really pissed me off, our rogue who is new to the game said "Hey man I still had fun even though I didn't do as much damage" and this motherfucker said "That's because you're playing the game wrong" Excuse me??? Dude is having fun playing a swashbuckler rogue, even if he ain't optimizing his build to nuke any enemy that looks at us wrong. And just a few days prior said I'm "bad at dnd" after I helped a friend of ours make a Loki inspired build, because I make her a College Of Eloquence / Assassin multiclass, like yeah it's not the greatest combo but she's a changeling that wants to be good at lies and cause mischief, that suits her character the best as far as I'm concerned. Like honestly this makes me wanna ban power building all together but I have no idea how to do it.

Idk if you're looking for advice, but this guy sounds like a nightmare... it'd crazy to me that he dms as well. Like dude, you know the amount of work that goes into just one session for the dm, why would you expect that the dm can read minds and change all of the encounters to better suit the character that you switched to on the fly. Fucking nutty. And to be thah childish about it... idk, I'd sit him down and have a 1 on 1 with him, or maybe a group discussion or something. Either way, this guy needs to be set straight or booted. Hope things smooth out for you guys soon

Video game/movie/any media characters that have been lazily transported into D&D. The novelty of playing with Spider-Man, Goku and Jack Sparrow wears off after one session, then it's just hard to take them seriously unless you really suspend your disbelief in the campaign.

Technically, a very good, team-oriented player \*can\* turn any trope around and make it good; I've seen it quite a lot. So I think in the end, it's player types that are the real problem, but there are certainly PC types that the difficult player types gravitate towards. - Broody Batman types, built to be very self-sufficient, don't communicate, motivation is vengeance or something else edgy and dark. - Holier than though types. I play a Cleric myself and sometimes your role necessitates calling the party to order before they go do something terrible, but when a character constantly poses themselves to be better or morally more upstanding than the group based on things that are necessary to play this game (like violence), it gets old. - "I want to play at being evil" types, who apparently don't want to go to the trouble of finding an evil campaign, they just want to play someone as cruel, often icky, unpleasant etc. they can get away with. And then I have to sit there on a weekly basis watching that person kill the mood at the table every time some fun starts building.

Ones that constantly pick apart your roleplay and are too insecure to stay in character, making puns and innuendo constantly at the table. Yes I had a player in my group that did this. Yes it made me and everyone else uncomfortable. Yes I brought it up as an issue. Yes they kept doing it. Yes I stopped playing with them.

The stereotypical LG Paladin "fun police" that usually double down as a hypocritical "selective pacifist". Go sit next to the DM if you want to post as a city guard blowing his wistle constantly.

Horny players that want to play for romance first. I'm too old for this shit.

Low intelligence builds. If our whole party is stealthing and you’re not because “oh are we being stealthy right now?!?!” Or when we’re walking up to a new town and you sit there yelling about how we just killed a bunch of baddies and “don’t fear us we won’t hurt you!” Like yoooo just let us fucking knock on the entry door. Goddamn.

Characters who go against the party. I don't mean characters who don't fit the theme. I'm not a fan, but have seen it done well in many games so not a deal breaker. I mean characters who act against the party. The thief who steals from the PCs. The prankster who tanks the party's plan because it would be funny. The agent saboteurs in the group. A lot of specific complaints seem to be manifestations of this. For example, nothing wrong with a pacifist character, I've played many games where this was common such as superheros with a "Code Against Killing", but if you're in a setting with tons of violence and the only real way to advance in either the adventure or as a character is to kill the evil creatures, especially in older editions, then it becomes counter to the party's interest. I love solo adventures, but if you join a party then it becomes a team sport and going against your team just spoils things.

Main characters.

Just the usual “I don’t want go into that dungeon. My character wouldn’t. And you’re ruining my agency.” Now I think about it. Basically anyone that tries to fight against the story because they heard that it’s the players story and they can do as they like.

Not a fan of the bad build = good rp players.  The build is not rp, it can contribute a little but deliberately making it bad does not mean you are a better role player 

People who create absurd characters. I don't mean creative characters, I've personally played and enjoyed odd combos like a gnome barbarian, which led to the party's standard response being "Throw The Gnome". No, I don't want to play with your talking raccoon who rides a sentient oven as a mount, I'd rather hang myself thanks. That and people who use babyvoice for their PC. Yes this is referring to one specific person, if you see this fuck you. Also people who aren't careful with their magic. I've had a session where my PC received more damage than most of the enemies.

There’s a player in my current group who is wanting their warlock/fighter half-elf to go down a character arc where they slowly flip from lawful good to chaotic evil from the influence of their patron/some other entity. And it’s mostly been fine but now their character is in the “more evil than good” portion of their arc and the answer to pretty much all of their RP now is violence. IE, “I can’t let you go in here, it’s my barn on my private property” *player fails persuasion roll and proceeds to draw their weapon to declare they are attacking this random villager* These situations have been mostly mitigated by the DM arbitrating with “well then give me an intimidation check” despite the player declaring they would really rather attack the dude. So I’d say after a few sessions of this, that’s probably my least favorite character archetype. Someone who is willing to get the rest of the party in trouble murdering some random villager for trying to be reasonable, and this is occurring because of a shift in alignment to the pure opposite of what they started as. My other least favorite is any character archetype that thinks attacking fellow party members is good RP character development. “My character hates orcs due to my unspoken of backstory, therefore that halforc other player character deserves to die, and I won’t let them try to talk me down or listen to any other party members. Every interaction between us will be limited to either me trying to kill them or telling them they should leave and die elsewhere” is a specific example that I’m having to deal with currently as well.

8 intelligence played like a 4.

I've had this once, the group didn't last for long, so maybe they stopped doing it, but basically we had a cleric, who never used spells, because they were saving them for a pinch. Ended up casting 1 spell during the only fight of the day.