depending on your race and how lucky you are will rolls you can get up to 3 20s at level 1
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Eh, I say let his character kind of suck.
It's not really hurting anything you're doing, is it? And if he starts complaining about being ineffective, give him some advice. If he then decides he doesn't want to take it because it's too minmaxy or whatever, then let him continue to suck, and otherwise do the best to enjoy the company of your friend while trying not to let his character's ineffectiveness get to you.
TL;DR, you can't make him not suck. He's gotta want to not suck.
ETA: Having said that, if you want to give him a boost, start taking some summoning spells, and some buff spells that target multiple characters. That way you can do stuff like Haste a valuable combatant as well as your buddy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lady-J wrote: depending on your race and how lucky you are will rolls you can get up to 3 20s at level 1 There are no races that give three +2s (that Aasimar chart in Blood of Angels requires DM approval, and should be disregarded as out of date) and your chance of rolling an 18 on a single 4d6 drop low is 1.620%, so it's not the sort of thing you should expect happening multiple times per character.
Chengar Qordath wrote: 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. That would be where GM fiat would come in though, unless it's PFS (or I guess one of those groups where loot is approached with calculators, wholesale-buyback schemes and 401k plans). "Oh look, some shiny awesome Figher-only gauntlets! What should we do with those?"
Is he a new player? I'm trying to figure out if he has a plan or just making choices as the game progresses. From what's been described, it sounds like he's trying to build something "balanced" without being tanky. If he was deliberately sabotaging himself, he wouldn't have started with two strong fighter feats. If he has a particular concept in mind, he may not be averse to suggestions that support it.
On a 15 point buy, a human fighter can have five 13s and a 12. No real clues there unless you used a higher point buy.
Known feats are Power Attack and Furious Focus. With Toughness, his hit points should be decent (around 23). What other feats did he choose?
Assuming he's spread out his skill points the same way he did his stats, I'd guess he has at least a point in 7 class skills and a couple in Perception. So not a skill monkey but definitely not a slouch.
No armor or ranged weapon. You mentioned he wasted a few rounds closing with the enemy so he doesn't sound not overly cautious. Has he given any in-character reasons for not gearing up? Not knowing anything else, I wonder if he has a more relaxed playing style or if he's oblivious on how his decisions are aggravating you.
PossibleCabbage wrote: Lady-J wrote: depending on your race and how lucky you are will rolls you can get up to 3 20s at level 1 There are no races that give three +2s (that Aasimar chart in Blood of Angels requires DM approval, and should be disregarded as out of date) and your chance of rolling an 18 on a single 4d6 drop low is 1.620%, so it's not the sort of thing you should expect happening multiple times per character. Well, there's Merfolk, which have bonuses to Dex, Con, and Cha. Still unlikely.
EDIT: What? I didn't say the S-word!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Daedalus the Dungeon Builder wrote: PossibleCabbage wrote: Lady-J wrote: depending on your race and how lucky you are will rolls you can get up to 3 20s at level 1 There are no races that give three +2s (that Aasimar chart in Blood of Angels requires DM approval, and should be disregarded as out of date) and your chance of rolling an 18 on a single 4d6 drop low is 1.620%, so it's not the sort of thing you should expect happening multiple times per character. Well, there's Merfolk, which have bonuses to Dex, Con, and Cha. Still unlikely.
EDIT: What? I didn't say the S-word! you said "s Merf" in "Well, there's Merfolk"
If he wants to play a worthless character take that in account on your strategy and just play the game you want to play.
As long as he is not makign demands you have to play a different style there should be no problem.
wait that works?
There's merfolk...
At the very least there are battlefield tactics. Aid another, being a flankmate, guarding squishies, etc. You don't really need to be hyper optimized for that.
Biggest question is what is the player going for? I've run into a player like this before and even slight tweets were met with resistance. Depending on stays I would try to convince him to go with 14 str/con then 12..that would be 15 points hmm perhaps I'm missing something... anyways easiest fix is to"gift" him some throwing axes... for saving you guys and full plate.. if he takes the basics weapon focus, toughness etc and maybe go sword and shield he could still help the party and do some healthy damage. Cast spells on him and hopefully the gms cam hook up the party.
PossibleCabbage wrote: Lady-J wrote: depending on your race and how lucky you are will rolls you can get up to 3 20s at level 1 There are no races that give three +2s (that Aasimar chart in Blood of Angels requires DM approval, and should be disregarded as out of date) and your chance of rolling an 18 on a single 4d6 drop low is 1.620%, so it's not the sort of thing you should expect happening multiple times per character. with rerolling chances of an 18 increase as 1s and 2s are a non factor and its more than just aasimar that can get more than just 2 stat boosts while i myself have never gotten three 18s on a roll ive had multiple characters with 2 18s my best array was 18 18 17 17 16 15 for a 5e fighter rolled infront of half the group and one of the dms, best with just 4d6 drop lowest for one game was 18 18 14 12 12 10 10 for a monk in pathfinder also rolled right infront of the dm but that was the odd man out as most of the games i play in reroll 1s and 2s.
