I have a player who wants to play the "underdogs"

[Everest]

I'm in a conversation with one of my players at the moment. We've been discussing the fact that I want to begin going by the tier list and trying to keep everyone within a reasonable set of tiers so that no one is outshone (and this would really be for the best because the other two in the group are not that good at optimizing and I'd rather not see anyone killed).

But my friend says that knowing that the Ninja and CW Samurai classes he wants to play so badly are considered weaker only makes him want to play those classes even more and work that much harder to overcome his weaknesses, and to work even harder if he slips.

I've already informed him that he could do a lot of Ninja-y stuff as the swordsage, and that he doesn't have to treat the character class [x concept] as the only viable way to play x. But . . . well, knowing that, what do you all say? Is he being stubborn and a detriment to the party? Am I being too restrictive by advocating a cut list of classes? How hard is it really to make the lowest-tier classes a viable benefit to the party as they are?

Neither he nor I have all that much experience with 3.5, but even I can tell that this could definitely be an issue, so I want to have a firmer idea of what the best solution is before I do this reboot.

[Curious]

Well. . . if everyone else in the party is playing either an Initiator or Spell-casting class, the ninja is going to be overshadowed pretty much no matter what. I would definitely encourage him to choose a better class; D&D is about heroes, not underdogs. If he wants that kind of game, he's going to have to find a different system.

[NNescio]

Let him play the Ninja/Samurai and offer to let him rebuild to Swordsage/Warblade if he finds them lacking later on?

Edit: Grammar

[Ursus the Grim]

Honestly, if he knows he's going to have a hard time, he's got no room to complain when things go bad. The smartest thing to do for him would be to emphasize staying out of harm's way via tumble and mobility and such. But I wouldn't stop him if he knows what he's getting into.

If you still really want to drive home the point, ask him to play a commoner, and then question him as to why he won't.

[Pentachoron]

Yeah he's going to have to work hard to stay relevant but if that's what he wants to do, let him. If I were you I'd just tell him that if he changes his mind he can rebuild himself as a Swordsage or whatever, and then let him play the class he wants.

[NowhereMan583]

Let him play a weak class if he wants; what harm does it do?

[Anxe]

Well, the story of my first character is somewhat relevant to this. He was an elf rogue with a net ability bonus of +3 at first level. According to the DMG, that's actually considered so bad that the DM should allow a reroll. I didn't.

Now the most often mentioned character in my D&D group is my first character, Anxe. You don't have to have awesome stats to be me memorable (and presumably fun as well. I had fun.), so I think playing a mediocre class shouldn't matter either. Making a party that has internal balance doesn't necessarily mean you are going to have more fun. I think the player Everest talked about should be allowed to play what he wants. It doesn't matter that his reasons are because that character is "bad."

[Honest Tiefling]

Find out why he wants to play the ninja and such. Then you can make him a few build concepts that capture those ideas. Try to point him to the Shadow Sun Ninja class if he's after the ninja title. I also suggest the Shadow Hand school, seems right up his alley.

Then ask him what he expects his character to do, and point out what is possible and what isn't possible with his current build. Point out how to make a Swordsage that can do it.

I don't think he's really being a detriment to the group...Unless they want to play a higher tier. Then its like showing up as a paladin to a Team Evil conference. Not a great idea.

You might unfortunately be stuck with this, but you could let him play the Ninja and then let him reroll once he's sick of it. Or allow him goodies other people don't get since he's a different tier.

[Xanmyral]

I suppose it could work, depending on what tier the other players are on. Guessing from the swordsage option, I'm guessing the party is tier three then? Ways I see it, you can take a few options.

-Let him play the subpar class, but allow him to reroll/retrain if he regrets it later. Give him a point at which it would be too late however to retrain.

-Don't let him play it. It might annoy him, but perhaps you can show him how to build a ninja out of the swordsage? He might see that, have inspiration take over and forget about the ninja.

