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

[Warmduscher]

I asked this in RPG.net too, but I thought it might be insteresting to as for opinions here as well with the D&D focus.

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?

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.

To go into a bit more detail without a full writeup, the skills are very drawn out with points in social skills, some unusuals like forgery, appraise and escape artist and a few into the classic dungeon skills too. For his spells I don't usually use damage ones, but rather support/things to cover his escape like illusions, monster summoning and the always useful charm person. So with him it's really the philosophy that something has gone horribly wrong if he ends up in melee.

So how would you react to a character like this; either as a fellow player or GM?

 

[Brazeku]

I would be quite pleased to have a character like that in my campaign, as I prefer to run intrigue/investigative challenges and my players concur.

In a very combat heavy game, there is a chance that such a character could interfere with another player's fun (by interfering with the group's ability to kick ass). If this is the case... bottom line is that a balance has to be found that will keep everyone happy.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

So how would you react to a character like this; either as a fellow player or GM?

INteresting question, and one that's been brough up quite a bit lately.

Personally?

My take is that the group of players form a party, and, as heroes, they're are SUPPOSED to watch each others backs,try to mitigiate situations where some people are unskilled.

Sure, you may not be efficient in combat; but that's not ALL that D+D is about.

 

[werk]

So how would you react to a character like this; either as a fellow player or GM?

It really depends on the game (and doesn't it always?).

In a role play heavy, non-combat focused campaign, the player matters more than the character. There, I said it.

In a hack/ meatgrinder, almost completely combat, dungeoncentric campaign, it's mostly numbers vs. numbers...and that's is where the rubber meets the road as it were.



All generalities are false...

 

[theredrobedwizard]

If he's the party's face man, that's fine. He does his part outside of combat, and so long as he contributes something to the killing, that's cool.

Now, if he doesn't pull his weight in either situation, I'm sure that things will sort themselves out.

-TRRW

 

[JDJblatherings]

So how would you react to a character like this; either as a fellow player or GM?

so how is this character "weak" ? simply by not being a combat machine? there is more to the game then combat.

 

[Graybeard]

I see nothing wrong with a character like that. I have often played characters that were better at social situations than combat. There are a couple of people in my regular group that enjoy playing combat oriented PCs so it works out well.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Normally if I can find a simple way of increasing their power to be in line with the group, I might make a suggestion. In your case, the arcane trickster or beguiler might be a nice fit.

In our current campaign, we designed a PrC to help someone effectively emulate a concept that just wasnt working out with her existing class combo.

 

[Janx]

In one campaign, I made a paladin who's primary weapon was a hand crossbow.

He had point-blank feats and such so he was safe to have around in melee.

He did not kick butt, and that was kinda disappointing.

In a campaign where combat is always tough, and enemies can be overwhelming (my DM runs a tough campaign), it wasn't as fun being the fighter that couldn't.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Forgot to add: Playing a socially adept character doesn't preclude combat effectiveness. So long as you're adding something (flanking bonuses, buffing colleagues, battlefield control), everything is gravy. If you're just standing around, hiding, not contributing at all...

Recently, I played a 6th level character with a BAB of +2 and a Strength score of 8. My Diplomacy was +38, Bluff was somewhere in the high +20s. I was ludicrously effective outside of combat and while in combat my various Auras and competence bonuses boosted the party well.

It's all about being a good team player and knowing how to minimize the threat to your party.

In the Changeling Rogue/Wizard example, even if his barred schools were Evocation, Conjuration, and Necromancy [I think there's a changeling racial sub-level that makes you give up another school] he can still be a very effective party member inside combat with Illusory battlefield control as well as the ability to turn into a Hell Hound [Shape of the Hell Spawned Stalker, SC]. Two more Wizard levels and he gets Polymorph and can turn into a Behir, Annis, or Rukanyr (Fiend Folio).

-TRRW