BadBird wrote: Chengar Qordath wrote: 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. That would be where GM fiat would come in though, unless it's PFS (or I guess one of those groups where loot is approached with calculators, wholesale-buyback schemes and 401k plans). "Oh look, some shiny awesome Figher-only gauntlets! What should we do with those?" Might be personal experience biasing me, but when I was in a game with a guy who insisted on de-optimizing his character, he did stuff like sell good gear to buy things that were "cool and unique" like the necklace of fireballs.
Eh once you get higher level class options will be more important then stats anyways.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
This topic is a hard one for me because i personally think the being middle of the road with much of your stats is the more optimal choice. Ie. not having 7's in the stats. However, my opinion is that if one player is causing the rest of the table to not have fun, then you need to talk to him. If he still refuses to change then let him walk.
Backpack wrote: This topic is a hard one for me because i personally think the being middle of the road with much of your stats is the more optimal choice. Ie. not having 7's in the stats. However, my opinion is that if one player is causing the rest of the table to not have fun, then you need to talk to him. If he still refuses to change then let him walk. There is a huge difference between having 7s in one or more slots and putting 13 in everything.
Its a pain in the neck, but track EVERYTHING. How many charges go toward healing each character up, who downs what monsters, etc. Do it for like five sessions then bring your data up and discuss revamping who pays how much for which party resources that are getting used up.
Finlanderboy wrote: Backpack wrote: This topic is a hard one for me because i personally think the being middle of the road with much of your stats is the more optimal choice. Ie. not having 7's in the stats. However, my opinion is that if one player is causing the rest of the table to not have fun, then you need to talk to him. If he still refuses to change then let him walk. There is a huge difference between having 7s in one or more slots and putting 13 in everything. No i think that thirteens in all stats is ridiculous,also it would assuming a 20pt stat buy be one 16 and the rest 13, but like 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11 seems, while not optimal, decent.
Personally the "best" stats in a 20 pt buy would be 18,14,13,12,10,10
Backpack wrote: Finlanderboy wrote: Backpack wrote: This topic is a hard one for me because i personally think the being middle of the road with much of your stats is the more optimal choice. Ie. not having 7's in the stats. However, my opinion is that if one player is causing the rest of the table to not have fun, then you need to talk to him. If he still refuses to change then let him walk. There is a huge difference between having 7s in one or more slots and putting 13 in everything. No i think that thirteens in all stats is ridiculous,also it would assuming a 20pt stat buy be one 16 and the rest 13, but like 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11 seems, while not optimal, decent.
Personally the "best" stats in a 20 pt buy would be 18,14,13,12,10,10 The OP is stating the guy has all 13s, hence the +1 to all modifiers. Using power attack with his twohandeder he is no modifier to hit and +4 to damage.
If i played in this game I would never rely on his character so succeed. Either of your stat arrays I would not worry until I saw tactics that proved otherwise.
I remember a more modern-set d20 system game I played in, as the muscle. Her stats were 14 14 14 12 12 12, and she was able to contribute quite nicely to fights, whether fire or fist. Then again, part of it was making sure to have the right tools for the job, as well as understanding what to do. (And occasionally yelling at the rest of the party to hide behind her.)
Again, an educational discussion with back and forth conversation is probably your best hope here. Because the second option is that when nature takes its course, it only takes out the one involved. (Maybe remind him of this -- what's his main combat role, anyway?)
A front-line Fighter who refuses to wear armor probably won't last long.
Update. He dropped some thirteens and boosted strength and con to 14. He bought tons of alchemical items and armor. He is now able to fulfill the role of meat shield. He still hardly hits but its "better" now. Sample combat against some centipedes.
He blocked the doorway in full defense and we shot everything to death. He is now close enough to good for our purposes.
I retrained out my bloodline for svylan and snagged boon companion on level up. So we can replace him if needed.
So he has now learned to stand in the right place.
And i have an animal companion in a pinch. Thanks for the advice.
Backpack wrote: Finlanderboy wrote: Backpack wrote: This topic is a hard one for me because i personally think the being middle of the road with much of your stats is the more optimal choice. Ie. not having 7's in the stats. However, my opinion is that if one player is causing the rest of the table to not have fun, then you need to talk to him. If he still refuses to change then let him walk. There is a huge difference between having 7s in one or more slots and putting 13 in everything. No i think that thirteens in all stats is ridiculous,also it would assuming a 20pt stat buy be one 16 and the rest 13, but like 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11 seems, while not optimal, decent.
