I have a player that doesn't optimize at all

[kulosle]

As the title said but with more context. One player optimizes to much and he tries really hard to tone it back. I have 2 other plays that just go with cool ideas but will listen on ideas of how to make then better. But this 1 player likes to build his characters his way and I've noticed that inparticular for this upcoming campaign that the difference this time is a little vast.
He is playing a halffiend human ranger 4. Everyone else is casters or ToB. And I'm worried what this might do.
Any suggestions?

[Nifft]

Is the not-optimizing player (hereafter "NOP") having fun?

Is everyone else having fun?

Those are the only relevant questions to me.

If the NOP is having fun in spite of getting out-performed, then there's no problem on that side. If the other players -- including the DM, of course -- are having while out-performing the NOP's PC, then there's no problem on that front.

But if the NOP is feeling frustrated at getting constantly out-performed, then it's time to take action to improve the NOP's optimization skills.

[Eldariel]

As the title said but with more context. One player optimizes to much and he tries really hard to tone it back. I have 2 other plays that just go with cool ideas but will listen on ideas of how to make then better. But this 1 player likes to build his characters his way and I've noticed that inparticular for this upcoming campaign that the difference this time is a little vast.
He is playing a halffiend human ranger 4. Everyone else is casters or ToB. And I'm worried what this might do.
Any suggestions?

Talk with him to make his options work out. Sadly the system has 100 poor options for 1 good one and building whatever random will lead to wildly different powerlevels. Thus, just taking random builds and rolling with it is like to damage the enjoyability of the game for all participants. Like, instead of Half-Fiend he could just play a Hellbred or Lesser Tiefling or whatever, or a variant with lower level adjustment. Ranger isn't actually a horrible class but toss in Mystic Ranger and point him towards the associated spells (Spell Compendium, Champions of Ruin, Player's Handbook II) to let him make his combat stuff do things. If he doesn't want that, that's fine, but getting to the bottom of what he wants out of his character and how to make the mechanics match the fluff is probably the big thing.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Your player chose to make a half-fiend ranger 4, as ECL 8 character, in a party of level 8/LA +0 casters and initiators? That is a power difference, alright.

First, I'd suggest dropping the LA on half-fiend to +3. I mean, if you're going to allow templates, you might as well rebalance them, right?

Second, some questions:
1) Do you know why the player doesn't optimize? Do they think they are optimizing, or are they simply uninterested in evaluating mechanical strength?
2) How effective is the player at the table? I don't mean mechanical power, but picking the right strategy, approaching problems from a position of strength, and so on. Is this the player who tries to distract enemies by wearing a tutu over a wine barrel for underwear, or is this the tactical master of strategic planning?

[TalonOfAnathrax]

Eh. You're the DM. If there's a real problem in game, just buff him a little. A few free Templates, a pact with a Cthulhu-style abomination giving him a bunch of warlock invocations in exchange for a "cost" that he doesn't care about much (damage to his dumb stat, penalties to some skills, roleplaying effects...), a nice piece of gear or two that no-one else could use...

[Lazymancer]

Tip: if player wants wings, they are acquirable for Tiefling via two feats from RoF: Fiendish Bloodline and Outsider Wings.


First, I'd suggest dropping the LA on half-fiend to +3. I mean, if you're going to allow templates, you might as well rebalance them, right?
Even +3 LA is too harsh: 5 HD character might be squishier than a 8 HD caster. I'd say it makes more sense to replace LA with RHD of outsider.

[jdizzlean]

half fiend gets pretty scary the more HD it has... maybe he's attempting to optimize later in the game?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Even +3 LA is too harsh: 5 HD character might be squishier than a 8 HD caster. I'd say it makes more sense to replace LA with RHD of outsider.
Eh, the LA assignment thread pegged it at +3, because of the three natural attacks, SLAs, SR, DR, resistances, flight, and ability increases. I mean, you'll be squishy in some respects, but you'd have a nice full attack, especially once that iterative kicks in. Just need a way to move + full attack, or maybe invest in those double-damage claw attacks (when you make a diving charge).

Setting the LA to +3 makes the template usable, but there's no need to give more than that. It discourages optimization.

[Bohandas]

As a level 4 ranger he should pick up spellcasting soon, which should boost his power

[Lazymancer]

Eh, the LA assignment thread pegged it at +3
I do not have favourable opinion of LA assignment thread.

Moreover, the whole concept of LA (as reduction of HD) is a wrong idea. Oslecamo's classes (with all their flaws, such as inane ability bonuses and spell-casting) are much better.


Setting the LA to +3 makes the template usable, but there's no need to give more than that. It discourages optimization.
Well, the game is yours. Personally, I consider RHD to be something GM would want (so as not to dedicate attention/time to babysitting fragile PCs), rather than players (those would choose running around with 1 HP, if they'd get to cast Time Stop or Meteor Swarm).

[kulosle]

He usually has fun and he is probably the best tactician in the group (when he wants to be). But he just doesn't like putting a lot of work into his characters and he doesn't like others helping with his character for what I feel are really good reasons. One he finds it harder to role play characters that he didn't make himself. And two he doesn't usually remember the other stuff we added.

And while we usually have fun I feel like this time the differences is more stark. And it might affect the fun in this case. He already does get a little frustrated when he ends up being unable to help. And I do try to design encounters around that but it doesn't always work out.

I definitely will lower the la to 3 that will help.

I like the idea of trying to find items that are best for him. And that might help a little.

And maybe I can eek in some power ups for him but that sounds a lot more challenging.

And wait would you also weaken the template in some way to balance it giving it hitdice. Cause outsider RHD are really good

Anything else? How have you handled similar situations?

[Bronk]

I definitely will lower the la to 3 that will help.



Maybe even down to LA+2? The Monster Manual lists both Half-Celestials and Half-Fiends as LA+4, but BoED has an updated table on page 27 that lists the LA of Half-Celestials with low racial hit dice as +2... it could serve as an equivalent table for Half-Fiend if you want.

[kulosle]

Oh wow i just looked it up. 2 la makes it sound good actually. Nice. This will definitely help. That means he would have an extra feet and maybe if he picked up flyby attack or something else it would be okay.

[Lazymancer]

Cause outsider RHD are really good
As compared to other RHD - yes. As compared to caster/ToB? I doubt it.

Keep in mind: even if ranger seems weak now, he'll be getting worse. With LA character is forced to pay increasingly more (as he advances) for static benefits, since LA replace highest levels of character.

On the other hand, having RHD allows character to get level-appropriate options (via presting out).

[kulosle]

You are right I really don't like LA but simply changing LA into RHD seems too powerful for the early game.

[Fizban]

But he just doesn't like putting a lot of work into his characters and he doesn't like others helping with his character for what I feel are really good reasons. One he finds it harder to role play characters that he didn't make himself. And two he doesn't usually remember the other stuff we added.
Then it sounds like you're going to have to ban him from making bad decisions. There's no reason you have to allow Half-Fiend in the first place. If you're going to buff the guy stop trying to do it within the "rules," because the rules aren't designed for it: LA is designed to conservatively keep characters down, period. If you have to fix something as a DM, you fix it as a DM. No amount of futzing around with LA and HD and other stuff is going to bridge the gap between the person who optimizes based on those rules and the one who doesn't care, it's just going to make things more complicated and murky when you need to make things less complicated.

Ask what it is they want from being a half-fiend, figure out how much is needed to bridge the gap between their character build (at an equal level to the party) and the rest of the party, then just give them that. Space some of it out over time if you want.

If you must futz around with minutiae, go through magic items. If you're starting at 8th that's 27,000gp worth of bonuses you can give him in place of magic items as starting gear, and then let the party sort out weather they want to split the treasure evenly (as normal) or gear the character up to match the others (resulting in the character having more "wealth" than normal) to compensate for having a worse build.

[Mutazoia]

Wait....you have a player who want's to play a character that isn't all about the number crunch?! You mean he actually wants to build a character that is just FUN TO PLAY? *GASP* How dare he be allowed to live!

