RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think he needs to read different books. :P
Take this with a grain of salt since obviously I'm not there, but it sounds like his peculiar roleplaying choices and builds are a symptom, not the root issue. He seems to be obsessed with a certain character type, or else with the notion of defying expectations. Sounds like he desperately wants to be "edgy" in some way.
One thing you might do (if you're the GM) is have everyone draw their backstories out of a hat. (You could write the options yourself, or get contributions from all the players.) Once everyone has a random backstory, they have to make a character to fit.
This way, he has to try something new but doesn't feel picked on. And if someone else draws the backstory he writes, then he might be enlightened by seeing a different way of playing it.
Good luck!
|
I am not sure dictating how someone should play or what character they should run is really constructive. However, if these choices are intentionally disruptive and taking away from the enjoyment of the game for the other players, then the GM or the group should voice their concerns.
If the player's choices only annoy you, well that might not be grounds enough to tell him to change. I would not even approach this player unless my concerns were genuinely for the benefit of the group and not just serving my own desires. Sure someone in your group does not keep to character all the time or plays a build you know could be better, but that is their decision.
Try to guide the player, but do not persecute him for his choices. If he is going to make an action in game that could be potentially bad, intervene with advice either as a player or in character. How do the rest of the group view this player?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does this disrupt things for the other players?
Call me crazy, but I'm going to venture a guess that having a party member cast Inflict spells on random innocent NPCs and then spout emo philosophy to justify it might be disruptive for the other players.
Sounds like he enjoys disruption. Ask your other players how they feel about his antics. You can do this after the session or you can host a meeting by other means (I find face-to-face to be the best). If they enjoy his silliness, then you have found something that makes your players happy. I would find a way for him to express his inner child every once in a while that won't mess with the story, perhaps adding in a situation not in the AP. If they feel the same way that you do, take him aside and tell him straight up that you find his antics too disrupting. He can agree to tone it down a bit, or he can stop coming to meetings, its his choice.
As to a build for him, if your other players don't mind his attitude, make sure he puts points in the social skills (diplomacy, sense motive, bluff, etc) and let him be the face of the party. I would say get him to hire a cohort (full pay of course) to take up his 'useless' slot in battle. Don't tell him he fills a useless slot of course, that is simply bad form.
|
Does he enjoy himself playing these characters, or does it frustrate him?
Does this disrupt things for the other players?
Kingpin has it right. If he's enjoying himself and he is not actually hindering the other players in combat, let him play the way he will. If his style of play hinders the other party members to the point they actually voice a concern, kill the character. Don't be overt about it, but their are plenty of ways to do it to make it apart of the game play. A way that makes it really difficult to resurect works best. Then ask to review his new character concepts before bringing him back in. Tell him it is to make sure he'd still fit into the story. Offer suggestions that will improve his existing designs. Don't completely void his attempts, but suggest and explain your improvements. I'm not saying rewrite the character, but offer the suggestions that will help his character more in combat.
Again, these suggestions are ONLY if the other players complain. If no one raises a voice, then they are all okay with it, and you just need to accept that this is the way it's supposed to be. Most people will tend to self correct given the right kinds of encouragment, be it positive or negative. If his in effectual characters continue to die in combat, he's going to seek ways to improve so that it doesn't continue.|
|
Kill the character.
Depends, is the OP the GM?
If he is a player, this would just open a can of worms that would probably result in even more internal conflict, not just between characters, but the players as well. Killing his character repeatedly would serve no other purpose than to make that player more defensive and probably encourage him to retaliate in kind.
Still, DA has a point. The world around this character should push back if he is making mightily bad decisions. Casting an inflict spell with such a flimsy motivation should result in the law coming down hard on this guy. May be even a few patrons who have some interest in the actress might work on bringing retribution down on this character!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kill the character.
lather, rinse, repeat, until he starts learning to make a halfway competent build out of sheer self preservation.
