Player Gimps Own Character

[Martin Kauffman 530]

In my home games, all the characters are created by dice rolling rather than point buy. This has been accepted by all the players involved. And, if one or a few players get lower scores, they look upon it as a challenge to survive, accomplish their goals, and prove their skill even if the die rolls did not initially favor them. If a player wishes to create a purposely flawed character, that is totally within his/her right-he or she just has to be willing to take the game risks involved. I have found that as long as the group sticks together, cooperates, and makes up for each other's weaknesses, things usually seem to work out o.k. And that is also a good lesson for real life.

[LazarX]

sunshadow21 wrote:

I really don't understand the hate against rolling dice to create stats, and the insistence to compare their power to a point buy character. The stats are definitely not something that can be ignored, but this cleric is entirely playable; it may take a bit more effort than a character that rolled better initial stats, but it's not that hard to shore up the weaknesses it has, just change tactics and gear up a bit, and focus on it's strengths rather than trying to hammer past it's weakness as if they weren't there. In the end would probably end up being more fun precisely because he can't simply plow through everything with nary a thought.

There's no "hate" against it. It's just simply not the way many people prefer to roll. And in the old days before point buy, there were so many ways to weigh the roll in for higher than average stats, the "honesty" of point buy is questonable at best.

[littlehewy]

ikarinokami wrote:

I don't think people read original post. The character was able to assign his scores.

The problem is not even the scores, why do people even keep brining this up. The problem as some people have mentioned but most others completely overlooked and went on other agendas and tangents, is the players used the scores in a manner that would most benefit a spellcasting priest, he has a high wisdom and a good int score.

However the player has chosen to play a melee cleric. the player could easily have done

18 str
12 con
14 wis

and been a good melee cleric and would be pefectly capable of spell casting as he leveled up

The player is simply irrational, which is his right. there are no flaws with systems, or the gm rolling scheme. As to whether it matters? no it doesn't, the player in a home game (note not a PFS society game) in my opinon ought to be a free to do whatever and play however, and create whatever makes him happy within the constraints of the campain.

Of course various table and players will have different social contracts and expectations, but these are things should be stated before starting any campain.

Not sure how you reached the conclusion I put in bold above.

We have the description of one encounter from the OP, who has refused in follow up posts to extrapolate on the player's actual, stated desires apart from the description of this one encounter. The OP has been asked to provide context (did the cleric have any spells left, or were they used in previous encounter? etc...), but has similarly ignored these requests.

The OP seems extremely dodgy to me based solely on this reticence to provide actual detail about the situation.

Apart from that, I generally agree with the other points of your post, ikarinokami.

[ciretose]

littlehewy wrote:

The OP seems extremely dodgy to me based solely on this reticence to provide actual detail about the situation.

Apart from that, I generally agree with the other points of your post, ikarinokami.

I agree. What we know is there is a guy who is a cleric with an 18 wisdom who isn't playing it for optimal math in one encounter.

And...so what?

[Vinja89]

im not trying to stir the pot here simply clarifying, from what i read this player built a caster focused cleric with a high INT for RP purposes but with an 18 in wisdom, so he kind of dumped the physical side to be a more powerful spellcaster right? Then the gm said he was using spells in creative ways helping the party like with the animate rope trick for example?

which honestly that seems him playing to his stats, but one encounter of him trying to melee something makes him a bad player? it might have been a bad choice for sure but mistakes are made in the heat of the moment, and he might have been doing the only thing he figured he could to help the party in that specific instance, Now thats how i read it at first if its not i apologize.

But if that is how it happened you sound like your being a tad harsh with the guy, im sure we have all made less then perfect choices in our gaming career

[ikarinokami]

littlehewy wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

I don't think people read original post. The character was able to assign his scores.

The problem is not even the scores, why do people even keep brining this up. The problem as some people have mentioned but most others completely overlooked and went on other agendas and tangents, is the players used the scores in a manner that would most benefit a spellcasting priest, he has a high wisdom and a good int score.

However the player has chosen to play a melee cleric. the player could easily have done

18 str
12 con
14 wis

and been a good melee cleric and would be pefectly capable of spell casting as he leveled up

The player is simply irrational, which is his right. there are no flaws with systems, or the gm rolling scheme. As to whether it matters? no it doesn't, the player in a home game (note not a PFS society game) in my opinon ought to be a free to do whatever and play however, and create whatever makes him happy within the constraints of the campain.

Of course various table and players will have different social contracts and expectations, but these are things should be stated before starting any campain.

Not sure how you reached the conclusion I put in bold above.

We have the description of one encounter from the OP, who has refused in follow up posts to extrapolate on the player's actual, stated desires apart from the description of this one encounter. The OP has been asked to provide context (did the cleric have any spells left, or were they used in previous encounter? etc...), but has similarly ignored these requests.

The OP seems extremely dodgy to me based solely on this reticence to provide actual detail about the situation.

Apart from that, I generally agree with the other points of your post, ikarinokami.