You should drag him out into the yard and hang him from the highest tree. Be sure to leave the corps there for all to see, with a big sign saying "I tried to play a Role Playing Game, not a Roll Playing Game", just to be sure.


Honestly, I'm starting to get physically ill, every time I read about "optimization". If everybody is having fun with their character, that's good enough. The moment you start worrying more about how much damage a character can do a round and less about the story you are creating as a group, you might as well quite playing D&D and go play WoW.

[noob]

The reason why templates are bad is that you have less options: half fiend only gives a few options that could be bought for a low price at mid level and costs class levels.
Class levels gives a lot of options that could not be bought and if someone does not have a significant number of options then he might find itself to not participate as more than a spectator who discuss each time he does not have options to do stuff.

A ranger have some stuff to do with his skills and spells but if you decide to lose levels in ranger you have less skill points and thus less options and less possibilities to do stuff.

Efficient optimization in dnd 3.5 is not about damage: it is about getting as many options as possible(thus getting a bag of flour and all the classical adventuring stuff(such as mirror and ropes) and often playing casters because casting gives lots of options) getting to deal as much damage as possible is very niche and there is many builds doing that only because it is something easy to measure.

[Fizban]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]Honestly, I'm starting to get physically ill, every time I read about "optimization".
Hey, I hate char-op as much as the next guy, but the OP has already stated the player in question has been frustrated by inadequacy, so they're by definition not having as much fun as they could be. It's the DM's job to make that stop, weather directly or indirectly.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You are right I really don't like LA but simply changing LA into RHD seems too powerful for the early game.
Isn't the problem that the guy is too weak, though? You're also sort of passed the early game. Looking at things holistically, I think the four overpowered "Half Fiend levels" plus four mediocre Ranger levels will stack up decently with ToB characters.

[CharonsHelper]

Keep in mind: even if ranger seems weak now, he'll be getting worse. With LA character is forced to pay increasingly more (as he advances) for static benefits, since LA replace highest levels of character.


If it's dropped to LA +2 he's right at the point where he can start to do LA buy-off, so that should help as well since he won't be a full 2 levels behind.


Honestly, I'm starting to get physically ill, every time I read about "optimization". If everybody is having fun with their character, that's good enough. The moment you start worrying more about how much damage a character can do a round and less about the story you are creating as a group, you might as well quite playing D&D and go play WoW.

Hooray for people not actually reading the thread to skip to the ranting!

[Lapak]

I saw in the OP that this campaign was ‘upcoming’ rather than already-in-progress, or I wouldn’t suggest this, but... honestly, the best way I’ve found to level out the optimization level in a group of players is to start at ECL 1. Starting at mid-levels can give you a wide power disparity from the get-go, starting at level 1 not so much. And ‘suggestions from party members/DM about your options for your third level’ feel a lot more like collaboration that still leave you in the driver’s seat when compared to “take this build with feats X, Y, and Z and alternative class feature W” building a mid-level character from scratch.

Is that at all plausible as a possibility in this case?

[martixy]

I saw in the OP that this campaign was ‘upcoming’ rather than already-in-progress, or I wouldn’t suggest this, but... honestly, the best way I’ve found to level out the optimization level in a group of players is to start at ECL 1. Starting at mid-levels can give you a wide power disparity from the get-go, starting at level 1 not so much. And ‘suggestions from party members/DM about your options for your third level’ feel a lot more like collaboration that still leave you in the driver’s seat when compared to “take this build with feats X, Y, and Z and alternative class feature W” building a mid-level character from scratch.

Is that at all plausible as a possibility in this case?

That's just forcing the issue since it eliminates a ton of character concepts(like his) not possible to do at ECL 1.

Frankly, I never wanna play an ECL1 game ever again.

In my campaign, which is like a poster-child for such issues, one of the players helped build an optimized character for the other who wasn't an optimizer(a miniomancy dread necro incidentally).

[Lazymancer]

If it's dropped to LA +2 he's right at the point where he can start to do LA buy-off, so that should help as well since he won't be a full 2 levels behind.
Maybe. But I prefer suggesting proper solutions, rather than hacks that might function in specific circumstances.

[emeraldstreak]

Maybe. But I prefer suggesting proper solutions, rather than hacks that might function in specific circumstances.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060630a

[Rerednaw]

LA buyoff. I don't have the rules handy but I think by level 8 he can buy off 2. He will still be behind but will catch up.

Granted...if your game is running Formula 1 and one guy insists on showing up on a bicycle...consider switching systems, adapting the campaign, or have the player adapt. :)

[martixy]

LA buyoff. I don't have the rules handy but I think by level 8 he can buy off 2. He will still be behind but will catch up.

Granted...if your game is running Formula 1 and one guy insists on showing up on a bicycle...consider switching systems, adapting the campaign, or have the player adapt. :)

He can't. The buyoff rules are skewed in such a way that when you need it the most, you have it the least.
His buyoff would have to start at ECL 16, by which point the worst is behind him.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'd just give the party an automaton NPC without any initiative of its own that will follow their directions that is actually useful; that way, it can take up his dead weight. If he doesn't want to do his job as part of the group, at least he won't be weighing the other characters down. If he complains, just tell him that he's not doing his job properly as part of the group, and that you're making sure he's more likely to survive.

Of course, in-game, why would the other characters want to tote the millstone around their necks along? Are they metagaming to give him a sense of importance in the group? Making in-character decisions to keep him along despite him being a liability?

[Mutazoia]

Hey, I hate char-op as much as the next guy, but the OP has already stated the player in question has been frustrated by inadequacy, so they're by definition not having as much fun as they could be. It's the DM's job to make that stop, weather directly or indirectly.

Is the guy in question frustrated by inadequacy due to the other players optimizing for a single aspect of the game (combat) making it harder for HIM to just play the character concept he wants? Then my point is still valid. The poor guy was just trying to play a character he thought would be cool and fun to play, the others are making characters specifically for the combat aspects of the game.

[noob]

When did the op said that he was bad at battle?
If he wanted to be cool at everything out of battle he should play a bard(or a higher tier caster but then he would be way too much powerful relatively to the rest of the team)
Because bards gets the most options to do stuff.
You want to bluff? Cast Glibness and win. You want that guard you have beaten up to not call more guards? Use modify memory.
Bards have tons of cool options solving problems you did not even imagine.
While ranger do not get much more than tracking and a bunch of skills(and he gets less skills than a bard).
So if someone optimize for actual usefulness he should play a bard(or a higher tier class) rather than a ranger and he should get more levels because bards gets more options with levels.
If he only wants his half fiend ranger to be useful at battle then just make the monsters weaker.(and make the problem not be about defeating the monsters but something else like hostage situations or logistic problems)

[Eldariel]

Is the guy in question frustrated by inadequacy due to the other players optimizing for a single aspect of the game (combat) making it harder for HIM to just play the character concept he wants? Then my point is still valid. The poor guy was just trying to play a character he thought would be cool and fun to play, the others are making characters specifically for the combat aspects of the game.

This is fallacious thinking. Every time you build a character you optimise to a certain end - towards being optimised, unoptimised, good at a given thing or whatever (unless you literally just roll dice and pick random out of all the alternatives; which will probably result in a character not really matching any of your character concepts but could be a fun exercise). First of all, the system isn't designed with all options being equal. Thus, care must be given beyond what looks cool, since the job of the DM and the enjoyment of all the participants can best be guaranteed when everybody is of similar power level. Thus the individual is subservient to the group to ensure the group's enjoyment. And thus randomly picking option instead of being conscious of their relative power level and appropriateness to the campaign/party power level is a no-go. The game functions best when everybody has a reasonable command of what they're doing and thus can choose to not break the game while also not digging themselves in a hole. If players refuse help and have no idea of what they're running they run the risk of being just too strong or too weak; more probably the latter.

Second, everybody has an equal right to enjoy the game. One player holding the others hostage by not conforming to their style is pretty much always in the wrong. It's a cooperative activity where the style has to be agreed upon by the player group at a large. The party here is playing relatively high power level otherwise so unless the party is happy dragging a much weaker character around (it can work; think Lord of the Rings), and the player is willing to play a weaker character, he should choose an appropriate option that's both, fitting for his concept and for the power level (it's easily doable with cooperative effort).