As far as idiotic actions in character... have the world respond to them the way they actually would. He cast an inflict spell on someone to try and get their attention? Have them refuse to be in a room alone with him, or try to tell the local authorities. Maybe they turn the tables and stab him when he's unprepared (or sleeping).
Certainly don't give him what he is hoping for, as far as her reaction.
maybe go halfway. don't compensate your encounters for his low-tier abilities, then let him die if the dice say so. eventually either he'll up his character's optimisation to a survivable level, or the rest of the group can take cover behind the pile of his dead bards.
Kill the character.
lather, rinse, repeat, until he starts learning to make a halfway competent build out of sheer self preservation.
This doesn't work.
I've GMed for this player and have killed his characters a total of 11 times in the same campaign. Without going out of my way to do so.
Eleven times.
It was at the point where the two surviving characters from the beginning would give his characters numbers, instead of names.
"Oh, there's another one. Taking bets here."
Kill the character.
lather, rinse, repeat, until he starts learning to make a halfway competent build out of sheer self preservation.
This doesn't work.
I've GMed for this player and have killed his characters a total of 11 times in the same campaign. Without going out of my way to do so.
Eleven times.
What was the penalty for dying? Did he make another PC of the same level?
|
|
He tried to make a polyamourous paladin, which I thought was a neat concept, but ended up crashing and burning with it (becoming, once again, unlikeable). The hat drawing sounds like a fantastic idea and I might give it a shot when Skull and Shackles comes out.
I played with a guy like this back at uni. No matter the concept, his characters eventually evolved back into the same selfish, anti-social outsiders because the player had no way to deal with issues in a mature fashion.
One way to help with concepts and to work out strong links between the characters is to devote one session to character creation as a team effort. Use a character creation structure similar to Spirit of the Century, where the process guides you to have definite links between the characters.
If you have a collaborative session, you might be able to guide him and help him make some neat choices. With a good foundation for his character, and links to the other PCs, he might get a better insight into how to play within the group. Still, he will probably make unfortunate choices as you mentioned above...
What was the penalty for dying? Did he make another PC of the same level?Kill the character.
lather, rinse, repeat, until he starts learning to make a halfway competent build out of sheer self preservation.
This doesn't work.
I've GMed for this player and have killed his characters a total of 11 times in the same campaign. Without going out of my way to do so.
Eleven times.
One level under the rest of the group depending on how close they were to leveling. I started letting him craft new characters at the same level, just to see if it would improve his chances of survival, and to keep party level around the same for encounters to not penalize everyone else.
Nope! Dead again!
One level under the rest of the group depending on how close they were to leveling. I started letting him craft new characters at the same level, just to see if it would improve his chances of survival, and to keep party level around the same for encounters to not penalize everyone else.
Nope! Dead again!
1. Lessening the penalty for dying does not make him want to die less. In fact it may be that, since he comes back at the same level, he has an incentive to die if he fancies another build. I would suggest something similar old D&D rules. He re-rolls two levels lower every time he dies. This way he either learns how to not die, or simply fades into obscurity.
2. Is he just throwing himself into the danger zone? Or is it just bad luck?
|
|
I would recommend trying something more structured when it comes to character creation time then. The GM can monitor the builds being created (removing, hopefully, the element of being biased against this player) and everyone can offer input.
Listen to his suggestions as well. Limit his chances of claiming that everyone is forcing him to play their way and not allowing him to play his way. Play up on the collaborative effort side of the character creation process and building of the group. May be have the other players choose his more typical roles as well. This might guide him to play something more 'group friendly'.
I hope he had at least one Catfolk character.
This doesn't work.I've GMed for this player and have killed his characters a total of 11 times in the same campaign. Without going out of my way to do so.
Eleven times.
Alas, no.
I have, however, developed a reputation as a tough DM thanks to PCs going "squirk". Usually after doing pretty silly things.
His first death involved putting himself in harms way against a giant crocodile. As a warmage (3.5). His last words were "This is a really stupid idea but..."
