13 Strength Fighter HELP


Advice

51 to 100 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

@Halek: The general rule is that you need a casting stat of 10 + the level of the spell in order to prepare/cast it. So, in effect, you need a minimum of 11 to be able to cast spells beyond cantrips. It's not a hard rule (there's no "Wizards must have a starting Intelligence of 11 or higher" rule that I've ever seen), but it would be very unusual for someone to not meet the bare minimum there.


Halek wrote:
Inlaa wrote:
I always assumed that you're required to have 11 in a casting stat if you choose to be a casting class. I never imagined you could be allowed to take a class without being able to use ANY of its core features.

I can't find anything in the guide saying that.

Would anyone enjoy playing with someone who showed up to a game with that character? A character who can't use their class features is not contributing.

Per the rules, you can take levels in Wizard and have 7 (or less) Intelligence. Though any sane GM would tell you that's not plausible.

Speaking of GMs, I think you should bring it to the GM's attention, so that the GM can take an interest and, if necessary, issue a mandate to that player.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Malignor wrote:

In character: I'd keep outshining him, keep mocking him for sucking, and call him the team mascot because he's so useless. Offer to help or give suggestions.

If he doesn't listen, buy him a chicken suit, cast sleep, and dress him up in it as a prank. Attack his ego and goad him into improving on his own terms (since he won't listen to yours).

I think this sort of thing is far more likely to make this person try to find something else to do that's not playing RPGs with "friends" than to get him to make a better character.

But YMMV.

Yes, YMMV.

I've never been in a group where someone would quit for being mocked, if it's something truthful. TBH, I think you need thick skin to play a mature game like PF to begin with, because you have to handle character death, risk-taking, moral dilemmas, and enjoy talking about graphic violence on a regular basis. The most basic characters have no problem stabbing someone to death, since it's par for the course. If you can enjoy that subject, but then can't handle some highly justified teasing, that's pretty inconsistent IMO.

The fighter in question is knowingly, willingly, and stubbornly dragging the party down and risking their lives with his intentional incompetence. Where's his respect and consideration for them? The game is for everyone, not just him. If he won't contribute to the party's fun, maybe they can just make it fun by getting some laughs despite him. Then he gets to play his failure of a fighter, and the group gets some hilarity - everyone wins.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You could try explaining to said player that in his attempt to avoid "min-maxing" he has "min-maxed" his character; just not in the way people expect. He needs to realize that in his fervor to avoid becoming "that player", he's become "that player"...

Normally Min-Maxing refers to Minimizing your Weaknesses, and Maximizing your Strengths. However, this player has chosen to Minimize is Strengths and Maximize his Weaknesses instead.

His behavior is just as egregious an abuse of the intent of the rules, and just as unbalancing as traditional Min-Maxing. Arguably it is even worse because instead of the worst case scenario being the boredom of the other players, the worst case scenario is that he is single-handedly responsible for a Total Party Kill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malignor wrote:
I've never been in a group where someone would quit for being mocked, if it's something truthful. TBH, I think you need thick skin to play a mature game like PF to begin with, because you have to handle character death, risk-taking, moral dilemmas, and enjoy talking about graphic violence on a regular basis. The most basic characters have no problem stabbing someone to death, since it's par for the course. If you can enjoy that subject, but then can't handle some highly justified teasing, that's pretty inconsistent IMO.

I think though that this depends on a lot of things we don't know here. Like is this literally this guy's first time playing a tabletop RPG? If so, go easy on him. Do the players know this person well outside of the game? If not, go easy on him.

I mean, not every Pathfinder game is going to be about character death, graphic violence, and other sorts of things. You can basically play the game as a fun romp or even a farce if that's what everybody at the table wants. I've run these sorts of games for 8 and 9 year old kids, so it's not like "mature subjects" are part and parcel to the hobby (a tip for running games for kids: no fights against animals, kids hate fighting animals).

I mean this hobby (rightfully) has a bad reputation for being unwelcoming to outsiders, and assuming that should have to have a sufficiently thick skin to even be welcome at a gaming table. I think we're better off the further we get away from that.


Indicate where the door is located and strongly suggest he not let it strike him when it closes behind him.

You've identified his playstyle. You've identified it isn't a good fit for the rest of your group's playstyle. You've intimated he should alter his playstyle to better suit the group. He refused. Eject him and find a new player.


