Is it rude to aim at your players obvious weak areas?

[Maxperson]

What penalties/consequences doyou envisage a low-STR wizard suffering?

Use encumbrance rules. It sucks to be a low strength wizard if you don't have a bag of holding. Magic items and coin quickly weigh you down. Convert coin to gems and you are throwing money away when you convert the gems back to buy things.

 

[Umbran]

Use it, but sparingly.

The players built not just characters, but a party. They expect that, most of the time, the people will fill their niche roles, and should be allowed to do so. Changing it up, so that some PCs have to try to perform in other roles, can be interesting. But unless they were actively dumb (like, "Well, if we *all* have Charisma as a dump stat, the GM will never throw a social challenge at us!") then you should use it in good faith.

They can be great sources of plot complications, but try not to kill people with them too often.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think it’s perfectly fair to use a low blow once in a while. There are plenty of attacks and effects that require Int/Wis/Cha saves. And of course, the monsters that deal psychic damage are always a bane to barbarians. Heck, a well-timed charm effect can really change the dynamic of a fight.

Another option is to just focus more on the exploration and RP pillars. But again, these are once-in-a-while things to do.

 

[iserith]

I will start this by saying I am not a fan of min-max players. You can play that way but you will not be happy in my game.

So here is my question. You have the annoying min-max melee character of some sort, imagine some sort of barbarian build that deals insane damage. He dump stated all his mental stats and has no social skills, opting instead for athletics and other skills that benefit during battle.

Outside of combat said player generally hangs back letting the face players do all the interacting including trying to have the party bard buy all his gear for him because hey, the bard has the skills and can get him the best deal.

But to me that is wrong. You built a raging barbarian with dump stats for intelligence and wisdom. Your 6 or 8 wisdom means you are too damn stupid to know the wisdom of letting the silver tongue bard speak to merchants for you. You are arrogant and blustering, you never ask you make demands and you do all the things annoying jocks do when they feel entitled but times that by 10.

It also means that when the party kills the dragon, and the barbarian lands the killing blow he lets EVERYONE know. So I wonder, would it be wrong for a crafty noble or king to interrupt the party bard who is telling him how they killed dragon and ask that the warrior who landed the killing blow please step forward. Now the barbarians lack of social skills and his single focus character design becomes a huge weight around his neck and the party loses out on tons of potential rewards as the king decides to negotiate with the barbarian instead of the bard.

Is this wrong as a DM or is it reality. You create a dumb powerful character, you created someone so socially dumb that he doesnt even realize how dumb he is and that means he doesnt let others speak for him because damn it he is Flash Thompson and everyone should automatically fawn over him when he tells them all how cool he is.

As DM, I don't think it's my place to tell a player how to play his or her character, provided the player is pursuing in good faith the goals of play, that is, everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable tale in the doing.

With regard to a social interaction challenge, it is perfectly reasonable for any character to be spotlighted in my view. How he or she reacts is up to him or her.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Is this wrong as a DM or is it reality. You create a dumb powerful character, you created someone so socially dumb that he doesnt even realize how dumb he is and that means he doesnt let others speak for him because damn it he is Flash Thompson and everyone should automatically fawn over him when he tells them all how cool he is.

This is kind of a problem in any game that has mental stats, but a Wisdom of 6 or 8 doesn't necessarily mean that the character is too foolish to realize his social inadequacies. If you have a problem with the way a player is interpreting their stats, then that sounds like something you should talk about outside of the game, rather than punishing them for not playing to your unstated perceptions.

Specifically with D&D, though, the stats are broad enough to support multiple interpretations. There are many reasons why someone might have, for example, a low Charisma score.

 

[Eltab]

Specifically with D&D, though, the stats are broad enough to support multiple interpretations. There are many reasons why someone might have, for example, a low Charisma score.

I made my 4e Warlock with the highest CHR I could. Not because he was handsome and a hit with the ladies, but because when he set his will upon a project, other people were drawn in to help accomplish it. "I am the 'man with a plan', join me!"

