If he were an Aasimar cleric,he'd rock pretty hard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't force people to play something they don't want to play.
You're power tripping, stop it.
If you don't like that they always play the same thing, consider adding in challenges that cannot be accomplished well by their average party composition. If you find that they can accomplish everything, then they have a well rounded party that can overcome the varied types of challenges that adventurers encounter.
What does it really matter if the same person always plays the same type of character? Why the hell do you actually have a problem with this? Do you want your friends to have fun and enjoy the game? Because this thread is evidence to the contrary. It's sound like you just want control.
- but YOU are not responsible for HIS ability to have funThe Gm kind of is. This was really a perfect setup for someone to be UNhappy. If fact, he went out of his way to force the character to play something different knowing that he wouldn't be pleased. It doesn't help that the character is totally unable to hit anything and will have bad AC until it can buy the heaviest armor they can buy.
What I meant to say is that it isn't solely the GM's responsibility that everybody is having fun.
Look, these guys sat down by the table and discussed what to play. At least 1 of the players got out of this exchange with a game style they might not be into.
who's fault is that? All of them.
Maybe that player did a bad job of advocating his preference.
Maybe the others did not pay attention to what he had to say.
Maybe the whole exchange was the GM posing 1 question and some of them saying "yeah" or "sure".
But some part of this game is also about modulating yourself to fit with the group, trusting the others to do the same.
We make these stories together, as a joint effort.
So yeah, at least 1 player is not having fun - this is everybodys problem, including said player.
They should fix it - and one possible solution is for him to suck it up and try to have fun instead of obsessing about how he can't play his preferred build this time.
There are other solutions too :)
This right here is the reason to at least make the effort. How many times have any of us been dragged kicking and screaming into something only to learn we enjoyed it?
Either let him try to get into the game, some classes take a couple of sessions to "get" - maybe he'll have fun when he starts roleplaying social interactions and realize he has awesome skills ...
Yes, that happens, but the opposite happens too. See my bard example. But this isn't mom forcing a kid to eat vegetables. It isn't a GM's place to decide that.
This right here is the reason to at least make the effort. How many times have any of us been dragged kicking and screaming into something only to learn we enjoyed it?
Either let him try to get into the game, some classes take a couple of sessions to "get" - maybe he'll have fun when he starts roleplaying social interactions and realize he has awesome skills ...
You mean with those awesome druid social skills? Yep, he's totally rocking the handle animals. So as long as "social interactions" are trying to get a chipmonk to cough up it's nuts he's good...
I am suprised no-one has suggested a Lore, Nature or Lunar Oracle... He will have high AC from level 1 with that.
Take two levels of Sensei Monk and you will never have a problem with hitting anything.
The question is did this player agree to roll for stats and then only complain when he got s@&!?
Oh no, he only gets 6(7 if he takes the FCB, 8 if he is human) skill points per level and has a 16 Charisma.
He is (1 point) worse then a sorcerer trying to bluff, or be diplomatic.
He has great social stats, a high wis for perception and sense motive, and a very strong Charisma for bluff, diplomacy and intimidate.
Just because it is not a class skill does not mean he auto sucks at it.
Having never played a caster in pathfnder and not playing a social one either, how likely is he to pick non-class skills? You know like bluff, diplomacy and intimidate? Isn't he more likely to pick ones that boost skills he's used to using like climb and swim?
In Ye Olden days 3d6, set stats were kinda the rule of the day.Want to play a paladin? you can't you didn't roll a 17.
If he HAD allowed to rearrange stats this would be WAY better than point buy and the guy would still make the same exact character he usually plays.
Maybe it's just me, but if I wanted to play 2nd Ed, I'd be playing 2nd ed!
Also, "Back in my day we walked uphill in the snow both ways, and the men were men, and we wore an onion in our belt, because it was the style at the time" much?
I played 2nd ed too. I don't long for it. At all.
the fun comes in when you are forced to play outside of the box with the stats you ended up with.
this often results in the guy who is normally a barb playing a wizard and the rogue is a cleric… etc.
Not for everyone. For me, for example, the fun comes in being the character I actually imagined, helping create the collaborative story using my own imagination, not a combination of flinging darts at a board and reading the results.
newer players have gotten so used to choices, it creates a very vanilla feeling when you just have Yohan the 14th and his same EXACT point buy stats he ALWAYS has in yet another rendition of the same character with the SAME skill points and feat selection.I gave over a dozen examples of totally different classes this kind of player could choose while remaining in his comfort zone. That kind of argument might have flown a few years ago, but with all the options today, it's totally possible to create similar, but different, characters. Also, Raistlin is not Gandalf is not Merlin, even though they're all wizards.
