Others see it as gimping your character, but I see it as making a memorable character.
Example:
A cleric with a low Charisma
A fighter that's charming
A druid that hates animals
etc...
A luckily there are archtypes that allow us to do that. My question to you is creating a character like this that obviously isn't taking advantage of a class feature or optimizing, necessarily gimping your character?
Others see it as gimping your character, but I see it as making a memorable character.
Example:
A cleric with a low Charisma
A fighter that's charming
A druid that hates animals
etc...A luckily there are archtypes that allow us to do that. My question to you is creating a character like this that obviously isn't taking advantage of a class feature or optimizing, necessarily gimping your character?
If he can not reasonably do what what the party would expect him to do he is gimped. I will put it this way. If your character dies, and the party does not experience any drop off in effectiveness that might be when you want to look at your character.
A fighter can be charming and still fight depending on what you mean by charming. A cleric does not need a high charisma especially if he does not plan to use selective channel or channel a lot.
A druid can hate animals. He does not have to use summon animal spells or have a companion. If he is well played he should still be able to perform.
Again it depends on the home campaign. Maybe the only purpose he needs to serve is his desire to play contrary characters. IT's the OP's problem to worry about how the other players feel about it. That's not our concern in directly answering his question.
If he can not reasonably do what what the party would expect him to do he is gimped. I will put it this way. If your character dies, and the party does not experience any drop off in effectiveness that might be when you want to look at your character.
He did ask was it gimped and it is a factor.
Conceptually none of them are gimped. It really depends on how he uses the mechanics that will determine that.I am assuming he wants to do the concepts without his group getting upset, OOC.
Being gimped just like being OP varies from group to group though so we do agree that in the end he will have to talk to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a line between making a character interesting and fun to play, and making a character who cannot contribute effectively to the group.
Just last week my group met to generate characters for a brand new campaign. One player, probably the most interesting role-player of the group, had this great idea: Reverend Billy, a con-man who basically embodies everything we make fun of when we see a televangelist spouting off platitudes on TV. The initial concept was that he convinces people he's a cleric, laying hands on them and speaking in tongues, seemingly healing them, but in reality the character has no magic at all; he's just a faith healer tricking the people into feeling better for a while through their own gullibility.
He initially asked if there were a way to make this guy as an oracle with no spells.
I said "Fine, that's cool. But what will the good reverend do for the adventuring party? He can't fake-heal them forever. They'll be onto him before anyone reaches 2nd level and they will kill him or kick him out of the group and replace him with a character who will actually contribute to their survival."
Oddly enough, the player hadn't really thought about that. He was so in love with the concept that he hadn't considered the ramifications of an adventuring group who had to rely on Rev. Billy to carry his share of the adventure.
We worked on it for a while and he has settled on a Bard/Archaeologist who actually does have spells, a great charisma, can be a "face" character as well as providing support magic and even trapfinding and other bardly/rogueish abilities as well as passably fight.
He started on the wrong side of the line - a fun concept but too gimped to contribute to the game, and ended up on the right side of the line with the same concept AND the ability to contribute.
I said "Fine, that's cool. But what will the good reverend do for the adventuring party? He can't fake-heal them forever. They'll be onto him before anyone reaches 2nd level and they will kill him or kick him out of the group and replace him with a character who will actually contribute to their survival."
Skill monkey rogue! Minor magic talents for Virtue and False Life. His past life has been tricking folks into letting their guard down and collecting donations. And collecting through locked doors if not given out of devotion to the cause.
But a devout man traveling these roads must know how to defend himself, not to mention some of those locked doors have guards. So the party will know he is a fraud immediately, but a useful fraud!
|
There is a line between making a character interesting and fun to play, and making a character who cannot contribute effectively to the group.
Just last week my group met to generate characters for a brand new campaign. One player, probably the most interesting role-player of the group, had this great idea: Reverend Billy, a con-man who basically embodies everything we make fun of when we see a televangelist spouting off platitudes on TV. The initial concept was that he convinces people he's a cleric, laying hands on them and speaking in tongues, seemingly healing them, but in reality the character has no magic at all; he's just a faith healer tricking the people into feeling better for a while through their own gullibility.
