So, what if a player does a 'weak' build?

Kurotowa · Aug 9, 2007

After thinking it over, my opinion is that a character should meet a player's expectations of the character.

What I mean is that a player has the most fun when their character does what they want. Some people want to be buttkicking badasses, and they go for the combat munchkins. Others want to play the social butterfly and don't care as much about holding a fight. There are even people who want to play Elan, comical incompetence and all.

Where the trouble comes is when a player doesn't know how to make the system do what they want and gets a character that doesn't fit their image. Getting Elan unintentionally can be very frustrating. Wanting to be a swordmaster and turning out an also-ran in fights is the pits. It's situations like these that can lower people's enjoyment.

So no one should be required to have a character that meets some standard of effectiveness. But if the player is having trouble reaching the point they want to be at, then by all means more experienced hands can step in and lend their experience.

Doug McCrae · Aug 9, 2007

Warmduscher said:
As the title says, do you do anything about players doing builds that just aren't very effective?

We throw dice at them until they learn.

In a previous campaign we had two players whose characters didn't participate in combat at all, which I think they felt was more realistic. In a six man group that means we're losing a lot of effectiveness and led pretty directly to the death of my PC on one occasion.

After six sessions we kicked both the players out by using the 'secretly restart the game' trick.

Phlebas · Aug 9, 2007

IMC we have two rogues - one multi-classed with fighter, TWF, going for shadow dancer who chucks out horrendous damage when the situation is right, and a rogue spell caster (Half-djinn racial levels giving lots of illusion / air based spells)

the spellcaster is useless in melee for causing damage (he dived in last week to do a massive 6 point sneak attack), but illusion spells, obscuring mist, earth to mud and even gaseous form have all had major impacts on the combat - for the other participants.

The point is that intelligent use of non-damage spells can have a major impact in combat. you just need that little inventiveness and a DM who'll give you a chance.

Man in the Funny Hat · Aug 9, 2007

Warmduscher said:
As the title says, do you do anything about players doing builds that just aren't very effective? Of course there is alway plenty of talk about how to prevent munchkin builds and such but I too saw some opinions that PCs should be able to 'pull their weight' as it's often called. Are you happy to let a player do whatever if he's fine with it?

As a rule, yes. Of course, my players don't run "builds". They run characters. Depending on how you meant to use that word it can make a big difference, even in perceiving whether the situation actually exists, much less that it's a problem in the ongoing game for anyone.

Characters that can't or won't "pull their weight" are rare enough not to be a significant concern. It has happened though and IME the problem is largely self-correcting, either by roleplaying the natural tendency of other characters to despise useless idiots, or by the player of such a character becoming understandably bored as hell and creating a new PC on his own.

Stormborn · Aug 9, 2007

1. Thats not a weak character at all. You should be getting in a few sneak attacks now and then and if you are dealing with the scouting/traps then you are fulfilling the Rogue's role in the party. Maybe not as well as a single classed Rogue, but you are better at being a rogue and a magic user than a bard of your level would be.

2. If someone did have a "weak" PC - one that they were unhappy with and was causing the party trouble in game (and it would have to meet both those criteria for me to consider it a "weak" or "bad" PC)- I, as a DM, would talk to the player and ask if they wanted the PC "retired" and help them work up a new one to take on the same role in the party (or another if all the needed functions are covered) and introduce it in the game. If they liked the character and were just unhappy with some of the choices they had made or the PCs effectiveness I would work on making choices in the future to overcome those mistakes, allow for retraining (maybe), or introduce story based boons to help make the character more useful in the game. If I was a player and noticed someone seemed frustrated with a PC that wasnt contributing well in play I would make the same suggestions to the DM.

Counterspin · Aug 9, 2007

Rebuild, rebuild, rebuild. As GM, help them tweak the character until it's effective. There's no need to start new characters when you can just rework the old ones.

Numion · Aug 9, 2007

As a DM: All the same to me. I just ban some of the more frivolous stuff. If somebody makes a sub-par PC, go for it. I wouldn't pull my punches, either. (Of course, intelligent enemies might notice that one PC is not worth attacking).

As a player: If I was in an adventuring group that's together of their own free will, my character would probably expect everyone to pull their weight. Adventuring being dangerous and all. In effect the exp sink wouldn't be resurrected if dead, and if a replacement resource mooch was introduced to the group he'd be told that "we're not hiring". Eventually the player would make an efficient character who would be allowed to join the group in-game.

Kae'Yoss · Aug 9, 2007

Warmduscher said:
As the title says, do you do anything about players doing builds that just aren't very effective?

We call him wa... uh... Schattenparker

Of course there is alway plenty of talk about how to prevent munchkin builds and such but I too saw some opinions that PCs should be able to 'pull their weight' as it's often called. Are you happy to let a player do whatever if he's fine with it?

Yes, of course. If a character doesn't pack a punch, but the player's not concerned about it and is obviously having fun, I won't gainsay him. As a DM, I will let him keep playing. As a fellow player, I won't do anything about it.

People who badmouth others because "their character doesn't pull his weight" are usually jerks.

A reason I'm asking is that I currently run a Changeling rogue 4/illusionist 5 in our Eberron group. Great in social matters and able to cause plenty of confusion with the shapechanging abilites, but very inefficient in combat situations which we got our share of. Now I'm happy to just do some (usually invisible) scouting and otherwise flee and hang back, maybe do a backstab or two if the opportunity arises.

Are you having fun? If so, by all means keep playing. If you're useful out of combat, it can't be all bad.

shilsen · Aug 9, 2007

As a DM, I'd point out to the player that the PC might not be as effective in combat and would suggest a couple of mechanical (feats, magic items, etc.) and non-mechanical (tactics, strategies) ways to make the character more effective. After that, it would be up to the player to use or ignore any/all my suggestions, and I wouldn't mind either way. Once the PC was in play, as with all PCs, optimized or not, I would look for ways to let that PC shine and the player feel useful during any given game session.

Li Shenron · Aug 9, 2007

Let's be honest... When someone says "a weak character" it mostly means "not as good as the others in combat". If the DM cannot accept such a character, it means that the DM is not able to run a game with interesting non-combat situations.

I'm certainly not very good at providing great out-of-action situations, but it's my fault. I would certainly welcome more non-combat builds that would force me to learn create those!