-Find a way to help move his power level a bit higher. If I remember, Ninja are tier four or five? Perhaps let him gestalt with a lower tier, or same tier for free? Maybe free LA points?

[Ursus the Grim]

You might unfortunately be stuck with this, but you could let him play the Ninja and then let him reroll once he's sick of it. Or allow him goodies other people don't get since he's a different tier.

I completely forgot about this. I believe its often suggested that low tier classes get a better point buy total or level a little faster to offset their disadvantages. Its something I've wanted to try at some point.

That being said, it kinda violates the principle of the reason the player wants to play low-tier.

[Honest Tiefling]

Could just throw the goodies at him after character creation, if he seems a bit miffed about the power of his character. Just make it optional.

[Everest]

Whoa. I'm surprised how many responses I've received already. This could take a little while.

I should probably also point out that the rest of the group doesn't know what it's playing yet, either, so they might forsake tier 2 and then tier 5 is okay, at least.


Let me him play the Ninja/Samurai and offer to let him rebuild to Swordsage/Warblade if he finds them lacking later on?

Hadn't thought of that, but that sounds like a great idea.



Honestly, if he knows he's going to have a hard time, he's got no room to complain when things go bad.

That's most true.



Let him play a weak class if he wants; what harm does it do?

The harm is does is that it forces the rest of the party to put more resources towards keeping him alive, and if I were to force him to play as that the whole time, it might just not be fun if his character couldn't keep up.



I don't think he's really being a detriment to the group...Unless they want to play a higher tier. Then its like showing up as a paladin to a Team Evil conference. Not a great idea.

Well, I was either going to use tiers 2-4, or 3-5, the latter of which okays the ninja. But if not, it would just be harder to incorporate that character.

I'm getting a lot out of this, and we seem to quickly be working towards a good solution. Thank you all.

Though of course, if you have ideas for how to optimize what is primarily a ninja (or heck, even the samurai), feel free to post that too.

EDIT: For the record, UrsusTheGrim, he says that if I were to make him play a Commoner, he would legitimately try to play the Commoner. He's that kinda guy. It's pretty fun. I just want to make sure we don't run into any snags along the way.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I've played with a Ninja. and honestly, if the other PCs aren't consciously optimizing (PUN-PUN, AWAY!!), he'll be fine. Or so my experiences have shown.

[Honest Tiefling]

Maybe try giving him a swordsage...But with some sort of flaw that he doesn't get feats for? Or a subpar weapon choice?

[Ursus the Grim]

EDIT: For the record, UrsusTheGrim, he says that if I were to make him play a Commoner, he would legitimately try to play the Commoner. He's that kinda guy. It's pretty fun. I just want to make sure we don't run into any snags along the way.

Lol, kinda sounds stubborn. I should know, I'm one of the most stubborn players (and DMs) I've met. Then let him play his Ninja and he'll probably have fun with it. There have been some great suggestions in the thread about helping him out if he gets tired of it. Best of luck.

[LansXero]

Get the legally free Ultimate Combat playtest from Paizo's Pathfinder and let him play THAT Ninja? Its still a Ninja but imho much better than the 3.5 one. And it should require minimum work, given how similar both systems are. And the playtest came with a Samurai too, but no idea how good or bad that one is :P

[Psyren]

1) Is your friend's name Johnny (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) by any chance? :smallwink:

2) It's only a problem if everyone else in the group is playing power and he is not. If everyone is more or less in line (T3-5 range) then you'll all have fun because you can scale encounters/loot accordingly.

[Optimator]

Let the ninja have Sneak Attack instead of Sudden Strike, give him Wis to AC in light armour--like a Swordsage, and give evasion a few levels earlier, and maybe 8 skill points a level. He'll keep up fine, in that case.

[Everest]

I've played with a Ninja. and honestly, if the other PCs aren't consciously optimizing (PUN-PUN, AWAY!!), he'll be fine. Or so my experiences have shown.

