A player with poorly made character.


Advice

201 to 243 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
OS_Dirk wrote:
In the end I tend to think of it is failure to optimize the situation, rather than failure to optimize the character.
Yeah, how good the build is doesn't matter if the player has no idea how to effectively utilize the character's abilities. I once had a player who showed up with a wonderfully built Witch he probably came up with by going over guides and consulting with experienced players. He then proceeded to give his Witch a spear and try to use it as a melee character, almost never casting spells or using hexes despite his character being built as a standard high-Int strength-dumped caster.

That's pretty fair. If I had a nickle for every time I've seen that happen...

... I'd have about 4 nickels. Maybe 5. Still, more nickels than I want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Guy With A Face wrote:
You should still at least have something.
I'm not really sure how you even roleplay the first scene without *some* idea about who your character is. Like if someone is aggressive towards you in a conversation, do you push back, deflect, laugh it off, start a fight, capitulate, what? If I don't have some idea about who the character is, I'm not sure I can roleplay anybody except myself.

I've found that often, the player has to "meet" their character in the game themselves. Many times, someone has an idea for the character but once they're actually in play, little aspects they hadn't considered pop up.

I've also seen TOZ's "no backstory" method work, allowing the player to improve their backstory as the game unfolds. I've done this myself in games where I was a bit rushed to create a character, and some of my most fun and (I think) interesting characters began with very little other than a vague archetypal concept and developed aspects of their background over the course of the game (and rarely is anyone the wiser since backstories don't usually come up until they're relevant, as even friends in real life don't meet each other and immediately recant their life's story).

Generally speaking, I do try to put together "useful" background information ahead of time. This might include 1-3 short paragraphs and a list of bullet points about the character and their acquaintances. Here's an example:

Hypothetical Backstory
Summary: Ren spent the majority of her life tending the library of the Arcaneum in *place*. A position that suited her just fine as her near chronic levels of awkwardness around people, mixed with her obsession with books and writing, made being a bookkeeper in the quiet library (with little private nooks everywhere) ideal. Her teacher, Zelthiel Lofthorin, pushed her into adventuring as her final trial in the academy hoping that it would force her to grow as a person, and she is tasked with returning to demonstrate her mastery of magic when she has created her first wondrous item and can demonstrate a Rank III incantation.

Other Notes

  • Ren has two brothers (one older, one younger) and an older sister who also attend or attended school at the Arcaneum. Her eldest brother was expelled for researching black magic and hasn't been seen in about a year. She is the "nerd" of her family.
  • Ren doesn't talk much to anyone except her familiar. She gets very shy and/or nervous around people she thinks are cooler than her (which she thinks is most of her class seniors, other adventurers, anyone with a bit of fame, or anyone she thinks is attractive).
  • Ren's spellbook is filled with doodles and fanfiction alongside or as part of her magical writings.
  • Ren is secretly a pervert. She also has a crush on her teacher Zelthiel and hopes that he will be very proud of her when she masters 3rd level spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

I have another sort of question, because I honestly do not get this

It seems to me that the only way to really "optimize" a character is to know exactly what adventure you are about to play, so yeah, we are doing RotRL, or IG, or module "x" or adventure path "y" which everybody knows so, sure optimize away if that is what you want to do.

But if you sit down at a table to make first level characters who are all residents of the coastal fishing community of Gloan, and the DM tells you

"Lightning splits the dark night sky but the thunder never comes. Far out at sea the fishing boats drift on the tide coming home from a long day of casting their nets into the ocean's bounty. You and your friends wait patiently at the long table of Minnick's Black Boot tavern for the nightwatchman to check in one last time before you set out for the city gate, and what lies beyond..."

And that's it. She tells you nothing else, no hints about what types of monsters you will encounter. She doesn't tell you if there is a sinister plot brewing in an old castle, or if there are dangerous kobolds in the forest, or if a mysterious cave is sprouting skeletons. Nothing.

How do you optimize for that?

Build your character to be well rounded and avoid choices that are far too niche. A well made D&D character doesn't really need to know what sorts of monsters they will encounter, just that they might encounter them. Notice in the example low-Int wizard, I mentioned packing some srolls of magic weapon incase the party came across a Shadow or something with DR/magic.

Imagine ways that you can work your way through various scenarios. Can you deal with invisible enemies? What about being in the dark? How do you deal with traps and obstacles? What happens if you're separated from your enemies (like a chasm with archers on the other side), how do you handle stuff.

