|
I think it's mostly going to depend on the player wanting to fit into the group to begin with. The old "don't be a jerk" part of the social contract. It's the same as a caster catching his comrades and bystanders in AoEs without a care. They're @#$%ing where they eat.
That said, no good aligned alchemist(or neutral or evil alchemists that don't want to be hanged) with an INT mod that high should be going without Precise Bombs. That is an absolute must if they want to be accepted within a party.
The alchemist in our party understands that she's throwing around exploding death. She doesn't take throws that could potentially endanger innocents, and Precise Bombs was one of the first things she went for. Being good and actually caring about those around her helped too, admittedly.
Character build - I think min-maxing is a separate issue from the character's behavior, and one that you've missed the best opportunity to correct by allowing the min-maxed character to be played. Once a character has been allowed into the game, it's received the GM's approval, and it's (socially) more difficult to force a change. But, it's not impossible! If the other four players build under a set of guidelines that the new player didn't obey, you could ask that the new character be modified to fit those guidelines.
Alignment - What is the alchemist's alignment, and the alignment of the other four party members? If everyone is neutral-evil, then they're getting just what they asked to play. On the other hand, it would be very difficult for either a lawful or a good character to behave that way and not undergo an alignment shift, attract the attention of the authorities or other heroes, etc.
Story cohesion - Why are the First Four willing to travel with that jerk? (I mean the First Four characters, and the jerky alchemist - not the players.) There must be some reason why he was allowed to start traveling with them, right? Is it a good enough reason that they would continue to have him around after he starts melting their faces and killing their mounts? You could help the players tell a story where either the alchemist 1) has a change of heart and behaves civilly, 2) leaves the party, 3) gets killed.
Great replies so far - you're in good hands here. ^__^
I agree that the min/maxing is mostly a separate issue. I think it boils down to whether or not it bothers you - if you can just ignore it at this point, that's probably the best solution.
I'm usually only bothered by min/maxing stats when players don't properly roleplay their stats. A friend of mine made a female fighter with a 20 Strength at level 1, and described her as "slender and petite". In response, I sent him a link to a google image search of female bodybuilders, and the phrase "Strength 14 or less", and told him to take his pick.
As for the player being a dick.. sounds to me like he's being a dick. It doesn't really matter if he's being a dick as an alchemist, or a paladin, or a wizard or whatever - dickery is dickery. In these matters I suggest talking to the other players first, when he isn't around, to ask them how they feel about the 5th wheel. If they really are upset, something needs to be done; if not, you have to decide on your own whether you are upset.
If anyone is upset, the player needs to be spoken to in private. Explain to him that the way things are working.. isn't. Try not to make it a confrontation where you heap blame on him - instead, make it more about asking him for help in making the game work for everyone. Because really, that's what you're trying to accomplish. If you can't work out a solution, he probably doesn't belong at your table.
There! I made it through that whole response without making a joke about party cohesion via tanglefoot bags.
It seems like the other players have not really addressed the situation in character yet.
If their characters discuss the subject with the Alchemist but he refuses to change, or says he will but continues his ways, most people would not just let it go on. Peacefully ejecting the character from the adventuring group as a danger to all, or violently dealing with the Alchemist if he causes further trouble, seem within expectations for what a group of competent and violent adventurers would do in this situation.
The other players may feel inhibited to respond like that in-game.ç
If the PCs start fighting alongside NPCs allied for a specific mission, those NPCs shouldn`t have any reason to not respond normally when they are purposefully being put in danger after warnings against a dangerous tactic.
Has anybody laughed out loud at this `not a min-maxer` utterly min-maxed character build?
Have you thrown any STR drain effects at the Alchemist / the party?
7 STR really does not give alot of lee-way before hitting 0 STR.
(not that this should be a punishment vs. the player`s actions, but this is really not that un-common, esp. via poision and undead, and ANY character with a 7 STR should be dead scared of STR drain)
You don't even need 0 strength. 1-2 strength and most alchemist will be unable to move from all their gear. 3-4 and any alchemist that is using armor is helpless. One RoE and they are toast.