Personally the "best" stats in a 20 pt buy would be 18,14,13,12,10,10 I'm presuming that those include racial bonuses to Strength, since those would be the equivalent of a 25-30 point buy without them, and not a 20 point buy.
|
3 people 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 pretty much agree with you on this. In fact, I said as much already.
I wrote: 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.
But I am bothered by a lot of what you are saying.
Lady-J wrote: the party resources are better spent on the characters that can actually do things in combat Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. The attitude that you let people founder and starve so they will die off to improve the gene pool leaves a bad taste in my mouth even when it's just fantasy makebelieve. That's really more the kind of attitude I'd express if I were roleplaying a Hellknight or my ex-wife than as part of my own, personal character. I suppose we can all be pitiless in our most foul and desperate moments, and I'd consider forgiving that behavior as I saw it. I hope to be forgiven sometimes for some things.
I hope I'm misunderstanding you.
Lady-J wrote: 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 It's called teamwork. It's called leadership. Remember that Pathfinder is not a zero sum game with 1 loser for every winner. Pathfinder doesn't even have winners and losers. It is not even a game with an objective where achieving it is good and failing it is bad. If the party has an easy time killing monsters, a hard time killing monsters, or all gets killed by monsters, none of that means you have won or lost at D&D.
I certainly enjoy the part where you move the minis around the board and roll dice for them like you are playing Risk, but at its core, a TTRPG isn't about that. It's about the story. It's about roleplaying. It's about the drama. The game can be just as much about roleplaying tragic failures, awful, costly mistakes, and terrible suffering, deaths and catastrophe as it is about heroic achievements and stunning military success. And if one of your players is making bad decisions and needs to be helped, then that is his story; that is his drama, and it's just as valid as yours. If you want to be a hero, a Good hero, then what you have to do is find a way to bring that player up, help that character learn and succeed and give him a chance to offer something special to the table. You don not cross your arms and watch him die. Do you? Is that what you want your story to say?
Even if I were roleplaying a pitiless Warlord , I wouldn't treat my fellow players that way across the table. I believe in supporting my teammates even when they make frustrating mistakes. I try to teach by example and learn from the example of others. If you create an environment where you tell people you aren't going to Bull Strength someone because his character sucks, I think the result will have a chilling effect on the exchange of ideas, the effectiveness of the party, and the life of the group.
Lady-J wrote: why buff up the guy who will probably still miss 75% of the time after buffing The scenario you are presenting here is not even necessarily true. I do not believe that we have been given the information necessary to do the math to show that the Party's DPR and overall combat effectiveness is better served by buffing one character over another. It might actually give you better numbers if you buff the weak character than if you buff the strong one. The math is complicated.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. The attitude that you let people founder and starve so they will die off to improve the gene pool leaves a bad taste in my mouth even when it's just fantasy makebelieve. That's really more the kind of attitude I'd express if I were roleplaying a Hellknight or my ex-wife than as part of my own, personal character. I suppose we can all be pitiless in our most foul and desperate moments, and I'd consider forgiving that behavior as I saw it. I hope to be forgiven sometimes for some things. I think it's been explained several times already.
Being part of an adventuring group is not 'automatic' for any given character (from a role playing perspective). The rest of the party has to, again from a role playing perspective, want that character in the party.
If someone is consistently being a detriment instead of a benefit to the party, then what incentive, again from a role playing perspective, does the party have to keep that guy around instead of:
finding a better character for the party.
Fighters are not rare in Pathfinder. This party could probably find a more productive party member in just about any given town or city within an hour of sitting down in a tavern.
So again, why keep this particular PC around from a role playing perspective?
Quote: It might actually give you better numbers if you buff the weak character than if you buff the strong one. The math is complicated. Perhaps, but not usually in my experience.
I know have an animal companion to flank with the rogue. The figther has rejiggered his stats to okish levels. He is now spending his money on potions which he spends most of his actions drinking. It is close enough to having a useful fighter for our purposes.
is the player having fun playing his character, no fix need
is the player spoiling other player fun due to his character, fix needed
is the character going to get the themselfs killed or all of the party killed? fix need
1) So use magic item to power up the character
start by building on characters back ground in play drop on some plot seeds of an ancestral weapon stolen for his people or even his family say his grandfather make it the type of weapon the character use
example I remember fighting along side your grandfather he was deadly with his axe ...