HE decided to PLAY dude.
If you told me "ok we are going to play GURPS"
Id say no thanks.
Hey man want to play white wolf?
I'll Pass.
Were going to play PF but you have to be a female gnome sorcerer.........
ummmmm....... huh well ok.
Not my number 1 choice.
Would you turn down a game that was offered if they said "core only" or if they told you your favorite class is already taken but we have a slot open for something you don't normally play?
What is the difference?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not my number 1 choice.Would you turn down a game that was offered if they said "core only" or if they told you your favorite class is already taken but we have a slot open for something you don't normally play?
What is the difference?
Yeah, I'd probably not play in those situations, because no gaming is better than bad (no fun) gaming.
Everyone has different reasons to play - I don't play RPGs to be challenged, other than the in system challenges that are there. I get challenged enough in the real world, and game to relax. Maybe the player thought he might luck out and get a decent melee character - maybe he went along to be nice with his friends and found he wasn't having any fun.
I'm not going to waste 4 hours a week doing something I don't think is fun just because someone decided we wanted to play "outside the box".
Not my number 1 choice.Would you turn down a game that was offered if they said "core only" or if they told you your favorite class is already taken but we have a slot open for something you don't normally play?
What is the difference?
Yeah, I'd probably not play in those situations, because no gaming is better than bad (no fun) gaming.
Everyone has different reasons to play - I don't play RPGs to be challenged, other than the in system challenges that are there. I get challenged enough in the real world, and game to relax. Maybe the player thought he might luck out and get a decent melee character - maybe he went along to be nice with his friends and found he wasn't having any fun.
I'm not going to waste 4 hours a week doing something I don't think is fun just because someone decided we wanted to play "outside the box".
yep, I HAVE opted out of core only games or if the characters I planned to play wasn't allowed. Most of my play is over the internet, so I'm not limited by location though. It'd be more difficult if we're talking about the only game in town and/or it's also to socialize with friends.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just started a RotRL campaign with a few of my close friends, who i normally game with. To get them to play something different i got them to roll 4D6 down the line and build a character around that. One of my players rolled a Druid and is complaining about his lack of spells and the low ac of his animal companion, how do i deal with this?
What is your goal, here? What do you mean by "deal with it"?
If your goal is "How do I get him to shut up and just play," most of the posts on this thread already addressed that.
If your goal is "How can I help my player find the fun in what he has," then you need to focus on the problems and see if they can be fixed:
Low AC on animal companion? Get it armor, or let him switch his animal companion.
Lack of spells? Let him get scrolls. I know there aren't many in RoTRL, but you're the GM--you can change that. Make one of the traveling merchants in Sandpoint be from the Verderun Forest and have a pack of druid-only scrolls that he hasn't be able to sell anywhere else. Heck, if the merchandise is so old, he might even offer a discount.
Feeling like he doesn't contribute? Let him know that they won't be in town forever, and most druid spells will work in Sandpoint anyway (it's not New York City or Magnimar: there's lots of "nature" around). Send him to one of the numerous "how to build a druid" guides that are available online and see if he can get some ideas.
If your goal is "How can I help him rebuild his character with those stats," then we need to know more about what roles your player likes to play.
For a rogue-like character, Zen archer is an excellent choice. Qiggong/Zen Archer is even better. Tell him to pick up the Monkey Style tree if he wants to be super-acrobat. A 2-level dip into Paladin will give him Charisma to all saves and a smite ability to help his damage, and he'll have to be lawful for a monk anyway. (The Divine Hunter archetype could blend well with a Zen Archer.)
For a more powerful caster, does he want to be an offensive caster, defensive caster, or buffing caster? He has a high Wisdom, so his DCs will be pretty high. Those stats would make an awesome cleric, and he can pick some really sweet domain abilities or variant channeling to make up for his lack of spells.
So, when you have a funky character generation system (4d6, drop lowest, straight allocation) you should also factor in a default drop out point if the player is really unhappy with the results. Either let him go round a second time with the same system, or allow a default 15-point-buy character to tailor as he wants.
Player enjoyment is really one of the bottom lines of the RPG experience. So if the players suffered through a session with a character he didn't like, reward him with a replacement character in some way shape or form, keeping the xp he earned.