Good to know.



Maybe try giving him a swordsage...But with some sort of flaw that he doesn't get feats for? Or a subpar weapon choice?


Let the ninja have Sneak Attack instead of Sudden Strike, give him Wis to AC in light armour--like a Swordsage, and give evasion a few levels earlier, and maybe 8 skill points a level. He'll keep up fine, in that case.

Well, one thing I'm highly against is arbitrarily altering others' characters, for better or worse. I much prefer keeping things as close to the rules as possible.



Lol, kinda sounds stubborn. I should know, I'm one of the most stubborn players (and DMs) I've met. Then let him play his Ninja and he'll probably have fun with it. There have been some great suggestions in the thread about helping him out if he gets tired of it. Best of luck.

Thank you. :smallsmile:



Get the legally free Ultimate Combat playtest from Paizo's Pathfinder and let him play THAT Ninja? Its still a Ninja but imho much better than the 3.5 one. And it should require minimum work, given how similar both systems are. And the playtest came with a Samurai too, but no idea how good or bad that one is :P

Hmm. I shall look into that.



1) Is your friend's name Johnny (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) by any chance? :smallwink:

2) It's only a problem if everyone else in the group is playing power and he is not. If everyone is more or less in line (T3-5 range) then you'll all have fun because you can scale encounters/loot accordingly.

1) >.> His name does, in fact, start with a J.

2) Well, yeah. Tiers 3-5 weren't out of the question. My concern was more with if someone wanted to play something from Tier 2 and I had to deal with that.

[Psyren]

2) Well, yeah. Tiers 3-5 weren't out of the question. My concern was more with if someone wanted to play something from Tier 2 and I had to deal with that.

I advise you cross that bridge when you come to it. See what everyone else wants to play before you decide if there's a problem. If you get a druid, artificer and sorcerer then you'll know you have to have another talk with this guy or toss him some buffs. But if everyone else is going rogue, warlock, healer - or even bard, duskblade, ranger - then you can probably let it slide provided he optimizes a little.

[Optimator]

My group house-ruled that all Ninjas get those abilities. If the Ninja class is so underpowered, what's the harm? Or is it about the player's desire to "play through" the normal Ninja that you want to stick close to the rules?

[Everest]

My group house-ruled that all Ninjas get those abilities. If the Ninja class is so underpowered, what's the harm? Or is it about the player's desire to "play through" the normal Ninja that you want to stick close to the rules?

As I said above, it's my personal preference not to house-rule any more things in or out than are absolutely necessary, or to set more than the most basic of basic guidelines. And I doubt if the player would appreciate me giving his character those boosts anyway, rather than letting him tough it out and work with what he has.

[JaronK]

He knows he's playing a weak class... and it sounds like he wants the challenge. Just be fair with him, and see if he can surprise you.

JaronK

[NecroRick]

So you're complaining that you have a player that doesn't want to powergame?


???

[Thurbane]

I would definitely encourage him to choose a better class; D&D is about heroes, not underdogs. If he wants that kind of game, he's going to have to find a different system.
That makes a lot of assumptions about what a particular player enjoys about the game, and how the particular group dynamic and play-style works.

He knows he's playing a weak class... and it sounds like he wants the challenge. Just be fair with him, and see if he can surprise you.

JaronK
Now this I agree with.

[Xefas]

Honestly, just explain to him that D&D wasn't really designed with that sort of thing in mind.

Not to go into it too deeply, but D&D is at its a core, a fairly lethal system. And I'm not just talking about your character dying. I'm talking about a player's agency. It is trivially easy for a player to lose agency over their character. One or two lucky hits can kill your character, removing your agency entirely. A single failed save can vastly restrict your options, as a player, to effect the game in a meaningful way, if not outright remove them entirely.

Playing as an underdog is fun. Playing as a Commoner in a game of Heroes is awesome. However, in D&D, you're more likely to simply have all options to effect the game removed from you due to your relative weakness.