This is the trade-off of rules heavy vs. rules light vs. freeform. The fact that people choose to play a rule heavy system like D&D instead of freeform or some rules light system like e.g. FATE entails a certain amount of effort. If people just want to play whatever and hope that the DM should just weave it all together, the rules are just in the way and playing a rules heavy system in the first place is a mistake. Rules pretty much automatically come with inherently superior and inferior choices, which the players and the game master need to be aware of to avoid challenges or intra-party contributions being completely skewed leading to players feeling marginalised or useless (or too powerful in some cases).

In more freeform systems, it's easy to just handwave potential problems away but the whole point of rules is to have a common ground that's the adjudicator for all parties and thus players have a general grasp of what they and other creatures in the world operate by. This means that instead of having to check every single thing with the game master (which is tedious and takes way too long for most parties to ever get a reasonable game edgewise), a common ground expedites matters and enables building actions and expectations of their results on something without having to explicitly check with the GM every time you want to do something. Same with the GM; instead of everything having to be individually adjudicated, it's much easier to have general rules to adjudicate everything by.

Something has to give. Either you give up every option being equal and thus inevitably force people to choose from inferior and superior options (which inherently entails optimisation whether you are conscious about it or not), or you erode the common ground thus moving more in a direction where the player expectations cannot be based on shared rules but they have to play the game of "guess what the GM is thinking". Which works for some games but isn't really at the heart of D&D as normal and I'd be surprised if that were what people were looking for when they chose to play D&D instead of any of the other millions of systems out there.

[Blue Jay]

Is the guy in question frustrated by inadequacy due to the other players optimizing for a single aspect of the game (combat) making it harder for HIM to just play the character concept he wants? Then my point is still valid. The poor guy was just trying to play a character he thought would be cool and fun to play, the others are making characters specifically for the combat aspects of the game.

You know, I agree with your sentiment, to an extent. It's possible to focus on the numbers at the expense of imagination and character concept, and when people are doing that, it tends to ruin the experience for me.

But, powergaming isn't the same thing as optimizing. The purpose of optimizing is to give you the best mechanics that match the concept you want to play. It's really just a way to prevent the mechanics from becoming an obstacle to your fun.

Generally speaking, frustrations and lack-of-fun are more likely to happen when there are power imbalances between PC's than when there aren't. So it's usually in the player's best interest to try to match the level of optimization that the other players are doing, and it's always a good idea for a DM to try to address any concerns early.

It's not trying to put the numbers before the concept: it's trying to make sure the numbers don't ruin the concept.

[Yogibear41]

Have him play a tiefling or a lesser tiefling, then use
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040319a to slowly add on the half-fiend template in such a way that he can buy off the LA one at a time.

For example if using a +1 non lesser tiefling, buy off that +1 at level 3, take a template level, gain 3 levels, buy off 2nd la at 6 hd, take next template level, gain 3 levels, buy off next LA at 9 HD, then take final template level.


I would also recommend planar ranger for fiendish animal companions, its a small upgraded but unless he specifically needs one of the skills of the ranger list that the planar ranger loses, its a strict upgraded (although rather minor) imo. It seems like it would also fit his character concept better.




But, powergaming isn't the same thing as optimizing. The purpose of optimizing is to give you the best mechanics that match the concept you want to play. It's really just a way to prevent the mechanics from becoming an obstacle to your fun.



This x1000 I wish someone would have explained this to some of the people I played with in the past.

I've also been on the other side of this scenario, where I am playing a reasonably optimized melee character around level 5 with good to hit, ac, and damage, meanwhile carrying the same level unarmed vow of poverty swashbuckler who has maybe a +4 to hit when two weapon fighting with his 1d3+1 punches, a 16 or so AC, and less than 30 hit points. Most fights went like this: They attack me he stays up for several rounds and maybe lands 1 or 2 punches. They attack him he goes down in 2 rounds or less, then we have to take the time and resources to heal check his character so he doesn't die, or waste spells or potions to get him back on his feet, just so it can happen again in the next room. :smallmad:

[Endarire]

I agree with the notion of approximately keeping pace with the rest of the group.

Also, what does this player want from this game? What has hindered him from getting this?

[Mutazoia]

You know, I agree with your sentiment, to an extent. It's possible to focus on the numbers at the expense of imagination and character concept, and when people are doing that, it tends to ruin the experience for me.

But, powergaming isn't the same thing as optimizing. The purpose of optimizing is to give you the best mechanics that match the concept you want to play. It's really just a way to prevent the mechanics from becoming an obstacle to your fun.

Generally speaking, frustrations and lack-of-fun are more likely to happen when there are power imbalances between PC's than when there aren't. So it's usually in the player's best interest to try to match the level of optimization that the other players are doing, and it's always a good idea for a DM to try to address any concerns early.

It's not trying to put the numbers before the concept: it's trying to make sure the numbers don't ruin the concept.

And again, we come back to mechanics over role playing. I fully acquiesce to the notion that not everybody likes to really get into character and play a role, and that the combat aspects are secondary to that fun. I know that, for some, the game is more about the combat (or other mechanical aspects), and all that talky stuff between the fighting is just a way to find moar things to beat up on. But because combat (and a few other aspects) are the things that need the most arbitration, they get a large chunk of the rules, and thus people start getting the impression that they have to build characters around that chunk of rules, rather than just coming up with a concept and running with it.

This is a basic flaw for a lot of systems...basically, the more things you have rules for, the more rules you have to get in the way. Pre 3.X, if you wanted your character to do something, you said what you wanted to do, the DM decided if it was possible, and either made you roll a stat check, or just let you do it. You didn't need a list of skills or feats to enjoy your character concept. Now, just about the only thing you don't have a rule for, is how often your character needs to use the bathroom on a given day, and how solid his turds are, depending on the quality of food he at least (if he does eat...things like food and water tend to get glossed over).

This leads to situations like we have here. Player A has greater system mastery than player B. Maybe A has been playing longer than B, or maybe B just hasn't sat down and read every page of every rule book in his down time like A, or doesn't really lurk the RPG forums, looking for "optimal builds". Whatever the reason, this leads to player B becoming increasingly dissatisfied with his character, for no real fault of his own...a character that really should be fun to play, if people were not so hung up on mechanics.

[angelpalm]

All the issues I see are with the player himself and only issues he himself can resolve. The guy over here blaming the entire party for actually taking the time to learn the game and ruining that single players enjoyment even though op actively said he didn't like putting in work(lazy) into his character is amazing. But I think that is telling of a society as whole that wants to dumb down everyone else so that they can feel competitive and get that participation trophy for just showing up. I have friends that say this same sort of mindset is infecting the MtG crowd as well. Which I find hilarious given the type of game that is.

Instead of jumping through hoops for this one lazy player that refuses to even listen to advice but would jump at the chance for you to make concessions to power up his poorly designed build I would just casually start making encounters make him feel even more irrelevant while highlighting the other groups members abilities. You said he is a smart person so he will eventually figure out on his own that he as a player needs to evolve and get with the program. Not punishment, just conditioning imo. You don't reward bad behavior.

[Florian]

This is a basic flaw for a lot of systems...basically, the more things you have rules for, the more rules you have to get in the way.

We´re talking about a class-based system here, where characters are mostly made using point buy.
So basically, every class has its niche and that automatically limits the number of things you´re competent at and what niches you can´t infringe without some additional work. Now ideally, in a cooperative game, you know that these limitations are part of the game and you pick a character that mechanically excels at the things that you have fun in doing in the actual game, thereby being supportive of playing your role.

[emeraldstreak]

All the issues I see are with the player himself and only issues he himself can resolve. The guy over here blaming the entire party for actually taking the time to learn the game and ruining that single players enjoyment even though op actively said he didn't like putting in work(lazy) into his character is amazing. But I think that is telling of a society as whole that wants to dumb down everyone else so that they can feel competitive and get that participation trophy for just showing up. I have friends that say this same sort of mindset is infecting the MtG crowd as well. Which I find hilarious given the type of game that is.