He's not the GM, just an angry player.


ShroudedInLight wrote:
He's not the GM, just an angry player.

And?

Kicking a player shouldn't be the GM's choice anyway, it should be a group decision. My advocacy of this resolution expects him to discuss with the group and either develop a consensus to do so or otherwise develop a compromise. I suppose that wasn't clear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Inlaa wrote:
Siege Mage, obviously, for maximum uselessness.

I don't know about that -- he could be very useful packing himself into the siege engine as its ammo, if he weighs enough.


My suggestion is to sit this player down for an intervention. Explain to him the problems his behavior is causing, and how it is impacting everyone else's group. Let him know that you aren't expecting min maxing, but that having a character focused enough to handle its role in the party would help you all have more fun.

Also let him know that you feel he is disrespecting the rest of you by willfully playing a character that is not capable of being good at anything. He is making the rest of the party take up the slack and expend a lot of resources to deal with it.

The righ kind of character or build can make a suboptimal weapon work. And honestly he doesn't need to be stupidly strong, anyway. But by trying to be good at everything, he has created someone that is good at nothing and makes everyone suffer for it.

Hopefully he is a mature enough individual to handle this discussion and make changes. If he refuses to, then maybe you need to consider changing your group around. I don't know how easily you could replace him or game without him, but I wouldn't want to game with someone that couldn't understand the above points and come to some kind of compromise.

Of course, I wouldn't be caught dead in combat as a melee combatant with anything under a 16 in my attack stat, so I'm having trouble understanding where he is coming from. Heck, our party ran into a COMMONER that had better melee stats than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a player did this in my group they'd roleplay kicking the fighter out of the group and hiring a fighter that was good in combat. It's happened in the group I the GM for.


Introduce an NPC Warrior or martial character (whose a better fit/build) tag along with the group for a spell.

Let this NPC steal his thunder a few times and maybe (just maybe) he'll step up and look constructively at how he can contribute more effectively?

Might be worth a shot - and if he goes for the murderhobo response to the challenge have your NPC "Sir Fightsalot" butcher him where he stands.

Win-Win.

My 2 hacks worth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is your game 100% combat? How is the player at the other parts of the game? Does he roleplay?


In fairness, the party is rogue, fighter, witch, sorceror so in like 4 or 5 levels half the party is going to be marginalized anyway


ultimatepunch wrote:
Is your game 100% combat? How is the player at the other parts of the game? Does he roleplay?

With 12s and 13s for all stats the character would drag the party down on skill rolls during roleplaying.


voska66 wrote:
ultimatepunch wrote:
Is your game 100% combat? How is the player at the other parts of the game? Does he roleplay?
With 12s and 13s for all stats the character would drag the party down on skill rolls during roleplaying.

even if he was good at roll playing i would take some one who doesnt roll play at all but can have a competent character in one or 2 aspects of the game than a really good roll player whos character sucks in every aspect of it


Malignor wrote:

Another thing you guys could do is save his life...

... by abandoning him in town, or some other safe place.

Imagine you're a soldier on a operation, and a 9 year old boy tries to follow you. Would you just let him come along and let him die? Would you try to find a way to make him contribute? Or would you do what is needed to keep him faaaaar out of harms way (like at home), because you know he'll just get in the way and get everyone killed including himself?

Yup, if he's dead set on role play, then how on earth can he expect a party of adventurers to put up with dead weight? From a true 'role playing' perspective, they would cut him loose ASAP and pick up someone who can do their part well.

Insisting that the party put up with an ineffective character is about as far from role playing as you can get. Their lives are on the line here.


OP, something worth confessing here.
You could probably argue that my current character is similar to your fighter in terms of build.

Have a Dwarven Ranger level 6...
STR 14, DEX 12, CON 14, INT 13, WIS 14, CHA 10

Feats = [2WF, Improved 2WF, Endurance], Weapon Focus Dwarven Urgosh, Power Attack, Scribe Scroll

As you can see this is a pretty mediocre build in almost every respect.
The two Ninjas and the Oracle in the group outshine me, for sure. Luckily the Monk is useless and the Sorcerer doesn't seem to even be there.

