• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Some players don’t want to build characters…

Obergnom

First Post
In our group, we have a simple problem, which lacks a simple solution. While some of us invest a lot of time into character building, other do not.

All of us like to play useful characters appreciated by the rest of the group as worthy team members, but that’s just not possible if not all at the table invest the same amount of time into building their characters.

Example: I’m quite good at the Character Building Sub Game: If I think about playing some kind of Jedi Warrior Monk, it would be something like maybe a Monk2/fighter4/Kensai2/Exotic Weapon Master2/KensaiX … this is a rough outline, I would definitely examine if there are better options. I now how to build a Fighter Mage who, at level 20, casts Spells as a 17th level Wizard (with a Caster Level of 18 or even 20) and has a BAB of +18, saves and hp roughly equal to cleric etc.

Two and a half of the seven gamers in our group are like that.

Than there are those gamers who do not have a long term plan for their characters. They choose feats when they get them. You now, the kind of players that sometimes chooses Toughness or similar feats, because it is a good boost at the moment. If they choose a Prestige Classes, that’s because they think the style might fits their character or because the theme ability of the Prestige Class is pretty neat. They will try to get the prereqs as fast as possible and would almost always take all levels of the prestige class, maybe go back to their base class if the Prestige class does not give more interesting abilities.

Again, two and a half of the seven gamers in our group are like that.

These are the 5 of us who might take the GMs seat one time or another.

Than there are those who need help for putting the stats for their characters, who do not now at all which feats to might be a good choice. They would almost never pick a prestige class or multiclass their character, except the GM or some other player tells them to.

We have got two of those, and they are not beginners.

The problem is, we all like to play characters that can contribute to the game, and while the gap between type 1 and 2 is can be filled with allowing an occasional rebuild, I rebuilt or built the characters of the two players in the third group while I was DMing. One of the others complained about that, because he felt cheated. He thinks that you should invest your own time to get a good character.

The problem is, that in D&D’s current edition, you can easily be 50% more efficient than other characters just by investing time into character building. It is not mastery of the game at the table that makes you a superior player, it is time invested into assuring your character is just more capable than everybody else.

I do not like that. I always wanted a good player to be someone who knew how to play the game. How to survive a dungeon. Who can invent brilliant strategies on the fly to beat the enemies. Not someone who spent 20 hours optimizing his character to deal twice the amount of damage that would be expected by his class and fighting style, has 5 points of armor, and a number of “tricks” which others can not use, because they did not even knew such a Feat existed, or that they need a feat to do that.

I had big hopes the Quick Character Design Charts in the back of the PHB2 might help us their, but they do not. The feat selection is full of errors and just not very good.

I think my main problem is this. Prestige Classes are not what they (IMO) should be. They do not really specialize your character, which would mean you get worse at some of your core abilities but better at others, they simply boost your power level. There are so many feats out there it is very hart to decide which might be good in the game before playing your character, for some players it might be better to allow a feat like Weapon Focus to be taken more than once, for the same weapon. Thus they will get their 5% attack boost over And over again, it is a rock solid boost, not as good as the tricks you can learn, but usable all day long.

There are more problems of course, only the players of the first category in our group would even consider playing a multiclass character who fully combines the abilities of two classes, the oney of the second group might pick into some levels of a class to get rage, sneak or some feats, but never play a Mage/Rogue or Fighter/Mage.

Have any of you had the same problem? What did you do to solve it?

I am at the moment thinking about allowing Gestalt Characters with an XP Penalty that will equal a +4 ECL at level 20, to allow more character concepts to be playable without much tweaking. Aand maybe something like a bunch of bonuses you may take instead of feats… like the stacking weapon focus stuff. But that might be rather hard to come up with.
I do not believe that allowing fewer books (We use Core, PHB2 and Completes) will help, you can seriously screw up a core fighter… you do not need many books to do that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vrecknidj

Explorer
I think that a big problem is that there are too many choices. I have a player in my group (I have a total of about 10 players, any 6 of whom might show up for a given session) who, at every session, has to recount his feats and skill points and never believes in his previous calculations and is forever forgetting how Power Attack works, etc., etc. He's been playing since 1983.

And, it's not like he's not a smart guy, he's a self-employed industrial designer who manages to acquire top contracts. If anything, he's too smart for his own good.

I have other players who know every detail of their characters, and understand exquisitely how any new feat or prestige class would fit for this or that character.

For my players with great skill in these matters, and endless stream of choices isn't really relevant--there's already more than enough material for them to always be able to generate endlessly interesting options for characters.

For my players with limited skill in these matters, the number of choices (classes, prestige classes, feats, etc.) is overwhelming. And, it's overwhelming not just because of the choices themselves, but because of the intimidating effect on the players. Some of these guys just give up believing they'll ever know enough about the game to be able to fully flesh out characters in the way that some of my other players can.

Dave
 

Herpes Cineplex

First Post
Obergnom said:
Have any of you had the same problem? What did you do to solve it?
It's never really qualified as a "problem" in our group.

Typically, what happens is that we take some time (one or two sessions) just for character creation, with lots of "Hey, what do you think about this feat?" questions from the people who feel like other people may have a better grasp of the system than they do.

We do have one player who simply doesn't like making characters, and so someone else will do it for her. She comes up with a basic concept, then one of us asks her a few pointed questions here and there and writes up the character sheet for her. Sometimes we do an informal peer-review step to spot flaws in the design and/or set up the character so that it delivers the kind of play she likes.

We're also pretty relaxed about rebuilding characters; if it turns out within a few sessions that a mistake was made in character design, fixing it is usually as easy as saying to the GM, "Whoa, I messed up: I'm going to exchange this feat for that one, and take points out of that skill to put into this one instead." No one's abused that privilege yet.

