How do you tell a fellow player he can't pick a particular feat for his PC?
- Thread starter Driddle
- Start date
- Status
awayfarer
First Post
If he's 3rd level like you said than he can't put 5 ranks into either handle animal or ride.
Anyhow, I'd have to agree with the sentiment that it's not your PC and it's not your choice. How long until a player is just choosing feats you disagree with? What if he picks a metamagic feat that you think is inferior to another? What if he plans his character to take a certain PrC? Do you disallow this person from taking that PrC if you think it's not as good as another?
Templetroll
Explorer
[edited to be on topic]
There are no sub-optimal choices, only sub-optimal play utilizing the character based on those choices. Way back when, in the early 80's, one of our GMs thought that spells should be granted by a mentor based on the charisma reaction to the now departing apprentice. Naturally, someone rolled lousy. The mentor gave him sucky spells and the player, being a wonderfully contrary sort, deliberately memorized one spell until he was able to use it effectively in an encounter. Then, when he leveled up and returned to his mentor he would go over exactly how he used each of the wonderful spells he had been given by his wise mentor! By the time the character got to 4th level spells the mentor gave up and let him select; there was nothing so lousy that it was really a problem by that time. The DM dropped the charisma roll also. It was great fun along the way.
You don't know yet if the player will be up to making those feats work but I certainly think it is up to the player to make their own choices. The party should play well enough that one guy's unusual choices shouldn't hinder them much.
There are no sub-optimal choices, only sub-optimal play utilizing the character based on those choices. Way back when, in the early 80's, one of our GMs thought that spells should be granted by a mentor based on the charisma reaction to the now departing apprentice. Naturally, someone rolled lousy. The mentor gave him sucky spells and the player, being a wonderfully contrary sort, deliberately memorized one spell until he was able to use it effectively in an encounter. Then, when he leveled up and returned to his mentor he would go over exactly how he used each of the wonderful spells he had been given by his wise mentor! By the time the character got to 4th level spells the mentor gave up and let him select; there was nothing so lousy that it was really a problem by that time. The DM dropped the charisma roll also. It was great fun along the way.
You don't know yet if the player will be up to making those feats work but I certainly think it is up to the player to make their own choices. The party should play well enough that one guy's unusual choices shouldn't hinder them much.
Last edited:
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Driddle said:
Why should you even know (in character or out of character) WHAT feats he has got?
It is absolutely none of your business; if you tried to make it your business in a game I was running YOU become the problem player.
Feat choice is between a player and the DM.
Nonlethal Force
First Post
Well, assuming its a real situation I see there are two options:
1. If the group is filled with powergamers who are only interested in hack-and-slash as a means to get XP ... then this character is now sub-optimalized and won't hold his end in combat. After a few more bad choices he'll make the game less fun for the rest of the group because they're not "the baddest thing that could ever be made up." If this is honestly the case you might want to explain the group's purpose to the game and how his ideals might not fit everyone else's.
2. If the group is filled with RPers who don't rely solely on killing things then who cares? There are many people out there that wish D&D arguments didn't always boild down to what makes the most efficient combatant. When D&D goes away from a kill mentality, min/maxing and suboptimalization become far less important. If this is the case, then let they play what the guy wants to play. You might still ask him what he's aiming for ... but stay away from giving advice.
And ... assuming this is a fake situation made up ...
1. Take the fake player's fake character sheet and tear it up. Then tell the imaginary friend to go find a different imaginary group of imaginary friends to pretend to hang out with.
1. If the group is filled with powergamers who are only interested in hack-and-slash as a means to get XP ... then this character is now sub-optimalized and won't hold his end in combat. After a few more bad choices he'll make the game less fun for the rest of the group because they're not "the baddest thing that could ever be made up." If this is honestly the case you might want to explain the group's purpose to the game and how his ideals might not fit everyone else's.
2. If the group is filled with RPers who don't rely solely on killing things then who cares? There are many people out there that wish D&D arguments didn't always boild down to what makes the most efficient combatant. When D&D goes away from a kill mentality, min/maxing and suboptimalization become far less important. If this is the case, then let they play what the guy wants to play. You might still ask him what he's aiming for ... but stay away from giving advice.
And ... assuming this is a fake situation made up ...
1. Take the fake player's fake character sheet and tear it up. Then tell the imaginary friend to go find a different imaginary group of imaginary friends to pretend to hang out with.
wayne62682
First Post
The issue isn't about roleplaying vs. powergaming, its that even in a roleplaying-centric group, making worthless choices ruins everybody's fun and can screw your other party members over; as D&D is a team game, that's unacceptable on ANY level.
Even in a roleplay-heavy group I would not want to play with someone who is so selfish as to only care about their own fun and not taking into consideration what repercussions their decisions have on everyone else in the group. Operating under the assumption that this is a "normal" group, by which I mean a good mix of hack-and-slash and roleplaying, the person who picks lame choices under the pretense of fun is being totally selfish.
Even in a roleplay-heavy group I would not want to play with someone who is so selfish as to only care about their own fun and not taking into consideration what repercussions their decisions have on everyone else in the group. Operating under the assumption that this is a "normal" group, by which I mean a good mix of hack-and-slash and roleplaying, the person who picks lame choices under the pretense of fun is being totally selfish.
It's pretty easy to fix, and all of you are going about it the wrong way. Confronting the player will just lead to trouble. Heck, even asking him why he took such feats can lead to tension, which is bad for the cohesion of the group.
Instead, wait until he goes to the bathroom. Then, you grab his sheet, erase those crappy feats, and write better ones down. Of course, he could just do the same, so make sure you use a pen, not a pencil. Oh, also, start bringing your own character sheet to the bathroom with you.
Instead, wait until he goes to the bathroom. Then, you grab his sheet, erase those crappy feats, and write better ones down. Of course, he could just do the same, so make sure you use a pen, not a pencil. Oh, also, start bringing your own character sheet to the bathroom with you.
HeapThaumaturgist
First Post
Tr011z0r3d!
Does remind me of the "wizard" I built for my wife, once. Rogue/Bard. It lead to the core two players of my old group. One guy was rather up in arms at first that she was misrepresenting her character as a "wizard" when it was obviously, on the sheet, not a wizard. They had an argument about "role playing" and, oddly, he seemed to "get it". After that he and the other guy at the table that day played in pretty much all of my campaigns.
It was, however, a decently effective character. I, myself, probably would choose not to play with somebody that was, for whatever reason, purposefully trying to create a character with the most sub-optimal choices possible.
--fje
Does remind me of the "wizard" I built for my wife, once. Rogue/Bard. It lead to the core two players of my old group. One guy was rather up in arms at first that she was misrepresenting her character as a "wizard" when it was obviously, on the sheet, not a wizard. They had an argument about "role playing" and, oddly, he seemed to "get it". After that he and the other guy at the table that day played in pretty much all of my campaigns.
It was, however, a decently effective character. I, myself, probably would choose not to play with somebody that was, for whatever reason, purposefully trying to create a character with the most sub-optimal choices possible.
--fje
In this thread, post #7
What's the point you're trying to make, Driddle? This is somewhat tedious.Driddle said:
- Status
Similar Threads