But there's a big difference... despite my mediocre build, I've consistently made solid decisions in regard to gear and combat tactics. Unlike your fighter, I use ranged weapons. I craft scrolls that the Oracle can use to augment party utility. I focus on achieving flanking with the ninjas, and keeping the party moderately close so the Oracle (Life mystery) can keep us alive. I roleplay heavily and get good laughs from the group, so in combat, out of combat, and in social situations I'm an integral part of the group. So build or no build, it's more about how you play.

Your fighter doesn't even sound like a team player, and that's why your story kind of annoys me. That player seems very self-centered, to the detriment of everyone else. If I'm interpreting that correctly, then I think his selfishness is disrespectful, and in my book being willfully disrespectful makes one unworthy of respect. So in your shoes I would make that known, through IRL, and in-game behavior, so he can hopefully realize he's being a pest, and redeem himself by being considerate to his fellow players. If he's informed of this and doesn't care... well then he's earned the status of a write-off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
voska66 wrote:
ultimatepunch wrote:
Is your game 100% combat? How is the player at the other parts of the game? Does he roleplay?
With 12s and 13s for all stats the character would drag the party down on skill rolls during roleplaying.
even if he was good at roll playing i would take some one who doesnt roll play at all but can have a competent character in one or 2 aspects of the game than a really good roll player whos character sucks in every aspect of it

I would never let someone who doesn't roleplay into my roleplaying game sessions, but hey, whatever works for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malignor wrote:

OP, something worth confessing here.

You could probably argue that my current character is similar to your fighter in terms of build.

Have a Dwarven Ranger level 6...
STR 14, DEX 12, CON 14, INT 13, WIS 14, CHA 10

Feats = [2WF, Improved 2WF, Endurance], Weapon Focus Dwarven Urgosh, Power Attack, Scribe Scroll

As you can see this is a pretty mediocre build in almost every respect.
The two Ninjas and the Oracle in the group outshine me, for sure. Luckily the Monk is useless and the Sorcerer doesn't seem to even be there.

But there's a big difference... despite my mediocre build, I've consistently made solid decisions in regard to gear and combat tactics. Unlike your fighter, I use ranged weapons. I craft scrolls that the Oracle can use to augment party utility. I focus on achieving flanking with the ninjas, and keeping the party moderately close so the Oracle (Life mystery) can keep us alive. I roleplay heavily and get good laughs from the group, so in combat, out of combat, and in social situations I'm an integral part of the group. So build or no build, it's more about how you play.

Your fighter doesn't even sound like a team player, and that's why your story kind of annoys me. That player seems very self-centered, to the detriment of everyone else. If I'm interpreting that correctly, then I think his selfishness is disrespectful, and in my book being willfully disrespectful makes one unworthy of respect. So in your shoes I would make that known, through IRL, and in-game behavior, so he can hopefully realize he's being a pest, and redeem himself by being considerate to his fellow players. If he's informed of this and doesn't care... well then he's earned the status of a write-off.

where do you get any Oh this latter part of the post from?

All we know is that the guy has bad stats. I've made worse than those work.

You are reading a lot into the situation and making some ugly judgements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Malignor wrote:

Another thing you guys could do is save his life...

... by abandoning him in town, or some other safe place.

Imagine you're a soldier on a operation, and a 9 year old boy tries to follow you. Would you just let him come along and let him die? Would you try to find a way to make him contribute? Or would you do what is needed to keep him faaaaar out of harms way (like at home), because you know he'll just get in the way and get everyone killed including himself?

Yup, if he's dead set on role play, then how on earth can he expect a party of adventurers to put up with dead weight? From a true 'role playing' perspective, they would cut him loose ASAP and pick up someone who can do their part well.

Insisting that the party put up with an ineffective character is about as far from role playing as you can get. Their lives are on the line here.

the last party I played with that had that attitude died horribly while the "dead weight" survived, killed that monster, went to the next town, sold their equipment and lived well.

No such thing as dead weight in a game that relies heavily on luck in dice rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Malignor wrote:

Another thing you guys could do is save his life...

... by abandoning him in town, or some other safe place.

Imagine you're a soldier on a operation, and a 9 year old boy tries to follow you. Would you just let him come along and let him die? Would you try to find a way to make him contribute? Or would you do what is needed to keep him faaaaar out of harms way (like at home), because you know he'll just get in the way and get everyone killed including himself?

Yup, if he's dead set on role play, then how on earth can he expect a party of adventurers to put up with dead weight? From a true 'role playing' perspective, they would cut him loose ASAP and pick up someone who can do their part well.

