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

[Tuft]

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.

Sorry, sounds very much like a badwrongfun argument to me.

Hate to break it to you(*), but optimization has not even the proverbial rat's behind to do with group survival, challenge or task fullfillment. Those things are entirely dependent on what the DM's decisions are when he sits down to design the encounters in question.

The DM can throw a too-tough encounter at a non-optimized party and kill it off. But it is just as easy to do to an optimized one - it's just a few numbers that differ, and those numbers are entirely at the DM's discretion.

The DM can throw a too-easy encounter at an optimized party and bore everyone terribly. And he can just as easily do that an non-optimized one.

And he can find an encounter that is "just right" for the party - and that is just as easy for a non-optimized party as it is for the optimized one.

It does not matter how many powers and feats you stack in your quest for optimization - the DM can always add a few numbers to the monster stats and simply kill... you... off!

If there is a "social obligation", then it is for the DM to create the right level encounter, no matter how "optimized" or "non-optimized" the party is.



(*) No, not really

 

[Tallifer]

If a player's character truly sucks in combat and contributes nothing to the survival or success of the party, then perhaps the party should divide loot based on usefulness. Pirate's booty rules. The law of the wolf pack: the bottom wolf gets the scraps. <laugh>

 

[delericho]

If the game is so finely balanced that a character must have an 18 in their prime stat just to be effective, why does it give 4d6-drop-lowest as an acceptable method of ability generation? Why does the standard array not include an 18? Hell, why doesn't the book say you should have an 18 in your prime stat?

In fact, if the game is so finely balanced that you must have that 18 to be effective, then why does it even have ability scores in the first place? Surely it would just be better to eliminate them and tie all the character's capabilities directly to race and class? After all, if you must have particular scores to be effective, then what looks like a choice isn't really - or if it is, then it amounts to "oh, and you can choose to suck if you want."

To the OP, I would say this: is the player having fun? If he is (or if he's at least enjoying himself enough to come back to session after session), then leave him be. Maybe next time he creates a character you can offer some hints, but for now, if he's happy then don't create a problem where there otherwise isn't one. If you think the player isn't happy, then you might consider offering some suggestions.

 

[Mark Chance]

Denique non omnes eadem mirantur amantque. -- Horace

 

[roguerouge]

My advice would be to let his character die. More than that, I would advise that you encourage this character to take foolhardy risks, in the hopes that the player will reboot more quickly. In fact, you should encourage his character to bravely take the lead and enter the hottest parts of combat where possible. Then you bemoan his bad luck and move on. Blame the dice or other players for failing to come to his rescue.

This has been your Neutral Evil advice of the thread.

 

[Runestar]

How optimized are the rest of the party compared to this swordsage?

Being too optimized or un-optimized is really only an issue if it causes your power-level to deviate too sharply from the norm, as the DM then cannot effectively challenge you without screwing over the rest of the party.

Though personally, I would rather be stronger than weaker, because in the former, I can always play myself as weaker if the need arises but in the latter, I can't suddenly try to make myself stronger as my stats can't account for it.

While each player certainly has the right to build and play his character the way he wants or envisions, I do believe that this ultimately needs to be balanced with the needs of the party. So if you know your DM will be throwing some fairly challenging encounters, you owe it to the rest of the players to optimize your character so he can pull his own weight and contribute meaningfully (again, what passes for meaningful is left to each group to determine).

I am not sure if there is any polite way to bring this up without sounding like you are trying to meddle in the way he plays, so I think the best solution would be to PM the DM first, and raise your concerns. At the very least, he can adjust his encounters to cater to the swordsage if need be.

I don't think this is the sort of thing to risk falling out over.

 

[Squizzle]

The balance point is 16 (+2) in primary stat for 50% chance (11 or more on d20) to hit skirmisher AC (level + 14) at level 1 with a +2 proficiency weapon, or with an implement vs. NAD (level + 12).

You don't have to optimise, but a character who is deliberately not only suboptimal but sub-balance is adding to the DM's encounter budget without doing a full character's worth of work for that XP, increasing the burden on the other characters. This can be addressed by party tactics or by DM skill, but both of those are placing more work on your peers--especially the DM, who already has the largest workload of anyone in the group. If everyone is fine with that, so be it, but they should know it beforehand; the default assumption is that everyone will be building at least to balance, i.e. "pulling their weight". Moreover, a character like this will be easily outshone by the others, who will be tearing through enemies that this character struggles to hit.

This only addresses the mechanical implications. Roleplay doesn't have a rulebook, so mechanics are all we can address. You're using the mechanics of D&D, which carries certain basic assumptions with it, for instance, that the characters will have a minimum level of competence. If you want to play a game that allows for less skillful characters to still seem badass and achieve equal spotlight time, something like FATE (I recommend it in the form of Spirit of the Century) might be better. Just create an Aspect like "Sorcerer's Apprentice" or "Bumbling Swordsman", or even "Like a Swordmage with 14 Int", and you have effective mechanical backing that lets this character have equal spotlight, equal fun, and even equal effectiveness.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the first step if for you to realize that his character doesn't suck. Nor do his choices in building the character. You simply have a different idea about optimization than he does. It's entirely possible he knows what he's doing! I would offer aid in case he doesn't know what he's doing, but you need to understand that not everyone is interested in having highly efficient and laser-focused characters.

Let's remember that a couple of editions ago, having a 9 in your 'prime stat' was acceptable enough to qualify for a class.

"You have given out too much XP in the last 24 hours. Please try again."

 

[MrGrenadine]

Wow. If I'd known how dangerous not having a 18 in a prime stat would be....

Of course, if the player made a mistake and/or isn't having fun, the 14 INT is a problem--for the DM.

As to a character not pulling its weight because it hits 4 times out of 10 as opposed to 5? Hogwash. Here's the thing: combat is not the only aspect of the game, its not the most important aspect of the game and sometimes...yes, sometimes...it has nothing to do with the game at all.

Here are some ways a player whose character (gasp) misses often in combat can contribute to the party's success:

1) The player is a whiz at solving puzzles and cracking codes.
2) The player has terrific attention to detail, and remembers details from past sessions that positively impact the current session.
3) The player is a terrific battle tactician, and can clue the party in on how to use the terrain to their advantage during a fight.
4) The player is funny, and makes even the "up sh*ts creek" moments enjoyable.
5) The player can think up creative applications for skills that help the party reach its goals or get out of a jam.
6) etc.

Now, I'm not saying the guy in question has any of these qualities. But to say missing 1 more time in 10 makes a character dead weight on a party is ludicrous.

 

[Squizzle]

Here's the thing: combat is not the only aspect of the game, its not the most important aspect of the game and sometimes...yes, sometimes...it has nothing to do with the game at all.

It's the only aspect bound intimately tightly to his character's Intelligence score, so it's the part we can talk about. Everything else is just angels-on-pinheads what-if.