My point is, he is set up beautifully to be a powerful offensive caster with Storm Druid, and to still be relevant when the party goes to town, or has to interrogate a prisoner.
Tack on Traits to turn the social skills he would use into class skills (with a bonus).
We get something like this: assuming he is Human or takes FCB for skills, he could have Perception +8, Sense Motive +5, Spellcraft +6, Survival +10, KN Nature +8, Bluff +8, Heal +8.
That makes him effective in healing, offensive spells and social. The only place he starts having trouble is in anti magic melee combat. A place most casters have a lot of trouble in.
I would also point out, the player choose to play a druid, it is not like he picked a class out of a hat.
Now you're asking a LOT from a player that we've been told NEVER PLAYS CASTERS! However, the only good stats he has are caster stats. So at best he had the illusion of choice. He got to pick any class that said caster on it.
You also assume that the player WANTS to take front and center in social situations.
Well, if he is so set on playing a martial, he should have just made a martial and not cared about the stats.... So you're okay with telling a player "Go ahead and spend every session being totally useless for the entirety of this giant campaign?"
11 Str/11 Dex isn't really a problem a martial can overcome. Not even the Zen Archer, because he still can't deal damage.
Yeppers. 3.PF doesn't play well with gimp'd PCs.
The whole system assumes a near optimum build for your PC and when Prime Stats look like Dump Stats there isn't a way to bootstrap fun into that.
it's even worse with a druid. At start, there attack spells have to hits on them. All mental stats can work with save spells and/or buffs but that's a lot to push off on to a character that doesn't play casters. Really oracle/synthesist summoner is about best options and the synthesist is about the only way to make a character that can make a to hit roll.
|
THe character creation always goes like this, me "what do you want to play" him "i dont know im out of ideas" me "well why not try something new" him "no, then ill die" me "then play a rogue" him "i dont know what backstory or personaily or anything" then the rest of the players are like, lets do the roll down the line stats, and we vote and it passed and he rolls bad dexterity and b#@$!es about it every 2 minutes, he also complains whenever he is attacked or whenever we do roleplay parts
Either change your game or change your players. Not everyone is suited to each other.
|
Well, if he is so set on playing a martial, he should have just made a martial and not cared about the stats.... So you're okay with telling a player "Go ahead and spend every session being totally useless for the entirety of this giant campaign?"
11 Str/11 Dex isn't really a problem a martial can overcome. Not even the Zen Archer, because he still can't deal damage.
Yeppers. 3.PF doesn't play well with gimp'd PCs.
The whole system assumes a near optimum build for your PC and when Prime Stats look like Dump Stats there isn't a way to bootstrap fun into that.
I would completely disagree with that statement. There is no need to have a "near optimum build" on every character. That is just one play style that some choose to adopt. In fact, I would argue that there is almost no such thing as a totally useless build
I would have a great time playing the listed character... There are MANY more things right about what we are seeing than there are wrong.
Of course, I play martials wih a 14 strength, have a halfling druid with a 16 wisdom (and 8 STR) who has a giant scorpion as her AC. I guess I play "wrong".
Well, if he is so set on playing a martial, he should have just made a martial and not cared about the stats.... So you're okay with telling a player "Go ahead and spend every session being totally useless for the entirety of this giant campaign?"
11 Str/11 Dex isn't really a problem a martial can overcome. Not even the Zen Archer, because he still can't deal damage.
Yeppers. 3.PF doesn't play well with gimp'd PCs.
The whole system assumes a near optimum build for your PC and when Prime Stats look like Dump Stats there isn't a way to bootstrap fun into that.
I would completely disagree with that statement. There is no need to have a "near optimum build" on every character. That is just one play style that some choose to adopt. In fact, I would argue that there is almost no such thing as a totally useless build
I would have a great time playing the listed character... There are MANY more things right about what we are seeing than there are wrong.
Of course, I play martials wih a 14 strength, have a halfling druid with a 16 wisdom (and 8 STR) who has a giant scorpion as her AC. I guess I play "wrong".
Playing "wrong" and being useless are two different things.
It is almost impossible to play "wrong", because there is some GM out there will accommodate your playing style, but you can still be useless simply because different GM's run games differently.
Going back to the idea of playing wrong-->If you don't fit with a group then you can be wrong for that table. That does not mean you are wrong(as in not objectively correct), but you could be the wrong(not proper) fit for that table.