Insisting that the party put up with an ineffective character is about as far from role playing as you can get. Their lives are on the line here.

the last party I played with that had that attitude died horribly while the "dead weight" survived, killed that monster, went to the next town, sold their equipment and lived well.

No such thing as dead weight in a game that relies heavily on luck in dice rolls.

Welcome to 1st level.

Quite frankly, the only reason that "dead weight" survived was from luck in dice rolls. Well, that and the stupid PCs not realizing to use the expendable person for what he's there to be used as: an expendable, but that's beside the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Malignor wrote:

Another thing you guys could do is save his life...

... by abandoning him in town, or some other safe place.

Imagine you're a soldier on a operation, and a 9 year old boy tries to follow you. Would you just let him come along and let him die? Would you try to find a way to make him contribute? Or would you do what is needed to keep him faaaaar out of harms way (like at home), because you know he'll just get in the way and get everyone killed including himself?

Yup, if he's dead set on role play, then how on earth can he expect a party of adventurers to put up with dead weight? From a true 'role playing' perspective, they would cut him loose ASAP and pick up someone who can do their part well.

Insisting that the party put up with an ineffective character is about as far from role playing as you can get. Their lives are on the line here.

the last party I played with that had that attitude died horribly while the "dead weight" survived, killed that monster, went to the next town, sold their equipment and lived well.

No such thing as dead weight in a game that relies heavily on luck in dice rolls.

Um, yes there is. The person who literally does nothing but suck up healing spells, loot, and experience without actually helping put down the bad guys is dead weight.

The fact that even dead weight can get lucky doesn't actually change the facts. In fact, maybe if the "dead weight" had been more competent, his party wouldn't have died around him.

Now, I grant you, it's not all or even mostly about stats, but if a party has a person they think isn't pulling their weight, answer me one question:

From a role-playing point of view, in general, why would a group of characters keep bringing along some random person they considered as dead weight?


Freehold DM wrote:
Malignor wrote:
Your fighter doesn't even sound like a team player, and that's why your story kind of annoys me. That player seems very self-centered, to the detriment of everyone else. If I'm interpreting that correctly... (more text)

where do you get any Oh this latter part of the post from?

All we know is that the guy has bad stats. I've made worse than those work.

You are reading a lot into the situation and making some ugly judgements.

I got it from the following pieces...

Quotes:

Halek wrote:
...who religiously won't "minmax".
Halek wrote:
He has no armor but enough gold to buy armor.
Halek wrote:

We tried to explain how math works. Didnt work.

He will probably buy armor next session so that is semi covered. He probably get something like a chain shirt just to make it more difficult but whatever.
"Halek wrote:
Also he won't carry any ranged weapon so when we faced an enemy on a balcony he spent three rounds running towards him along stairs triggering traps and doing nothing. We had killed him before he got there.
Halek wrote:
Essentially he is just draining healing charges from our wand and taking a share of treasure while not hitting anything and standing there.

... and realizing that most of this sounds very deliberate, despite how this affects the game for everyone else, both in-character and as an IRL gaming experience for the other players.

Note that you're saying "it's only bad stats" as a rebuttal to me, after I openly said that bad stats alone isn't a problem. We actually agree there, so this shouldn't even be a point of contention.

Halek's pointed out specific choices the player made and continues to make which make his character a liability (in-game) and a source of frustration for other players. That it's being done "religiously" suggests he's doing it out of some principle and on purpose, despite the other people at the gaming table.


Malignor wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Malignor wrote:
Your fighter doesn't even sound like a team player, and that's why your story kind of annoys me. That player seems very self-centered, to the detriment of everyone else. If I'm interpreting that correctly... (more text)

where do you get any Oh this latter part of the post from?

All we know is that the guy has bad stats. I've made worse than those work.

You are reading a lot into the situation and making some ugly judgements.

I got it from the following pieces...

** spoiler omitted **
... and realizing that most of this sounds very deliberate, despite how this affects the game for everyone else, both in-character and as an IRL gaming experience for the other players.

Note that you're saying "it's only bad stats" as a rebuttal to me, after I openly said that bad stats alone isn't a problem. We actually agree there, so this shouldn't even be a point of contention.