The most memorable, in a sad sort of way, involved him playing a shadowcaster (3.5 Tome of Magic). He has the time to use one ability, I believe it was shadow arrow or something like that (2d4 nonlethal ranged touch), and missed. He was then hit with a fireball in the boss fight, had no Reflex save to speak of, and failed it. I rolled below average, tallied up the damage, and he informed me his character was incinerated. Apparently, having 20 hp at level 7 is not a problem. At all! (He was grazed for ~7 damage the last fight and didn't bother to heal up). 9d6 damage fireball doing ~28 or so totally mulched him.
It just got worse from there. He played the disintegrate game with a higher level evoker. Got into a fist fight with a death knight... as a cleric with 8 Strength and 10 Constitution... "Don't worry guys! I'll cure him to death!"
Things like that.
His characters always die and he always gets so worked up about it, he's always complaining about combat and always blames the character class or archetype or comes up with a reason to blame the DM (Which is either me, or ThatEvilGuy).
Next time this happens and he blames the build, declare "Teachable Moment!" and explain to him where his build wasn't very helpful and remind him when he ignored your (and other players') advice. Maybe something will start to work its way into his thick skull.
1. Lessening the penalty for dying does not make him want to die less. In fact it may be that, since he comes back at the same level, he has an incentive to die if he fancies another build. I would suggest something similar old D&D rules. He re-rolls two levels lower every time he dies. This way he either learns how to not die, or simply fades into obscurity.
This is true but when you're playing in a group of four players, having one be two levels below the party really starts to penalize the other players, instead of the one who is acting like an idiot. When we started playing together I went from a roleplay concept character builder to a minmaxer, just to help with the slack. It's not so bad when we had eight players in one group, but as people had to drop out for various reasons, things became more, and more, desperate for the PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
have you considered the clue-by-four? a very helpful tool for getting your point through to those of the thick-skulled variety.
This is true but when you're playing in a group of four players, having one be two levels below the party really starts to penalize the other players, instead of the one who is acting like an idiot. When we started playing together I went from a roleplay concept character builder to a minmaxer, just to help with the slack. It's not so bad when we had eight players in one group, but as people had to drop out for various reasons, things became more, and more, desperate for the PCs.
How is it that the guy who keeps dying is central to keeping the players on top of their game? Is he the tragic tank?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just kill him.
If you really are against it, just keep killing its PCs.
I have a player who has this nasty habit of making characters based around a concept or a character that he likes, which is good, but the problem is that they totally and completely suck at combat. And he gets so hung up on roleplaying this concept/character, but ultimately plays all of his characters like egotistical know-it-alls. They're all the same huffy, narcissists with extremely bad builds and I'd like to help him find a way to break through either side of this dilemma, but am at a loss. His barbarians have 18 intelligence, his druids have combat spells but have 11 STR ( but thank the gods that he has 12 CHA and 14 INT), his Spellcasters have 15 STR and 8 CON, etc, etc,etc. The feat choices are bad or nonsensical and he couldn't pick a good ability (one that fit the campaign or was useful often) to save his life. His current character, this druid named Sage, was based off of a DC comics character called The Question. Apparently that's his reason for gimping himself and taking a bad archetype and domain (We're playing Council of Thieves, he's playing an urban druid with the Death domain because he worships Pharasma). He's not much like this character that he's described at all. He cast an inflict spell on the pretty actress because he assumed that she didn't know what pain was and wanted to make sure she was ready for The Six Trials of Larazhod. Apparently, she was supposed to swoon for him after being a few scant points above zero hp. Ummm... help?
Just let the consequences of his actions meet him. If he goes around casting inflict spells on people, he will be locked up. If he goes around playing characters who aren't capable of doing what they are meant to do, then let them die. You shouldn't be adventuring if adventuring is too tough. There's lots of adventurers that don't make it, and that's why adventuring has a rough reputation and not everyone is trying to do it.
Approaching this from another angle, discuss the difference between Fluff and Mechanics. Does his Barbarian need an 18 Intelligence to represent how smart he supposedly is? Could he have chosen a different class and roleplayed him the same way (a barbarian could be a savage or a samurai for example)?
