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

[Sejs]

Personally I'm trying to work out how the two threads correlate. Are they really the same thing?

A: This is a dungeon-crawling type campaign, but I want to play a Rumormonger. I have social and knowledge skills, some low-end divinations, and bardic lore. The party should take me with them into the barrows of death and despair, despite the fact that I'm really out of my element, much like a barbarian would be in a high society type campaign.

B: I'm an appropriate type of character for the campaign, but I've made some character choices (feats, natch) that arn't optimal. I can still do my job just fine, but I'm not as tricked out as another, more tightly focused character may be.


They really don't seem to be the same issue.

 

[Engilbrand]

Crappy feat. We've established that. Good for extra roleplaying. Established that. The key is that he said the player has never DONE anything with it. Nothing. He doesn't take ranks in Ride and Handle Animal. He doesn't ride or try to handle animals. He took a crappy feat and then just let it sit there doing nothing. He now wants to do it again. For the right character played in a certain way, can these feats be good? I'm sure they can. BUT is this player actually doing things with them? It sounded to me like the answer was no. It's not about the enjoyment. It's about a character choosing a crappy feat for no reason. Are there better, non-combat feats he could take? Yes. I tend to choose combat, but, depending on the character, I would choose something that I felt HONESTLY matched the flavor of my character. A Wizard who doesn't ride or handle animal does not need natural bonuses to Ride or Handle Animal. I agree with Driddle or whatever. The guy needs to be talked to. His feat choices could be better. Can a "crappy" spell have uses? Yes. Of course it can. But you probably also plan for it. You make it flavorful. Where's the point in taking a crappy feat that you're just going to let sink into the bowels of oblivion? Non-existant.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Personally I'm trying to work out how the two threads correlate. Are they really the same thing?

A: This is a dungeon-crawling type campaign, but I want to play a Rumormonger. I have social and knowledge skills, some low-end divinations, and bardic lore. The party should take me with them into the barrows of death and despair, despite the fact that I'm really out of my element, much like a barbarian would be in a high society type campaign.

B: I'm an appropriate type of character for the campaign, but I've made some character choices (feats, natch) that arn't optimal. I can still do my job just fine, but I'm not as tricked out as another, more tightly focused character may be.


They really don't seem to be the same issue.

A is a problem situation where the character will probably end up dead or booted from the group.
B is no problem at all and happens all the time.

Yeah I don't see them as related.

 

[Slife]

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.

Combat casting or skill focus(concentration) are both really good choices for a first level wizard. YMMV, of course.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Where's the point in taking a crappy feat that you're just going to let sink into the bowels of oblivion? Non-existant.

There's no point in taking ANY feat that you're going to let sink into the bowels of oblivion, no matter how "good" or "crappy" it is. I don't think this has any bearing on feat choice.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Combat casting or skill focus(concentration) are both really good choices for a first level wizard. YMMV, of course.

I'll agree that they're good choices (Well, SF(Concentration) is, but I don't particularly like Combat Casting--the SF is more flexible). But they aren't required and if someone else's starting wizard doesn't have them, I'm not going to worry for my safety.

Ultimately, the "YMMV" is the important piece, here. Take Spell Mastery, for example. If the DM pretty much ignores spellbooks, then Spell Mastery is an utter waste. If the DM loves depriving wizards of spellbooks, then Spell Mastery is great.

I'll go back to my mantra: It's all about use, not about choice. Are you going to use the feat regularly? Then it's a good choice. Will you not use it? Then it's a bad choice. But no feat (and especially no feat like Animal Affinity) is per se a bad choice. Okay, maybe a couple feats are just plain bad, but you get my meaning.

 

[Shazman]

I've seen a similar scenario played out where the rogue took no combat feats and had an 8 str, and the sorcerer took some sub-optimal spells and reduced spellcsting power with a PrC. It got on my nerves a little, but we ended up having a great campaign, so I'm glad I didn't say anything to them that I would have regretted later.

 

[Felix]

The key is that he said the player has never DONE anything with it.

Another key is that he has supported both sides of the "It's my PC, I choose his feats" argument in two different threads and has not commented on why when asked. Two potential reasons for this are to take the piss, or to play us for fools; I would rather it were neither, but I recieved no response when I asked this before. So I'll ask again:

Driddle, what is the point you're trying to make here?

 

[BryonD]

If one player is way out of tune with the way the rest of the group wants to play then something needs to give.

I'm very much opposed to anyone telling a player how to build their character. But if one player's approach is negatively impacting the fun for everyone else (and powergaming hack and slash CAN be fun), then either that player should be talked into just taking a different view for this campaign, or perhaps the composition of the group should be completely re-assessed.

 

[Driddle]

Driddle...

Felix, please read previous moderator comments in this thread.

And enjoy life a little more.