So, what if a player does a 'weak' build?

[howandwhy99]

I've found a weak character is whenever their level is more than 1 behind the rest of the group. If the group is 13/14, 12 or below is increasingly irrelevant. This is a real problem with the current combat system.

 

[Warmduscher]

If he's fine with it (and hasn't deliberately taken an important combat role in the group that he can't really fill), then fine. I've posted a few times regarding players with horribly inefficient builds, but always because either the character simply could not do what the player wanted effectively (if, indeed, the character could manage to do anything at all, really), or else because the character was supposed to be the party's main tank, or face-man, or whatever, and could not effectively fill that role.

Skills are really the one possible exception. IMHO it's really hard to do much at standard DCs with less than maxed-out skills. However I usually just end up giving out more skill points to deal with this.

Mhm, this is another point I don't quite get. We didn't really pay any attention on roles or niches when we did the characters. Apart from the Changeling we got a Barbarian, a Wizard with a few levels of fighter thrown in and a Wilder and so far we've managed just fine to work around problems caused by our lack of a healer or pure rogue with much fun and misadvantures. The concept of vital party roles is kinda another aspect of my question as with our group 1 role isn't fulfilled at all (healer) and one only somewhat (trapmonkey).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm playing a gnome illusionist 1/bard 1 and next level I start on gnome paragon before picking up master specialist (illusionist) later. It will be a long time before he's anything other than a "weak" character. Despite that, he's been extremely useful so far, and I expect that to continue.

It's about the player and the game as much as it is the character.

 

[JoelF]

I don't think a character with those high diplomacy and bluff skills is weak at all. Use them in combat! You can use diplomacy with a penalty (which you'll laugh at) as a full round action instead of a 1 minute action, and bluff can be used to feint for sneak attacks.

Even more effectively, use those skills BEFORE combat to convice and/or trick others into doing your fighting for you. Find an NPC or two (or squad of town guards) to do some of the actual fighting for you through use of your high social skills, and let THEM be effective in combat for you.

 

[kaomera]

Mhm, this is another point I don't quite get. We didn't really pay any attention on roles or niches when we did the characters. Apart from the Changeling we got a Barbarian, a Wizard with a few levels of fighter thrown in and a Wilder and so far we've managed just fine to work around problems caused by our lack of a healer or pure rogue with much fun and misadvantures. The concept of vital party roles is kinda another aspect of my question as with our group 1 role isn't fulfilled at all (healer) and one only somewhat (trapmonkey).

You don't need to have the generic four if you don't expect them. It's only when you have a Fighter, a Thief, and a Magic User whose players are all expecting the fourth member to fulfill the role of a Cleric, and she chooses to play a Binder instead that you might have any problems, and unless the Binder is claiming to and/or believes she will fill that role that's not a problem with the Binder's player, it's a problem with the group as a whole (and mostly the other players).

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I am DM'ing a player who has what many would consider to be an under-maximised (minimised?) character. He is a level 9 Sorcerer but his only real direct damage spell is Fireball. Other than that, he doesn't have many combat based spells at all. He mainly has out-of-combat utility spells and buff spells.

As DM I have found that I have to take that into account with what I throw at the party. There is another Sorcerer in the party that has quite a few direct damage spells, so that makes things a bit easier. I still have to remember that the party isn't necessarily as strong as your average group of 5 PC's and compensate accordingly.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Kurashu]

It's none of my business what another player plays unless: he provides a significant drag on the rest of the party, he's unhappy playing the character, or he is causing too much friction in the group (though 9 times out of 10, this is a player thing, not a character thing). In which case, I'll mention something in passing (especially if he seems unhappy). If I'm the DM, I'll do my best to work a rebuild or a new character into the game. If I'm a player, it's a little harder to do then, but I'll ask my fellow what he wants his guy to be able to do and reccomend some future choices he can make.

 

[kaomera]

I am DM'ing a player who has what many would consider to be an under-maximised (minimised?) character. He is a level 9 Sorcerer but his only real direct damage spell is Fireball. Other than that, he doesn't have many combat based spells at all. He mainly has out-of-combat utility spells and buff spells.

He took fireball??? MUNCHKIN!!!
You let him take fireball??? MONTY HAUL!!!

Seriously, tho, you don't find that the other spells he has access to make up for the lack of direct-damage output? I mean, with two Sorcerers of 9th or so level they have a heck of a lot of spells going for them. And with one caster blasting and the other buffing I'd think that they would not be losing nearly as much firepower for each Stoneskin, Arcane Eye, Dimension Door, etc.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I've found a weak character is whenever their level is more than 1 behind the rest of the group. If the group is 13/14, 12 or below is increasingly irrelevant. This is a real problem with the current combat system.

Interesting, because I've found that the higher level that PC's get the less that being close in level matters. At say 5th/6th, having a 4th level character will seem notably weaker. At 13th/14th, a 12th level character is FAR from irrelevant, and depending on items and abilities can even be MORE relevant than a higher level character.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

He took fireball??? MUNCHKIN!!!
You let him take fireball??? MONTY HAUL!!!

Seriously, tho, you don't find that the other spells he has access to make up for the lack of direct-damage output? I mean, with two Sorcerers of 9th or so level they have a heck of a lot of spells going for them. And with one caster blasting and the other buffing I'd think that they would not be losing nearly as much firepower for each Stoneskin, Arcane Eye, Dimension Door, etc.

The Sorcerer with only Fireball as a direct damage spell is a bit of a "special" case. He is basically a Sorcerer and a Barbarian trapped in the same body. It's a bit of a complex situation that I won't go into detail here but, in summary, the Sorcerer is intended to be weak and cowardly and generally non-combative. He is meant to be the anti-thesis of the agressive, magic-hating Barbarian.

When the player first started to play the character(s), whenever the Sorcerer's mind was in control he would flee from danger and generally try to do things to avoid being attacked really. Sometimes his actions would simply consist of yelling encouragements to the PC's who were actually doing the fighting!

I knew this in advance though so I could adjust the encounters for it. Over time, the Barbarian (who is really the true holder of the body and has a stronger will) has been able to exert more influence over the character. It was the Barbarian's influence that allowed the Sorcerer to manifest the ability to cast Fireball. (The Sorcerer was quite surprised when he first cast it).

Since then, his spell selection has become a little more combat-orientated (due to the Barbarian's influence which has eased some playability issues that were cropping up). Before that, the Sorcerer's spell selection was something close to what you would expect a non-combatant to have.

I hope that fills in some of the details for you.

Olaf the Stout