Yes. This way of making stats for your players made this player unhappy.
Your problem isn't complicated, and I'm unsure of why you posted it here, as it doesn't really have a solution we can give you that you'd use.
The advice I do have for you is to examine the desire to make him try something new and see how it interacts with other things you do when GM'ing.
Where does it come from? Does it influence other decisions? Does enacting the impulses from it generally lead to more or less fun for people outside yourself?
How about your own fun in that context?
|
|
Does your 8 Str halfling try to be a melee guy?
Nope, that's what Lord Snappy is for (her Scorpion).
Even though vermin AC really get boned, he has actually been quite effective. She picks her spells to help Snappy out, or have other effects. For example, her new favorite spell is Thunderstomp, which allows her to trip an opponent using her caster level+casting bonus. Things like this will help the big barbarian (or other ally) hit a tougher opponent. Also helps a lot that Lord Snappy grabs with two of his three attacks!She works, with stats worse that those listed.
|
|
Then I don't see how she is relevant to the OP's situation.Does your 8 Str halfling try to be a melee guy?Nope, that's what Lord Snappy is for (her Scorpion).
I guess it comes down to what is the guy really complaining about. Yes, level 1 casters will not have a lot of spells. If that stat array did not include racials (did we ever get an answer on this?), he could pump to 20 wis and get another spell. As for the low AC of the AC, that can easily be fixed by a spell (Mage armor by the team's wizard, or by a wand) and time. Snappy had an AC of 12 at level 1, as I recall... But you work around that.
The OP said that the two things being complained about were lack of spells, and low armor class of companion. Not his martial capacity.
However, I am guessing that the player will only be happy with a martial character, so the GM may want to allow him to reroll... Yes, reroll, in the GMs presence, until they get a decent STR and DEX. Or the GM could back off, and allow redistribution of points (since the rolls were so phenomenal, perhaps allow -2 for +1, or -3 for +2, if he wants to be punitive).
Yes, redistribution on a 1/2 basis should solve the problem. Lower cha by 6 and increase strength or dex by 3.
I'm actually seeing people saying "If you want to be a martial so bad, play one anyway"? Really?
Like I said before, I don't know about you, but I don't come to the table to spend four hours pretending to suck. Nobody comes to the table looking to be below average. I will go so far as to say nobody comes even to be average.
If the player didn't agree to this rolling method, then of course the DM is in the wrong and can easily rectify this by giving a 15 or 20 pointbuy redo on the character. Do NOT try to force a player to play something they don't want to play.
If the player DID agree to this rolling method and is now throwing a tantrum, the DM should think carefully whether he should set a precedent for this player to abuse his kindness before letting the player redo. I've seen plenty of players get in the habit of whining until the DM caves on something, and if it becomes a habit, it will ruin a game much faster than if the DM put his foot down.
Solutions are better than pontification so try asking YOUR players instead of us. If there's a player who is also playing subpar stats and would object to another player getting bailed, you want to make sure this becomes known before you have him reroll. Maybe now you have two rerolls on your hands. Or maybe everyone is fine with it. Maybe they have a different solution, like you could swap 2 stats or reroll one ability score. Ask them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I haven't read most of this thread, but I'm sensing a lot of ire at OP. Honestly, I get where he's coming from, but don't think the stat rolling was the way to go.
I play PFS exclusively, and so I don't have to deal with 'table monotony'. That is, if I've played 3 APs with the same players, and all of their characters are clones, I can expect that pretty much the same type of things will happen again and again in each campaign (at least the combat elements). That can get pretty boring as a player, and especially a GM. Forcing players out of their comfort zones is, I think, occasionally a good thing to do. Forcing them to have a random-rolled stat array, I think, isn't so much.
Thing is, virtually any party will be composed of the same combat roles. There will be a few martials (likely 1 tank 1 ranged, but subject to lots of variation), a buff support character (bards, clerics, etc.), and a tactical support character (arcane casters, combat maneuver geniuses, etc.)
Even if no player at a table plays anything like what they normally do, these roles will be the norm. If you want the players to do something different, simply have them draw up a level 1 character according to their wishes. In fact, tell them to make something that is a slight twist on what they typically do, but not very different.
Then, on session 1, have them switch character sheets. They can remake any flavor aspects they choose (name, backstory, appearance, etc.) but are otherwise locked into that character at level 1. Houserule multiclassing such that full BAB classes cannot take levels in 1/2 BAB and vice verse.