If you're something like a ranger, choose broad favored enemy types (things like Undead, Evil Outsiders, Magical Beasts, etc). Carry a scroll or wand of instant enemy for when times are tough.

Simply make sure that your character is good at their intended purposes, not useless at everything else, and robust enough to survive. This is the strongest form of optimization I've discovered.


Some people have a hard time coming up with more then my fighter swings a big weapon. That's okay. Other times you get a player that has pages of information on even a first level character. I'm in about the middle of this. I have had characters who simply heal, a healbot a term I keep hearing. Maybe during the campaign he develops sometimes he doesn't. The other half the time my character starts with a theme and develops from there.
I like it as a player and GM if a player has some idea who and what his character. Since mostly I run home grown campaigns and every little bit helps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OS_Dirk wrote:

In the end it all boils down to how much thought the player is willing to put towards the character and towards the character actions later.

In my group, I'm playing about the least combat effective character that I possibly could. His role is to talk the party into and out of trouble. Sometimes he fights. A year or two ago (game time) he had a life and death struggle with a beach crab, and the crab very nearly came close to winning. (By the way, that was at level 6)

I'll admit I don't really understand this. The majority of Pathfinder classes (including all the well designed ones) are more or less decent at combat with some really basic choices, so when someone says "My character was useless in combat but were for talking the party out of trouble", I get confused.

EDIT: To elaborate, most classes come pre-built with lots of useful things in combat. Most class features revolve around making them better in combat. So unless something really weird is going on, or you're dealing with a bad class like Fighter, then you're probably going to end up at least decent in combat even if you're speccing something noncombat related.

Quote:

The rest of the table plays characters who don't think about what they're getting into and my little coward is often the one attempting to apply the brakes so we actually do some preparation before a battle. - It doesn't always work, but often enough.

You can have the most optimized character builds on the block, but if you're not willing to do basic common sense things like gear up with holy weapons before taking a fight to a group of demons, it doesn't matter all that much.

Agreed. I've seen a lot of people with "highly optimized characters" (often with specific fine tuned builds, some borderline exploits, grabbed from certain forums) that get dismantled by normal bestiary monsters and challenges that my group (who plays a very "modest" game in terms of character power) face and overcome regularly.

Quote:
In the end I tend to think of it is failure to optimize the situation, rather than failure to optimize the character.

Well said.


It's not the player who makes a weak character unintentionally that drive me insane. They are not trying to screw their fellow players over. Some people design a character not built for combat. It's not a specialty but when combat happens they can help do what they can. Their focus is in other areas. So you built a Rogue who in favor of sneak attacks and talents can charm anyone you talk to. In a lot of situations both home grown adventures and modules this guy will be more then likely useful.
It's the ones who go out of their way to screw themselves over and then plan to whine the entire campaign that piss me off. They look for skills and abilities that weaken or hamper their character. They then expect the party to carry them along suffering for not having that fourth party member in most cases. In a larger groups this is less of a problem but in a standard size party this can be lethal. A Rogue who says I'll be the trap finding rogue then takes an archtype without that ability puts no points in Disable Device. Then does nothing in every other case except say I suck.
A good party might depending on situations overcome that weakness but shouldn't have to. They'd be better off and happier knowing they don't have that fourth or extra player. They know what to expect from each other. You get that guy who made the useless character in the group no one is thrilled. Especially when he's whining. "I'm useless." as if it's the group and GM's fault. He's the first to say after causing the dragon to attack everyone when cooler smarter heads would have prevailed say it's what my character would have done. Usually most groups know it was just him being a jerk.


Ashiel wrote:


I'll admit I don't really understand this. The majority of Pathfinder classes (including all the well designed ones) are more or less decent at combat with some really basic choices, so when someone says "My character was useless in combat but were for talking the party out of trouble", I get confused.

EDIT: To elaborate, most classes come pre-built with lots of useful things in combat. Most class features revolve around making them better in combat. So unless something really weird is going on, or you're dealing with a bad class like Fighter, then you're probably going to end up at least decent in combat even if you're speccing something noncombat related.

I could have easily ended up in this situation on my current Hell's Rebels character if I wasn't watching out for it. I'm playing a Negotiator Bard with dumped str and a low dex, and my initial build had almost no combat utility at all because I forgot about the +5 save bonus for Charm Person in most combat situations. I swapped Charm Person over for Sleep late in character construction precisely so I could do something other than spam Daze and intimidate demoralize attempts in combat, but I could see ending up with a character with almost no combat skills.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What actually bothers me is when someone INSISTS they've made/come up with some super OP combo that OBVIOUSLY is rather tame. I had one guy swearing up and down that Rapid Reload was a super OP feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM 7thGate wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


I'll admit I don't really understand this. The majority of Pathfinder classes (including all the well designed ones) are more or less decent at combat with some really basic choices, so when someone says "My character was useless in combat but were for talking the party out of trouble", I get confused.