Instead of jumping through hoops for this one lazy player that refuses to even listen to advice but would jump at the chance for you to make concessions to power up his poorly designed build I would just casually start making encounters make him feel even more irrelevant while highlighting the other groups members abilities. You said he is a smart person so he will eventually figure out on his own that he as a player needs to evolve and get with the program. Not punishment, just conditioning imo. You don't reward bad behavior.

I've noticed there's a type of noob that is very hung-up about being powerful. They are the kind who take Half-Fiend (coz it sounds powerful) despite having no idea why their character is Half-Fiend and how does that affect his roleplay; and then they are unhappy when they are not OP after selecting something that sounds OP and was given zero roleplay consideration.

[Mutazoia]

We´re talking about a class-based system here, where characters are mostly made using point buy.
So basically, every class has its niche and that automatically limits the number of things you´re competent at and what niches you can´t infringe without some additional work. Now ideally, in a cooperative game, you know that these limitations are part of the game and you pick a character that mechanically excels at the things that you have fun in doing in the actual game, thereby being supportive of playing your role.

"Class based" and "Point buy" are usually two polar opposite systems. Sure...some class based systems let you buy stats instead of using die rolls, but that's about as far as it goes. "Skill points" don't really count as "point buy" if they are the only thing you are "buying", and everything else just levels up with a "PING" once a certain XP benchmark is reached.

There's a whole other thread dedicated to (or at least started out being dedicated to) party balance (which has since been dragged down in to a mechanical balance rant war), that tried to address this particular issue. But that's not the problem the OP has here.

The basic problem is that one player has less system mastery than the rest of the group, and is being made to feel that his character is inferior because of it. Since the other players are an admitted over optimizer and a competent optimizer, we come back to the issue of roll play vs role play, or mechanics over concepts. A player should never be made to feel (either intentionally, or incidentally) that his character is "sub par" just because other players "optimize" better (or min-max, or power game, what have you). The game shouldn't be about the mechanics. The mechanics are there to facilitate the game, not the other way around.

[emeraldstreak]

The basic problem is that one player has less system mastery than the rest of the group, and is being made to feel that his character is inferior because of it.

Nuh-uh. He chooses to feel inferior because he puts extraordinary importance on power.

[Mutazoia]

Nuh-uh. He chooses to feel inferior because he puts extraordinary importance on power.

Not necessarily. THIS instance, maybe. But not every instance.

And, can you really blame the guy for putting so much importance on power, when forums such as this generally tend to do so? When they tier-shame a player for not creating a character that can't one-shot an ancient red dragon by level 3? (Hyperbole). A new, inexperienced player (either to a particular system, or to gaming altogether) can hardly be blamed for arriving at that conclusion, if they spend more than 5 minutes reading this forum alone. And with their lack of system mastery, they shoot for an ideal that they don't have the knowledge to achieve....kind of like a kid who skims a first aid manual deciding he's going to try brain surgery.

[Eldariel]

And again, we come back to mechanics over role playing. I fully acquiesce to the notion that not everybody likes to really get into character and play a role, and that the combat aspects are secondary to that fun. I know that, for some, the game is more about the combat (or other mechanical aspects), and all that talky stuff between the fighting is just a way to find moar things to beat up on. But because combat (and a few other aspects) are the things that need the most arbitration, they get a large chunk of the rules, and thus people start getting the impression that they have to build characters around that chunk of rules, rather than just coming up with a concept and running with it.

This does not follow from any that you just stated. There's no opposition between roleplaying and mechanics - it's on the contrary! Mechanics can complement role-playing and vice versa. They don't need to be opposite. Indeed, it's pretty hard to buy a believable underworld master who can't talk his way out of a wet paper bag. Thus, mechanics need to conform with the character concept that you intend to roleplay.

If you want to be a stubborn honorable unmovable divine conduit, it's better to build one that is truly unmovable and has power to match that bolster. What's in a name - class name(s) are irrelevant. This Paladin could well be a Cleric and indeed, probably should in a more powerful group while a Paladin may well be more appropriate (with appropriate stats) for a lower tier party. Cleric can have the same alignment, same restrictions, more options to flesh out the character, and can achieve the same power or more if desired but doesn't have to. If you want to play a master manipulator ne'er-do-good, it really sucks if you actually can't do the manipulation. Hence, you should probably build with that in mind. Perhaps an Unseen Seer or a Factotum, though a Rogue built to the task could do as well.

There's no opposition. Build for your concept. Optimise for your concept. Optimise so that your character fills the concept as well as possible. The system has infinite options and thus system mastery and cooperative building enable you to get the most out of it. If your friend wants to play a Ranger as in a weathered wayfarer who knows all there is to wilderness, you don't actually have to use the Ranger-class to that end (but you can where it's appropriate for the party). You don't know how to do it yourself? Ask your friends and DM and forums and so on for help and build the concept together. Pick the power level and options that best match your concept and on the other hand the power level appropriate for the party. You can get much closer than standard Ranger class ever could within the confines of the system.

[CharonsHelper]

This is a basic flaw for a lot of systems...basically, the more things you have rules for, the more rules you have to get in the way. Pre 3.X, if you wanted your character to do something, you said what you wanted to do, the DM decided if it was possible, and either made you roll a stat check, or just let you do it.

Right - instead of your character being able to do it, you played "Mother may I" with the DM.

I realize that many people don't mind, but some of us LIKE our character to actually be able to definitely do something rather than be so subjective.

It's purely a matter of taste. Pick the system for your taste - but please don't be elitist about your choice.

[noob]

Well it is easy to just pick a straight classed bard and be awesome without even needing to think.
Why would you not want to just do that?
You want to be relevant at fighting?
Use randomly bardic songs and you will provide a strong support.
You want to sneak?
Wear a giant feathered hat and put some points in hide and you win.
You no longer want to fight and your team is not your friends?
Use diplomacy and you have peace forever and get new friends.
You want to break the game?
Cast spells and you beat up the gm brain forever.
Among T3 classes Bard is an easy to use class when compared to other classes.
If you want to always be relevant in a team of T3 people bard is an easy choice.

While ranger leads nowhere if you can not do the martial part.
If you want to beat up people better than people who optimize at beating up people you will have an hard time but for being relevant in a fight you do not needs you to beat up people: you can just gain advantages and your allies will somehow win(examples: use battlefield control or make your allies stronger or make your opponent weaker or just reset reality in such a way the fight never happened and somehow the opponents did never think about the possibility of fighting your team).

[Mutazoia]

This does not follow from any that you just stated. There's no opposition between roleplaying and mechanics - it's on the contrary! Mechanics can complement role-playing and vice versa. They don't need to be opposite. Indeed, it's pretty hard to buy a believable underworld master who can't talk his way out of a wet paper bag. Thus, mechanics need to conform with the character concept that you intend to roleplay.

If you want to be a stubborn honorable unmovable divine conduit, it's better to build one that is truly unmovable and has power to match that bolster. What's in a name - class name(s) are irrelevant. This Paladin could well be a Cleric and indeed, probably should in a more powerful group while a Paladin may well be more appropriate (with appropriate stats) for a lower tier party. Cleric can have the same alignment, same restrictions, more options to flesh out the character, and can achieve the same power or more if desired but doesn't have to. If you want to play a master manipulator ne'er-do-good, it really sucks if you actually can't do the manipulation. Hence, you should probably build with that in mind. Perhaps an Unseen Seer or a Factotum, though a Rogue built to the task could do as well.

There's no opposition. Build for your concept. Optimise for your concept. Optimise so that your character fills the concept as well as possible. The system has infinite options and thus system mastery and cooperative building enable you to get the most out of it. If your friend wants to play a Ranger as in a weathered wayfarer who knows all there is to wilderness, you don't actually have to use the Ranger-class to that end (but you can where it's appropriate for the party). You don't know how to do it yourself? Ask your friends and DM and forums and so on for help and build the concept together. Pick the power level and options that best match your concept and on the other hand the power level appropriate for the party. You can get much closer than standard Ranger class ever could within the confines of the system.

