It does indeed appear that the the disconnect is in how the player built the character and how he seems to be playing him. This character should never, ever be in the front line any longer than than the round it takes him to get out of it. If the player was wanting a melee character, he does indeed need to rebuild the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
evangelist would be neat as well....If he hadn't dumped charisma I would agree with you.
His alternatives were Con or Dex - his Strength was already low enough that he couldn't carry a decent armour without limping. The guy had bad rolls and the GM gave him no leeway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad to help! Human oracle
1) dodge, imp unarmed strike. Mystery = lore (sidestep secret revelation)
2)
3) crane style. Revelation = lore keeper (+1 int)
4) +1 int
5) whatever you like
6)
7) crane wing.
Dodge requires DEX of 13. And what you are suggesting is 4 combat feats for a Spellcaster. I mean- why not let him be a Spellcaster, and you know, cast spells? Esp with two fighters in the party.
The build is just fine. Getting into melee combat with that build is crazy.
|
His alternatives were Con or Dex - his Strength was already low enough that he couldn't carry a decent armour without limping. The guy had bad rolls and the GM gave him no leeway.evangelist would be neat as well....If he hadn't dumped charisma I would agree with you.
Front Line Cleric:
STR 14
DEX 10
CON 12
INT 7
WIS 18
CHA 10These stats are barely low for a 15 point buy and the way in which it is low is practically meaningless. Choosing to build:
STR 10
DEX 10
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 18
CHA 7would not be fixed by more points. How much do you want to bet that if I gave him 4 bonus points to spend, he would have a CON 14, INT 16?
If you think the stat line is too low, you are used to very generous GMs.
Remember that 15 Point Buy is baseline for Modules and 20 Point Buy is baseline for pretty much everything else, including PFS. That makes 25 Point Buy "generous". If I was playing in a 15 Point Buy game with 4 players, I'd be expecting 15-25% easier challenges.
But yeah, you need to talk to the player and explain that he can't be good at what he is trying to do and should change his expectations or character.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or is the problem:
Player builds character.
GM doesn't agree with the build, asks player 'are you sure'.
Player sticks to concept.
GM doesn't like non-mold-fitting-build.
GM smashes party, smashes cleric.
GM comes to forums to ask how to deal with gimp character, shorthand for how do I make him play the way I want?
|
|
Or is the problem:
Player builds character.
GM doesn't agree with the build, asks player 'are you sure'.
Player sticks to concept.
GM doesn't like non-mold-fitting-build.
GM smashes party, smashes cleric.
GM comes to forums to ask how to deal with gimp character, shorthand for how do I make him play the way I want?
If a player attempts to engage in melee with a Character who has no bonus to Hit or Damage and 13 AC, it is not a "non-mold-fitting-build". It is a dead Character.
If a player comes to me with a Wizard who has 10 Intelligence and is still using it as his Spellcasting Statistic, I explain to the player what to do, and how to play. Same story here.
It might be worth handing the poor cleric a longspear, if he really wants to melee to salvage the limited spells he has and still contribute. If he cannot hit well enough with that, he can Assist Other with his reach weapon. That should make him somewhat useful, preserve his future "pure spellcaster" build, and keep him usually out of harm's way.
|
If the campaign fails, you have a fall guy to blame it on. Screw role-play, everyone knows clerics have to have certain stats or fail. Pathfinder should insist on preset ability scores for classes so players don't make this error as well as mandatory equipment.
I hope this is sarcasm. Minimum stat requirements prevented me from playing a 2E ranger.
If he is going to give up medium armor and a shield, maybe he should go for the cloistered cleric archetype -- then he would get something in exchange for not wearing the best armor he can.
Good thought but bad idea. The cloistered cleric also gets diminished spellcasting. As an archetype it's just plain underpowered.
He desperately wants to be up front hitting things in melee - he just wants to be ineffective - but he doesn't like getting hit or taking damage.This confuses me. And I like Bill Dunn am wondering did he say this or is this an inference?
It's one thing to design a non-combat-focused character. It's fine to design a well-rounded character. And I am all about designing around character concept and roleplaying, not necessarily worrying about 100% optimization.
But it's another to say, "I want to play a melee character" and then purposely design a character that's bad at it.