I have to confess that I'm utterly baffled by the guy in your group who "felt cheated" when you built someone else's PC because "you should invest your own time to get a good character"; if everyone's character is effective and they're happy playing it, we all have more fun...so why should I care how we get to that point?

--
i guess we're just not that internally competitive
ryan
 


FunkBGR

Explorer
If you think PrC's are the problem, try running the game without them. Just don't use it - stick to base classes.

See if that clears up your problem.

I'm running a Shackled City game right now, and I even said, "No PrC's w/o permission", and lo and behold - we have ONE PrC in the group so far, and someone even took a sorcerer! I had NEVER had that happen - everyone had said Sorcerer's suck!

You don't *need* a build to be effective - you need a role within the party.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Vrecknidj said:
For my players with limited skill in these matters, the number of choices (classes, prestige classes, feats, etc.) is overwhelming. And, it's overwhelming not just because of the choices themselves, but because of the intimidating effect on the players. Some of these guys just give up believing they'll ever know enough about the game to be able to fully flesh out characters in the way that some of my other players can.

I don't see this as a problem for the game as a whole, more of an attitudinal problem of the player. Just because there are tons of choices, that doesn't mean they have to master them all. And a good DM or good build-master within the gaming group can help a lot.

Just ask each player how they perceive their characters. What sorts of people do they want to be? Would they like to stick to that basic concept with a little branching throughout a 20-level campaign? If so, then boil their choices down into the ones that would be most advantageous. Why even bother telling those players about metamagic feats if they want to be a finesse-based fighter? Why worry about the power attack chain in that case?
Put together custom lists for each player of this sort and have them choose things from that subset. Limit the subset to just the best and most advantageous of the likely feats and they'll be able to use the good-build advantages in play.
 

WayneLigon

Adventurer
The part about some players not even knowing such and such exists is a problem. From that statement it sounds like the DM is letting people use any feat/manuever/whatever they can find so if Player A doesn't have, say, Complete Warrior or Book of Nine Blades, he might not know tricks or swift actions or whatever even exists. That's a bad thing, and the DM should list what books he will allow as sources. Those books should be made available to every player.

Otherwise, I don't think it's a fault of the game, or of 'too many feats' or whatever. It's partly a fault of the GM for not laying down boundries to what can and cannot be taken.

One part of me also thinks that the players unwilling to invest time and attention don't need to complain that much. If I do nothing while a friend of mine takes the time to learn how to make meatloaf correctly, then I have no real reason to complain about how I can't make good meatloaf. I think that the process could be streamlined somewhat but the fact remains that the people who take the time to learn how things work will always be better at certain tasks than those who don't.
 

Henry

Autoexreginated
I'd say that if they are having a blast with it, don't sweat it -- the DM should take this into account when designing encounters, and roll with it. It won't be perfect, but then no gaming session is meant to be.

However, if they (the under-optimized players) are obviously upset with the way things are, offer your suggestions as ways to go. Tell them two or three different ways they could accomplish the same build, and give them very generalized explanations to what's good about each path. Don't give MORE than two or three different ways to do something, but offer your help in planning, and show them why you make those suggestions.

In short, offer help when it looks desired, and don't force it when it isn't.
 

Stormborn

Explorer
Are the Players who are, in your opinion,making suboptimal choices having fun? To me thats not clear from the original post. If so then the only problem here is your reaction to that and you need to work on that personally by remiding yourself that its just a game and that there is no right or wrong way to play it. If you and other members of your group cant do that then it sound like you have enough for two different groups.

If on the other hand, their inability to make characters that contribute equally with the ones you make reduces their enjoyment of the game there are some options:

1) Have the GM make up some PCs that are suitable for the campaign along with two or three suggestions on how to progress, depending on what they want to do, from that point. Not everyone has to use these, and they are welcome to come up with them on their own, but these are available as more "optimized" characters.

2) As another poster suggested have the players make a concept/background and then work with another player or the GM to create the mechanics to go along with it.

3) Have a Table Player's Guide. Essentialy take the concept from the back of the PHB2 that you didnt like and make it useful for your group using the allowed books. You can do this one of two ways. You can do just as it is, by class, which is useful for single class PCs, or you can do it by archtype. As in "here are two archer builds, here are two con man builds, here are two holy warrior builds, here are two X, Y, Z builds". Have the whole group get together to talk about the kinds of archtypes that fit best into your games (no need to make one for the Courtier if you dont run intrigue games, for example) then parcel out the work to whomever wants it. Come back and review until you have a final document you like that has at least two paths for about a dozen archtypes. No more restricting than the classes as they are.
 
Last edited:

brehobit

Explorer
I've got a similar problem.

1 guy is playing a straight ranger with sub-optimal feats.
1 guy is playing a warlock with the fey feats from complete mage (very powerful indeed)
1 guy is now playing a barb2/swordsage3 (he just retired his fighter/wu-jen) Very optimized.
1 guy is playing a cleric 5 (somewhat optimized, divine metamagic stuff), his warlock just died.

The ranger is way underpowered compared to the rest, just because he only uses PHB stuff and doesn't wish to multi-class. Which is fair. He's currently got a +1 Holy sword which balances things out quite nicely for now. And the party (mainly the barb/swordsage) is trying to keep the balance of magic items with the ranger.

I agree, it can be a problem, but as a DM you can work around it. I didn't try to get him a holy sword or anything (it was in a module I ran), but it does make things much more balanced.

Also, I expect when the ranger hits level 6 he will be a LOT more powerful. Goes from 2 attacks to 4 in a full attack. That should make him a meat grinder, even if those 2 new attacks will mostly miss. He seems to roll only 2s and 18s :p

Mark
 

Remove ads

Top