What a number of my players do is come up with a concept and then we discuss mechanically the best way to emulate that concept. For example, a friend of mine who isn't very good at making characters himself due to inexperience wanted a "Rurouni Kenshin" samurai. Wandering swordsman type who wears little armor, was really fast, and could deliver devastating surprise blows even in the midst of combat with his katana.
After examining the key points, we settled on Barbarian 1 / Rogue 3 / Fighter X, and gave him the Cloak Dance feat which allowed him to gain concealment in combat and thus use Stealth to seemingly vanish from sight, which emulated his ability to move so quickly that your senses couldn't follow him correctly. Sneak attack represented his Iaijutsu surprise strikes.
So we ended up with a warrior with HD-1 BAB, 40 ft speed, good athletic abilities, who seemingly vanished before appearing next to people to slap them silly with +2d6 sneak attack strikes.
Finally, if nothing else will work, see if you can use your own Opt-Fu to try and help him salvage something he has mangled up. I had a player who was trying to "organically" level his character, so he never had any idea how his character was going to level until leveling time came, and he would pick classes and such as things went along. By the time we were reaching the end up the Red Hand of Doom, he was a wizard 1 / cleric 2 / rogue 7 / ranger 2 / assassin 2, and he was seriously complaining that his character was completely irrelevant. So I showed him how to use all that garbage to his advantage, how to take advantage of essentially being able to freely spell-trigger most anything, and so on and so forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you talked to him about this? How did the conversation go?
Because you need to have a discussion with him no matter what, that's the only way that's going to get anywhere.
And while I hope this doesn't happen, a valid outcome of the conversation is, "I'm sorry, but as you refuse to change, and your play style does not work with my group, I'm going to have to ask you to leave." This is a damned hard thing to do, but it may be necessary if you can't talk him into trying some new builds and giving him feedback about his poor roleplaying decisions.
If he is willing to listen to reason, and be willing to work with some new ideas, a few thoughts:
1. For his next character, have him write up his character concept for you. He can make it as detailed as he likes. But it's just a concept write up in prose, NO character sheet. Then you or a player both you and he trusts makes the character based on the concept he designed. Make sure whoever designs the character sheet shows him explicitly how the character designed reflects his concept--but also has some good basic abilities built into the character to help him survive.
2. If everyone can get on board with this: for a new campaign, make pre-gens for the entire party. Create a wide variety, and let them pick which pre-gen they want, but everyone has to play a pre-gen. They can level the character as they like once they start playing, but can't change the build as handed to them. This way he can pick a character but you know it will be well built---and because everyone is doing the same thing, he won't feel singled out.
We actually did something like this in one of my gaming groups. A lot of us had a tendency to play the same character type over and over again. We were good at tactics and stuff, but we weren't going very much outside the box with concepts. So our GM worked with me (we were roommates at the time) to come up with some out of the box builds. I wrote the character backgrounds and he wrote the builds, and everyone picked one. I think the best success was getting the guy who often played the tragic "but what is the meaning of life?" action girl (think a lot of the mysterious female characters in shounen and seinen anime) to play a surly dwarf fighter instead, which he did a tremendously good job with. (I played a paladin, which I never play the golden hero tank type.) It was really fun.
Once he gets a feel for how a well-built character works he might get the hang of it. It may be a case of he just needs some good examples to experience directly.
However, if he's just building poorly to be a drama queen and refuses to cooperate--remind him this IS a cooperative game--then he just might not be worth your and the rest of the group's time.
It sounds like he's a drama queen who should deal with his emotional need for attention before sitting down at the game table. He either needs daddy to hug him more or hug him less. Either way, this hobby attracts way too many people like that.
I do say kick him. Just that.
I have lots of friends that i not invite anymore in my games. And everyone understands that's the better solution.
You could optimize his character idea, and have the party run into four of them. After everyone gets it handed to them, have the discussion about how mechanics and role-playing are not opposites.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
wait the question as a a druid? how about the question as a bard detective that makes way more sense?