Make the weapon magical
the game system midnight had Covenant weapons
Covenant Items equate to standard D&D magic items. However, they differ in that they "grow" with the user. Only those with the touch of Heroic Path can activate their power, and this power grows as the user increases in level. Items come in all the standard D&D forms (e.g. weapons, armor, cloaks). Items may be detected by Legates and the Shadow when they are activated. There are Covenant Items spanning from the First Age through to current game time, with older items being of greater power. PCs will tend to get only two or three covenant items at any one time, with these "destined" for the PC's use.
Example of a minor covenant item say a Great Axe
character is 1st level weapon is +1 to hit and damage
character is 4th level weapon gains Flaming +1d6 fire damage
character is 5th level weapon gains Flaming Burst
2) Mix up a bit the rule say monster have fix hit points
Example Goblin warrior 1 have 6 hit points(1d10+1)
So you could have a range of hit points between 2 and 11
few of the goblins with more hit point say 10 or 11 hit points and some of goblins with only 2 or 3 hit points
This will help to keep the player on guard as they will no long know if hit will kill a goblin and some time the character who hand out less damage will get to kill a goblin in only one hit.
That second idea seems terrible. It adds more bookkeeping for no good reason. I also dont see how it relates at all.
Halek wrote: Update. He dropped some thirteens and boosted strength and con to 14. He bought tons of alchemical items and armor. He is now able to fulfill the role of meat shield. He still hardly hits but its "better" now. Sample combat against some centipedes.
He blocked the doorway in full defense and we shot everything to death. He is now close enough to good for our purposes.
I retrained out my bloodline for svylan and snagged boon companion on level up. So we can replace him if needed.
Well, meat shield is a classic role to play for a fighter. It sounds like he's serviceable now, and will learn to get good.
Halek wrote: That second idea seems terrible. It adds more bookkeeping for no good reason. I also dont see how it relates at all. makes character who do less damage have a chance to effect the outcome of the fight more and character who do more damage not count on killing a monster with one hit so help to balance thing out in a mix ability group of character
But the best thing about this is the players no longer know what damage is need to kill a monster so keep them on the guard
as to book keeping yes a little bit need when set up but as you need do s damage track/log it not been much of an issue to me when running and the has add to game
Encounter
.................Damage taken
1st Goblin HP 11/
2nd Goblin HP 3/
which is not diffrent from
Encounter
.................Damage taken
1st Goblin HP 6/
2nd Goblin HP 6/
Throwing extra magic items at the guy with a weak character can be one of those solutions where it'll cause issues in the group. Some folks might resent how the guy who deliberately made a weak and disruptive character gets rewarded for bad behavior.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Halek wrote: Update. He dropped some thirteens and boosted strength and con to 14. He bought tons of alchemical items and armor. He is now able to fulfill the role of meat shield. He still hardly hits but its "better" now. Sample combat against some centipedes.
He blocked the doorway in full defense and we shot everything to death. He is now close enough to good for our purposes.
I retrained out my bloodline for svylan and snagged boon companion on level up. So we can replace him if needed.
Well, meat shield is a classic role to play for a fighter. It sounds like he's serviceable now, and will learn to get good. use your Animal companion (AC) as the party helper and by helping you can help to make a weak character more effect on the fight and it make character want you cat help which stop it overshadowing as your cat become there best friend in a fight
take a small cat why it has three Primary Attacks one of which is bite attack now if the bite hits make you get to make a Trip Attack as a free Action. so make sure to cat has weapon Finesse feat
(see http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom)
Now once a monster / creature is trip you get +4 to hit
look at both combat reflexs and power attack also look up Primary Attacks
~ Trip (Ex) A creature with the trip special attack can attempt to trip its opponent as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity if it hits with the specified attack if the attempt fails, the creature is not tripped in return (see http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom)
also use the AC to
~ Flanking: When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking attack bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
or to
~ Aid Another: In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. The attitude that you let people founder and starve so they will die off to improve the gene pool leaves a bad taste in my mouth even when it's just fantasy makebelieve. That's really more the kind of attitude I'd express if I were roleplaying a Hellknight or my ex-wife than as part of my own, personal character. I suppose we can all be pitiless in our most foul and desperate moments, and I'd consider forgiving that behavior as I saw it. I hope to be forgiven sometimes for some things.
I hope I'm misunderstanding you.
i never said let him die i said dont waste resources on him in combat if he needs healing heal him up after combat(which is idealy were all healing should be done) and save the buffs for some one who can utilize them better
then perhaps leave him behind in the next town they come across cuz some one with +1s in all stats or even +1s in most and +2 in a couple is playing a commoner no matter what class they actually are.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: It's called teamwork. It's called leadership. Remember that Pathfinder is not a zero sum game with 1 loser for every winner. Pathfinder doesn't even have winners and losers. It is not even a game with an objective where achieving it is good and failing it is bad. If the party has an easy time killing monsters, a hard time killing monsters, or all gets killed by monsters, none of that means you have won or lost at D&D.