Halek's pointed out specific choices the player made and continues to make which make his character a liability (in-game) and a source of frustration for other players. That it's being done "religiously" suggests he's doing it out of some principle and on purpose, despite the other people at the gaming table.

Yeah, from what Halek's posted it seems like the guy is going out of his way to make his character as mechanically weak as possible, and doing so over the objections of everyone else at the table.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Malignor wrote:

Another thing you guys could do is save his life...

... by abandoning him in town, or some other safe place.

Imagine you're a soldier on a operation, and a 9 year old boy tries to follow you. Would you just let him come along and let him die? Would you try to find a way to make him contribute? Or would you do what is needed to keep him faaaaar out of harms way (like at home), because you know he'll just get in the way and get everyone killed including himself?

Yup, if he's dead set on role play, then how on earth can he expect a party of adventurers to put up with dead weight? From a true 'role playing' perspective, they would cut him loose ASAP and pick up someone who can do their part well.

Insisting that the party put up with an ineffective character is about as far from role playing as you can get. Their lives are on the line here.

the last party I played with that had that attitude died horribly while the "dead weight" survived, killed that monster, went to the next town, sold their equipment and lived well.

No such thing as dead weight in a game that relies heavily on luck in dice rolls.

Welcome to 1st level.

Quite frankly, the only reason that "dead weight" survived was from luck in dice rolls. Well, that and the stupid PCs not realizing to use the expendable person for what he's there to be used as: an expendable, but that's beside the point.

no, the party(at least two players in it) were quite dumb in attempting to bring in real world knowledge in a fantasy based game. They deserved the death they got. One was bad luck, I think one more just plain ran out of HP. The dead weight guy played things smart with respect to the situation (although luck did help in at least one encounter),and that's why he lived.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Malignor wrote:

Another thing you guys could do is save his life...

... by abandoning him in town, or some other safe place.

Imagine you're a soldier on a operation, and a 9 year old boy tries to follow you. Would you just let him come along and let him die? Would you try to find a way to make him contribute? Or would you do what is needed to keep him faaaaar out of harms way (like at home), because you know he'll just get in the way and get everyone killed including himself?

Yup, if he's dead set on role play, then how on earth can he expect a party of adventurers to put up with dead weight? From a true 'role playing' perspective, they would cut him loose ASAP and pick up someone who can do their part well.

Insisting that the party put up with an ineffective character is about as far from role playing as you can get. Their lives are on the line here.

the last party I played with that had that attitude died horribly while the "dead weight" survived, killed that monster, went to the next town, sold their equipment and lived well.

No such thing as dead weight in a game that relies heavily on luck in dice rolls.

Um, yes there is. The person who literally does nothing but suck up healing spells, loot, and experience without actually helping put down the bad guys is dead weight.

The fact that even dead weight can get lucky doesn't actually change the facts. In fact, maybe if the "dead weight" had been more competent, his party wouldn't have died around him.

Now, I grant you, it's not all or even mostly about stats, but if a party has a person they think isn't pulling their weight, answer me one question:

From a role-playing point of view, in general, why would a group of characters keep bringing along some random person they considered as dead weight?

because sometimes(a lot of times) the rest of the party is stupid or painfully unlucky. There always room for a useful idiot, if only in action economy. It's what followers are for. Or were, in earlier editions.


Freehold DM wrote:
because sometimes(a lot of times) the rest of the party is stupid or painfully unlucky. There always room for a useful idiot, if only in action economy. It's what followers are for. Or were, in earlier editions.

Followers don't ask for an equal share of the loot. Followers don't suck up an equal share of the XP. If he wants to play a follower-level cannon fodder that gets neither loot nor a share of the XP, then maybe people wouldn't be complaining.

Again, from a role-playing perspective, a party that shares loots expects everyone to pull their weight in some way. If a character is consistently not performing up to expectations, then from a role playing perspective, why would you expect the others to keep him around?


Introduce him to the vigilante. They start off pretty weak (1d8hp and no combat bonuses). But even with crappy stats they can get +1/2 level in damage when using weapon finesse. Combine that with good social skills, and he can be a "commoner" with crappy stats who learns how to be hero. No high strength needed.

Hell, give him a scythe and some skill points in profession farmer. He'll get x4 crit bonus and be thematically consistent. He wants to wear light armor? Great, he can use stealth, and with some vigilante only talents that make his AC better, so he won't die to a slight breeze.