EDIT: To elaborate, most classes come pre-built with lots of useful things in combat. Most class features revolve around making them better in combat. So unless something really weird is going on, or you're dealing with a bad class like Fighter, then you're probably going to end up at least decent in combat even if you're speccing something noncombat related.

I could have easily ended up in this situation on my current Hell's Rebels character if I wasn't watching out for it. I'm playing a Negotiator Bard with dumped str and a low dex, and my initial build had almost no combat utility at all because I forgot about the +5 save bonus for Charm Person in most combat situations. I swapped Charm Person over for Sleep late in character construction precisely so I could do something other than spam Daze and intimidate demoralize attempts in combat, but I could see ending up with a character with almost no combat skills.

I'd blame Paizo for making bad archetypes on this one. The negotiator is pretty trappy. You trade away all your good / party support abilities to be a worse bard that doesn't really do anything worthwhile.

EDIT: Their geas thing is kinda cool, other than the whole HD limit thing.

EDIT: Though then again, bards aren't really good at being built as casters anyway, so trying to play them like dedicated casters is asking to fail with them.

EDIT: In fact, best stats for bards tend to be mixing stuff up fairly average, with a very low (like 12-13) Charisma at the start. Bards are actually very good characters but their spell power is supplementary to the rest of their awesomeness.

Unfortunately, Negotiator bards give up Inspire Courage (one of the bard's "big guns") for an ability that's pretty "meh", unless you've got an enchanter in the party (bards aren't particularly good at spells and their stunted spell progression means that they're fighting an uphill battle to keep relevant DCs; so compared to an actual caster the ability itself only equates to a net +1 to the save DCs of enchantment/illusion spells.

When you're playing against your class' strengths, it can make any character worse. Rangers aren't ideal for dedicated healers, for example, and bards aren't ideal for dedicated casters. Sometimes with the right options and mastery you can play against a class' usual roles but the end result should be a character that's not only good at what they choose to do but isn't a one-trick pony.

Scarab Sages

Ashiel wrote:
GM 7thGate wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


I'll admit I don't really understand this. The majority of Pathfinder classes (including all the well designed ones) are more or less decent at combat with some really basic choices, so when someone says "My character was useless in combat but were for talking the party out of trouble", I get confused.

EDIT: To elaborate, most classes come pre-built with lots of useful things in combat. Most class features revolve around making them better in combat. So unless something really weird is going on, or you're dealing with a bad class like Fighter, then you're probably going to end up at least decent in combat even if you're speccing something noncombat related.

I could have easily ended up in this situation on my current Hell's Rebels character if I wasn't watching out for it. I'm playing a Negotiator Bard with dumped str and a low dex, and my initial build had almost no combat utility at all because I forgot about the +5 save bonus for Charm Person in most combat situations. I swapped Charm Person over for Sleep late in character construction precisely so I could do something other than spam Daze and intimidate demoralize attempts in combat, but I could see ending up with a character with almost no combat skills.

I'd blame Paizo for making bad archetypes on this one. The negotiator is pretty trappy. You trade away all your good / party support abilities to be a worse bard that doesn't really do anything worthwhile.

EDIT: Their geas thing is kinda cool, other than the whole HD limit thing.

EDIT: Though then again, bards aren't really good at being built as casters anyway, so trying to play them like dedicated casters is asking to fail with them.

EDIT: In fact, best stats for bards tend to be mixing stuff up fairly average, with a very low (like 12-13) Charisma at the start. Bards are actually very good characters but their spell power is supplementary to the rest of their awesomeness....

Unless you're building a Thundercaller. Then you pump that Cha. like there's no tomorrow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
Unless you're building a Thundercaller. Then you pump that Cha. like there's no tomorrow.

*looks up Thundercaller*

Hax. lol

I still probably wouldn't push Charisma that much (preferring to take Extra Performance and perhaps Ability Focus instead) but that's definitely a better reason to have higher Charisma than most bards have. Too bad the DC on Thundercall doesn't increase with your HD like it probably should. If it did, then I'd see it as being worth pushing Charisma really hard (as is, it's gonna fall out of effectiveness either way).