This is the source of optimization in D&D culture. Even if they do it wrong (i.e. I've met a surprising number of people who only play Warlocks because they swear that said class is the most powerful), they're looking to maximize the amount of time they, as a player, are allowed to assert their creative agenda on the game world. There is an old saying "You can't roleplay if you're dead".

However, all is not lost. There are tons of games out there that work differently.

In the Dresden Files RPG, for instance, a reality-altering wizard and a bog-standard mortal can play in the same party and both are exactly as fun to play as one another. This is because, while the mortal character is weaker, certainly, the game does not punish weakness with a loss of player agency as easily as D&D does, and gives the player options in the form of an increased reservoir of "stunts" and "fate points" to assert their creative agenda without making the character they're playing stronger.

In a Wicked Age and Burning Wheel are two more games (the former, rules light, and the latter, rules heavy) that can play with the D&D tone and setting, while rendering power-level and optimization entirely irrelevant as to the fun had at the table.

If you can't sway your player's mind, perhaps try picking up a copy of one of the aforementioned games and running a one-shot to see how it goes. You might find you like it. If not, perhaps it'll sate the urge to play the underdog from your player and you can move on. Either way, all three are fairly cheap to acquire.

[darksolitaire]

The harm is does is that it forces the rest of the party to put more resources towards keeping him alive, and if I were to force him to play as that the whole time, it might just not be fun if his character couldn't keep up.

You're already aware of the main problem here. As long as the player finds ways to contribute, and isn't drain of resource to the party, all is well. If a PC or two kicks the bucket while the Ninja is smacking some undead horror for d6+1 points of damage per turn, that can create feelings of frustration. This means some extra consideration from your part. You simply have to make sure he pulls his weight in combat, which is the most dangerous part of the game.

I agree with you that changing the ninja class itself wouldn't be the best idea, as he wants to play it as it is, so perhaps you might get him a bit more character wealth? For melee types, the cost of weapons is the biggest issue. During the game, you might make sure he gets good weapons for dealing with variety of foes, and magic items that allow him to function in more situations.

[Sir Halfred]

Honestly, just explain to him that D&D wasn't really designed with that sort of thing in mind.

Not to go into it too deeply, but D&D is at its a core, a fairly lethal system. And I'm not just talking about your character dying. I'm talking about a player's agency. It is trivially easy for a player to lose agency over their character. One or two lucky hits can kill your character, removing your agency entirely. A single failed save can vastly restrict your options, as a player, to effect the game in a meaningful way, if not outright remove them entirely.

Playing as an underdog is fun. Playing as a Commoner in a game of Heroes is awesome. However, in D&D, you're more likely to simply have all options to effect the game removed from you due to your relative weakness.

This is the source of optimization in D&D culture. Even if they do it wrong (i.e. I've met a surprising number of people who only play Warlocks because they swear that said class is the most powerful), they're looking to maximize the amount of time they, as a player, are allowed to assert their creative agenda on the game world. There is an old saying "You can't roleplay if you're dead".

However, all is not lost. There are tons of games out there that work differently.

In the Dresden Files RPG, for instance, a reality-altering wizard and a bog-standard mortal can play in the same party and both are exactly as fun to play as one another. This is because, while the mortal character is weaker, certainly, the game does not punish weakness with a loss of player agency as easily as D&D does, and gives the player options in the form of an increased reservoir of "stunts" and "fate points" to assert their creative agenda without making the character they're playing stronger.

In a Wicked Age and Burning Wheel are two more games (the former, rules light, and the latter, rules heavy) that can play with the D&D tone and setting, while rendering power-level and optimization entirely irrelevant as to the fun had at the table.

If you can't sway your player's mind, perhaps try picking up a copy of one of the aforementioned games and running a one-shot to see how it goes. You might find you like it. If not, perhaps it'll sate the urge to play the underdog from your player and you can move on. Either way, all three are fairly cheap to acquire.