Uhm.. in Pathfinder, Str damage does not reduce carrying capacity. It probably should for reasons of logical consistency, but it does not. Str, and other ability damage, apply penalties to CHECKS based on the ability score, but some "peripheral" abilities (such as carrying capacity for Str) are not affected. The same holds for bonuses; Bull's Strength gives you bonuses to checks, but not carrying capacity. Hence the need for the Ant Haul spell in the APG.
|
You don't even need 0 strength. 1-2 strength and most alchemist will be unable to move from all their gear. 3-4 and any alchemist that is using armor is helpless. One RoE and they are toast.Uhm.. in Pathfinder, Str damage does not reduce carrying capacity. It probably should for reasons of logical consistency, but it does not. Str, and other ability damage, apply penalties to CHECKS based on the ability score, but some "peripheral" abilities (such as carrying capacity for Str) are not affected. The same holds for bonuses; Bull's Strength gives you bonuses to checks, but not carrying capacity. Hence the need for the Ant Haul spell in the APG.
Humm...well I'll be. Okay something else to get houseruled.
|
You don't even need 0 strength. 1-2 strength and most alchemist will be unable to move from all their gear. 3-4 and any alchemist that is using armor is helpless. One RoE and they are toast.Uhm.. in Pathfinder, Str damage does not reduce carrying capacity. It probably should for reasons of logical consistency, but it does not. Str, and other ability damage, apply penalties to CHECKS based on the ability score, but some "peripheral" abilities (such as carrying capacity for Str) are not affected. The same holds for bonuses; Bull's Strength gives you bonuses to checks, but not carrying capacity. Hence the need for the Ant Haul spell in the APG.
Well I'll be damned, you're right. That's really weird.
Well I'll be damned, you're right. That's really weird.
I am assuming it is in order to make Pathfinder more "fun" as a game. The double-whammy of losing your bonuses AND having your equipment give you penalties due to weight can lead to a TPK pretty quickly.
My friend,
Does the Alchemist's player giggle with glee when he torches other PCs or even non-combatant NPCs? Yes=Boot.
I get the feeling that before his arrival you had a group that had a great time playing. Now, it's "I wonder when Mr K-Boom is gunna kill us this time..." grumbling. I also get the feeling that *character* is very important to you. (I think character/story is *very* important, but at the same time I hate seeing gimped, or useless characters...) If the first move the New Guy made is to make you uneasy about his build that is a flag. If his modus operandi is to nuke regardless of fratricide... it's almost as if he is daring you to intervene.
DM Intervention sucks. Our job as GM is to referee, give situations and most of all ensure that play flows. When the DM has to step in and 'correct' behavior it means that the GM/Group/Individual are not on the same page. Compromising some to get to the same page is a good thing, but not so much that anyone has a bad time playing. I recently had the displeasure of booting one of our players for being deliberatley disruptive: swinging a sword into a grapple; being beligerent to the local Wizard's Guild, and finally picking a fight with the clerk at the courthouse. That player was upset, but the rest of the group all but cheered. Since then our game has gotten a billion times better.
Interesting note that a reduced STR doesn't reduce the encumbrance limits! I did not know that; I made the logical conclusion that low STR = Low Carry; High STR = High Carry. Regardless, a lvl4 Caster hitting with a RoE is going to have a 1/3 chance to make his PC unconcious. (I geuss that means the alchemist has a carry capacity of zero ;) ). Or, simply *force* his CHA 7 into the limelight. Force him to interact: Bartender says, "No ale for the Elf/Dwarf love child!" After all, why would people in a fantasy world be *nice* to ugly people? Think back to how cruel people can be when they are given someone to target. Dump stats are not for making your character more powerful: they are for making them more vulnerable. Imagine how crappy it would be if the most powerful cleric in town was a vain Calistrian? "I don't heal ugly."
In any event, best of luck. It may be that the player is redeemable, or you may have to be a Dick DM. Better to sacrifice tension creators than the group itself.
GNOME