EDIT: Unless it only means the same type of saving throw and not that it also counts as a 2nd level spell for the saving throw, and thus has a DC of 10 + 1/2 level + Cha mod like most bardic performances.

If it means that (it's poorly worded), then yeah you could push Charisma really hard just to spam save vs stunning all over the place. o_o

EDIT: As an aside, I doubt I'd ever play a normal bard again. These thundercallers replace abilities I couldn't care less about with supernatural versions of spells that you can spam 'till the cows come home.

Scarab Sages

Ashiel wrote:
Davor wrote:
Unless you're building a Thundercaller. Then you pump that Cha. like there's no tomorrow.

*looks up Thundercaller*

Hax. lol

I still probably wouldn't push Charisma that much (preferring to take Extra Performance and perhaps Ability Focus instead) but that's definitely a better reason to have higher Charisma than most bards have. Too bad the DC on Thundercall doesn't increase with your HD like it probably should. If it did, then I'd see it as being worth pushing Charisma really hard (as is, it's gonna fall out of effectiveness either way).

EDIT: Unless it only means the same type of saving throw and not that it also counts as a 2nd level spell for the saving throw, and thus has a DC of 10 + 1/2 level + Cha mod like most bardic performances.

If it means that (it's poorly worded), then yeah you could push Charisma really hard just to spam save vs stunning all over the place. o_o

EDIT: As an aside, I doubt I'd ever play a normal bard again. These thundercallers replace abilities I couldn't care less about with supernatural versions of spells that you can spam 'till the cows come home.

I've ruled it as it scales with bard HD. Also, you get lightning at high levels, too :P. It would be nice to get a FAQ on it, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The big thing is they're supernatural abilities so that also means you can use them without components, they ignore SR, can't be blocked by effects like spell turning, can't be dispelled, etc. Pretty much anything short of actually shutting your bard up or landing them in an antimagic field isn't going to stop it.

If someone pops resist energy, that's okay, you're still a bard. Just **** them up old school style. EDIT: (Because a lot of people don't realize it but Bards are ****ing baller at beating people down. Especially at mid/high levels where they can frequently outpace martial characters in a lot of situations thanks to smart uses of their spells).

Scarab Sages

Ashiel wrote:

The big thing is they're supernatural abilities so that also means you can use them without components, they ignore SR, can't be blocked by effects like spell turning, can't be dispelled, etc. Pretty much anything short of actually shutting your bard up or landing them in an antimagic field isn't going to stop it.

If someone pops resist energy, that's okay, you're still a bard. Just **** them up old school style. EDIT: (Because a lot of people don't realize it but Bards are ****ing baller at beating people down. Especially at mid/high levels where they can frequently outpace martial characters in a lot of situations thanks to smart uses of their spells).

Right? The best thing about it is that you can put 90% of your feats into Archery and still kick butt when you aren't dropping concussive blasts and lightning bolts.

Ugh, I gotta stop driving this off topic. XD

Liberty's Edge

Thundercaller and Sound Striker (with FAQ/Errata) are both solid ways to make a basically full caster Bard. Those plus Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment) make you a pretty solid offensive 'caster' mixing damage and mind control spells.

You're not as good a party buffer if going this route, but Good Hope and Haste are still available, so you're not bad.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

As a GM I've come to the realization that there is one crucial question you must ask each player before they start rolling a character.

--> Do you want a character that is:
A. Powerful/Optimized; or
B. Less Powerful/Optmized, but more central to the story.

Answer A: delegate character creation help to one of your other players with high system mastery;

Answer B: work closely with the player and suggest various "non-mechanical" feats, traits and abilities, including but not limited to several artistry and/or lore skill suggestions (see Unchained).

"A-type" players will feel rewarded when they pull everyone's bacon out of a fire during combats, and "B-type" players will feel rewarded when they properly identify subtle plot clues, take the proper cues and effectively advise and lead the party in the proper direction.

As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.

What's your answer when they say "both"?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is my opinion. A monk depending on the GM may or may not be an acceptable choice so the question of building a monk is not really central.

What is central is "do I have to contribute to the party effectively"

That brings us to another point. Is the GM going to tone things down so the weaker character does not risk everyone else's character?

If he does then it really does not matter. If he does not adjust then you will/may have unhappy players, unless one or more of them ups the power of their character(s) to compensate which is often what I have done.