One thing to keep in mind, whoever gets the party face character NEEDS to be someone capable of doing that. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be at a table with the +20 Diplomacy mod paladin whose player can never think of anything relevant to say.
Just an idea.
|
One thing to keep in mind, whoever gets the party face character NEEDS to be someone capable of doing that. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be at a table with the +20 Diplomacy mod paladin whose player can never think of anything relevant to say.
I have actually done something similar. I tried telling a group that could have wiped our party to go on their way with my +15 diplomacy summoner and because I basically said it in a antagonistic way, my roll of 33 diplomacy roll was wasted and was saved by our other party face with his own 35+ diplomacy check. Having a high diplomacy doesn't fix stupidity by the player some times.
Some players (in any rpg) like the challenge of playing different types of characters, or even characters with sub-optimal stats or abilities.
Some are happiest playing the same type of character over and over again.
Most fall somewhere in-between.
My approach as a GM has always been to let the players design the type of character they want to play. The happier they are with the character, the more invested they are with both the character and the game.
As a player, I'm fairly adaptable, since I like challenges. Even so, I typically don't like to roll characters. Even if I am playing one with sub-optimal stats, I want to be the one who chose to assign them.
Like I said before, I don't know about you, but I don't come to the table to spend four hours pretending to suck. Nobody comes to the table looking to be below average. I will go so far as to say nobody comes even to be average.
I have had a few characters throughout the years who were designed to have very non-standard skillsets. They didn't fit well into the common divisions of martial, ranged, spell-using, buffing, etc., by design. I enjoyed the challenge of coming up with something new that could still be a viable part of the party.
In one case, I deliberately designed a character who didn't have any skills that seemed to be useful for adventuring, then proceeded to play him in ways that made him an important and useful part of the party. It was a big challenge, but it worked out well.
In the few occasions where I have played in games that used pre-gen characters, I often took the character nobody else wanted, then worked hard to show that he could be a good character, after all.
Having said all that, I have only met a handful of people throughout the years who enjoy that sort of thing. Most people are very, very intent on playing characters who have above-average stats and abilities. Playing a character with average or below average abilities, or one that doesn't have a clear pre-set role, is a lot of work. If you don't enjoy that sort of thing, the whole process becomes a chore.
OP - Is your campaign is mostly about combat encounters, or is this particular player only interested in combat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind, whoever gets the party face character NEEDS to be someone capable of doing that. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be at a table with the +20 Diplomacy mod paladin whose player can never think of anything relevant to say.
Just an idea.
Ah, yes, the classic "charismatic characters need to have charismatic players" argument.
Time for the "You better make sure your wizards are members of Mensa and your barbarians can bench over double their weight" response.
But, even further, despite how aptly that sums up my opinion on the matter:
Just as a wizard should not have to say "I grab a handful of guano from my spell component pouch, dangling from my side, rubbing it in my fingers and mumbling 'shabaladouchilachilaroustic' while moving my left hand in a counterclockwise circle and gyrating my hips like young Elvis, but most certainly not like old Elvis...I then fling my hand roughly thirty-five degrees to the north and watch amazed as a ball of flame explodes roughly 20' in diameter putting out the heat of, well, not a thousand suns, but like four ovens baking turkeys, at least"...
...but rather, is okay saying, "I cast fireball. I center it here. It does 27 damage...reflex 19 for half". The players and GM kinda fill in the blanks.
So, too, should a paladin not have to spell everything out. Rather, "I come up with a convincing argument for why they should let us go. I rolled a 23. Oh, and I have this cloak which gives me +2 to diplomacy with nobles," is perfectly acceptable.
Not everyone...in fact, the majority of players I've been around, (not that anecdotal evidence is everything, but so far for me it's been around 75% don't) want to roleplay absolutely every detail...but some of those same people want to play someone charismatic. I would advocate a survey of some kind to validate that opinion, but I am almost positive those people who give a hoot enough about the game to get online and talk on forums about it are a little more biased towards the RP-bloody-everything opinion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Escapism is a reason why a lot of people play this game. Getting to be able to play an outgoing and charasimatic person is a great way for someone who is socially awkward to be able to get to experience that. But if the player is socially awkward, it doesn't make sense to punsih their character, that is the who reason social skills were added to the game in the first place.
Hmm…
Ok, to the OP, I think I understand what you were trying to do and why. But I think you picked the wrong tactic.