He initially asked if there were a way to make this guy as an oracle with no spells.
I said "Fine, that's cool. But what will the good reverend do for the adventuring party? He can't fake-heal them forever. They'll be onto him before anyone reaches 2nd level and they will kill him or kick him out of the group and replace him with a character who will actually contribute to their survival."
Oddly enough, the player hadn't really thought about that. He was so in love with the concept that he hadn't considered the ramifications of an adventuring group who had to rely on Rev. Billy to carry his share of the adventure.
We worked on it for a while and he has settled on a Bard/Archaeologist who actually does have spells, a great charisma, can be a "face" character as well as providing support magic and even trapfinding and other bardly/rogueish abilities as well as passably fight.
He started on the wrong side of the line - a fun concept but too gimped to contribute to the game, and ended up on the right side of the line with the same concept AND the ability to contribute.
DId he look at the Arcane Healer Bard, or the Razmiran Priest (sorcerer archetype - not Prestige class with the same name)? Because that's *exactly* the niche they were designed for. Or Sczarni Swindler Rogue if he just wanted to be all talk...
There is a line between making a character interesting and fun to play, and making a character who cannot contribute effectively to the group.
Yeah, this. A fighter who can fight effectively with a substandard weapon is flavorful and cool. A wizard who can't cast spells is mostly dead weight -- a commoner in a pointy hat.
I don't see any of the character concepts in the OP as gimped. Nothing prevents the charming fighter from actually fighting, or for that matter from identifying another niche and filling it. (UMD for status removal?)
And there are, of course, degrees of uselessness and every group brings its own expectations. A sorcerer with charisma 12 can cast spells, but nothing above level 2. This won't be an issue for a while -- at level 4 s/he can get a bonus stat point, and then another at level 8 (just in time for fourth level spells), and a headband can carry the rest of the weight. On the other hand, if this is supposed to be a sorcerer specializing in save-or-suck spells (with inappropriately low save DCs), there might be an issue.
He initially asked if there were a way to make this guy as an oracle with no spells.DId he look at the Arcane Healer Bard, or the Razmiran Priest (sorcerer archetype - not Prestige class with the same name)? Because that's *exactly* the niche they were designed for. Or Sczarni Swindler Rogue if he just wanted to be all talk...
Obviously not, if he was going for an oracle build.
But that basically reinforces DM_Blake's point. The character concept is viable, but you need to use the right chassis in order to contribute to the group's success -- the Sczarni Swindler has bonuses to make him/her/it a better confidence trickster than the oracle.
For the animal hating druid- that is actually not that hard.
1.) Take a domain over an animal companion. Plenty of good options
2.) Avoid animal forms. Actually fairly easy, since there are some fairly good ones with both the base druid and archetypes (animal shape I isn't that great anyway, so little loss)
The most realistic options for non animal wildshaping would be:
-elementals (who can have a humanoid form- lets them use weapons, fairly good defensive traits and special abilities)
-the Goliath Druid archetype for giant shapes (which allow your equipment to scale up with you- one of the easiest druids to use- just grab a nice scimitar, and enjoy near constant boost to strength and reach- eventually gives you regenerate at a level where you can put on energy resistence 30 with spells to keep it from being shut off)
Did he look at the Arcane Healer Bard, or the Razmiran Priest (sorcerer archetype - not Prestige class with the same name)? Because that's *exactly* the niche they were designed for. Or Sczarni Swindler Rogue if he just wanted to be all talk...
Arcane healer is the opposite of what he wanted (he wants to NOT be a healer; he's faking that part).
We considered Razmirian Priest but he didn't like the alignment nor did he want to be a "reformed" good-guy version of it.
Nobody at the table had ever heard of the Sczarni Swindler Rogue, and I can't seem to find that in the SRD, but we did briefly look at the rogue Swindler archetype and dismissed it; we didn't feel it brought enough to the table.
|
Yeah - it's all about tweaking the character's mechanics to mest with your concept as opposed to gimping the character to no benefit.