This however could lead to the weaker character/player feeling useless, but since he was already a drag on the party I feel like the other players are justified in optimizing more. It is not fair to say "I can make a character as weak as I want", and at the same time say "You have to accept it, and you must not do anything to increase your chances of survival because I can't pull my weight". <-----I am not saying anyone has said this, but I have seen it before and I have never agreed with it.

PS: I skipped a lot of post so this may have already been covered.


Crimson172 wrote:

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. A friend and I were discussing the playability of a monk. I know it's not a very good class but I really enjoy playing the class. Always have. I understand there are better options. I say it's my character I'll play it how I want. His argument is that other players shouldn't have to suffer because someone wants to play an un-optimized character. I assume he means in combat. So here's the question...

Lets say someone in a game you were DMing is playing a truly terribly built character that they enjoyed. Would let it be? Tell them to make a better one or version of that character? What would you do.

Filling your slot with a bad character can interfere with the party's effectiveness, but who's trying to win at D&D?

That being said, I was in a PFS group where I had a lv 2 fighter with a very high AC but little else going on, someone else had a Bloodrager who was something of a glass cannon. The wizard was made by a kid who let someone who was angry with him pick his spells, and no healer. TPK, and it sucked.

Somewhere in between winning at D&D and TPK, a good time may be had by all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Somewhere in between winning at D&D and TPK, a good time may be had by all.

My definition of winning is surviving the adventure and accomplishing the goal.

What's your definition of winning?


ccs wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

As a GM I've come to the realization that there is one crucial question you must ask each player before they start rolling a character.

--> Do you want a character that is:
A. Powerful/Optimized; or
B. Less Powerful/Optmized, but more central to the story.

Answer A: delegate character creation help to one of your other players with high system mastery;

Answer B: work closely with the player and suggest various "non-mechanical" feats, traits and abilities, including but not limited to several artistry and/or lore skill suggestions (see Unchained).

"A-type" players will feel rewarded when they pull everyone's bacon out of a fire during combats, and "B-type" players will feel rewarded when they properly identify subtle plot clues, take the proper cues and effectively advise and lead the party in the proper direction.

As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.

What's your answer when they say "both"?

I'd add that you can have a character who is optimized, just not optimized for combat.

I recently played a character who was optimized for ferreting out clues, finessing information out of bureaucrats and town guards, and disguising as the janitor or traveling fruit salesman to infiltrate the castle to the show the party what the bailey looks like, which building the princess is being held in, and where the guards are positioned.

That didn't go so well: he was an Arcane Trickster in a Kingmaker Campaign. GM kept saying things like, "but Blood Transcription's an Evil Spell," or "I don't have the game mechanic to describe what you are doing (facilitating mapping the wilderness by using a Commune with Birds spell). Shortly after ruling that Tremorsense negated Concealment from Invisibility, I left the game: the GM clearly didn't have the wherewithal to handle a True Neutral roguish character, and/or couldn't bring himself to make room for one.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Somewhere in between winning at D&D and TPK, a good time may be had by all.

My definition of winning is surviving the adventure and accomplishing the goal.

What's your definition of winning?

There isn't one. It's a joke.

"INFINITY DAMAGE! I WIN AT D&D!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Somewhere in between winning at D&D and TPK, a good time may be had by all.

My definition of winning is surviving the adventure and accomplishing the goal.

What's your definition of winning?

There isn't one. It's a joke.

"INFINITY DAMAGE! I WIN AT D&D!"

Lots of damage is widely considered one of the worst ways to build a character by optimizers.

Damage doesn't equate to success.

You might as well be holding a sign saying "I don't understand optimization".

Dark Archive

One Punch Man


Ashiel wrote:
Damage doesn't equate to success.

No, but often times it does equate to fun. Casting a SoS or SoD spell that takes down an enemy can be very effective. But there's still something incredibly satisfying about scooping up as many d6s as you can in your hands and letting those little guys cascade all over the table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Damage doesn't equate to success.
No, but often times it does equate to fun. Casting a SOS or SoD spell that takes down an enemy can be very effective. But there's still something incredibly satisfying about scooping up as many d6s as you can in your hands and letting those little guys cascade all over the table.

I can accept that. :)

It just continually amuses (and frustrates) me that people seem to equate "MOAR DAKKA" with optimization. Most of the time when I end up with players using these "optimized" builds, they get dismantled really quickly. Because they're not optimized in the slightest.

Kind of like how Fighters actually suck at fighting.