Especially as a cleric. 'Cause here's the thing--clerics are usually relied upon to help the party survive. If the cleric is not playing to his strengths (and the posted build has strengths, melee just isn't one of them), and he gets himself killed, he potentially screws the entire party over.
If this is truly the issue, a talk about teamwork and RPGs being cooperative games are in order. It's well and dandy to play the character you desire, but if the character you desire ends up actively screwing over the rest of the party, that's a problem.
Agreed. Does he actually want to play a melee cleric, or does he want to play a caster cleric but doesn't have the spell slots to back it up yet? If it's the latter a few levels will solve the problem.
If he wants to play a melee cleric with those stats, doesn't want to dump Int, and is willing to compromise on the "cleric" I second the suggestion to play an oracle with Sidestep Secret.
He desperately wants to be up front hitting things in melee - he just wants to be ineffective - but he doesn't like getting hit or taking damage.
Possible 'solution': If he likes attacking things, is bad at it, and doesn't like taking damage, then don't have the bad guys attack him. After all, he's virtually no threat, so wouldn't the enemies focus on attacking the fighters instead?
How new is this player? I mean, if this is one of their first couple of characters, they could just be thinking that casters don't need to go out of their way to be effective in battle.
Assuming the player is actually experienced, I'm having trouble believing that they want to be an upfront battler. That build looks "straight caster" to me. Did they knowingly charge INTO combat, or were they just in the middle of everyone when the action started?
Regardless, you as the GM are clearly unhappy with the current build and tactics. So a redesign (or the offer of one, anyway) would be called for.
1. Ask them what they want out of their character. How do they envision their character assisting the party? (In battle and out of battle.) Do they want to focus on something, or be more of a generalist? Do they intend to be a frontline battler or not?
2. Personally, I'd allow a stats reroll. You said that you were concerned when the stats came out low. If it's a concern to you, then you as the GM have the authority to fix it.
3. Help them design a character that does what they want it to. Assist them with it so that you can get your input in there every step of the way. Make sure that both you and the player have a firm idea of how this character is going to react in battle.
4. GM accordingly.
I questioned him twice on stats and once on gear, and offered to let him trade his armor proficiency when I thought he was putting the 7 in Str. He wasn't unguided. He picked this.*blink* *blink* Seriously? He told you this? Or are inferring it from his build and play so far?
I think it fits his character great. This is the best idea so far. He desperately wants to be up front hitting things in melee - he just wants to be ineffective - but he doesn't like getting hit or taking damage. Good call.
That's not really answering my question. Did he explicitly tell you he wanted to be up front hitting things in melee - or are you inferring it based on what he's doing and how he's building the PC? Same with not getting hit or taking damage.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is a self correcting system. The player is having fun, and if he dies he'll roll something else up and have fun. The rest of the group gets a healer as long as he lives, and with the make up of the group they have the tanks to protect him if the healing matters to them.
I don't see the problem.
Or is the problem:
Player builds character.
GM doesn't agree with the build, asks player 'are you sure'.
Player sticks to concept.
GM doesn't like non-mold-fitting-build.
GM smashes party, smashes cleric.
GM comes to forums to ask how to deal with gimp character, shorthand for how do I make him play the way I want?Shifty's name is appropriate.
I use basically nothing but iconic monsters and NPCs with PC classes for enemies. PCs should be ready for anything. What I don't do is cater to PCs that can't deal with that.
personally I would hold to a minimum of 15 point buy, I let players roll but if it is too low I give them the additional points to divide as they wish.
secondly I would think of ways to adjust the base cleric class for a player that wants to play a different than typical cleric. He does not want to use medium armor or shields, perhaps offer to remove those proficiencies in exchange for a bonus feat that is more appropriate for him, I'd suggest a channeling, metamagic, crafting or skill focused feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do understand that YOU gimped him, right?And suddenly the GM was responsible for the PC's bad dice rolls!
GMs are more responsible than the player is.
As far as actually rolling the dice, the player has no input. They just toss dice and look at a randomly created number.
The GM can make decisions like "roll 4 and drop the lowest" or "reroll if you only got 1's and 2's" and whatnot. Plus, the GM can decide to call for a whole set of rerolls if she's not pleased.
The player can... whine about it? Because unless the player cheats, the dice are going to say what the dice are going to say.