Mechanics CAN complement a game. They can also ****-block it. Think about it...do you REALLY need to make a roll to see if your mastermind can talk his way out of said wet paper bag? And if you do...do you REALLY need an entire separate skill when a simple Charisma roll could do just as well? Or what happens when you have so many class and feat combinations, that what sounds like a good idea in your head, doesn't translate so well in actual play. Or maybe the build you have is under powered NOW, but will be godlike at high levels (Druids suffered from this, often) Too many cooks can spoil the stew...too many rules (or options) can spoil a game.

Sure, you can ask your fellow players and DM for help, but only initially. After the initial build, if you have to ask every single level what you should do next, you start to be a drain on the group out of game, as well as in it, because eventually, the other players will start to resent you constantly asking them what to do with your character.

[lbuttitta]

He usually has fun and he is probably the best tactician in the group (when he wants to be). But he just doesn't like putting a lot of work into his characters and he doesn't like others helping with his character for what I feel are really good reasons. One he finds it harder to role play characters that he didn't make himself. And two he doesn't usually remember the other stuff we added.

And while we usually have fun I feel like this time the differences is more stark. And it might affect the fun in this case. He already does get a little frustrated when he ends up being unable to help. And I do try to design encounters around that but it doesn't always work out.

I definitely will lower the la to 3 that will help.

I like the idea of trying to find items that are best for him. And that might help a little.

And maybe I can eek in some power ups for him but that sounds a lot more challenging.

And wait would you also weaken the template in some way to balance it giving it hitdice. Cause outsider RHD are really good

Anything else? How have you handled similar situations?
Are you allowing LA buyoff (Unearthed Arcana)? That might help.

And I'm going to second the general sentiment that as long as everybody is having fun, it's not a problem, and only at the point where people aren't having fun is a solution necessary.

[Eldariel]

Mechanics CAN complement a game. They can also ****-block it. Think about it...do you REALLY need to make a roll to see if your mastermind can talk his way out of said wet paper bag? And if you do...do you REALLY need an entire separate skill when a simple Charisma roll could do just as well? Or what happens when you have so many class and feat combinations, that what sounds like a good idea in your head, doesn't translate so well in actual play. Or maybe the build you have is under powered NOW, but will be godlike at high levels (Druids suffered from this, often) Too many cooks can spoil the stew...too many rules (or options) can spoil a game.

Sure, you can ask your fellow players and DM for help, but only initially. After the initial build, if you have to ask every single level what you should do next, you start to be a drain on the group out of game, as well as in it, because eventually, the other players will start to resent you constantly asking them what to do with your character.

That's just something you have to put up with if you play a rules heavy system. It's an inherent disadvantage that you pay for the advantages they have. You have to know the rules and what you're doing, or know someone who does. Though frankly, the latter statement feels quite odd to me: few people indeed level up often enough that it needs to be a chore to do it together. Once every 3 sessions or such isn't really that much and if the start point is that the process is cooperative, it becomes fairly automatic. Plus, you can just map out your build all the way up to 20 or 40 or 100 so you don't need to take time to level up; it's already done on your paper and you just apply it. Many ways to circumvent the issue: preplan together once or get together and make it a cooperative pursuit.

Yes, there are downsides to having too many options and of course, we'd be better off if most of the terrible ones didn't exist but we have the game we have so we have to either change the system or work with it and I posit that working with the system is the option that provides the best enjoyment - effort ratio since once one player has the basic level of system mastery, he can easily prop all the others up and all the information is so easily available online. If you change the system radically, none of the information is available and thus it befalls you alone to do all the analysis and figure out how to realise certain concepts within the system. It's more work though it can certainly be more rewarding too since you have exactly what you want; but you have to be sure the other players agree with your assessments and are willing to learn your particular brand of rules - it's much easier to enter games that run near the basic system than ones that are far removed from it since you have common ground before even sitting in the table instead of having to go through the time consuming process of building it together and learning everything again.

This is really the same reason I prefer to play 3.5 over PF; I know 3.5 better and while PF has its share of advantages, I find they're not worth enough to thoroughly learn the system since I don't have the temporal resources available I did when I learned 3.5. So I instead opt for 3.5 games only playing PF when I have no good options open or something else in the game (the advertised content itself, generally) is appealing enough.

[angelpalm]

Seen way too many people that scream about optimization and what not but are the first ones to try and benefit from Dm fiat to help their character succeed instead of dealing with the consequences of actually having to roleplay their poorly made self insert characters.

[Fizban]

Though frankly, the latter statement feels quite odd to me: few people indeed level up often enough that it needs to be a chore to do it together. Once every 3 sessions or such isn't really that much and if the start point is that the process is cooperative, it becomes fairly automatic. Plus, you can just map out your build all the way up to 20 or 40 or 100 so you don't need to take time to level up; it's already done on your paper and you just apply it. Many ways to circumvent the issue: preplan together once or get together and make it a cooperative pursuit.
A bit of an aside, but every time I hear this "once every three sessions" estimate I'm flabbergasted at how fast other people apparently manage to plow through encounters. Even with a timer I could still barely get my group to do more than one fight per session, and they'd get whiny if we started the second one within an hour of ending. So either these are sessions with giant combats worth four encounters worth of xp, or massive day long events with breaks that no one I've ever tried to game with ever has time for. Or the half of my group that was slow at combat was reeeealy dragging the whole game down- but they weren't what I'd think of as uncommonly bad.

But that comes to the second part: a lot of people straight up cannot, will not plan a build. Even if they can be dragged into looking at stuff before leveling up, they still won't actually commit to something and will waffle until the session after they were supposed to have leveled up. A "level up" session will be an entire session of waffling about this or that, leaving no time for anything else (shopping sessions tend to do the same thing).

Just commentary, no real disagreements. Sticking with the base system is why I recommend just giving the player what they need instead of fiddling around with rules and/or trying to force them to learn. Much easier and faster to make a judgement call and swing the DM hammer, then the only thing anyone has to remember is "The DM gave Dave's character X/Y/Z because Dave didn't want to rebuild the character and this lets him keep up and have fun."

I should know from experience, after one player wanted a catgirl (of the transform from girl to combat cat variety) I made them a lycanthropic scout: they could never keep the mechanics (control shape checks, changing ability scores, changing natural weapon sets, grappling, raking, skirmishing. . . ) straight, and when they landed a proper charge were annoyed about being overpowered. What I should have done was whipped up a simple custom race and run it past the DM.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Mystic Ranger might also help him a whole lot.

[Florian]

A bit of an aside, but every time I hear this "once every three sessions" estimate I'm flabbergasted at how fast other people apparently manage to plow through encounters. Even with a timer I could still barely get my group to do more than one fight per session, and they'd get whiny if we started the second one within an hour of ending. So either these are sessions with giant combats worth four encounters worth of xp, or massive day long events with breaks that no one I've ever tried to game with ever has time for. Or the half of my group that was slow at combat was reeeealy dragging the whole game down- but they weren't what I'd think of as uncommonly bad.

But that comes to the second part: a lot of people straight up cannot, will not plan a build. Even if they can be dragged into looking at stuff before leveling up, they still won't actually commit to something and will waffle until the session after they were supposed to have leveled up. A "level up" session will be an entire session of waffling about this or that, leaving no time for anything else (shopping sessions tend to do the same thing).

Maybe different gaming culture? People I´ve been gaming with in the last two decades don´t seem to be interested in "agency", "empowerment" or using the rules to their fullest, but prefer a straight story, some light railroading, very cooperative gameplay and quick and dirty combats, you know, buff up the martials, deal hp damage, don´t leave the dungeon.

[CharonsHelper]

Or the half of my group that was slow at combat was reeeealy dragging the whole game down-

I think largely this.

I've played a good chunk of PFS at cons, and we've rarely had trouble chewing through the standard 4ish combats in a 5hr time block.

Albeit - PFS combats are designed to be a bit streamlined to be easy to chew through - rarely with more than one foe with significant abilities at a time.