A charismatic fighter? Sure - go with an intimidate build and consider dipping into Swashbuckler since you'd get several panache points. Or perhaps go Samurai instead of Fighter - the extra Charisma makes Chain Challenge better.
A cleric with low Charisma? Sure - there's a Dwarf Cleric archetype which trades away channeling.
But if you wanted a physically weak fighter who had had polio as a child? No! Bad!
You want a paladin whose gruff and has low charisma? No! Bad!
Etc.
|
|
Did he look at the Arcane Healer Bard, or the Razmiran Priest (sorcerer archetype - not Prestige class with the same name)? Because that's *exactly* the niche they were designed for. Or Sczarni Swindler Rogue if he just wanted to be all talk...Arcane healer is the opposite of what he wanted (he wants to NOT be a healer; he's faking that part).
We considered Razmirian Priest but he didn't like the alignment nor did he want to be a "reformed" good-guy version of it.
Nobody at the table had ever heard of the Sczarni Swindler Rogue, and I can't seem to find that in the SRD, but we did briefly look at the rogue Swindler archetype and dismissed it; we didn't feel it brought enough to the table.
The Swindler is probably it -- the SRD can't use proper names from Golarion like Sczarni.
You want a real anti-character? How about a strength based swashbuckler?
Seriously. I know, I know: HERESY! But there is little in the class that ties it directly to dex (although it is VERY dex friendly, of course).
It actually avoids most of the reasons to go dex based- its only good save is reflex, it has a few more points initiative that most, and it has great AC because it highly encourages sword and board (it only has light...but that can be mithral medium, and the scaling AC boost makes light go up to heavy- add the cheaper AC enhancement cost through 2 sources, and it has great AC).
About the only thing that I can't mostly write off would be the AoOs...but a lot of swashbuckler builds have too many of their feats tied up to even grab combat reflexes for a LONG time, and even then, a modest dex can mostly cover it. .
So, why not avoid going round about with those grace feats, and just use the stat that goes directly to damage?
You want a real anti-character?
For a "real anti-character", it's probably hard to beat a full spellcaster with his primary ability score too low to actually cast any spells.
Whatever else he can do won't be enough to salvage him as a group-worthy successful adventurer.
I think the 'anti-character' aspect there is using the Swashbuckler and not the Daring Champion.
There is slightly better room for argument for using dex on the daring champion (it has good fort, not reflex, and I don't think it has the initiative thing).
You want a real anti-character?For a "real anti-character", it's probably hard to beat a full spellcaster with his primary ability score too low to actually cast any spells.
Whatever else he can do won't be enough to salvage him as a group-worthy successful adventurer.
I know this might not be the original intention, but I think it is more fun to make a character that is antithetical to the normal way the class is built, rather than something that is merely broken.
Building off your example, I would rather make a non multiclass melee full caster, who only has barely enough casting stat (which is not actually that crippling- there are a wide number of buffs, summons, and saveless spells, so the DCs aren't that important)
Subverting roleplaying stereotypes is fun as well. Example, the hard-drinking, pesh-smoking paladin.
Subverting roleplaying stereotypes is fun as well. Example, the hard-drinking, pesh-smoking paladin.
I'm all about that.
In my novel, the paladin loves to unwind in bars, getting drunk, hitting on and having one night stands with women of loose moral character (even prostitutes), and (somewhat but not entirely subconsciously) turning a blind eye to the larcenous habits of his twin. I haven't really gotten him into drug use though. Hmmmm, maybe that can come later after he recovers from his current injuries. Thanks for the suggestion.
The druid that hates animals can be a Blight druid?
Subverting roleplaying stereotypes is fun as well. Example, the hard-drinking, pesh-smoking paladin.
How about an atheist paladin who believes that all 'outsiders' should stop interefering with the material plane (the number of good gods to evil ones is 90 to 198, based just off domains- and the good gods make a mess of things too going on crusades, catching people in the crossfire).
For mechanical reasons, I had this paladin worship Irori because
A. Irori was a human that gained godhood through his own efforts. Fairly respectable, and it means he understands the mortal perspective
B. He is fairly hands off. He lets you find your own way to enlightenment, and only interferes when people (especially other gods or outsiders, I would assume) mess with his followers.