I certainly enjoy the part where you move the minis around the board and roll dice for them like you are playing Risk, but at its core, a TTRPG isn't about that. It's about the story. It's about roleplaying. It's about the drama. The game can be just as much about roleplaying tragic failures, awful, costly mistakes, and terrible suffering, deaths and catastrophe as it is about heroic achievements and stunning military success. And if one of your players is making bad decisions and needs to be helped, then that is his story; that is his drama, and it's just as valid as yours. If you want to be a hero, a Good hero, then what you have to do is find a way to bring that player up, help that character learn and succeed and give him a chance to offer something special to the table. You don not cross your arms and watch him die. Do you? Is that what you want your story to say?
Even if I were roleplaying a pitiless Warlord , I wouldn't treat my fellow players that way across the table. I believe in supporting my teammates even when they make frustrating mistakes. I try to teach by example and learn from the example of others. If you create an environment where you tell people you aren't going to Bull Strength someone because his character sucks, I think the result will have a chilling effect on the exchange of ideas, the effectiveness of the party, and the life of the group.
thats fine if he wants to roll play and he can do so but when lives are on the line i prefer to bolster those who can have a greater impact in combat than those who are not going to impact combat as much.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: The scenario you are presenting here is not even necessarily true. I do not believe that we have been given the information necessary to do the math to show that the Party's DPR and overall combat effectiveness is better served by buffing one character over another. It might actually give you better numbers if you buff the weak character than if you buff the strong one. The math is complicated. i belive they said they were level 5 so ill base the senario as if they were level 5. at level 5 most enemies will have between 20 and 25 ac his character when buffed would have a +7 to hit with 2-3 buffs meaning to hit he needs between a 13 and a 18 on the die to hit in comparison i have a level 5 character that has 4 natural attacks with +13 hit with 2 attacks and +14 to hit with the other 2 and can do die roll+9 damage per attack so they would hit on a 7/6-12/11 respectively(unbuffed) and is nearly garenteed a full attack every round. it would be statistically better for the 2nd character to get the buffs were they would be nearly garenteed a hit on an enemy each attack killing 2-3 enemies a round were as the 1st character would be lucky to damage one creature a combat and buffing the 2nd character would also mean enemies would be more likely to go after the 2nd character instead of the rest of the party as they are more of a threat.
Halek wrote: Update. He dropped some thirteens and boosted strength and con to 14. He bought tons of alchemical items and armor. He is now able to fulfill the role of meat shield. He still hardly hits but its "better" now. Sample combat against some centipedes.
He blocked the doorway in full defense and we shot everything to death. He is now close enough to good for our purposes.
I retrained out my bloodline for svylan and snagged boon companion on level up. So we can replace him if needed.
Hooray!
Now all you need is a few levels so his weapon training and gear can help his effectiveness.
Glad he came around.
Honestly, it all depends how good you are and how much patience you have.
In my group I have a Oracle of Life who only heals. And by that I mean he only (80%) of the time uses Cure something spells. He doesn't flank because he doesn't own a weapon, he doesn't use Shield Other, Shield of Faith, Protection from Evil, anything.
There were 2 times were people were possessed and he failed to use Protection from Evil to either protect them or get them another save to avoid Domination.
So, the only thing he does it healing. You may say this is good, because he keeps everyone alive. Well, you should know already that is one of the worst actions someone could take.
At level 1-4 he used to Summon Monster I, he's not even doing that now.
It's not that he's a horrible optimizer, but in all honestly it is a dead weight.
Instead of giving someone +2 to AC or even casting Bless, he waits for us to get damaged so he can walk up to us and take on of the most noneffective moves, heal.
So, what are your options:
1- just play along. I went Blaster Wizard. If things look bad, I can kill things myself. Right now I'm either casting Haste for 2 weapon fighters Ninja and Slayer, or just Greater Invisibility on the Slayer, because he does more damage.
2- Try to teach your Fighter. Completely wasted time on my Oracle. Told him several times healing was just plain bad and that he should buff. He always wants to take things like Hold Person or Command. Told him, albeit nice they work or they do no, a buff is much more better.
3- Some people just don't get number. Oracle wasted 5k buying Mithral Breasplate, when he's never in melee.