Str (13) Dex (14) Con (14) Int (12) Wis (12) Cha (13). He can put +2 in anything. Con he might agree with to "make up" for the 1d8 hit dice.

Grab Str14 at lvl4. If he sticks with greataxe he'll do 1d12+11 damage with full BaB. That's not great, but it's ok. With a +1 chain shirt, +1 ring, dodge and the vigilante power attack, he'll have AC 21 after he swings. Not great, but doable. He'll also have all around good saves and lots of good skills, though none which stand out as being great.

All in all, a backup character who won't drag you all down and who might be able to pull his weight.


For what it's worth, Weapon Training will eventually make a huge difference, especially since you can toss him some Gloves of Dueling to stack up his Weapon Training bonus (+3 attack and damage by level 5 if you're feeling generous). Weapon feats also help a lot, and most Fighters pick 'em sooner or later unless they have some major plan for all those feats.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
because sometimes(a lot of times) the rest of the party is stupid or painfully unlucky. There always room for a useful idiot, if only in action economy. It's what followers are for. Or were, in earlier editions.

Followers don't ask for an equal share of the loot. Followers don't suck up an equal share of the XP. If he wants to play a follower-level cannon fodder that gets neither loot nor a share of the XP, then maybe people wouldn't be complaining.

Again, from a role-playing perspective, a party that shares loots expects everyone to pull their weight in some way. If a character is consistently not performing up to expectations, then from a role playing perspective, why would you expect the others to keep him around?

I'd say this guy surpassed expectations. I think from a role playing perspective he ate out on that tale for the rest of his life.


ShroudedInLight wrote:

This does bring the question of, what is the worst possible character you can design on a point buy. Hell, a generous point-buy.

PFS is 20 points right? That could be a fun topic.

Im pretty sure a wizard with a 8 int is about as bad as it gets.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Y'all are missing the most essential question. It isn't about armor, strength score or effectiveness in battle.

The real question is...:

"Does he bring Pizza?"

In all seriousness, RPGs are about having fun in our imaginary world with our friends. If this guy's a friend, you need to just GET OVER IT and let him play the character he wants.


Wheldrake wrote:
If this guy's a friend, you need to just GET OVER IT and let him play the character he wants.

Or develop better friends.


I may have missed it, but how are the others feeling about Sir Whiffsalot? Again, it's a group endeavour. If everyone's feeling like they're going to have a bad time of it because the fighter's landing fewer hits in melee than the sorcerer (as well as said sorcerer needing to take all those attacks), then as a group you may want to have a talk.

But be as polite as you can! This may be even worse than political debating. And try to discuss -- GENTLY -- only the most pressing items. Greataxe vs greatsword is trivial, and I think the game devs meant to have it that way. But ... two-handed weapon fighting, with the stats he has, isn't really playing to his strengths. However, the lack of ranged weapon can be a huge problem. Ask him what he plans to do about an enemy flying 15' high ...

And when talking, find out what he's wanting to do in general. Be as supportive as you can. (And that does include 'It sounds like a nice plan but I don't think you're going to last until level 5 ... ' if it comes to that.)


Wheldrake wrote:
If this guy's a friend, you need to just GET OVER IT and let him play the character he wants.

I've been preaching this since I've posted it, though I don't think that's really the case, in hindsight. I only posited this in an attempt to make the issue resolve naturally; there's always the possibility that it won't, and it will lead to something worse than what it currently is.

Remember, he is one player who is having fun compared to multiple others who aren't.

I'm all for a player having the right to enjoy his own character. No matter how good or bad it may be.

What I'm not for, is a player enjoying his character at the expense of other players' characters..

And a lot of posters (no offense) aren't seeing the latter happening while the OP consistently brought up the former for the problem player's motivations (and not the consequences of said motivations).


Well this game is about extraordinary heroes. He's choosing to play an ordinary person. If honest discussion doesn't work, then there has to be some other complicated element here.

Rewrite the plot so it all revolves around him Harry Potter style where Hermione, Dumbledore, Snape, Sidius Black, or Dobby have all of the special powers, but Harry Potter leeches all the credit?

I bet people are going to start defending Harry Potter...


First, has someone tried actually pointing out to him that higher stats wouldn't be considered bad in your group? In my first campaign, my PC was pretty terribad too, because I just was warned "don't be a powergamer, it's bad and no fun for other people if you make your character too good" and not told much else. But, if it's not just a simple misunderstanding like that and really is an informed decision on his part...

