How Can You Politely Say, "Your Character Sucks?"

[Burrito Al Pastor]

The bottom line is that, as a player, it's none of your business.

It's the DM's job to be on top of things like this, not fellow players. If your DM is fine with it, so be it. I'm assuming he is, otherwise something would have been said to the player.

Now, if you don't like it, that's your prerogative. You can go DM your own game, or play in another game, or put up with it, or wait and see what happens. No one is forcing you to play with these people.

This would be a perfectly reasonable reaction if this player decided to put a 14 in intelligence knowing full well what the mechanical implications of that would be.

By all accounts, he does not.

If his playstyle was to play with a 14 int, that's fine, and nobody should have a problem with that. If he's playing with a 14 int because he doesn't know what that entails, it would be a sin of omission to sit by silently as he tries to play his character in a way that you know his stats can't support.

 

[Krensky]

Your turning what I said into a badwrongfun statement, which it isn't at all.

I consider creating an effective character a social obligation when you're in a group who all creates effective characters.

If you're in a group who doesn't care about succeeding at their goals and who is happy to have characters die every other session and constantly fail at the challenges presented to them, bully for you.

But in most groups, failing to succeed at the mission or defeat the enemies or being unable to complete the challenges presented to you is the antithesis of fun. So you have one person in a group going against the grain because of... what? Because they want to 'roleplay' a dunce?

Do it in some other group that thinks roleplaying is somehow superior to rolling dice, killing stuff and taking its loot. Where fluffy bunnies are considered dangerous enemies and cats can kill you with one swipe of their vicious claws.

How is this not a badwrongfun statement again?

 

[Elric]

2) The group is running through published modules, like Keep on the Shadowfell, and all that. These are pretty widely known for being a hack-and-slash fest with minimal opportunity for non-combat-oriented RP, so I have to say I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every character to pull their weight. In any other game, though, I'd agree that a +3 to Diplomacy could be more useful than a +1 to hit. But in this game, I honestly thought we had more trouble clearing out kobolds than we should have.

Was this a reference to my post here? It was satire!

To be clear, ability points are precious. Lots of things add to Diplomacy (Skill Training for +5, for example; Skill Focus for +3, items can add more). If you happen to be in a campaign where Diplomacy is so valuable that you want to max it out, the way to go is to play a Cha-primary class, not play an Int-primary class and then take Cha (which as far as I know, has little no use outside of skills/Will save for a Swordmage).

Some characters really are ineffective. A 14-Int Swordmage designed by a player very new to 4e is going to be one of them.

The "a good DM can" argument is bogus as well: see explanation here.

 

[Nifft]

2) The group is running through published modules, like Keep on the Shadowfell, and all that. These are pretty widely known for being a hack-and-slash fest with minimal opportunity for non-combat-oriented RP, so I have to say I don't think it's unreasonable to expect every character to pull their weight.

Ah, well, in that module in particular, there will come a point when ... [sblock]... several of you -- if not all of you -- may need to make new characters. So in that regard the "problem" may be self-correcting.[/sblock] The first part is a notorious meat-grinder, but things get more "normal" after a few fights.

Best of luck, -- N

 

[Wik]

This would be a perfectly reasonable reaction if this player decided to put a 14 in intelligence knowing full well what the mechanical implications of that would be.

By all accounts, he does not.

If his playstyle was to play with a 14 int, that's fine, and nobody should have a problem with that. If he's playing with a 14 int because he doesn't know what that entails, it would be a sin of omission to sit by silently as he tries to play his character in a way that you know his stats can't support.

Fully agree. And there really shouldn't be anything wrong with a PRIVATE message saying "Just curious why your main stat is so low, do you have a build plan?". Hell, even a "Hey, what's your build plan, so I can sync up with it?" could even work - and if the player doesn't really know, you can start asking other questions.

and I feel for the GM... I'd hate to be using 4e as a means to introduce new players to the game. I can't see that being fun at all.

 

[Pig Champion]

Any standard except the conceptual framework of expectations for stats in 4e.

How so? Other posters have pointed out how a 14 INT can and does work.

This isn't hypothetical; I've seen it happen.

And so all the people out there who do fine and represent themselves with a 14 INT don't exist? Because you've seen it not work, once, twice, thric? Well I see, that's very convincing.

I've played a lot of "sub-optimal" characters over the years and have never encountered any situation, anywhere near as dire as you seem to want to paint. A +2 is not bad or sucky, no matter what spin you want to put on it.