I tend to make characters like his in fact I chuckled a bit while reading this thread the key is balance if you show him 3 ways to make his concept playable and doable he will thank you for it. if I said on the forums "I want to make batman" I would get 100 different opinions i say monk/rogue with a level of alchemist.
the key is to help him honestly and penalize him for in game suicide if he dies he doesn't start out at level 5 he starts out at level 3 and he cant take any of his old gear it goes home to the family that gives him incentive, also give him a moment let him be the star for one part of the campaign and reward him with more "me" time if he manages to not blow it. remember he is not wired like you and has a different goal
"don't worry i will cure him to death" makes me chuckle
|
What a number of my players do is come up with a concept and then we discuss mechanically the best way to emulate that concept. For example, a friend of mine who isn't very good at making characters himself due to inexperience wanted a "Rurouni Kenshin" samurai. Wandering swordsman type who wears little armor, was really fast, and could deliver devastating surprise blows even in the midst of combat with his katana.
I enjoy reading your posts, Ashiel, and just wanted to say that's a very cool Kenshin build. I just pulled out my manga after my move and started rereading them again yesterday (in the original Japanese, of course. Yes, I'm that nerd!), and I love fast and smart melee characters, so this just struck me, and I had to call it out.
Kudos! :)
|
|
It sounds like he's a drama queen who should deal with his emotional need for attention before sitting down at the game table. He either needs daddy to hug him more or hug him less. Either way, this hobby attracts way too many people like that.
Honestly, I think it's more that the nature of the game makes these issues a more pressing problem for those in the hobby than anything. When you have an issue, roleplaying can very easily bring that issue out for everyone else to see too. It's much easier to avoid revealing many of these things while playing bridge or softball.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you talked to him about this? How did the conversation go?
Because you need to have a discussion with him no matter what, that's the only way that's going to get anywhere...
You have to start with this.
From your descriptions, I'm very much afraid it is more of a maturity/emotional issue that you will not be able to resolve.
But try to work it out with him. Following are the 2 ideas I like best out of every thing above.
...One way to help with concepts and to work out strong links between the characters is to devote one session to character creation as a team effort...If you have a collaborative session, you might be able to guide him and help him make some neat choices. With a good foundation for his character, and links to the other PCs, he might get a better insight into how to play within the group...
...For his next character, have him write up his character concept for you. He can make it as detailed as he likes. But it's just a concept write up in prose, NO character sheet. Then you or a player both you and he trusts makes the character based on the concept he designed. Make sure whoever designs the character sheet shows him explicitly how the character designed reflects his concept--but also has some good basic abilities built into the character to help him survive...
The only other thing I have used it a sort of house/campaign rule.
At the start of a campaign I told them:"First, this is a very social campaign. It is isential to the world I've build. Everyone has to be able to deal with people outside the group in at least fairly manner. So no compulsive liars, no one who can't deal with authority, no one who tries to kill every cleric he meets, no CN insaniacs, etc...
Second, each player is required to find a reason his character can and will work WITH the other characters in the group. If 2 of you can't resolve your differences (paladin and assassin) then you both make different characters. So you can't play a hermit with tourette's syndrom, etc..."
It sounds like he's a drama queen who should deal with his emotional need for attention before sitting down at the game table. He either needs daddy to hug him more or hug him less. Either way, this hobby attracts way too many people like that.Honestly, I think it's more that the nature of the game makes these issues a more pressing problem for those in the hobby than anything. When you have an issue, roleplaying can very easily bring that issue out for everyone else to see to. It's much easier to avoid revealing many of these things while playing bridge or softball.
That'd be an interesting social study. Since this isn't exactly a mainstream hobby, does it attract the socially awkward more, or does it just expose the socially awkward tendencies in everyone? /philosophy
I'd have the other guys in the party talk with him about what he'd like to play and take that in consideration, then make the guys roll up a character for him (either based on that conversation or not). At any point during the game I'd let the other players pipe up and change poor decisions (be them combat or role play) to a new decision.