[Blue Jay]

Mechanics CAN complement a game. They can also ****-block it. Think about it...do you REALLY need to make a roll to see if your mastermind can talk his way out of said wet paper bag? And if you do...do you REALLY need an entire separate skill when a simple Charisma roll could do just as well? Or what happens when you have so many class and feat combinations, that what sounds like a good idea in your head, doesn't translate so well in actual play. Or maybe the build you have is under powered NOW, but will be godlike at high levels (Druids suffered from this, often) Too many cooks can spoil the stew...too many rules (or options) can spoil a game.

Sure, you can ask your fellow players and DM for help, but only initially. After the initial build, if you have to ask every single level what you should do next, you start to be a drain on the group out of game, as well as in it, because eventually, the other players will start to resent you constantly asking them what to do with your character.

So again, I sympathize with you and your perspective resonates strongly with me personally.

But, it's folly to think that there's one right way to play the game, and that it's your job as a player to make sure everyone else agrees with you.

It's a collaborative experience, and everybody should come into it with the expectation that there will be some give-and-take for the sake of everyone's enjoyment. That's just the nature of all interpersonal interactions: they work better when everybody is willing to conform at least a little to everyone else's expectations. If you're the guy whose approach to the game diverges widely from the rest, then you need to be willing to make some compromises to make sure you're not the one ruining everyone else's experience.

-----

My advice to the OP: If you're worried about his preferred playing style handicapping him, then the easiest fix would be to focus on giving him numerical boons, rather than outright new abilities. Reducing LA, giving him extra point buy or letting him treat his LA and class levels as RHD for his skill points, or maybe giving him a special bow that doubles the base damage of every arrow. Maybe even let him trade out of his half-fiend SLA's, or give him extra uses of his SLA's or Smite ability. I mean, there are limits to how much the numbers will boost his power level, but at least this kind of boon is less likely to make him feel like he's being forced to play something he doesn't want.

[jdizzlean]

This leads to situations like we have here. Player A has greater system mastery than player B. Maybe A has been playing longer than B, or maybe B just hasn't sat down and read every page of every rule book in his down time like A, or doesn't really lurk the RPG forums, looking for "optimal builds". Whatever the reason, this leads to player B becoming increasingly dissatisfied with his character, for no real fault of his own...a character that really should be fun to play, if people were not so hung up on mechanics.




Instead of jumping through hoops for this one lazy player that refuses to even listen to advice but would jump at the chance for you to make concessions to power up his poorly designed build I would just casually start making encounters make him feel even more irrelevant while highlighting the other groups members abilities. You said he is a smart person so he will eventually figure out on his own that he as a player needs to evolve and get with the program. Not punishment, just conditioning imo. You don't reward bad behavior.


I agree 100% with both sentiments

[Lapak]

A bit of an aside, but every time I hear this "once every three sessions" estimate I'm flabbergasted at how fast other people apparently manage to plow through encounters.
I fed you on the flabbergasted front; we do tend to take a while in combat but we also have plenty of sessions that go by without one. My current 3e group started at level 1 back in January 2008 as an every-other-week schedule. Even assuming we miss around 6 sessions a year, which feels about right, that’s still around 200 play sessions and our party’s average level is 12-bordering-on-13.

[jdizzlean]

our group tends to get up to 5 or 6 pretty quick, and then drastically slow down :)

but there is RP xp also, not just for poking things w/ sticks

[ATalsen]

Think about it...do you REALLY need to make a roll to see if your mastermind can talk his way out of said wet paper bag? And if you do...do you REALLY need an entire separate skill when a simple Charisma roll could do just as well?

Yes, you need a roll, and yes you need a skill for it. BECAUSE the rules have them already.

Sure you can, as a DM, before you start building PCs say, "Hey guys we aren't using the Bluff skill, so don't put points into it, and don't get a high Charisma for that sort of thing, since it will all be Role Played instead."

And that's fine, but its not D&D as presented by the books. Failing to establish changes to what's in the books screws over any players who are expecting to do thing things by the basic rules.

And its not ok to screw over the mechanically-apt players any more than its ok to screw over the less mechanistically apt.



Or what happens when you have so many class and feat combinations, that what sounds like a good idea in your head, doesn't translate so well in actual play. Or maybe the build you have is under powered NOW, but will be godlike at high levels (Druids suffered from this, often) Too many cooks can spoil the stew...too many rules (or options) can spoil a game.

You talk to the guy(s) at your table who are good at building and get their advice, and you TAKE that advice.
You be clear about what power level the game is, and where you want your PC to fit in that, and you accept some sacrifices to fit that level of play.

If your playing with people who do not strongly optimize then its much less likely any given player will even need help building a PC that fits in, but its probably still a good idea to talk about the game expectations and power level before any PC building anyway.

And if you all decide that D&D has too many rules, then you play a different game system!

I play D&D because it has strong/many/heavy rules, I play Mutants and Masterminds for more a more free-form system, that still has good guidelines, and I play various Apocalypses-based games if I want to just RP a character over thinking about mechanics.



Sure, you can ask your fellow players and DM for help, but only initially. After the initial build, if you have to ask every single level what you should do next, you start to be a drain on the group out of game, as well as in it, because eventually, the other players will start to resent you constantly asking them what to do with your character.

Really, "Initially" should be all it takes. Because you don't just build a PC at the level you plan to play them at, you build the whole character build out to where you think the game will end. Players entering my game, for example, start the game at 9th, but need to provide a build out to 15th, and I gladly help them with it.

Why go beyond the current level? Because you need to make sure the PC is 'going somewhere' with its build - that the build stays on track for the expected power level of the campaign at any given level, and if you build to X level and stop, the PC may not have the ability to stay at the expected power level.



A bit of an aside, but every time I hear this "once every three sessions" estimate I'm flabbergasted at how fast other people apparently manage to plow through encounters. Even with a timer I could still barely get my group to do more than one fight per session, and they'd get whiny if we started the second one within an hour of ending. So either these are sessions with giant combats worth four encounters worth of xp, or massive day long events with breaks that no one I've ever tried to game with ever has time for. Or the half of my group that was slow at combat was reeeealy dragging the whole game down- but they weren't what I'd think of as uncommonly bad.

My group does one session a month, and every 6 months we level up automatically without tracking XP, just to keep things simple (the PCs would likely earn WAY more XP than one level's worth in 6 sessions). Each 8 hour session has 2 to 5 combats in it, and most are tough fights that take a while to resolve. The group is at the higher end of optimization, so encounters feature higher CR opponents than usual.

I've love to play more often and level faster, but the schedule I have is the only one I can work with right now :(

[kulosle]

so I feel like I should clarify a few things. there are 5 of us. me and another player are on the forums regularly ish. 2 of the players usually just come to us and say something like how do I play mega man in dnd. and we work together to try and make their weird concepts work. but the last player usually just makes his own without any help.
we normally do have a lot of fun. and we are all pretty good role players. it usually isn't a probable I'm just worried about this time in specific.

thanks for all the advise. I will lower the la to 2. I might play around with la buy off so it happens in a more timely manner. and i'll throw a few magic items his way. that at the very least should bridge the gap enough that he wont feel useless.

update when I told him he could lower the la he decided he wants to play horizon walker.

[Nifft]

As an aside, my favorite way to be a Half-Fiend is the Fiend-Blooded prestige class for Sorcerers which is in Heroes of Horror.

You don't turn into an Outsider, but you do get a big chunk of fiendish benefits, including bonus thematic spells added to the Sorcerer list.

A build might go like...

Class: Sorc 5 / Fiend-Blooded 10 / PrC 5
ACF: sell your Familiar for something
Race: Silverbrow Human
Feats:
L1 - Blood Calls to Blood, Dragon Wings <-- refluff to be demonic
L3 - Obtain Familiar
L6 - Improved Dragon Wings
L9 - Mother Cyst <-- or a Bloodline feat; the point is to get even more spells known
L12 - Versatile Spellcaster
L15 - PrC prereq?

[RoboEmperor]

I disagree with most of the posters here.

If the player intentionally chose to go some really weak character, then it's on him to not be a worthless waste of space. I firmly believe the DM should NOT bend the rules for a player.

If he's not having fun, then he'll know better next time. If he's having fun in other ways, like roleplaying his half fiend heritage and loving how NPCs react to him, then good for him.