C. Focus on honing yourself-useful for someone that militantly wants to fight off both good and bad outsiders- intends to be self reliant as much as possible.
|
A little while ago I had an idea for a ranger who focuses on the alternative Hunter's Bond ability-- after realizing you'd have to max out Wisdom to make it worthwhile, I realized I was effectively building a "bardic ranger"-- buffing allies, lots of skill points, and better at spellcasting but worse at combat than a normal ranger.
It's kind of an "anti-character" because the animal companion is just so much better than the Hunter's Bond, but it'd still be able to contribute. Activating Hunter's Bond is a move action, so you can do it in the same round you cast Instant Enemy ;)
I Really Like My Kobold Melee Character Who Is Pretty "Gimped" For Getting A -4 Strength. He Is A Dragon Disciple As Well.
I Really Like My Kobold Melee Character Who Is Pretty "Gimped" For Getting A -4 Strength. He Is A Dragon Disciple As Well.
Oh Wow That Sounds Super Cool. Please Tell Me More In Pointlessly Capitalized Sentences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Phone Capitalizes Every Word. Don't Know Why.
Yeah - it's all about tweaking the character's mechanics to mest with your concept as opposed to gimping the character to no benefit.
A charismatic fighter? Sure - go with an intimidate build and consider dipping into Swashbuckler since you'd get several panache points. Or perhaps go Samurai instead of Fighter - the extra Charisma makes Chain Challenge better.
A cleric with low Charisma? Sure - there's a Dwarf Cleric archetype which trades away channeling.
But if you wanted a physically weak fighter who had had polio as a child? No! Bad!
You want a paladin whose gruff and has low charisma? No! Bad!
Etc.
And thus the game goes from fun because of concept to not so fun because you have to be mechanically sound. HAVE to be mechanically sound to survive many APs.
Which is why my groups are actually withdrawing from Pathfinder. Low charisma cleric HAS to have that archetype or he's useless in combat if he HAS to burst (Selective Channeling is necessary, so why its a feat at all baffles me. If its necessary for any and all builds to work it shouldn't be an option, it should be baseline).
I'm playing an Elven Barbarian in 5e. No problems. Pathfinder I would have needed to spend ALL my points in CON just so I could rage for a round.
As for anti-character concepts, I am trying to work on a Dhampir Kinslayer and I am refusing to make my CON higher than an 8. I want to be sickly and frail. Might even go melee with her.
Also wanted to make an Orc Shaman, but the minuses to all the mental stats killed me too hard inside to even try. (Save or suck with 0 DC... Yeah, like that's ever gonna happen)
Erm, channeling kinda sucks in Pathfinder unless you spec for it. No reason why you can't ignore that you have the feature entirely, the Cleric is still a very powerful class without it and is significantly less MAD.
Erm, channeling kinda sucks in Pathfinder unless you spec for it. No reason why you can't ignore that you have the feature entirely, the Cleric is still a very powerful class without it and is significantly less MAD.
Maybe this is a holdover from 3.5, but I find the Cleric to be very weak compared to its old incarnation, Paladin, Warpriest, and Oracle.
Edit: I am trying to recall what exactly it was that gives me this impression other than playing basically the same Cleric under both systems and feeling really underpowered, or perhaps balanced, while the rest is heavily overpowered.
The Cleric might be weaker than its 3.5 incarnation (I wouldn't know) but it's definitely stronger than the Paladin and Warpriest. The Oracle MIGHT be on par with it, but only in the specific God of Charisma Ultimate SAD-ness build.
The Cleric might be weaker than its 3.5 incarnation (I wouldn't know) but it's definitely stronger than the Paladin and Warpriest. The Oracle MIGHT be on par with it, but only in the specific God of Charisma Ultimate SAD-ness build.
Don't mistake my intentions, because this isn't me being argumentative, nor do I want to derail the thread, but I am very curious to hear your reasoning for Cleric > Paladin. Maybe we could move this to another thread?
Edit: Wow. This was serious thread necromancy. May 2012...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a very simple discussion.