It sounds like this player possibly doesn't want a way to be more effective despite such-and-such anti-optimizing, he's just having fun as is? Which, imo, is fine. (If you get the feeling he's doing it to be a troll, that's one thing, but giving him a reaction won't stop that.)

However, it sounds like "do nothing, as long as he's having fun" isn't valid due to the difficulty of the campaign - enemies are strong enough that a weak link like Wimpy Fighter isn't affordable.

That's the part I'd remedy. Talk to the GM about it - maybe they're trying to kill him off, maybe they're trying to pressure him into playing differently, maybe they're just trying to make things challenging for everyone else. I think ideally, they should start balancing encounters around a three-player party. Maybe factor in a little chip damage from Wimpy, but generally actively don't expect him to pull his weight.
I treat some background NPCs with some level of "plot armor" simply in terms of I don't think the players would want to spend this combat defending this mook tagging along, so enemies end up preferring to attack PCs - this is how I'd treat Wimpy at this point. Have enemies ignore them enough that other players aren't forced to choose to either let them die, or change how they play to prevent it. It's plenty excusable as "he's an unarmored guy doing negligible damage, he's less of a threat."

The GM is presumably distributing treasure with the number of PCs in mind - kicking Wimpy out of the group shouldn't mean extra loot for everyone else at least in the long term. If this isn't the case, talk to the GM, remind them how many players are in the campaign, recommend they look at the WBL guidelines. Otherwise... why is this a problem? Now, if Wimpy is requesting loot other people particularly want, talk to the player about that, let him know that so-and-so could put that particular item to better use. But if he's just taking his share, if the game is being run as normal, I don't see much fairness in faulting him for that.

So, if Wimpy stays alive without hassle for the others, Wimpy doesn't call dibs on the nice loot, encounters are balanced to expect Wimpy to be a wimp... is there any problem here anymore?

tl;dr the GM should be accommodating Wimpy's deliberate wimpiness instead of putting the burden on other players, Wimpy should be allowed to be a wimp if he wants to. If the GM refuses to do this after being asked about it, they're contributing to the issue too and that makes it slightly different.


Lady-J wrote:
dont spend any party resources on him like buffs or other spells use them on the people that can carry more weight in combat than him i can understand a character that cant pull their weight in combat because they are speced into something else i have a rogue like that in a campaign im in next to no combat ability but i have a +13 minimum to like 90% of the skills in the game and we a re level 4 im also the partyies trap finder and disabler among otherthings so while i only have +11 to hit and deal 1d3+6 damage with one attack a round in combat i can still pull my weight in other aspects of the game having a character with no ability over a 13 cant really pull weight in any aspect of the game especially as a fighter.

I disagree strongly. You should always work together as a team, and buffing him seems like exactly what this character needs. The party should find roles for him where he the most useful.

He is not exceptional in anything, but with encouragement, guidance, and experience, his character might become adequate in most things. Projecting myself into his actions, as a MAD character-builder myself, it might be not so much that he isn't trying to avoid minmaxing, but instead trying to well-rounded. In my experience, it is my well-rounded characters that have been the most beneficial to the party. Yes, trying to be not bad at anything might mean he is good for nothing, and that seems to be exactly the OP's problem, but if I am calling the OP's intentions right, then that should shape the advice.

Get him to see that if if he drops some scores to 12, he can raise others to 14, the only real effect being that he'll get some +1s.

With an ability score of 13, you only need a single +1/every 4 levels to get your +1 Ability Mod, and there is nothing wrong with planning your character accordingly. But then he should bear in mind that it will take 24 levels to raise all his abilities by that +1, and most campaigns don't last that long. So find out how long the camapaign is likely to last, and then coax him to tweaking his character just a little bit.

Give him a gun or a Robe of Needles. Or just put some lamp oil and alchemist fire in his hands: Ranged Touch Attacks.

Cast Shield Other on him and Infernal Healing on yourself, then he'll be a terrific meat shield.