If there is, you can complain about drawing the line harshly, but not about drawing a line at all.

To save on further argument, that's what I'm doing.

 

[Wik]

How so? Other posters have pointed out how a 14 INT can and does work.

No doubt. However...

Imagine you are a new to RPGs guy. Now, imagine you are told your role is "Defender"... along with another guy. Now, imagine that other guy is not only being a defender, but hitting more often than you. Hitting on OA's more often than you. In short, being a better defender than you.

He might not be a hugely better Defender than you, but if you're missing a lot more and seemingly doing little more than taking damage destined for other PCs, well... it can kind of kill your enjoyment of the game.

I've seen this happen in other editions, for sure. The guy playing a 2e wizard with a longsword, because he didn't know the rules (and then insisted on using said longsword, instead of casting spells - and then wondered why he was the least effective character in the group). The 3e "I want to be a sorcerer" guy who constantly fizzled on spells because he had a relatively low charisma (despite warnings this might not be a good idea). And the 2e Dark Sun elven thief who didn't think dexterity was all that important, and that a 35% Pick Pockets was "good enough" to justify trying to pick a templar's pocket.

The point is, failing as a newbie can be fun. But building a character that is destined to fail more often than your companions can ruin your perception of the game.

Two of those three players only played once or twice before leaving the campaign, never to be seen again.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As was said in this thread before, its one thing if the suboptimal design is due to inexperience with a system or RPGs in general, and an entirely different thing if the design decisions are done with full cognizance.

In the former case, being a mentor by offering to help tweek a PC isn't out of line. Heck, it may even be welcome.

In the latter, you're sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

But in either case,

1. Starting the conversation with harsh, judgemental language- e.g. "Your PC sucks!" is simply RUDE.
2. Ditto ending the conversation that way.
3. Continuing to offer unsolicited build advice after the initial offer has been unequivocallly rejected is rude as well.

 

[Pig Champion]

No doubt. However...

Imagine you are a new to RPGs guy. Now, imagine you are told your role is "Defender"... along with another guy. Now, imagine that other guy is not only being a defender, but hitting more often than you. Hitting on OA's more often than you. In short, being a better defender than you.

He might not be a hugely better Defender than you, but if you're missing a lot more and seemingly doing little more than taking damage destined for other PCs, well... it can kind of kill your enjoyment of the game.

I've seen this happen in other editions, for sure. The guy playing a 2e wizard with a longsword, because he didn't know the rules (and then insisted on using said longsword, instead of casting spells - and then wondered why he was the least effective character in the group). The 3e "I want to be a sorcerer" guy who constantly fizzled on spells because he had a relatively low charisma (despite warnings this might not be a good idea). And the 2e Dark Sun elven thief who didn't think dexterity was all that important, and that a 35% Pick Pockets was "good enough" to justify trying to pick a templar's pocket.

The point is, failing as a newbie can be fun. But building a character that is destined to fail more often than your companions can ruin your perception of the game.

Two of those three players only played once or twice before leaving the campaign, never to be seen again.

This can easily happen with a fully "optimized" character, I put it to you that I've also had new players leave because of this exact issue and that they had min/max'ed as much as possible. Both were playing fighters and kept missing due to rolls.

Does having 14 INT improve the chances of this happening? Sure but it's not the sole purpose or that great of a factor in this type of situation. We're talking about a -1 mod, not a melee mage or undexterous thief.

But on a side note, I once played a an undexterous thief and it was a great character and more than pulled his weight. CON 16 CHA 12 and he saved the party from TPK more than once.

 

[S'mon]

If the game is balanced around an 18 = typical 50% chance to hit, then:

20: Hit on 10+, 11 in 20
18: Hit on 11+, 10 in 20 or 5 in 10
16: Hit on 12+, 9 in 20
14: Hit on 13+, 8 in 20 or 4 in 10

So a 14 would not cripple the character, they miss 1/5 more than an 18. However if you are dealing with very high-defense foes several levels above the party you can get:

20: Hit on 17+, 4 in 20 or 1 in 5
18: Hit on 18+, 3 in 20
16: Hit on 19+, 2 in 20 = 1 in 10
14: Hit on 20+, 1 in 20

In this case the 20 is 4 times more effective than the 14, the 18 hits 3 times as often as the 14. Low level 1e often worked like this, IME.