So, you are saying that people optimize because they are afraid to die? I don't know, but this seems pretty sad to me. I started playing RPG 14 years ago, with an old second hand 2nd Ed AD&D player's Handbook, and character death wasn't really a problem, sometimes it was fun when the character died in a heroic, dramatic way, or even when it was stupid. But hey, that's something about being a hero, fighting against certain death without fear or remorse, be it for a good cause, or for an evil cause.

Also, it's nice to be in a party where there's a guy who isn't worried about being the strongest one, those are usually the best players in my opinion.

All Hail the Underdogs!!! True Heroes in their own way!!

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Recall that tiers measure potential. If your other players aren't tapping into the potential of the higher tier classes, and if this player truly is making the most out of the ninja, there's no big problem. An evocation-specialist blasting wizard isn't going to outshine him at all; you'll just have to tone down the encounters to avoid a TPK (unless you're into that sorta thing).

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Is anyone else reminded of Kamina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEgWXsD2Qo) from TTGL?

[Everest]

Recall that tiers measure potential. If your other players aren't tapping into the potential of the higher tier classes, and if this player truly is making the most out of the ninja, there's no big problem. An evocation-specialist blasting wizard isn't going to outshine him at all; you'll just have to tone down the encounters to avoid a TPK (unless you're into that sorta thing).

That may very well be. But at the moment he's not even playing a ninja anyway.



Is anyone else reminded of Kamina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEgWXsD2Qo) from TTGL?

Ironically enough, he and I both hate Kamina.

[NecroRick]

If a PC or two kicks the bucket while the Ninja is smacking some undead horror for d6+1 points of damage per turn, that can create feelings of frustration.

If the higher tier classes are the ones more likely to die, then maybe the tiers aren't as amazing as everyone seems to think....

[huttj509]

If one person is playing Angel Summoner, another knows this, and REEEEALLY wants to be BMX bandit?

As long as everyone involved knows approx. what to expect, go for it.

The tier list is not so much to say "don't play this, ever." It's a description of power levels and capabilities. He has been warned.

Since you basically said "are you sure," and he said "yes", you are absolved of responsibility to force his usefulness (though don't explicitly force uselessness either, no bringing out the horde of zombies JUST to show the base rogue that he should have planned better, but no need to AVOID using undead either).

You plan the situations. If stuff that's a moderate challenge for the others relegates him to cheerleader, that's not your fault.

[Sir Homeslice]

If the higher tier classes are the ones more likely to die, then maybe the tiers aren't as amazing as everyone seems to think....

His post had nothing to do with tiers and everything to do with dead weight being factored in as not-dead-weight. Also the ellipses are fairly unnecessary.

[erikun]

It sounds to me like your friend may want to play a character with actual faults, with the plans of going on a quest or taking a diversion when those faults become important to the story. It sounds like they don't want to play a powerful character with no faults, who has little chance of death or failure and treats most encounters like buckets of XP. How appropriate this would be to the game depends on how the game plays out; it is hard to play against your faults when the party wizard Always Has A Spell For ThatTM, or when the system turns everything you can do into a fault.

Your player seems to know what they are doing, though, so I'd let them do it. You might encourage them to make another character if they suddenly find their character lacking of physical vitality, though - character creation takes awhile to complete.

[JaronK]

So, you are saying that people optimize because they are afraid to die? I don't know, but this seems pretty sad to me.

No, he's talking about loss of agency and control, which is different. And I think it's very well said. Heck, I've had said agency removed from a low power class before the game even started... a DM decided he wanted an undead campaign, and I was playing a Rogue. There was no option to get any of the various bypass methods for that, so because of the nature of the campaign I was entirely worthless. The character I wanted to play, a competent stabby stealth guy, couldn't mechanically function. I started optimizing after that just so I could play the character I wanted to play and still actually do something.