First: You said they always play the same thing. Are the players complaining that they are getting bored with the sameness or do they like it?
GM’s often get irritated if the players bring carbon copy PC’s all the time. However, some players like it. I know this class/build/role, I’m good/expert at it, and I’m uncomfortable with change. It seems weird to me that someone would enjoy RPG’s but then always want the same character, but Hey! Stranger things happen every day. If they enjoy the same types of characters, there is virtually no chance you will get them to change. Just learn to live with it or find a new group.
Second: If they have expressed dissatisfaction with the sameness, you have more possibilities.
However, a draconian random-roll-in-order-and-make-it-work-somehow is rarely going to make people happy. There a few of us old timers that have a nostalgic love for that kind of weirdness. But if you players are already in a rut of sameness, I can almost guarantee they won’t be happy with it even if they don’t say anything.
Third: I have worked with several players that want to change but just don’t know how to go about it and think they are going to screw up. I can give you a few suggestions that will help.
A) I give all players 1 completely free rebuild per campaign. (I give new players more than one.) If they decide the concept just isn’t working in that particular campaign, they find it boring, it is too complicated to enjoy, or they just screwed up the build. They have a complete do-over they can use at any time and we will just pretend it always was that way. I will work it into the story somehow. The funny thing is, they almost never take full advantage of the rebuild. Knowing they have it is kind of a safety backup in case they foul-up big time. But they usually don’t. they often decide to use it to switch out a feat or maybe a couple of spells known that didn’t work the way they thought they would. But they mostly keep the same build.
B) Find out how much change he is comfortable managing. Some will only want to switch from a dex melee combatant to a strength melee combatant the first time. That’s ok. Baby steps is fine. Some will want a radical change from two-handed power attacker to illusionist primary caster. That is also ok, but the player will have to learn a lot more.
C) Try to get them to read the guide The Forge of Combat. It isn’t perfect by any means. But helps to get people thinking of the possibilities.
D) Make a list of some key questions. What do you want to be best at in combat? (Hitting with a greatclub.) What do you want to be decent at in combat when your ‘best’ doesn’t work or isn’t needed? (Grappling to immobilize a foe.) What do you want to be best at out of combat? (Sense motive to catch liars.) What do you want to be decent at out of combat when your ‘best’ doesn’t work or isn’t needed? (Tracking.) Ok, sounds like a barbarian with improved grapple and some of the rage powers to work with two-handed strikes and grapples. We won’t dump wisdom and will put ranks into survival and sense motive. We will start with a build like that and see if you like it.
E) Suggest they come to these forums for help building a character. Many do not like doing this. If they don’t want to, move to the next.
F) Work with them on a detailed build including progression of feats, skills, spells, and maybe even purchases for at least several levels. Start this well before the campaign starts so there is no rush or deadline feelings. Last time I did this, I spent many hours talking/texting with the guy and made probably a dozen builds before he had one he was comfortable playing. He is now having a blast with his natural weapon bloodrager that has a familiar for scouting.
Hmmmmm...
So core issues here:
1.) DM wants player to try something new class-wise (caster).
2.) Stat roll leaves player also trying something new ability wise (can't attack).
3.) New class/ability combo is weak at level 1 (likely 1-4).
4.) There is DM/player discord about unfairness.
Have I got this laid out?
1&2 are done. They led to 3 which led to 4.
General point: if you have a player that loves doing 1 thing only and you want them to do something wildly different, hold their hand a little bit until they can do it on their own.
Solutions for 3:
1.) spec both traits into metamagic reduction of flaming sphere. Take empowered spell at 3 and dazing spell at 5. I had a new player Druid do this recently and they crushed once they hit 3 with a worse Wis stat. You'll want the feats later for a caster druid.
2.) If it's callable, get a Spinosaurus. Great stats for melee and swims. This may replace the lack of a familiar melee roll.
3.) For levels 1 and 2, give the character a 20 charge CL1 magic missile wonderous item that only works for druids and cannot be recharged. That plus Spiny plus spells should give them enough to do and allow them not to feel frustrated by "hits 1:4 with sling for 1". Give the item backstory like "last gift from dying grandpa" and flavor "shoots magic vine arrows."
Casters aren't pimp at level 1, unless they are summoners, other pet classes with a power pet or have physical stats.
This character is going to be a tough, spell casting beast, skill monkey in a couple of levels. Prime wisdom/Perception and great int/Spellcraft plus int/knowledge nature.
Help the player get the character there.