[GrayDeath]

Usual suggestion, even though it has already been made, is TALK to him.

I know many players do not like it when you "intrude on their concept" (heck, I myself am sometimes guilty of this), but making sure he can do his part and does not build something entierely useless is, outside of some "Lolrandomfun" rounds, always a good idea.

If after that he persists, he was warned, and the consequences are out of your hands.

If he changes the build, good too.

Aside from that. I think reducing Half Fiend to 2LA anjd giving him a bit more tailormade items will be enough to make him not SUCK, so at least he should have fun enough.

[Mutazoia]

Well **** me. Nothing like crafting a long ass reply to multiple posts, only to have the forum log you out and dumping everything when you hit submit, lol

So, Cliff Notes version:

Over optimization is bad...better to keep things middle of the road to let everybody have fun. Unless EVERYBODY is a master with the rule set and super optimizes. For a society to function, we must walk at the pace of our slowest member, not sprint ahead and mock them (or make them feel bad because they're not as fast as you).

Plotting out your characters levels more than one or two levels in advance, is insanely OCD, few people have that much time on their hands. (Do you give your players a list of all the magic items they will be receiving in advance, so they can plan skill/feats/tactics around those, 6 levels in advance as well?)

Games functioned perfectly well long before rules were added, just to be added to make a game look "more complex"

[RoboEmperor]

Well **** me. Nothing like crafting a long ass reply to multiple posts, only to have the forum log you out and dumping everything when you hit submit, lol

Next time after logging in rightclick the back button and click the page with all the stuff on it. Worked for me (firefox)

[Mutazoia]

Next time after logging in rightclick the back button and click the page with all the stuff on it. Worked for me (firefox)

Tried that...got all the stuff I copy-pasta'd to respond to, but not all my responses lol.

[WarKitty]

Wait....you have a player who want's to play a character that isn't all about the number crunch?! You mean he actually wants to build a character that is just FUN TO PLAY? *GASP* How dare he be allowed to live!

You should drag him out into the yard and hang him from the highest tree. Be sure to leave the corps there for all to see, with a big sign saying "I tried to play a Role Playing Game, not a Roll Playing Game", just to be sure.


Honestly, I'm starting to get physically ill, every time I read about "optimization". If everybody is having fun with their character, that's good enough. The moment you start worrying more about how much damage a character can do a round and less about the story you are creating as a group, you might as well quite playing D&D and go play WoW.


I disagree with most of the posters here.

If the player intentionally chose to go some really weak character, then it's on him to not be a worthless waste of space. I firmly believe the DM should NOT bend the rules for a player.

If he's not having fun, then he'll know better next time. If he's having fun in other ways, like roleplaying his half fiend heritage and loving how NPCs react to him, then good for him.

One thing I've found is that the under-optimized character can annoy everyone else, even if he's having fun.

Most of my characters, "just let the weakling die" is pretty far out of character. "Knock him out, tie him up, and leave him at the tavern where he won't get hurt" might be in character, but tends to be frowned upon by most groups. So he might be having fun, but now I have to spend my resources keeping this underpowered idiot alive, rather than focusing on the actual plot. That cuts into my fun if I have to play babysitter for someone who couldn't build a decent character.

[RoboEmperor]

One thing I've found is that the under-optimized character can annoy everyone else, even if he's having fun.

Most of my characters, "just let the weakling die" is pretty far out of character. "Knock him out, tie him up, and leave him at the tavern where he won't get hurt" might be in character, but tends to be frowned upon by most groups. So he might be having fun, but now I have to spend my resources keeping this underpowered idiot alive, rather than focusing on the actual plot. That cuts into my fun if I have to play babysitter for someone who couldn't build a decent character.

My characters are always flexible in power levels. I can simply step up my game to make up for lackluster PCs, and I like doing more in combat so it's not a problem for me. Other times, if someone dies, so be it I really don't care, it's not my problem. I did the best I can and if that wasn't enough then so be it.

But I see where you're coming from. All I can say is, it's your fault for playing characters who care about the well-being of their party members :P.

[Mutazoia]

That cuts into my fun if I have to play babysitter for someone who couldn't build a decent character.

It is far easier to have the expert player tone things down while the new player catches up, than to expect a new player to quickly gain the level of system mastery possessed by the expert player. Sure, the new player (using "new" here interchangeably for "inexeperienced") can ask for help and advice, but it's not really much fun playing a character that someone else did most of the work on.... you might as well just have some pre-gen's laying around that you hand out to new players until they catch up to the more experienced players, system mastery wise. Then you can over-optimize the hell out of the pre-gen, and the new player won't drag the rest of the group down....although they might not have as much fun as they would if they created the character all on their own...and you're still going to have to tell them how to play that character, when to use what feat, etc.

[WarKitty]

It is far easier to have the expert player tone things down while the new player catches up, than to expect a new player to quickly gain the level of system mastery possessed by the expert player. Sure, the new player (using "new" here interchangeably for "inexeperienced") can ask for help and advice, but it's not really much fun playing a character that someone else did most of the work on.... you might as well just have some pre-gen's laying around that you hand out to new players until they catch up to the more experienced players, system mastery wise. Then you can over-optimize the hell out of the pre-gen, and the new player won't drag the rest of the group down....although they might not have as much fun as they would if they created the character all on their own...and you're still going to have to tell them how to play that character, when to use what feat, etc.

I think this really depends on how underoptimized the new player is. The ones I've been thinking of have been at the point where I would have to actively work to make terrible choices and make a bad character in order to keep up with them. That or play my character like a complete idiot who has no idea how his own abilities work. And then I'm not having much fun because I had to deliberately make a stupid character. Like, I'd have to make a Monk who dumped wisdom or something to be on the same level.

Usually my approach with new players is to find out what they want to play and then give them suggestions on how to play it within the system. I've never found as much objection to that. The key is you don't say "play X", you say, "if you want your character to do A, Y or Z are your best options."

[Mutazoia]

Usually my approach with new players is to find out what they want to play and then give them suggestions on how to play it within the system. I've never found as much objection to that. The key is you don't say "play X", you say, "if you want your character to do A, Y or Z are your best options."

I tend to agree. My biggest beef is with the people who expect a person to sit down at the table for the first time, and know just as much about all the ins an outs of the rules as they do, or really have no patience while that person learns.

The kind who post thing like "kill his character a few times, he'll learn or leave."

This is more of a problem with online play. When a group of people sit at a table together, it is easier to ask for or offer advice. With an online game, not so much. A less experienced player may feel like they are interrupting or being a bother if they try to email or PM other players for advice, and the more experienced players can have a tendency to assume that just because that player is online, that they have spent time trolling forums such as this one to find "optimal builds" before joining a game (at the very least).

[WarKitty]

I tend to agree. My biggest beef is with the people who expect a person to sit down at the table for the first time, and know just as much about all the ins an outs of the rules as they do, or really have no patience while that person learns.

The kind who post thing like "kill his character a few times, he'll learn or leave."

This is more of a problem with online play. When a group of people sit at a table together, it is easier to ask for or offer advice. With an online game, not so much. A less experienced player may feel like they are interrupting or being a bother if they try to email or PM other players for advice, and the more experienced players can have a tendency to assume that just because that player is online, that they have spent time trolling forums such as this one to find "optimal builds" before joining a game (at the very least).

That's fair. I usually try to encourage cooperative character building - you tell me what you want to play, and I'll suggest how to make it work. Also I think most of the problem unoptimized players have been "don't care" types, which do tend to show up more in RL. You know, the "I don't actually care but I want to hang out with my girlfriend" types. Those tend to be more annoying because not only do they not have any skills, they're not particularly interested in learning.

But if someone wants to learn I have no problem guiding them through it, and as a DM I wouldn't tolerate a player who did.

[martixy]

Well **** me. Nothing like crafting a long ass reply to multiple posts, only to have the forum log you out and dumping everything when you hit submit, lol

So, Cliff Notes version:

Over optimization is bad...better to keep things middle of the road to let everybody have fun. Unless EVERYBODY is a master with the rule set and super optimizes. For a society to function, we must walk at the pace of our slowest member, not sprint ahead and mock them (or make them feel bad because they're not as fast as you).