Optimization means the best possible build for a specified criteria. You can optimize for melee damage output, or resilience, or flexibility, or something else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Optimization means the best possible build for a specified criteria. You can optimize for melee damage output, or resilience, or flexibility, or something else.

Sort of? It's close to impossible to 'optimize' for one of those things without actually optimizing all of them. Your damage is useless if you drop in a round or you can't respond to unusual situations, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Optimization means the best possible build for a specified criteria. You can optimize for melee damage output, or resilience, or flexibility, or something else.

Dead characters don't do damage.

EDIT: What Aratrok said. :)

Overspeccing almost always has diminishing returns.


Our group tend to Minmax. Does it work for every group, no. It works for us because we have played for years together and as a result when we make characters we tend to make them that optimize the group in general. We always have one sometimes two Martial classes usually straight fighter. On this point I disagree with Ashiel about fighters sucking. We have a Divine class probably a healer type but not always. If the third player hasn't picked a martial class he might go fighter rogue. The fourth person is also the GM in most cases he picks the utility healer. We usually don't have any Arcane classes in our group having worked without one. In some situations when we face one we take some hits and damage. Half the time we don't use Bluff and Diplomacy preferring we actually role play out some encounters. In these cases the GM usually rolls a D6 for clarification.
No one sucks no one is better or weaker overall. Most cases if we die the encounter was harder then expected and the monster rolled hot. In some cases some encounters are easier then expected even though the monster's CR was higher. Other times an equal CR monster is much tougher then anyone expected. Add some hot die rolls party suffers and maybe one even two people die.
We sometimes design a bad character. This is never intentional it just happens what looks good on paper really doesn't work. We have had players who have created useless characters pretty much informing us he was. We as a group advise against this. We start polite sometimes getting firm to the point of rude. We at some point stop asking why he is because the answer is the same. "Because it's cool." To him maybe but to the rest of us, not at all. No one I know likes playing a character that is completely useless. I'm not talking about say a Rogue not geared for combat kinda thing. I'm talking about a character that sucks even worse then a Commoner NPC of first level. The worst part of these characters is the player because he sucks is going to do everything to make it even worse for the party in every way possible. His excuse being it's what my character would do. In this case it's really not it's more I'm a pissy player and I want to make everyone suffer because I'm a whiny pissy player.
On a separate note I had a character in another system who rushed into combat every chance he got. He did this without tactics at times or an ounce of common sense. He got wounded a lot. He sometimes reacted badly when he shouldn't have. Now in every case my character never really screwed with the party or the adventure. My character suffered for his actions alone. Most of the players loved watching him go finding it rather amusing since I didn't screw up anyone but myself.

The Exchange

I don't think anyone has any right to tell people they must play their character a certain way. If its functional but not optimised, I won't comment unless they ask for advice. If its totally not functional and if he's new, I'll show him the numbers against an equal CR creature and tell him why he might be running into some problems.

If he doesn't listen, then I'll just roll with it. If we get into trouble because of it, then I'll say I told you so.


Optimizing, normally, is optimizing for a particular goal, not to make the absolute best possible character. I might optimize to make the best possible melee character with no spells and no armour who uses a rapier. If that's what I'm trying to do, I'll focus on melee damage, AC, hit points and saving throws, and not worry about being good at archery or able to fly. I'm still optimizing, even if I could have made a Magus or Summoner who can do everything this character can and more, but don't because that's not my concept.

My character concept might also be "obscenely strong character with terrible will save". And I could optimize for that. That's not a very helpful goal, but it's within the bounds of what "optimization" can mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We have had new players make bad characters. We try to help them make them at first suggesting ideas going so far to suggest maybe a different class. Some people are better at some classes. We don't get made at these people.
It's the ones who have played for some time and this is a very bad habit for them to make a character that does nothing for the group except drain resources and drag the group down. The player whose whole goal is to screw with the players and adventures. They are the ones my group has no tolerance for. They are not getting together with us to have fun with us. They are getting together with us to have fun against us and be a jerk.

Sovereign Court

Davor wrote:
What actually bothers me is when someone INSISTS they've made/come up with some super OP combo that OBVIOUSLY is rather tame. I had one guy swearing up and down that Rapid Reload was a super OP feat.

LOL! if it's so OP why do I allow my players to apply it to all crossbows and firearms? (not just one) That feat, while necessary for some builds, is a bit silly. It would fit better as a trait that applies to all crossbows and firearms, let alone a feat that applies to only one type of weapon.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ccs wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

As a GM I've come to the realization that there is one crucial question you must ask each player before they start rolling a character.