JaronK

[Bob the DM]

Personally, I love the ninja, although it could use 2 changes. The sudden strike should be sneak attack and the ninja stuff like ghost step should be 1/day per class level instead of per 2 class levels. To keep him relivant, you should let him use and ACF's that he likes that apply to rogues/scouts as I haven't seen any for the ninja.

My party just met their first npc ninja. Luckily for them I make my "named" npc's in advance full with gear so the ninja only had 2 doses of scorpion poison. At first the ninja wasn't doing much hurt, but as soon as the 2 doses of poison hit... well... The bard now has a strength of 2 and the cleric is down to 8 (he made the second save). I think that while they thought the ninja wasn't anything special at the start of combat, they're just as scared of him now as they are of the cleric who hit the swordsage with blindness.

Just make sure your pc makes good use of alchemical items and poison. Starting off combat with a rapid shot hand crossbow volley using prepoisoned bolts will be loved by all his allies.

[Thurbane]

In my personal experience, "tier disparity" is one of those things that is more of an issue in theory than in practice. In most co-op D&D groups, who play at all but the most high-op level of play, the disparity in class abilities is usually far less of a problem in play than it is on paper - especially at low to mid character levels.

Just my 2 cents - take it or leave it. Everyone's group plays differently, so my experience is certainly not indicative of everyone's.

[Quietus]

My suggestion : Leave it. Run the first couple sessions, get a feel for how he compares with the rest of the group. If he's worthless next to them, then simply don't take him into consideration when planning encounters. If he's optimized enough to keep up, then awesome, keep him in mind when deciding whether to send one ogre or two.

Do let him know that if he gets frustrated with not being able to keep up, that he has the option to rebuild into something more mechanically effectual, while still in the spirit of his character, but if he wants to have fun by only being useful when he rolls really well, that's his prerogative. If you've warned them that "hey, this is gonna be a lethal game, guys, make sure you can take it", and he doesn't take that into consideration.. well, he knew it going in, and may become a smear on the wall faster than the others. That, too, was his choice, in playing something that couldn't keep up.

:Edit: Note - I'm not suggesting going all out to kill non-optimizers. I'm saying not to go easy on him if you've warned him that he's gonna be squishy.

[Sir Halfred]

Meh, I think I'm getting to old for this.

[Luckmann]

If he really wants to play something and really do understand that he's going to be horrible and useless, let him play it. Adjust encounters appropriately.

At least let him try. If it turns out untenable, have him reroll as something useful.

[Cerlis]

He will only be outshone if the other players are senseless and try to one up him rather than support him. I actually think its a silly question. tiers are based on what you can do. If he plays with a buncha high tiers it means they can all do EVERYTHING the samurai cant do. So why would they step on his toes. Every caster has his mooks. whether its a summon or an entangle spell. So why not forgo wasting those spell slots since you already got a samurai, and do all the infinate number of other things they can do.

[Savannah]

Neither he nor I have all that much experience with 3.5

See, this is why I hate it when newbies are linked to the tier system. It's great once you've played for a while, but I've seen a ton of people who read it before getting real experience come away thinking it's a set of iron-clad rules. It's purely a measure of potential, and it's quite possible to make a tier one who sucks (there are some really, really useless spells out there).

In my experience, tiers don't matter much in actual games. I'm currently playing a game where I'm a druid and someone else is a paladin. We've been about equally effective; I'm certainly not overshadowing the paladin. I suspect you've decided this already, but really, let him play what he wants. If it becomes a problem, you can figure something out.

[SleepyBadger]

I once DMed a campaign from 1st to 20ish level with a halfling monk, two full casters, a bard and a ranger. The monk was profoundly happy with his monk abilities, his SR and high AC (he didn't really pose a threat to anyone in battle, so I usually ignored him...) and had total fun playing his character. (And it never occured to the others that they could as well do without him, as they needed him as a tank whenever enemies couldn't just walk past him.) What I want to say is that you never know. A good DM would point out that the class is is one of the weakest, as you already did; yet you shouldn't force him to play anything he doesn't want. If he discovers later that you had been right you can still offer him the option to rebuild his character.