Now, players taking those rolls and putting them into specific stats is a completely different issue. That's all on the player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He just needs to understand that having a low Strength means he shouldn't be wading into combat. There's nothing wrong with how he built his character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying is “no good reason”?!? There must be some reason why we call PF a Fantasy Roleplaying game as opposed to a Fantasy Combat game.
The term "RPG" is largely fluff, the crunch is clearly for a tactical combat simulator. TCS...I think the acronym is taken. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about this:
Let the player play their own character however they want. You are there to offer some advice as a GM/more experienced player, but in the end the PC is that player's own creation. Let them have fun with it, if they die they can roll up a new character.
It's just asinine to me that so many people are calling this player an idiot because he has a concept for a character that is sub-optimal in rolls or tactics. The main thing here is that player is having fun in the game. They will learn through making their own mistakes on how to make a "better" or more "optimized" character. For now, just roll with the punches and play. It's really that simple.
It isn't a Fantasy Roleplaying Game. It's a Fantasy Roleplaying Game System. If he's trying to roleplay having certain strengths but neglecting them wholesale in favor of things you're particularly poor at, what kind of b&%*&%% crazy "roleplaying" is that? Character flaws are one thing, but the squishy, int-based Cleric trying to function the same as the hardy, combat-oriented Cleric is RPing as an idiot; and if he's taking high Int for thematic purposes, then his character should be smart enough not to be doing that. He's going to be smart enough to play to his strengths and marginalize his weaknesses by staying back from combat, casting spells, and playing like a squishy caster. So, ultimately, he fails on both systematic optimization and roleplaying.Roleplaying is “no good reason”?!? There must be some reason why we call PF a Fantasy Roleplaying game as opposed to a Fantasy Combat game.
We have not heard from the player, so we don’t know why he seems to be engaging in melee combat or how often. Is he forced to by the DM’s combats? And remember, all we’re talking about here is one lone 14 which he put in INT rather than STR or DEX. Putting it is STR wouldn’t suddenly make him super-soldier.
You do understand that YOU gimped him, right?And suddenly the GM was responsible for the PC's bad dice rolls!
Yes. The DM *choose* to go for rolling rather than point buy and *choose* to allow a new player to try and run with a rather cruddy set of rolls rather than CHOOSING to allow a re-roll.
|
Too many people play RPGs like video games. Nothing wrong with gimping your character for player development or having disadvantages. I really hate playing with people who constantly min max their characters so they ROFLSTOMP the game. Had a friend build an uber tanking sorcerer just to show everyone he could do it. He pretty much solo'd a water dragon that attacked the party's boat. Others in group got maybe 2 hits in and I held back on the Dragon's abilities just to give them some adventure and build suspense. He comes in and does over 100 pts of dmg with his round. Just insane. All the characters were level 10 at the time. So, I approve of gimping your character for roleplaying and not min maxing.
black and white.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. The DM *choose* to go for rolling rather than point buy and *choose* to allow a new player to try and run with a rather cruddy set of rolls rather than CHOOSING to allow a re-roll.You do understand that YOU gimped him, right?And suddenly the GM was responsible for the PC's bad dice rolls!
So what you're saying is that the GM's *CHOICES* led to the PC's bad dice rolls... Interesting, I believe this warrants some investigation. Must find a way for the DM to choose to eat something that gives me good rolls.
If people in your group would always abuse the point buy system, you need better players, not a better character creation system. Or you could encourage them to not min-max so much by creating situations where non-combat stats are used, and the face of the group can't solve things for everyone else. The classic is the audience with a local magistrate of some kind. Everyone gets to make a DC 10 K: nobility check, a Sense Motive Roll, and a Diplomacy check. [You can easily change this to meeting a druid, with K: nature, Handle Animal, and Survival, etc. Plenty of options.]
Alternatively, give everyone an array they can distribute over their scores as they see fit. Problem solved.
I don't see how it is fair at all for one person to have much worse scores than everyone else. In fact, I don't see how I would want to play with those rules if the GM would object to a more equitable method. Mind, this would be because of the GM, not the suboptimal scores!
Re: Points systems, I don't use them because of min/maxing and dump stats - an actual party I have seen was a 7 Int Sorcerer leading a party where all the other members had 7 Charisma! In other words a super-charismatic idiot leading a bunch of obnoxious so and so's! That is a travesty of role-playing in my opinion.