The GM stated that player wants to be in the front of the battle that's sounds like a melee cleric to me.

[ub3r_n3rd]

chaoseffect wrote:

ub3r_n3rd wrote:

Honestly thinking like this is plain selfish. There is nothing in the rules that say that if things turn bad on you and your cleric goes down that you have to stay and fight. Run away and live to fight another day if that happens. Leave the poor player who is doing his "sub-optimal" cleric alone, this isn't your game and as long as HE is having fun that's all that matters. The other players who are power gaming munchkins will survive and maybe the player with the cleric will have to roll up a new character, but seriously who cares? It's a game and we all know that PC's die all the time.

The party is being selfish by expecting the one person who intentionally and knowingly (as it seems based on previously given information, though who knows for sure) made a character that had no hope of meaningfully doing what it was made to do?... and it is also selfish for them to stay and try to protect a downed player? I'm not sure if we're using the same definition of selfish, but staying to help someone when it is against your better interests as well as looking out for the benefit of the whole (as opposed to yourself) don't fit what "selfish" means to me.

That aside, DM needs to talk to the guy and see why he's doing what he's doing; he might very well have good reasons for the stuff he does (ie trying to save spells and he has nothing else to do besides ineffectively swing). Also 13 point buy is amazingly harsh, like harsh enough that the PC would be better off opening a tavern somewhere and marrying a local girl.

You obviously missed my point. I'm saying that if a person thinks in the manner in which they feel that ALL the characters in the group need to be min/maxed or optimized it is selfish. I don't expect every person in my group to build characters the same way I do, there should be variety in every group not a bunch of munchkins in every group (unless your group IS a bunch of munchkins). What right do other players have to expect everyone to play and build exactly the same as they do?

Let the player build and play his PC the way he wants, if he wants some pointers and ideas go ahead and give them to him, if he wants to play a little different as far as tactics go, let him. You don't have to jump off the bridge just because he does. You can play YOUR character the way you want to, just let everyone else do the same.

As long as everyone at the table is having fun then that's what really matters, not whether the cleric put 10 in con instead of 14 losing 2 HPs and making him a little less survivable in melee. If he wants to play his character as a cleric who thinks he can jump into the fray, let him do so. He'll find out real quick that he isn't suited to doing so and will either die or learn to get a ranged weapon, reach weapon, or stand back and cast spells.

[Alzrius]

I don't see what the big deal is. I rolled 3d6-in-order for my current cleric, and got Str 5, Dex 9, Con 6, Int 11, Wis 15, Cha 11. I then put my human racial bonus into Wisdom, bumping it up to 17.

I stay in the back of the group and toss out heals, buffs, and occasional battlefield-control spell, and it's working out great.

[DrDeth]

ikarinokami wrote:

The GM stated that player wants to be in the front of the battle that's sounds like a melee cleric to me.

We simply don’t know. The OP hasn’t come back to answer any of our questions and we’re basing this on a couple of posts about one nites encounters.

[ngc7293]

We have a cleric in our group and had low stats. It is entirely up to the GM, but boosting the stats a little to make the character a little more viable is an option. Our GM worked with the player to make the character more playable. He picked out certain feats to make the cleric stronger in battle and a better cleric. He gave him ideas for what to take down the road.

I have not read the entire thread, but talk is always there. It sounds like the player has made a suicide machine if he wants the skills yet wants to run into battle with no chance of hitting.

You know there is always the possibility of running into battle for his god. He yells out his god's name and gets a bonus of some kind because he is looked upon favorably? I am sure there is no rule, but the GM could provide some bonus...

[TriOmegaZero]

My first character was a 3.5 Monk whose only bonuses from ability scores were in Dex and Wis. It sucked being in melee, but it was a learning experience. I don't see this as any difference.

[Sargonoth]

Agreed - the DM description of the situation is inconsistent, illogical, and highly unlikely.

DM states the player was questioned about stats and armour proficiency twice and it was the players choice. In addition, the player deliberately chose light armour. It strains credibility beyond reasonableness to say that the player "...wants desperately to be up front hitting things in melee .." ESPECIALLY since the DM states the player has already creatively used spells, channeled skeletons, summoned monsters (and I assume healed with every other spell he had available). Note that the group appears to be a smash and bash party which will tend to have a high need for healing

Much more likely the following situation:

DM expects every character to do melee. The player looks and sees that the other characters have melee covered (fighter paladin archer should qualify as having melee covered). Probably looks at skill pool and sees that there is none.

Come to dark tower, detect evil. Cleric says I am out of channels and I have used my Cures to get us up to full. It is up to the two bruisers to hold them off until we get somewhere to rest. Undead hammers the bruisers with unlucky critical. The cleric is out of spells and attacks with his weapon since it is the only thing available. DM says "See- I told you that your lack of melee prowess would get the party killed."

[Coriat]

Let him play a smart cleric if he wants. He's a primary spellcaster... within a few levels his class will be perfectly capable of picking up any slack that 14 Int generates anyway.