You can't just tell people what to do, but you can engage, help, and offer respectful advice. And you can show people by your example.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
dont spend any party resources on him like buffs or other spells use them on the people that can carry more weight in combat than him i can understand a character that cant pull their weight in combat because they are speced into something else i have a rogue like that in a campaign im in next to no combat ability but i have a +13 minimum to like 90% of the skills in the game and we a re level 4 im also the partyies trap finder and disabler among otherthings so while i only have +11 to hit and deal 1d3+6 damage with one attack a round in combat i can still pull my weight in other aspects of the game having a character with no ability over a 13 cant really pull weight in any aspect of the game especially as a fighter.

I disagree strongly. You should always work together as a team, and buffing him seems like exactly what this character needs. The party should find roles for him where he the most useful.

He is not exceptional in anything, but with encouragement, guidance, and experience, his character might become adequate in most things. Projecting myself into his actions, as a MAD character-builder myself, it might be not so much that he isn't trying to avoid minmaxing, but instead trying to well-rounded. In my experience, it is my well-rounded characters that have been the most beneficial to the party. Yes, trying to be not bad at anything might mean he is good for nothing, and that seems to be exactly the OP's problem, but if I am calling the OP's intentions right, then that should shape the advice.

Get him to see that if if he drops some scores to 12, he can raise others to 14, the only real effect being that he'll get some +1s.

With an ability score of 13, you only need a single +1/every 4 levels to get your +1 Ability Mod, and there is nothing wrong with planning your character accordingly. But then he should bear in mind that it will take 24 levels to raise all his abilities by that +1, and most campaigns don't last that long. So find out how long the...

a well rounded character is some one who has 3 16s and 3 14s not some one with 6 13s the party resources are better spent on the characters that can actually do things in combat why buff up the guy who will probably still miss 75% of the time after buffing when you can buff some one else in the party to beable to kill 2-3 guys in a round every round


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
a well rounded character is some one who has 3 16s and 3 14s not some one with 6 13s

I feel like the number of games that will let you play a 35 point buy character (assuming dual talent human) is fairly low.

I mean, I literally let players choose whatever stats they want and I've never seen something like 3 16s and 3 14s. There's always at least a 10 or an 8 or two in there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am used to playing with unoptimized characters. Rather than letting it bother me, I just make my character assuming certain players won't contribute much to the party.

It's all in the attitude. If you don't worry about how sucky your teammates are, your game experience improves.


When you're the glass canon in the party, I can totally understand how frustrating it is when the frontliner gimps their character and gets stubborn about it. You're the player most affected by their choices, after all.

Liberty's Edge

I wish I knew the player's perspective on this. When a player wants a character who is not very good at anything, in or out of combat, he must have some reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You could try showing the player what the Heroic NPC stat array is.


BadBird wrote:
For what it's worth, Weapon Training will eventually make a huge difference, especially since you can toss him some Gloves of Dueling to stack up his Weapon Training bonus (+3 attack and damage by level 5 if you're feeling generous). Weapon feats also help a lot, and most Fighters pick 'em sooner or later unless they have some major plan for all those feats.

Considering how the problem player built his stats and refuses to buy armor or a ranged weapon, I'd be very surprised if he made smart magic item purchases.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
a well rounded character is some one who has 3 16s and 3 14s not some one with 6 13s

I feel like the number of games that will let you play a 35 point buy character (assuming dual talent human) is fairly low.

I mean, I literally let players choose whatever stats they want and I've never seen something like 3 16s and 3 14s. There's always at least a 10 or an 8 or two in there.

thats a well rounded character pre racials as 16 and 14 are the average between 10(+0) and 20(+5). having 3 20s and 3 10s has the same bonus ammount as 3 16 and 3 14s and for players any stat under 10 shouldnt exist exept maybe after racials


A well rounded character should not be defined by their stats anyway. A character is well-rounded based on being able to do a variety of different useful things (both in and out of combat.) Someone with a lot of skill points and a functional combat suite, as well as some general utility is well rounded. A half elf occultist who picks up a polearm and the pragmatic activator and student of philosophy traits is well-rounded with a starting spread of 14/11/13/18/10/7- that character can fight, talk, cast spells, has unique information gathering and reconaissance abilities, and has a big pile of skill points. The problem the player in the OP's post has is that a fighter is perhaps the worst chassis in Pathfinder on which to build a "well-rounded" character, particularly for a new player who is unfamiliar with a lot of the new options.

But 20s at character generation are unheard of at any game I've been in over the last 20 years.

51 to 100 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / 13 Strength Fighter HELP All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.