[Dream_Merchant]

Tier based system is a system of what one can do, not what one must do. I can make a cleric (considered top tier) and you can make a ninja (considered low tier) and my cleric will be worse than your ninja.

I like mechanics synergy as much as anyone else, and I like having my character mechanically do stuff, but at the end (and the beginning) what matters is flavor because role-playing is all about imagination and not dice rolling.

Do you actually expect a player who wants to play a Ninja to accept some Swordsage/DOS/Directory structure class as an ersatz?

He wants to play a ninja! Not a mechanical replica that possibly does things better than the Ninja. Where is the flavor in that?

So what if he doesnt do as much as the wizard or the druid? He will still do something and its your job as a good DM to cater for your characters. Let them shine once a while. Be creative, be imaginative. Don't just roll dice.

my 2 cents

[super dark33]

Its like playing a bard.
In any outer manner, outer classes are better then him, the wizard casts stronger and from a wider variety of spells, that actually DO somthing, the rogue do the 'sneaky job' better, and dont even start with melee.
every turn will be like this:
Bard: "i play my bardic music on my banjo!"
Dm: "you ran out of all of em... at the begginig of the meeting."
Bard: "oh ok. im going to the back to clean up my banjo again while you do the fun stuff".
Dm: "you roll a 1 and break your banjo"

but the point is: that if you play your class right and being creative, you can make wonders that your party members will remember for long.

A ninja is a much diffrent style then the rogue.
its all his equipment and even the name that inspires you to play it.
when you play paladin, you almost feel proud about your order and IC religion yourelf, and when you play rogue you feel the excitment of breacking in somwhere dangerous with shinys or open the door because your curious.


but thats only if you roleplay and want to have fun by playing, not only winning in battle the regular way.

a wizard may cast orb of fire but a bard will be the one who pushes a log off a hill or throws alchemist fires at the dragons eye, or convicing your kidnappers that your ideas are better and they should join you.

EXAMPLE 1: you can build a better samurai with a warblade or swordsage, but you cant have the same feeling (unless you are a power gamer).
i played alot of charecters in my life, includeing a lizardfolk ranger (he made fine goblin saled), an elven knight (long live lucian liadon!), and a monk (he was just lame).

but the samurai had history, and that means alot (unless you are a power gamer).
i almost attacked a group member for stealing, I refused to do dirty tricks on an arena. but it gave me the feeling that there is somthing behind the charecter, stronger then a pile of stats.

the bard that i played was doing smart and creative things, that saved the party alot. (the example about the alchemist fire in the dragon eye is his). And THAT was awosome.
so let him play what he want, if he enjoys it.
if he wont like it, you can always kill the charecter or let the d00d choose a fine end for it.

that will be fun for all of you (unless you are power gamers).

[Soranar]

Ninja aren't so bad... till you're facing crit immune creatures with immunity to poison.

But other than that, poison can be surprisingly efficient (Constitution damage poisons are brutal).

They also have a good synergy feat for mixing them with fighters (martial stalker).

Honestly I never use the class as more than a dip.

Samurai could be ok if they had given it Iajutsu focus as a class skill (you even get a class ability called iajutsu master and it's a feat that should combine with iajutsu focus, makes no sense). There was a build around optimizing staredown but , again, it's only useful if you're facing creatures that aren't immune to it. And it's 2 weapon fighting progression is slower than the ranger (you only get the last 2 weaponfighting feat at level 16).

The problem with both class is that a rogue is strickly better than a ninja (and can do nearly every he does on top of having better tricks) while a ranger or a fighter are also strickly better than a samurai. All in all, both classes are underwhelming since they're easily outshined by tier 4 classes.