 

[Imaculata]

I tend to run the opponents in a way that they are both competent and challenging. They will exploit weaknesses in the party. If the party relies a lot on buffs, the enemy will bring debuffs (such as dispell magic), and use buffs themselves. If the players rely on critical hits a lot, I will throw in a couple of enemies that are immune to crits (not all monsters, but some). This encourages the players to mix up their strategies a bit.

 

[Malrex]

Try to stay neutral. The barbarian is hardcore in combat.....that's ok....but balance it with situations where combat isn't the way to solve a situation or sure, a charm person spell could make things pretty dangerous. Sounds like the player is having fun...so try to keep neutral, keep things balanced, and try to have fun yourself. There will be a time when his bad stats will come into play.

 

[MNblockhead]

Sounds a bit bullying to me. I don't tell my players how to role-play their characters and don't take kindly to DMs who try to roleplay mine for me.

Low charisma may simply mean a dullard than an offensive rage monster. I've known many simple people who are humble. Maybe the uncouth barbarian has had a difficult life that has taught him to shut up and let others do the talking. Hell, for a grunt fighter with a soldier background, it makes a lot of sense. You can be dumb, dull, but still know how to respect authority.

If you don't want "min-max" characters with "dump" states, then alter the point-buy rules so that no stat can be under 10 or give the players pre-gens sow they will play the kinds of characters you like your players to play.

And I don't mean to pick on you. If you as the DM are not enjoying the game then clearly state your requirements and expectations and find players that will enjoy playing within them. My first homebrew game when I first started DMing 5e had strict limitations on allowable races and classes. I was given some grief about this when discussing it on these forums, but I clearly communicated this to the players before the first game and we played the campaign for two years. As long as everyone is having fun, you're doing it right. If you allow your players to create certain characters for your game you shouldn't punish them for playing them.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

I will start this by saying I am not a fan of min-max players. You can play that way but you will not be happy in my game.

So here is my question. You have the annoying min-max melee character of some sort, imagine some sort of barbarian build that deals insane damage. He dump stated all his mental stats and has no social skills, opting instead for athletics and other skills that benefit during battle.

Outside of combat said player generally hangs back letting the face players do all the interacting including trying to have the party bard buy all his gear for him because hey, the bard has the skills and can get him the best deal.

But to me that is wrong. You built a raging barbarian with dump stats for intelligence and wisdom. Your 6 or 8 wisdom means you are too damn stupid to know the wisdom of letting the silver tongue bard speak to merchants for you. You are arrogant and blustering, you never ask you make demands and you do all the things annoying jocks do when they feel entitled but times that by 10.

It also means that when the party kills the dragon, and the barbarian lands the killing blow he lets EVERYONE know. So I wonder, would it be wrong for a crafty noble or king to interrupt the party bard who is telling him how they killed dragon and ask that the warrior who landed the killing blow please step forward. Now the barbarians lack of social skills and his single focus character design becomes a huge weight around his neck and the party loses out on tons of potential rewards as the king decides to negotiate with the barbarian instead of the bard.

Is this wrong as a DM or is it reality. You create a dumb powerful character, you created someone so socially dumb that he doesnt even realize how dumb he is and that means he doesnt let others speak for him because damn it he is Flash Thompson and everyone should automatically fawn over him when he tells them all how cool he is.

I have an idea, why not let your player play an animal with an intelligence of 1, such as a gorilla? Lets say this gorilla knows who its friends are, and its 1 intelligence means that if it sees other party members attack somebody, he knows to attack that same person as well, and it uses its gorilla strength to maximum advantage. The gorilla can't talk, it can grunt, hoot, or beat its chest. A gorilla is the ultimate in min/maxing don't you think? You can go the other route as well and play a pixie with an intelligence of 21, it can cast spells, but it can't do a physical fight worth a damn! Another idea I have is you could let the player play an intelligent sword that is held by an NPC, and the player needs to do an ego check in order to force the NPC to do what he wants.