Your fighter seems at least better now, since he has made some changes. 14 STR might not me optimal, but just teach him not to always use PA and that should do it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lady-J wrote: i never said let him die... leave him behind in the next town they come across cuz some one with +1s in all stats or even +1s in most and +2 in a couple is playing a commoner no matter what class they actually are. That's a distinction without a difference. His story ends there, and the player needs to roll up a new character.
From what the OP is saying, it is not yet time for such a harsh repudiation of the Player. This problem player is listening and learning, and he should be given the chance to keep listening and learning.
Lady-J wrote: fine if he wants to roll play and he can do so but when lives are on the line i prefer to bolster those who can have a greater impact in combat than those who are not going to impact combat as much. But the PCs life is on the line, too. He put his life on the line with the idea that he was a member of a team and with the idea that his efforts to support the team would be supported by the team. Snubbing him by withholding Buff spells because you disapprove of the way the player configures his character is a betrayal, and the justification you give
Lady-J wrote: the party resources are better spent on the characters that can actually do things in combat falls well-outside what the game calls Good.
Alignment wrote: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Where is your concern for dignity? Where is your self-sacrifice? If you can't show those things for even your fellow PCs, who else in the world would make you their hero?
Scott Wilhelm wrote: falls well-outside what the game calls Good.
Alignment wrote: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Where is your concern for dignity? Where is your self-sacrifice? If you can't show those things for even your fellow PCs, who else in the world would make you their hero?
well theres your problem you assume every one is "good aligned" well no not every one is good aligned and the assumption that every one must be good is a falsehood
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Where is your concern for dignity? Where is your self-sacrifice? If you can't show those things for even your fellow PCs, who else in the world would make you their hero?
So, since the PCs actions are detrimental to the party's success, they should choose self-sacrifice and leave the party so that the party can hire someone useful, right?
Or is self-sacrifice for everyone except the character that is being detrimental to the party?
_Ozy_ wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Where is your concern for dignity? Where is your self-sacrifice? If you can't show those things for even your fellow PCs, who else in the world would make you their hero?
So, since the PCs actions are detrimental to the party's success, they should choose self-sacrifice and leave the party so that the party can hire someone useful, right?
Or is self-sacrifice for everyone except the character that is being detrimental to the party? Yeah, I think it's quite good-aligned for the party to tell the guy he's not cut out for adventuring and leave him somewhere safe before he gets himself killed. I'd say keeping the guy from getting himself killed is more good than encouraging him to follow a path where he will inevitably get himself and/or others killed.
Granted, in the OP's case this is no longer an issue since the problem player did a rebuild.
Vidmaster7 wrote: Eh once you get higher level class options will be more important then stats anyways. At which point even well-made fighters start sliding into irrelevance...
Chengar Qordath wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Where is your concern for dignity? Where is your self-sacrifice? If you can't show those things for even your fellow PCs, who else in the world would make you their hero?
So, since the PCs actions are detrimental to the party's success, they should choose self-sacrifice and leave the party so that the party can hire someone useful, right?
Or is self-sacrifice for everyone except the character that is being detrimental to the party? Yeah, I think it's quite good-aligned for the party to tell the guy he's not cut out for adventuring and leave him somewhere safe before he gets himself killed. I'd say keeping the guy from getting himself killed is more good than encouraging him to follow a path where he will inevitably get himself and/or others killed.
Granted, in the OP's case this is no longer an issue since the problem player did a rebuild. Well, Chengar, you are granting exactly my point.
I wrote: From what the OP is saying, it is not yet time for such a harsh repudiation of the Player. This problem player is listening and learning, and he should be given the chance to keep listening and learning. You don't kill off your fellow PCs (or force out of the party) just because you don't like the way they put together their character. If you really think they made mistakes with their character builds, you help them, and you give them a chance to live and learn while at the same time bearing the humility to realize they might have something to teach you.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Lady-J wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: falls well-outside what the game calls Good.
Alignment wrote: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Where is your concern for dignity? Where is your self-sacrifice? If you can't show those things for even your fellow PCs, who else in the world would make you their hero?
well theres your problem you assume every one is "good aligned" well no not every one is good aligned and the assumption that every one must be good is a falsehood There is a difference between roleplaying an Evil character and being evil yourself.
I usually prefer to play Pathfinder with good people, and I advise all my readers to either be good or pretend to be good.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Lady-J wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: falls well-outside what the game calls Good.
Alignment wrote: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Where is your concern for dignity? Where is your self-sacrifice? If you can't show those things for even your fellow PCs, who else in the world would make you their hero?
well theres your problem you assume every one is "good aligned" well no not every one is good aligned and the assumption that every one must be good is a falsehood There is a difference between roleplaying an Evil character and being evil yourself.