9th level casting >>>>>>>> Literally anything else in this game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And thus the game goes from fun because of concept to not so fun because you have to be mechanically sound. HAVE to be mechanically sound to survive many APs.
"Mechanically sound" is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. A great thing.
I cannot even begin to imagine a real life scenario where I want to do anything meaningful at all with colleagues who are not "mechanically sound".
I work in software - I would not hire a developer who is not mechanically sound.
I would not have surgery performed by a surgeon who is not "mechanically sound".
I would not join the army and go to war with fellow soldiers who are not "mechanically sound".
I would not play soccer with teammates who are not "mechanically sound" although, in this case, I would be willing to teach them if they're capable and willing to learn - but soccer is a game for me, it's hardly "meaningful" unless you're a professional, and I'm sure no professional soccer player wants to take the pitch with teammates who are not "mechanically sound".
In that vein, the idea of risking your life, over and over and over, every day, in the world's most dangerous, monster-infested places, facing the most dangerous creatures in the world and beyond, and deliberately bringing along someone who is not "mechanically sound" is possibly the most idiotic idea of the bunch.
My "mechanically UNsound" developer can be trained to write better code or can be fired, my "mechanically UNsound" surgeon might make it through the surgery, my "mechanically UNsound" army squad-mates might win a battle, or might get themselves killed/replaced before I die too, and my "mechanically UNsound soccer mates will learn.
But my "mechanically UNsound adventuring companion will get me and the rest of the party killed in a TPK before we reach our next two levels. Guaranteed.
OF COURSE an adventurer must be "mechanically sound"; anything else and he's committing suicide and bringing down the whole group - all all of them should know it.
So yeah, it's a good thing that characters are definitely encouraged to be "mechanically sound".
Erm, channeling kinda sucks in Pathfinder unless you spec for it. No reason why you can't ignore that you have the feature entirely, the Cleric is still a very powerful class without it and is significantly less MAD.Maybe this is a holdover from 3.5, but I find the Cleric to be very weak compared to its old incarnation, Paladin, Warpriest, and Oracle.
Edit: I am trying to recall what exactly it was that gives me this impression other than playing basically the same Cleric under both systems and feeling really underpowered, or perhaps balanced, while the rest is heavily overpowered.
The 3.5 cleric did lose a couple of their best tricks in the transition to Pathfinder, most notably divine metamagic and (3.5) persistent spell allowing them run their combat buffs all day long can't be done in Pathfinder. And naturally the spell list got trimmed down compared to how much you could do with the 3.5 spell compendium.
So far as I can tell, the area where Paizo does semi-consistently try to reign in casters is when it comes to being better with weapon attacks then martial characters.
|
|
Erm, channeling kinda sucks in Pathfinder unless you spec for it. No reason why you can't ignore that you have the feature entirely, the Cleric is still a very powerful class without it and is significantly less MAD.Maybe this is a holdover from 3.5, but I find the Cleric to be very weak compared to its old incarnation, Paladin, Warpriest, and Oracle.
Edit: I am trying to recall what exactly it was that gives me this impression other than playing basically the same Cleric under both systems and feeling really underpowered, or perhaps balanced, while the rest is heavily overpowered.The 3.5 cleric did lose a couple of their best tricks in the transition to Pathfinder, most notably divine metamagic and (3.5) persistent spell allowing them run their combat buffs all day long can't be done in Pathfinder. And naturally the spell list got trimmed down compared to how much you could do with the 3.5 spell compendium.
So far as I can tell, the area where Paizo does semi-consistently try to reign in casters is when it comes to being better with weapon attacks then martial characters.
Yeah - that. In 3.5 there were several disgustingly good self-buff spells clerics could use. (They even errata/nerfed the worst of them late in 3.5.) In Pathfinder the only really good way for a caster to out-melee martials is (generally late game) polymorphing.
So - yes - they're a bit weaker in Pathfinder than in 3.5, and they've dropped from the generally most powerful class in the game to 3rd or 5th.
And thus the game goes from fun because of concept to not so fun because you have to be mechanically sound. HAVE to be mechanically sound to survive many APs."Mechanically sound" is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. A great thing.