Yes, stat rolling creates characters with different stats (but I insist they keep them in the order they are generated). If the character SERIOUSLY hates the rolls they have I allow a re-roll but apply a treasure penalty (they donate money to a third party group).
It means that the character is often not optimised and has work to do to become so. I would be happy with that pc cleric as is in my campaign, the players would almost certainly offer 'advice' on tactics but welcome them as a critical party member (buffs and healing!)
I accept this approach is not universal and others would 'hate' it but each to their own - let your player do what he wants, the other pcs are to some degree a better lever for him changing his character not you.
Rolling stats doesn't change point dumping. If you roll a 7, its still going to go in cha or whatever for that character, if you're optimizing the same way
It's clearly a cleric thing, one of my players is a Cleric 3/Oracle of Life 3...
:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Points systems, I don't use them because of min/maxing and dump stats - an actual party I have seen was a 7 Int Sorcerer leading a party where all the other members had 7 Charisma! In other words a super-charismatic idiot leading a bunch of obnoxious so and so's! That is a travesty of role-playing in my opinion.
Thats called Futurama, with Zap Branigan et al.
To normal people who aren't used to Pathfinder's system, having 10 Str and 10 Dex isn't gimped or worthless, it's average. It's completely reasonable for a new player to think their average stats will make them average, not bad, in combat.
Basically what I'm saying is death to ability scores.
|
|
To normal people who aren't used to Pathfinder's system, having 10 Str and 10 Dex isn't gimped or worthless, it's average. It's completely reasonable for a new player to think their average stats will make them average, not bad, in combat.
Basically what I'm saying is death to ability scores.
Average people do not go adventuring. They stay at home, work their craft and make money with which they pay adventurers who will go out there and hopefully kill the monsters.
|
|
To normal people who aren't used to Pathfinder's system, having 10 Str and 10 Dex isn't gimped or worthless, it's average. It's completely reasonable for a new player to think their average stats will make them average, not bad, in combat.
Basically what I'm saying is death to ability scores.
Interesting concept. I've always considered ability scores kind of the base building blocks of a character (as wrong or right as that is). What do you propose?
To normal people who aren't used to Pathfinder's system, having 10 Str and 10 Dex isn't gimped or worthless, it's average. It's completely reasonable for a new player to think their average stats will make them average, not bad, in combat.
Basically what I'm saying is death to ability scores.
I partially agree with you.
I do think the current system leads to way too much stat dumping/min-maxing type of behaviour. I do not recall this happening near so much back when the genre first started (or perhaps I was just fortunate to be in groups where the DM's did not tolerate this). One of the things AD&D did, was give a wider range of what was "average". Scores between 10-14 generally did not acquire any bonuses. And then the bonuses for a 15 or 16 were not so great. The system did not penalize characters with average scores as much as PF seems to. And while there were certainly rewards for high scores, the penalties for below average scores seemed to be strong enough to discourage people from purposely creating low stats, to boost another one.
I do not want to get rid of ability scores, but would love to see a system where the "average" adventurer did not seem to be at such a disadvantage.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Average people do not go adventuring. They stay at home, work their craft and make money with which they pay adventurers who will go out there and hopefully kill the monsters.
Yeah, sure, it's easy for you to say that, already being very familiar with Pathfinder's system and with its insistence on having its mechanics apply to commoners in the same way as heroes. For someone who hasn't already internalized that mindset, it's not so obvious.
Suppose you pick up a new game. Maybe it's an RPG, maybe it's a video game, maybe it's a board game. Doesn't matter. In this new game, your stats only have three possible values: 1, 2 and 3. A score of 1 means you're bad at something, a score of 2 means you're decent at something, and a score of 3 means you're great at something. The game has combat, and you've got a 2 in punching, so you try punching something, thinking it should work well enough even if you're not the best in the world at it.
Of course, your punching doesn't work at all and you die horribly. Here's why: the stats don't actually mean what they say they mean. 3 isn't great, 2 isn't decent, and 1 isn't bad; instead, 3 is decent, 2 is bad, and 1 is awful. The other players then post online about what a terrible person you are because obviously you shouldn't have attempted something with only a score of 2, you must have been intentionally sabotaging yourself, wasn't it obvious that 2 is only decent by the standards of NPC's who you aren't and will never play as and not by the standards of the PC's who are actually playing the game?