I usually prefer to play Pathfinder with good people, and I advise all my readers to either be good or pretend to be good. Since you've switched your arguments from the PCs to the players, then maybe you stop beating around the bush and pretending it has anything to do with role playing?
Plus, it's a bit over the line to start calling people 'evil' just because they don't want to accommodate deliberate incompetence.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I do feel, though, that abandoning the character of or somehow otherwise inhibiting the fun of another human being playing a cooperative game with you is crossing a line out of "being nice."
Like, I've been in games where one new player's character was sufficiently ineffective as to be relegated to the "mascot" role, and we rallied around that character to make sure the player was having a good enough time that they would eventually get better at the mechanical part.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
_Ozy_ wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Lady-J wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: falls well-outside what the game calls Good.
Alignment wrote: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Where is your concern for dignity? Where is your self-sacrifice? If you can't show those things for even your fellow PCs, who else in the world would make you their hero?
well theres your problem you assume every one is "good aligned" well no not every one is good aligned and the assumption that every one must be good is a falsehood There is a difference between roleplaying an Evil character and being evil yourself.
I usually prefer to play Pathfinder with good people, and I advise all my readers to either be good or pretend to be good. Since you've switched your arguments from the PCs to the players, then maybe you stop beating around the bush and pretending it has anything to do with role playing?
Plus, it's a bit over the line to start calling people 'evil' just because they don't want to accommodate deliberate incompetence. _Ozy_ wrote: Since you've switched your arguments I have NOT switched arguments.
I didn't call anyone evil. Look back at my posts. What I said is that I disagree strongly with Lady-J's advice: that it borders on PC-on-PC violence, that it was way too harsh a repudiation of the problem player at that point in time, that you help your teammates, you don't snub them, which I took Lady-J's advice to be.
It was Lady-J herself who suggested that she herself is evil, or at least not Good.
Lady-J wrote: well theres your problem you assume every one is "good aligned" well no not every one is good aligned and the assumption that every one must be good is a falsehood What I was just saying that it is important to keep the Evil roleplay confined to the characters themselves and not to let their vicious, unforgiving attitudes reach up from the table and hurt the feelings of real people, which I earnestly believe is a hazard of Lady-J's advice, especially under the circumstances, which is not
_Ozy_ wrote: deliberate incompetence. The problem-player, according the OP, built his character according to a bad idea. He is learning from his mistakes. And he is adjusting his character. That is a player who needs support and guidance.
Maybe I'm being a bit over-the-line. But I do strongly disagree with Lady-J's advice. I do believe that an unforgiving attitude is an evil attitude. I do strongly believe that you should try to work with your fellow players to make a good story before you refuse to cast beneficial spells on them in order to make a public statement that their creative ideas (their characters) a waste of resources. I strongly believe that that Lady-J's advice--as I understand it--would be harmful to the atmosphere of the OP's gaming group, to almost any gaming group. So, I feel morally obligated to offer strongly-worded advice against it.
I regret hurting anyone's feelings or sensibilities, but I don't know what else to do. This is the least-harsh objection to this advice I could think to give. I don't like giving harsh advice, but letting that stand seemed unacceptable, too.
PossibleCabbage wrote: I do feel, though, that abandoning the character of or somehow otherwise inhibiting the fun of another human being playing a cooperative game with you is crossing a line out of "being nice."
Like, I've been in games where one new player's character was sufficiently ineffective as to be relegated to the "mascot" role, and we rallied around that character to make sure the player was having a good enough time that they would eventually get better at the mechanical part.
I think it really boils down to the one of the oft-repeated rules of RPGs: you can't solve out-of-character problems with in-character actions.
If someone's trying out a build that just doesn't work, the solution is to talk to the guy and work out a way where he can still have the character he wants while putting out the numbers the system needs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: I have NOT switched arguments.
I didn't call anyone evil. Look back at my posts. What I said is that I disagree strongly with Lady-J's advice: that it borders on PC-on-PC violence, that it was way too harsh a repudiation of the problem player at that point in time, that you help your teammates, you don't snub them, which I took Lady-J's advice to be.
It was Lady-J herself who suggested that she herself is evil, or at least not Good.
No, dude, not wanting you have your fun inhibited by a player actively role playing an incompetent character is not evil, and yes, you strongly implied that it was using these words:
Quote: There is a difference between roleplaying an Evil character and being evil yourself. Unless that comment was a complete non-sequitur, your usage of it indicates that you think it is applicable to the discussion at hand.
It was over the line, and really has no place here on the forums. Let's keep good and evil discussions within the realm of the game.