I cannot even begin to imagine a real life scenario where I want to do anything meaningful at all with colleagues who are not "mechanically sound".
I work in software - I would not hire a developer who is not mechanically sound.
I would not have surgery performed by a surgeon who is not "mechanically sound".
I would not join the army and go to war with fellow soldiers who are not "mechanically sound".
I would not play soccer with teammates who are not "mechanically sound" although, in this case, I would be willing to teach them if they're capable and willing to learn - but soccer is a game for me, it's hardly "meaningful" unless you're a professional, and I'm sure no professional soccer player wants to take the pitch with teammates who are not "mechanically sound".
In that vein, the idea of risking your life, over and over and over, every day, in the world's most dangerous, monster-infested places, facing the most dangerous creatures in the world and beyond, and deliberately bringing along someone who is not "mechanically sound" is possibly the most idiotic idea of the bunch.
My "mechanically UNsound" developer can be trained to write better code or can be fired, my "mechanically UNsound" surgeon might make it through the surgery, my "mechanically UNsound" army squad-mates might win a battle, or might get themselves killed/replaced before I die too, and my "mechanically UNsound soccer mates will learn.
But my "mechanically UNsound adventuring companion will get me and the rest of the party killed in a TPK before we reach our next two levels. Guaranteed.
OF COURSE an adventurer must be "mechanically sound"; anything else and he's committing suicide and bringing down the whole group - all all of them should know it.
So...
Except reality is there is far more mechanically unsound than sound. I have been in the army for 5 years now, and well, I'd say a good half of the people I've been with have been "sound" at something, but very unsound elsewhere. I'm pretty damn good at my job, I'm barely passable with a rifle, and good with my m9 and unbelievable with my languages. Plenty of soldiers can be fantastic with their rifle but can't run a quarter-mile. They signed up to be soldiers, just like the low wisdom Pippin who was constantly touching crap that he shouldn't have been became an adventurer. A true adventuring group should have people with realistic flaws while the other party members divide up labor so that they can function to minimize those flaws or lack of expertise. Min-Maxing is so unrealistic that I can't justify it even in fantasy, especially when many supers have powerful and exploitable flaws.
Unfortunately Pathfinder is about mechanics, and if your concept can't be worked in spirit through those mechanics you're not going to have fun. I can't hit the broad side of a barn with my rifle irl, and shooting is still fun, but in Pathfinder if I'm just rolling a D20 to hear I miss, then I'm not having fun. I've built a character for roleplay in Jade Regent and was absolutely miserable during combat. I couldn't bypass DR, the damn Oni made every single will save, and there was no opportunity in much of the AP to actually RP to a notable extent.I've began rambling.
Min-maxing creates
But really Necrovox-- you're good with one weapon and bad with another. Yanno what we call that, in Pathfinder? A well-built Gunslinger. Some of the most mechanically sound Gunslingers literally have no idea what to do if you hand them a rifle.
Lol, I dump statted Wisdom so my grit pool ain't so high, but I appreciate it. xD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, to stick with the military metaphors, min-maxing is really about making sure your characters are assigned to units that suit their capabilities. It's making sure the guy who's incredibly good at languages is a translator, while the guy who's really good with a rifle is the sniper.
Ultimately, an optimized/min-maxed character is all about having the right (game mechanics) tools to do their job. It's about not putting the guy who can't run a quarter mile or shoot straight on the front lines, or putting the guy who can barely speak his own language in charge of translation.
You can even take a non-optimised or even suboptimal combination. I'm sure someone somewhere has had a lot of fun with a halfling barbarian charging at people, for one. As said many times, as long as you can do the job you have to do, good. And it doesn't have to be the class's stereotypical job, either.
And I especially like DM Blake's example of Reverend Billy. Keep in mind making sure everyone else can still have fun too.
For me, these characters are usually only memorable in the way Jar Jar Binks was memorable. I hated him so much I couldn't forget him. I would rather not watch a movie with characters like Jar Jar, or Andrea from The Walking Dead, or Dr. Weir from Event Horizon, because it stresses me out, just like playing with people who make purposefully bad characters.