--> Do you want a character that is:
A. Powerful/Optimized; or
B. Less Powerful/Optmized, but more central to the story.

Answer A: delegate character creation help to one of your other players with high system mastery;

Answer B: work closely with the player and suggest various "non-mechanical" feats, traits and abilities, including but not limited to several artistry and/or lore skill suggestions (see Unchained).

"A-type" players will feel rewarded when they pull everyone's bacon out of a fire during combats, and "B-type" players will feel rewarded when they properly identify subtle plot clues, take the proper cues and effectively advise and lead the party in the proper direction.

As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.

What's your answer when they say "both"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you maximize your character entirely for combat abilities and your only language is common don't be surprised if your character is treated as accompanying muscle at dinner parties.

Sovereign Court

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ccs wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

As a GM I've come to the realization that there is one crucial question you must ask each player before they start rolling a character.

--> Do you want a character that is:
A. Powerful/Optimized; or
B. Less Powerful/Optmized, but more central to the story.

Answer A: delegate character creation help to one of your other players with high system mastery;

Answer B: work closely with the player and suggest various "non-mechanical" feats, traits and abilities, including but not limited to several artistry and/or lore skill suggestions (see Unchained).

"A-type" players will feel rewarded when they pull everyone's bacon out of a fire during combats, and "B-type" players will feel rewarded when they properly identify subtle plot clues, take the proper cues and effectively advise and lead the party in the proper direction.

As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.

What's your answer when they say "both"?

I'd add that you can have a character who is optimized, just not optimized for combat.

I recently played a character who was optimized for ferreting out clues, finessing information out of bureaucrats and town guards, and disguising as the janitor or traveling fruit salesman to infiltrate the castle to the show the party what the bailey looks like, which building the princess is being held in, and where the guards are positioned.

That didn't go so well: [snipped a bunch of bad calls from Scott's GM]

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience Scott. "Not optimized for combat" is, under my weird and perhaps over-simplistic system, a "B-type character." If it was my game, your character would have had his shining moment at that time. I mean, the perception and sense motive of a guard or officer should allow you to do some fancy work in a regular keep, especially with the skills / build you listed. You might have a challenge if the Watch Captain shows up, but otherwise, you'd be good to go.

I also pay attention to the non-mechanical flavor text of traits and feats. I found that it smooths out game play and helps provide a sense of awareness for a character's skills, both for the GM and the player.

When a bard praises a hero in a song or in a barroom speech, they do not say "And this guy swung with a +3 bonus..." but they hone in on the qualities of the character. The master infiltrator you played should have yielded the party many benefits in most cities and civilized areas...


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ccs wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

As a GM I've come to the realization that there is one crucial question you must ask each player before they start rolling a character.

--> Do you want a character that is:
A. Powerful/Optimized; or
B. Less Powerful/Optmized, but more central to the story.

Answer A: delegate character creation help to one of your other players with high system mastery;

Answer B: work closely with the player and suggest various "non-mechanical" feats, traits and abilities, including but not limited to several artistry and/or lore skill suggestions (see Unchained).

"A-type" players will feel rewarded when they pull everyone's bacon out of a fire during combats, and "B-type" players will feel rewarded when they properly identify subtle plot clues, take the proper cues and effectively advise and lead the party in the proper direction.

As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.

What's your answer when they say "both"?

I'd add that you can have a character who is optimized, just not optimized for combat.

I recently played a character who was optimized for ferreting out clues, finessing information out of bureaucrats and town guards, and disguising as the janitor or traveling fruit salesman to infiltrate the castle to the show the party what the bailey looks like, which building the princess is being held in, and where the guards are positioned.

That didn't go so well: [snipped a bunch of bad calls from Scott's GM]

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience Scott. "Not optimized for combat" is, under my weird and perhaps over-simplistic system, a "B-type character." If it was my game, your character would have had his shining moment at that time. I mean, the perception and sense motive of a guard or officer should allow you to do some fancy work in a regular keep, especially with the skills / build you...

Thank you. It's all right.

The chemistry of your group is important. I was trying out a new group. The chemistry wasn't right. Move on. Live and learn.


Ashiel wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Somewhere in between winning at D&D and TPK, a good time may be had by all.

My definition of winning is surviving the adventure and accomplishing the goal.

What's your definition of winning?

There isn't one. It's a joke.

"INFINITY DAMAGE! I WIN AT D&D!"

Lots of damage is widely considered one of the worst ways to build a character by optimizers.

