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

[Doug McCrae]

I agree with those who said a rogue4/illusionist5 isn't weak at all. At 9th level casters are starting to dominate. A fighter9 or barbarian9 is truly weak. Not great in combat and totally useless outside of it. So any caster levels are good. You can make strong use of the Practiced Spellcaster feat. With it your fireballs (without metamagic) are just as damaging as a wizard9's. Not that fireball is your best spell. Haste is. You could go down the gish route, buffing yourself for combat much as a cleric would (mirror image, bladeweave, wraithstrike, arcane strike), though that doesn't seem to be the way you've gone. Using illusions and mind affecting spells to scare, confuse and split up the enemy could be very effective. Buffs, debuffs and battlefield control such as haste, enlarge person, ray of enfeeblement (again especially good with Practiced Spellcaster) and web are potent.

And of course your skills make you strong outside combat, though not as good as a rogue9. Still there's good synergy as both classes benefit from int and dex. Also for inflitration, combining invisibility with move silently.

Much depends on the DM. If he's putting you up against undead or constructs the whole time, you will suck mightily. But against humanoids that can be tricked and split up, you will rock in combat. And be able to avoid fights too. Charm or using your changeling power + illusions (good synergy here also) to pretend to be the leader of an enemy group could be extremely handy.

So yeah, this character should definitely be pulling his weight, inside and out of combat. Much more so than the poor fighter in fact. But that's the power of casters.

 

[ivocaliban]

I would welcome such a character with open arms. I much prefer this sort of character to some lumbering brainless hulk who just wants to smash down doors, chop up what's behind the door and take it's stuff. I prefer interesting characters over optimized characters any day of the week.

 

[Scribble]

I played a character in rifts once that was pretty ineffective at just about anything combat wise...

he was a little sprite like creature that simply took delight in playing practical jokes and such...

I found other ways to participate in combat aside from brute force attacks, as well as being the comic relief...

Eventually I was tired of always finding unique ways to attack, so I made a new guy... It was boring, and everyone begged me to go back to my old guy.

Shrug. I think any character can be an "effective build" provided you utilize that build in some way.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Emphasis mine.

If this PC is pulling his weight outside of combat, then IMO he's plenty capable. Let the big muscly types, ninja-rogues, and combat mages do the work in actual fights. I have a pretty much identical situation IMC (a merchant-rogue who avoids fighting like the plague), although I am lucky enough to be running Iron Heroes, which has enough mechanics for skill-based stunts and special skill uses that he's able to be incredibly potent in combat when pressed.

That said, it seems to be an oft-overlooked fact that 3.5 provides a mechanically-effective way to portray pretty much any character concept out there. (I note that this often goes unsaid in the "edition wars" threads, for instance.) It is possible that your character, exactly as you picture him, may be buildable along more mechanically-effective lines. If that is the case, I'd normally do as shilsen does: Make some suggestions for tweaking the character's build a bit. For instance, a beguiler (PHB2) gets casting in light armor and somewhat more powerful, if more focused, spells; it's possibly a "better" interpretation of your character concept. YMMV.

 

[Oryan77]

I had a player that played 2 different PCs and each one was very weak in combat (which I have plenty of combat encounters).

The groups problem was that everyone else felt his weakness and had to deal with the problems it caused them. It really did seem to hurt the party whenever he got attacked because even at level 7 he was dropping in one round. Even if he wasn't being attacked, he hardly ever hit anything. If he did hit something, his damage was extremely low.

Sure, he was great at social skills, but he hardly used them in encounters since most D&D players like to attack first and talk afterwards (including this guy).

The players talked him into making a 2nd PC so he did...but even then he built a 1 trick pony that was very weak in combat unless he got to grapple. Even if he grappled, he did very low damage. Basically he was good against humanoid arcane casters and that's it. I would have been fine with this 2nd character if it wasn't for the fact that the player always complained about how everyone else kicks butt in combat and he doesn't :\

 

[LostSoul]

That's one of the reasons I like tactical "metagaming" during combats. Even when your character isn't that effective, you, as a player, can still have a big impact on how the combat goes.

Another way to look at an ineffective build is that it's a challenge. You've taken a handicap; now, do you have the skill to perform up to par?

 

[drothgery]

Having been on both ends of the spectrum in terms of having a PC that's either much more or much less combat capable than the others, I'd say that either kind of sucks, and the latter still sucks no matter how useful you are outside of combat. Probably 1/3 to 1/2 of your time at the table is going to be combat, and you don't want to spend that time making minimal contributions to the group's effort.

I'd say if there's a substantially more combat effective way to rebuild a combat-ineffective character (and pretty much any caster/noncaster roughly even multiclass is going to be combat ineffective) without much cheese, I'd both allow and encourage the PC to do it. In your PC's case, I'd wonder if he'd work just as well as a Bard (party buffing often being somewhat underappreciated, but often quite effective, especially in larger groups) or a Beguiller, or if he's planning on picking up a 'patch' prestige class (like Arcane Trickster or Daggerspell Mage) Real Soon Now.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

As long as a character isn't so weak as to become a liability I don't care.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It does depend on the group and its specific dynamics.

I play in one party where the "It is your job go first. It is my job to stay back where it is safe." card was worn a bit thin.

Hey, I am roleplaying a hero in heavy armor. If you are tossing Fireballs or laying down some archery whoopass I am going to volunteer to protect you. Otherwise, not so much.

Eventually I put my foot down to a degree and said: "I do not scout. You sharp-eyed guys do that. Let me know when you find something to kill and I will come running. I will be hanging back where I can protect the archer and wizard from surprises."

I have been playing in another low level where one of the PCs is going towards Arcane Trickster. By the normal measures, he is pretty pathetic -- low HPs, poor BAB, weak damage. But I tell you, the player can be really inspired with Disguise Self and other illusions. Color Spray is his bread and butter, which he has trouble getting off successfully because of short range. He recently acquired Scorching Ray, so he does have some bite, especially if he can get the Sneak.

Not the most effective combat PC, but he is always doing something useful.

 

[kaomera]

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?

If he's fine with it (and hasn't deliberately taken an important combat role in the group that he can't really fill), then fine. I've posted a few times regarding players with horribly inefficient builds, but always because either the character simply could not do what the player wanted effectively (if, indeed, the character could manage to do anything at all, really), or else because the character was supposed to be the party's main tank, or face-man, or whatever, and could not effectively fill that role.

Skills are really the one possible exception. IMHO it's really hard to do much at standard DCs with less than maxed-out skills. However I usually just end up giving out more skill points to deal with this.