There is a difference between someone not understanding or acting out of ignorance, and someone deliberately choosing to play their character as a detriment to the party. Granted, even in that case, as long as the other players are fine with it, no harm done. But from a role playing perspective, which was one of the dominant themes of the discussion, what character in their right mind would keep someone around who's more likely than not to increase their chances of getting killed.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Lady-J wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: falls well-outside what the game calls Good.
Alignment wrote: Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. Where is your concern for dignity? Where is your self-sacrifice? If you can't show those things for even your fellow PCs, who else in the world would make you their hero?
well theres your problem you assume every one is "good aligned" well no not every one is good aligned and the assumption that every one must be good is a falsehood There is a difference between roleplaying an Evil character and being evil yourself.
I usually prefer to play Pathfinder with good people, and I advise all my readers to either be good or pretend to be good. Since you've switched your arguments from the PCs to the players, then maybe you stop beating around the bush and pretending it has anything to do with role playing?
Plus, it's a bit over the line to start calling people 'evil' just because they don't want to accommodate deliberate incompetence. _Ozy_ wrote: Since you've switched your arguments I have NOT switched arguments.
I didn't call anyone evil. Look back at my posts. What I said is that I disagree strongly with Lady-J's advice: that it borders on PC-on-PC violence, that it was way too harsh a repudiation of the problem player at that point in time, that you help your teammates, you don't snub them, which I took Lady-J's advice to be.
It was Lady-J herself who suggested that she herself is evil, or at least not Good.
Lady-J wrote: well theres your problem you assume every one is "good aligned" well no not every one is good aligned and the assumption that every one must be good is a falsehood What I was just saying that it is important to keep the Evil roleplay confined to the characters themselves and not to let vicious, unforgiving attitudes reach up from the table and hurt the feelings of real people, which I earnestly believe is a hazard of Lady-J's advice, especially under the circumstances, which is not
_Ozy_ wrote:
deliberate incompetence.
The problem-player, according the OP, built his character according to a bad idea. He is learning from his mistakes. And he is adjusting his character. That is a player who needs support and guidance.
Maybe I'm being a bit over-the-line. But I do strongly disagree with Lady-J's advice. I do believe that an unforgiving attitude is an evil attitude. I do strongly believe that you should try to work with your fellow players to make a good story before you refuse to cast beneficial spells on them in order to make a public statement that their creative ideas (their characters) a waste of resources. I strongly believe that that Lady-J's advice--as I understand it--would be harmful to the atmosphere of the OP's gaming group, to almost any gaming group. So, I feel morally obligated to offer strongly-worded advice against it.
I regret hurting anyone's feelings or sensibilities, but I don't know what else to do. This is the least-harsh objection to this advice I could think to give. I don't like giving harsh advice, but letting that stand seemed unacceptable, too. its a neutral view on the matter, an evil view would be kill them in their sleep and throw their body in the river(which is what some of my characters might have done) i play true neutral,chaotic nuetral, lawful evil, and neutral evil primarily and the only alignmets were what you are saying they should do would be in character is lawful good and neutral good, every other alignmet would ditch the dead weight and get some one more compitent, however each other alignment would go about doing so in different ways.
Arbane the Terrible wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: Eh once you get higher level class options will be more important then stats anyways. At which point even well-made fighters start sliding into irrelevance... Disagree entirely but really there is already like 4 current threads (probably more) where you can argue this with someone so I'd suggest start there. :D
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The point is that the guy is trying to do fine. We have all been new and unexperienced and there's no point in dscouraging him by labeling him as useless and leave him aside, denying him his share of the loot, etc.
They have talked to him and he has listened. He is trying to do better. If the other party members help him he might realize his mistakes by his own and make a better character next time. We have all been through this before. We have made beginner mistakes and we don't learn all at the same speed.
If you punish newbies for being newbies they'll get tired and leave. Unless that's what you want to achieve, the best way of dealing with a new player is giving advice and letting him try things on his own until he finds out his way, not punishing him.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
_Ozy_ wrote: No, dude, not wanting you have your fun inhibited by a player actively role playing an incompetent character is not evil, and yes, you strongly implied that it was using these words: I never said you should just let your fun be inhibited. I said you should work with your teammates rather than abandon them. Next time, read what I wrote.
Snubbing your fellow players at the table is bad behavior. Lady-J was being way too casual in her talk about withholding resources from fellow PCs at the table. I do feel like it would be morally wrong to approve of her advice with my silence. I do not take it back.
_Ozy_ wrote: There is a difference between someone not understanding or acting out of ignorance, and someone deliberately choosing to play their character as a detriment to the party. I don't remember where where the OP said he thought his problem player was hurting the party on purpose.
Meanwhile, my advice has been completely vindicated by the OP. You can stop harassing me any time you want.
|
