How do you tell a fellow player he can't pick a particular feat for his PC?

[Barak]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone! Excellent advice ... from about half of you. The other half are obviously wrong.

Glad I could be of help!

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone! Excellent advice ... from about half of you. The other half are obviously wrong.

And the last sentence of this post is totally unnecessary.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Mine too.


These, on the other hand, are the sort of players I boot from my table for being pricks. You want to handle IC choices IC? Okay by me. You want to handle IC choices OOC by demeaning fellow players and disrupting our fun? Find a new group.

Sorry, we are all long term 15+ year friends. We bust balls constantly and it is pretty much the way we are around each other. Why would that change at a game table?

 

[Numion]

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.

Well, you know, the characters might notice that the wizzie is actually spending more time on ballet moves (Acrobatics) than oooomphing up his fireballs. But, I digress. Similarly a 'lichloved' feat becoming public knowledge would mean an instant booting from most groups

While I wouldn't want one player to create a totally useless character "I'll play a fighter who shouts instead of fights", I'd have no problem with suboptimal characters. Heck, my characters are suboptimal. They spend money on grand houses, jewelry and lavish parties instead of Magics'R'Us.

 

[Falkus]

The players I DM for would eventually kick the character from the party if they were unable to carry the load in battle due to horrid character choices.

Speaking as a GM, I would probably kick Driddle first, for starting fights in the group.

 

[Odhanan]

He's obviously intent on wasting feats on a badly planned character. What's the best way to tell him it won't be allowed?

Really, you don't. You can suggest on a friendly tone some changes, but in the end, he's the one in control of his character. If you don't think his choices are optimal, it doesn't mean he won't end up liking his character, nor does it mean the character will be unplayable, nor does it mean it won't be allowed by the DM.

 

[Bardsandsages]

At character creation, so long as it is a standard feat or skill, I usually don't say anything. Once gameplay begins, I reserve the right to veto a feat or skill that doesn't make sense. For example, if the party levels in the middle of a dungeon and someone suddenly decides to take a feat or skill that isn't easily self-taught, I tell them they can't until they find someone to train them.

But that said, if they are willing to delay gratification to find a trainer it isn't my place to tell them no. Heck, if they could give me a good reason for the odd feat or skill I'd probably work it into the storyline.

 

[Umbran]

As a matter of fact Driddle is maybe just a little peeved that some of his recent threads didn't quite yield the responses he was looking for. So in my opinion he just makes up an imaginary player and an imaginary character just in search for a little love... :\

Okay, that's enough of that.

You know what folks? Driddle's motives for starting the thread are not particularly relevant. You are free to answer or not, as you desire.

As a good general rule - if you cannot respond to a post without bringing your personal take on the poster's personality or motives into the fray, you probably shouldn't respond at all. So, let's stop with thne calls of "troll!" and whatnot. Take part in the thread or not as you choose, but please stick to the topic, folks.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Honestly, while I agree that it's not your place to tell another player what to pick, that player is being a selfish jerk by making a deliberately suboptimal character for the simple reason that it hurts EVERYONE.

Do you have exemplar levels focussing in the skill Make Assumptions? Or do you just roll very well today?

Why is he a selfish jerk by making a suboptimal character? Usually, that is considered good roleplaying, as you build "organic" characters instead of min-maxed twinks.

And do you know the guy is doing it on purpose? I saw people make suboptimal choices and be all happy about them, they just didn't think/know it was suboptimal.

I still don't agree that it does hurt everyone. The game needs some leeway and adaptation to the party, lest every single party must consist of fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard. No variations because "you playing druid instead of cleric hurts the party".

And how do you know he does it just to screw the party?

If I make a Wizard who totally sucks at casting spells,

Not taking spellcasting feats doesn't make you suck at casting spells. He still gets his allotment of spells and slots.

You can't really compare this to making a character that doesn't fit into the group for outlook reasons (lich in party of Lathanderites, obviously evil char in party of good characters, and so on)

I apologize for the harshness of my comments, however in my now-former gaming group I ran into this all the time with two players; they would constantly pick things on a "flavor" basis and totally resent any optimizing suggestions I would offer them, but then complain when they can't do something and/or an optimized character is better than they are.

That player seems to enjoy himself. No "why am I not better" comments at all.

 

[Piratecat]

Kae'Yoss, I'm betting you didn't see Umbran's warning. Please go back and edit your post accordingly.