Eventually he can begin to take that as sort of a training system on how not to suck, or he will become frustrated and leave, leaving the party with a really good NPC!
I enjoy reading your posts, Ashiel,
Thank you. I enjoy your posts too Jess. ^-^
and just wanted to say that's a very cool Kenshin build.
Thanks again. The player was very happy with it, and the Stealthing in combat using Cloak Dance really emulated the aspect of people suddenly losing track of where he was with their eyes, only to get a sword upside the noggin' a round or so later. :P
I just pulled out my manga after my move and started rereading them again yesterday (in the original Japanese, of course. Yes, I'm that nerd!), and I love fast and smart melee characters, so this just struck me, and I had to call it out.
Heh, Rurouni Kenshin is awesome, and I think it's really cool that you can read it in Japanese. Nerdtastic in the best degree! :D
Kudos! :)
どうもありがとうございました ^-^
I had a somewhat similar player in my group for a very long time. He had the habit of creating characters by just throwing every idea that currently struck his fancy into a ball and rolling with that, or else chasing high-concept ideas in ways that weren't at all mechanically sound. He had a pretty good sense of humor about it, but would get a little frustrated when his characters underperformed or performed differently than he wanted. (For example, wishing to play his character as a primary spellcaster, but taking half his levels in a class he had no interest in playing as to qualify for a flavor ability.)
The "get someone with greater system mastery to help the player realize his vision in a way that will also make him pleased with the way it plays" idea worked like a charm. His next two characters not only were able to contribute better to the group, they were way better at the things the player wanted them to be good at. The discussion process also helped the player shave some of the rough or unnecessary edges off of his concepts, resulting in characters that felt more coherent flavorfully, and less like the result of trying to make a character that incorporated a bunch of random character options.
Another thing worth trying to emphasize to similar players is this: Not every single thing about your character needs to be represented mechanically, and abilities chosen mostly for flavor don't need to go all the way to eleven. A character with a few ranks in perform is good enough at it to stand out; a character doesn't have to max their perform ranks and take skill focus and a trait just because they "like to sing". A barbarian with 13 Int is not only one of the smartest barbarians you'll ever meet, he's smarter than most humans, and smarter than most heroes. You don't need to go all the way to 18 Int to be "smart". There's nothing wrong with putting points and things into flavor abilities, but a character that's already struggling to be a certain concept can only be stretched in so many directions.
Another related phenomenon is sort of the "I have to take costly character option X because that's my story". At one point I talked a player down from Sorcerer 4/Wizard 3/Cleric 1, convincing him that "sorcerer who also studies magic" could be served just fine with straight sorcerer and that it wasn't necessary to actually have cleric levels in order to be a champion of the god of magic. He ended up playing the character as just a Sorcerer 8, and I'm pretty confident that the character's story and personality turned out exactly the same, but the player had a lot more fun because he actually had level-appropriate skill in magic instead of just having every level 0 spell in the game.
|
|
I enjoy reading your posts, Ashiel,Thank you. I enjoy your posts too Jess. ^-^
and just wanted to say that's a very cool Kenshin build.Thanks again. The player was very happy with it, and the Stealthing in combat using Cloak Dance really emulated the aspect of people suddenly losing track of where he was with their eyes, only to get a sword upside the noggin' a round or so later. :P
I just pulled out my manga after my move and started rereading them again yesterday (in the original Japanese, of course. Yes, I'm that nerd!), and I love fast and smart melee characters, so this just struck me, and I had to call it out.Heh, Rurouni Kenshin is awesome, and I think it's really cool that you can read it in Japanese. Nerdtastic in the best degree! :D
Kudos! :)どうもありがとうございました ^-^
どういたしまして。
Comics were a great way to learn Japanese - they provide the furigana so I can sound out the kanji and look them up SO MUCH EASIER in the dictionary, and the visuals provide a lot more clues to meaning than you have just reading or listening. While I lived in Japan I would read Inuyasha, and then watch the cartoon as it came out, and the two mediums really helped me learn more Japanese in a rather organic manner. Watching TV would help my listening skills, and seeing action drawn out instead of implied by comics panels, as well as hearing good voice delivery with emotions helped add a lot of context. The slower pace of reading allowed looking up of unfamiliar vocabulary and or course reading comprehension.
