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

[Templetroll]

Just to let you know I edited

[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.

 

[wayne62682]

While I agree that's a constructive way of handling things, it also has the unwanted side effect of encouraging players to pick insignificant feats. If you don't demonstrate why it's not a good choice, they won't stop doing it. Of course, if that's your intent then go right ahead.

 

[Nightfall]

Werk,

Glad you liked it. Me, I didn't like it so much but I'll probably chuckle over it later.

 

[blargney the second]

Driddle, have you asked him why?
-blarg

 

[ZSutherland]

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?

Ah, I misunderstood. That's just good-natured teasing that old friends will do. The way you worded it made me think more along the lines of spiteful remarks meant to hurt and alienate the player.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

While I agree that's a constructive way of handling things, it also has the unwanted side effect of encouraging players to pick insignificant feats. If you don't demonstrate why it's not a good choice, they won't stop doing it. Of course, if that's your intent then go right ahead.

What's unwanted? They're creating organic, believable characters. Not every feat has to up your power level. Flavour is a good thing. Creating a character that is not one-dimensional, a character that is actually a character, not a set of min-maxed stats, a character that has his character sheet reflect that it is not a Diablo bowazone or something.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

You don't.

You can certainly tell him you think it's a bad idea, and suggest he do otherwise. But the only person at the table with the right to disallow options is the DM, and even that right is subject to the Player's Veto (i.e. the right to walk away from the table).

QFT

It's HIS character. Not the DM's. Not yours. The decisions on what feats, classes, skills, etc he chooses are ultimately his subject only to the LIMITS - not preferences - set by the DM.

 

[Nightfall]

Man,

The DM's ruling should be, (while not absolute) weighed in for that PC. Just saying.

 

[Mallus]

...it also has the unwanted side effect of encouraging players to pick insignificant feats.

It has the direct, intentional effect of encouraging players to enjoy the game in the manner of their own choosing. And to make me, the DM, a partner in that enjoyment, not an opponent.

If you don't demonstrate why it's not a good choice, they won't stop doing it.

Define "good" and "bad" choice. Doesn't that depend on what you're trying to get out of the game? I know what I like. But why would I want someone else to stop playing the game the way they like it?

As DM, I'm not going to teach a tactically-oriented player the joys deep-immersion roleplaying and speaking in a funny accent. Nor will I teach a drama queen the pleasure of gearheading together a preplanned-out 20 level combat monster. What I will do, if they happen to be in my game, is try to accomodate everyones style of play.

Of course, if that's your intent then go right ahead.

It sure is...

 

[InVinoVeritas]

While I agree that's a constructive way of handling things, it also has the unwanted side effect of encouraging players to pick insignificant feats. If you don't demonstrate why it's not a good choice, they won't stop doing it. Of course, if that's your intent then go right ahead.

I agree with Mallus here. The feats aren't insignificant. They are not bad choices. The real test is not in picking the feat, but in using it effectively.

You don't need to be a druid or ranger to have a trained animal, for example. What would prevent someone from having, say, a lion mount or a trained poisonous snake?

I challenge you: Prove that Animal Affinity is strictly inferior than another feat choice for a starting wizard. If it can't be proven, then it can be optimized, and it is not suboptimal.