Damage doesn't equate to success.

You might as well be holding a sign saying "I don't understand optimization".

You do realize I was joking, right?


Ashiel wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Optimization means the best possible build for a specified criteria. You can optimize for melee damage output, or resilience, or flexibility, or something else.

Dead characters don't do damage.

EDIT: What Aratrok said. :)

Overspeccing almost always has diminishing returns.

I think it is fair to say that characters aggressively designed for great strengths tend to also have great weaknesses. I've certainly brought my share of characters to the table that had that problem.

Sovereign Court

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I think it is fair to say that characters aggressively designed for great strengths tend to also have great weaknesses. I've certainly brought my share of characters to the table that had that problem.

I've done that as well, until I realized that "going for a build" was the flaw in my gaming that had to be excised like a bad mole. "Builds" put you on a long, arduous path of non-fun that results in characters that are ineffective or boring for several levels "until you get there".

The main mistake is trying to get there as fast as possible, as weird as it sounds. If a feat can be taken at BAB 11, with 3 or 4 feat prereqs, that should be a big flashing sign. DO NOT TAKE THIS unless the prereq feats are fun and useful in of themselves. If you must take this, don't rush or skip feats that are required NOW. The end of a feat chain is probably better achieved at very high levels anyhow.

The key is to keep things fun the whole way through. Don't try to optimize everything as early as possible. Play whatever you want. If you're 15th level and took a bunch of fun feats and had loads of enjoyment so far and see a new feat with loads of prereqs, just retrain the whole thing. You played with your toys and enjoyed them. Now its time to exchange them for new toys.

(Disclaimer: again, my advice is not applicable to PFS and made with homebrews in mind)


Specialization works if you have a group that does this in mind that someone else will be specialized elsewhere. Specialized as a melee hitter knowing someone else might be a ranged attacker.
Elite military squads are assembled like this. They all have basic training much like any of the classes. Then they as they further train become specialized and focused. The Sniper is meant to be far away and shoot people. Infiltrator is designed to sneak into otherwise impossible places. Demo expert, explosives.
This works as well in Paizo if done right. A group that works well together can cover each others weaknesses while their own weakness is covered. Is the fighter going to be good in a high class social situation, no that is the Rogue's specialty. Is the Arcane caster good at physical combat, no that's the fighters area of expertise. This in this case makes a strong group. They know they are not going to be good at something but someone else will be. This in most cases works for both adventure modules and home grown campaigns.
Now in some modules the setting suggests characters be more focused then specialized. Takes place in a tropical jungle, icy north or sweltering south, or underground. In this case players should if told what to expect should design their characters to at least be useful in those settings. Going to be underground build a character then can or have at all times Darkvision. Tropical jungle have his character not depend or wear heavy stifling armor. Now in some cases a GM in his home campaign will switch gears and screw a party over, happened to me twice. That is not the players fault having a bad character. The GM should allow adjustments for this some do some, like mine said screw you.
Now assuming you have been told what to expect from a home campaign. A complete UnderDark exploration for example. Everyone designs them to have alternate senses so they don't need a light source they function better in underground or darkness. You pick a race that dies without sunlight and can't function at all in underground setting. You are making a character that begs for a monster to kill you. You have now weakened the party because you bring nothing to help them. Above example light sources in the underdark attract a lot of monsters. Mister I need light now is waving a signal flare to every nasty thing in the place saying here we are come kick our asses because I'm an idiot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given that part of the big appeal of the underdark is in fact dealing with the vast darkness, I think acting like players are being spoilsports for playing races that don't easily see in those settings is pretty pedantic. Especially since a number of underdark denizens actually have superior darkvision (such as drow with their 120 ft. darkvision), which means if you don't use light you're probably going to be destroyed even harder.


Ashiel wrote:
Given that part of the big appeal of the underdark is in fact dealing with the vast darkness, I think acting like players are being spoilsports for playing races that don't easily see in those settings is pretty pedantic. Especially since a number of underdark denizens actually have superior darkvision (such as drow with their 120 ft. darkvision), which means if you don't use light you're probably going to be destroyed even harder.

Squaring away your tricks for making sure you know what do do when you are Blinded, in a Darkness you can't dispel, or fighting an Invisible opponent or something is important.


Yeah, the guy who goes into the Underdark without the ability to deal with darkness isn't one of the PC's, he's the bag of bones you find on the road with a journal warning the PC's of imminent danger.

201 to 243 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / A player with poorly made character. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.