Of course, learning how to yell "I'm gonna kill you!" or "half-demon" is of limited usefulness in everyday life, but...
Back to on topic....
I like Death Quaker's suggestion that everyone try a different back story than what they're comfortable with. To take some pressure off, I suggest you consider a shorter game than a full AP (maybe a few modules strung together...) so it's less intimidating, but if everyone tries something totally different from past characters, it can really open everyone's horizons a bit (even those you don't think have a problem may be in something of a rut and find this super fun). I have tried to push myself farther in characters lately. Some I enjoyed more than others, but the best thing is it opened my eyes to the sameness of my characters in some respects, and improved my ability to look for alternatives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player who has this nasty habit of making characters based around a concept or a character that he likes, which is good, but the problem is that they totally and completely suck at combat. And he gets so hung up on roleplaying this concept/character, but ultimately plays all of his characters like egotistical know-it-alls. They're all the same huffy, narcissists with extremely bad builds and I'd like to help him find a way to break through either side of this dilemma, but am at a loss. His barbarians have 18 intelligence, his druids have combat spells but have 11 STR ( but thank the gods that he has 12 CHA and 14 INT), his Spellcasters have 15 STR and 8 CON, etc, etc,etc. The feat choices are bad or nonsensical and he couldn't pick a good ability (one that fit the campaign or was useful often) to save his life. His current character, this druid named Sage, was based off of a DC comics character called The Question. Apparently that's his reason for gimping himself and taking a bad archetype and domain (We're playing Council of Thieves, he's playing an urban druid with the Death domain because he worships Pharasma). He's not much like this character that he's described at all. He cast an inflict spell on the pretty actress because he assumed that she didn't know what pain was and wanted to make sure she was ready for The Six Trials of Larazhod. Apparently, she was supposed to swoon for him after being a few scant points above zero hp. Ummm... help?
I would ask him to build the concept, and make it viable. I have a player that does this also. I ask what about when you get to level X, and you need to deal with ______. Normally the questions allow him to keep the concept, but not become the BMX bandit.
I have a player who has this nasty habit of making characters based around a concept or a character that he likes, which is good, but the problem is that they totally and completely suck at combat. And he gets so hung up on roleplaying this concept/character, but ultimately plays all of his characters like egotistical know-it-alls. They're all the same huffy, narcissists with extremely bad builds and I'd like to help him find a way to break through either side of this dilemma, but am at a loss. His barbarians have 18 intelligence, his druids have combat spells but have 11 STR ( but thank the gods that he has 12 CHA and 14 INT), his Spellcasters have 15 STR and 8 CON, etc, etc,etc. The feat choices are bad or nonsensical and he couldn't pick a good ability (one that fit the campaign or was useful often) to save his life. His current character, this druid named Sage, was based off of a DC comics character called The Question. Apparently that's his reason for gimping himself and taking a bad archetype and domain (We're playing Council of Thieves, he's playing an urban druid with the Death domain because he worships Pharasma). He's not much like this character that he's described at all. He cast an inflict spell on the pretty actress because he assumed that she didn't know what pain was and wanted to make sure she was ready for The Six Trials of Larazhod. Apparently, she was supposed to swoon for him after being a few scant points above zero hp. Ummm... help?I would ask him to build the concept, and make it viable. I have a player that does this also. I ask what about when you get to level X, and you need to deal with ______. Normally the questions allow him to keep the concept, but not become the BMX bandit.
This made me "lol". Now I want to watch that again. XD
|
|
どうもありがとうございました ^-^Ashiel now I'm sitting here trying to picture the past tense for thank you in english and I'm coming up with nothing O.o
Edit: though I might be incorrect here its been 4 years since my last japanese lesson.