If you make them overcome their weaknesses, like Wraithstrike said, that's all fine and dandy. That's good character development. I've played with a TON of awful characters that were made that way for "role-play reasons" though, and the people who are complaining that the min maxers "aren't letting them play their character the way they wanted" are usually keeping everyone else in the party from playing the way that they want by expecting to have their hand held. It makes no sense for the party to not just kill them and take their stuff.
TL;DR: Non optimal characters are fine, useless characters are definitely gimped, an probably drag the party down just by existing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you make them overcome their weaknesses, like Wraithstrike said, that's all fine and dandy. That's good character development. I've played with a TON of awful characters that were made that way for "role-play reasons" though, and the people who are complaining that the min maxers "aren't letting them play their character the way they wanted" are usually keeping everyone else in the party from playing the way that they want by expecting to have their hand held. It makes no sense for the party to not just kill them and take their stuff.
Yeah, when it comes to an unoptimized character, there are definitely varying degrees of unoptimized. I'll bring out two characters I've actually seen other people play for comparison.
First off, there was the strength-based Elf Barbarian someone played in one of my games (basically, he wanted to make the least "elf-y" elf ever). Yeah, elf stats don't synergize too well with a barbarian, but he used a reasonably effective build that made the most of what he had. Sure, a human would've done the exact same thing with slightly higher numbers, but he enjoyed his character and we enjoyed playing with him.
I will now contrast him against what I privately think of as one of the worst PCs I ever played with. A Kobold fighter who used two-weapon fighting with two unfinessable one-handed weapons while having a strength of ten. Needless to say, this resulted in him not being able to hit anything (Happens when you're at +0 to hit at level three) and doing miniscule damage whenever he did hit.
I'm reminded of my first Pathfinder character - Major Biff Biff, the Halfling Barbarian. Definitely not optimized for frontline dps, but he still had some great moments of ass kicking, and the group had a great time with him out of combat, as I basically roleplayed him like GIR. Would a Human or Dwarf Barbarian have done a better job? Obviously. We still got by, though, and that's what's important for making thematic characters - keep your flavor, but make sure you won't be responsible for a TPK from design alone.
I enjoy playing oddballs myself, it lets you experience the game in new ways. Otherwise ignore mechanics become used, boring encounters turn into interesting challenges and you can be more proud to succeed with a weaker character. But when it comes to character design, there are three pressure groups at the table:
a) The designing player who wants a fun / memorable / powerful character
b) The fellow players who want a good teammate but not be overshadowed by it
c) The GM who has to deal with this character in battle / social encounters
As long as all three groups agree the character is ok, it's fine. Probably your fellow players don't really need a contributing mate since they enjoy powergaming and taking all the glory anyway. Probably the GM is intrigued by the odd character, using its oddities for story hooks. If the others don't like it, be careful not to be talked into a compromise you don't want. In the worst case, save the concept for later (or just your personal collection) and create something completely different.
Communication is the key here, together with knowing what we really want.
Well, in my group we have a DEX based TWF Cleric.
He took all his feats to be able to fight with 2 light hammers (not good at it of course) and than stands there summoning monsters and is really hesitant to go into melee... so there is that...Now every time I crit and pull good dmg he feels useless... and I play a monk!!
So, my lesson from this is: If you sit around a fire and tell stories, tell whatever you want. If you play a game with a system and rules, and a rule-heavy like PF at that. Dont ignore the system.
Play with it, but dont ignore it.
Ouch. Just ouch. I think he doesn't quite know what he really wants to do in a battle, to listen to it. TWF is a bit of an investment. I like the theme of it, and wouldn't mind building someone around the two-bladed sword because I think it's a cool weapon concept even if it's not optimal ... but to invest in the feats and shy away from the combat means a bit of confusion in what he was hoping to do.
I think when this sort of thing happens, especially if the player's new (I don't know if he is or not), maybe have a talk with them. Just to guide them, don't start dropping elite build guides on them. There's ways to build a summon cleric, and I think someone can build a TWF cleric, but a TWF summoning cleric is a little mixed up. (And light hammers suck.)