Plotting out your characters levels more than one or two levels in advance, is insanely OCD, few people have that much time on their hands. (Do you give your players a list of all the magic items they will be receiving in advance, so they can plan skill/feats/tactics around those, 6 levels in advance as well?)

Games functioned perfectly well long before rules were added, just to be added to make a game look "more complex"

a) Forum spazzing on you is a blessing in disguise. People don't like to read long ass replies.
b) Yes, over-opt is bad. It tends to expose too many edge cases and the game bogs down.
c) Everybody doesn't have to be a master optimizer to have fun. Balance is overrated. What's important for fun is agency. Balance is not a prerequisite of that. You can have an underpowered character with a specific niche or playstyle and as long as the game caters to that, the player will have fun. That isn't to say balance doesn't contribute, but it isn't strictly necessary.
d) For some people plotting characters and optimizing is part of the fun of the game. Different people derive enjoyment from different aspects of the game. So no, deep character building isn't "insanely OCD", you are doing a disservice to several groups of people by calling it that, not the least of which is those who suffer from actual OCD.

[Mutazoia]

d) For some people plotting characters and optimizing is part of the fun of the game. Different people derive enjoyment from different aspects of the game. So no, deep character building isn't "insanely OCD", you are doing a disservice to several groups of people by calling it that, not the least of which is those who suffer from actual OCD.

That was in response to the person who said he REQUIRES his players to do that. If you want to do that on your own, more power to you. To expect or demand it of others is OCD....or would you prefer "anal"?

[Nifft]

....or would you prefer "anal"?

Um.

How much?

[Mutazoia]

Um.

How much?

"Just the tip" ?

[ATalsen]

Well **** me. Nothing like crafting a long ass reply to multiple posts, only to have the forum log you out and dumping everything when you hit submit, lol

Bummer on losing the post; I do appreciate your time in replying though!



Plotting out your characters levels more than one or two levels in advance, is insanely OCD, few people have that much time on their hands. (Do you give your players a list of all the magic items they will be receiving in advance, so they can plan skill/feats/tactics around those, 6 levels in advance as well?)

Perhaps its OCD, or perhaps its just the way to ensure that characters progress along a given path. Yes I agree its extra work that many people don't do - for lack of time, lack of desire, or lack of ability, dependent on the individual in question.

About treasure, Yes, I effectively give them the list, since they can buy anything on the PFSRD site when they have the gold. They also know when they will have the gold as I provided a Wealth By Level chart in my house rules doc, and that's the amount they get. After each session they can swap out items too (full refund), so they aren't locked into any particular item choice if it turns out they made a bad decision.

That's not the game style for everyone, but it really cuts down on things I have to worry about when tracking a character - no worries about where they found a particular item, or it its the best seeded treasure for some particular PC, no one falling behind the wealth curve from bad item picks, etc.


And don't forget, I HELP all my players build their PCs, so the burden of ensuring a "full length" build is not something I just dump on them. Nor do I surprise them with it later on; I let them know the goals as soon as they start building a PC with me (if they have not already read my house rules doc).




.... you might as well just have some pre-gen's laying around that you hand out to new players until they catch up to the more experienced players, system mastery wise.

Oh, yeah! I actually stated doing that too recently. I have a few well-optimized pregens that players new to my game can use. They can then immediately see the level of play that is expected and what a PC looks like at that level. After they play for a bit, they can decide to build their own, or use (and tweak if desired) the pregen.

I've found that having pregens is actually a really good idea for both speed of getting someone involved and for showing the level of play the game is at.

[kulosle]

Oh my players hate pregen characters. Like absolutely loath them. No matter how much flex room I leave in the builds the dew times we have used them they hated them. I'm surprised you can get characters to use them.

[SpamCreateWater]

That was in response to the person who said he REQUIRES his players to do that. If you want to do that on your own, more power to you. To expect or demand it of others is OCD....or would you prefer "anal"?

I'm not convinced this is OCD, or even anal.

I have a set of rules and limitations, similar to the Big 16, that I send out to players prior to running a campaign. This is to ensure we're all on the same page and to give them an idea of what and where we're running.
Then I ask for character concepts. If we're running a campaign that would lend well to a skillset (flying opponents, undead heavy, etc) I may drop some hints if they're short on it.
I offer my services to each player in building a PC. I ask questions to pick apart exactly what they're after, remove some options due to not fitting as well as others, then we end up with a couple of different flavoured skeleton builds. These builds gets filled out and completed until the expected level at the end of a campaign (we use milestones to level up, not experience).
Once the builds are finalised, the players send them to me. I use this information to slightly tailor fights to their strengths and weaknesses; and the bad guys drop mad lewtz that can be used by one of the PCs (our magic enhancement system is little different than usual).
After that, they're on their own.

This may seem like I get a little too involved in the process, but keep in mind I'm not making decisions - I'm giving options. Besides, I play with people I know and like, so it's not like the time spent together building their characters is wasted.

[Mutazoia]

I'm not convinced this is OCD, or even anal.

I have a set of rules and limitations, similar to the Big 16, that I send out to players prior to running a campaign. This is to ensure we're all on the same page and to give them an idea of what and where we're running.
Then I ask for character concepts. If we're running a campaign that would lend well to a skillset (flying opponents, undead heavy, etc) I may drop some hints if they're short on it.
I offer my services to each player in building a PC. I ask questions to pick apart exactly what they're after, remove some options due to not fitting as well as others, then we end up with a couple of different flavoured skeleton builds. These builds gets filled out and completed until the expected level at the end of a campaign (we use milestones to level up, not experience).
Once the builds are finalised, the players send them to me. I use this information to slightly tailor fights to their strengths and weaknesses; and the bad guys drop mad lewtz that can be used by one of the PCs (our magic enhancement system is little different than usual).
After that, they're on their own.

This may seem like I get a little too involved in the process, but keep in mind I'm not making decisions - I'm giving options. Besides, I play with people I know and like, so it's not like the time spent together building their characters is wasted.


If you and your players are good with it, more power to you! Personally, I would feel extremely stifled by that process, and almost count it as "railroading" of a different color. What if I were to decide I wanted to take my character in a different direction than I did when I initially created it? Maybe I want to change things in response to the way the campaign is playing out: Maybe I went pure healz on a cleric, and nobody is really taking enough damage to justify it? Am I now stuck with the path that has been pre-ordained? Will my DM burst a spleen because I take a level of a different class, instead of the one that was planned weeks, or months in advance? If I do make that change, do I then have to re-plot every level in advance, all over again (and do so any time I feel like doing something different)?

No thanks.

[Eldariel]

If you and your players are good with it, more power to you! Personally, I would feel extremely stifled by that process, and almost count it as "railroading" of a different color. What if I were to decide I wanted to take my character in a different direction than I did when I initially created it? Maybe I want to change things in response to the way the campaign is playing out: Maybe I went pure healz on a cleric, and nobody is really taking enough damage to justify it? Am I now stuck with the path that has been pre-ordained? Will my DM burst a spleen because I take a level of a different class, instead of the one that was planned weeks, or months in advance? If I do make that change, do I then have to re-plot every level in advance, all over again (and do so any time I feel like doing something different)?

No thanks.

Having the advancement plotted out doesn't mean you can't stray from it; just that in the case that you don't want to stray from the original path, you've got stuff planned out and leveling up is a breeze. In tables that utilise such builds I'd expect rebuilding rules to also be fairly openly allowed so in the event that you are dissatisfied with some of your choices thus far, it's a simple matter to redesign pieces or the whole with a modest in-game compensation for retraining. Thus you're not that locked into being something but in the absence of heavy dissatisfaction, things proceed simply.

[ATalsen]

Oh my players hate pregen characters. Like absolutely loath them. No matter how much flex room I leave in the builds the dew times we have used them they hated them. I'm surprised you can get characters to use them.

For me, Pregens are a way of introducing new (to our group) players to the game we are playing. After about 2 sessions, the expectation is they then decide what they want to do - tweak and keep playing the pregen, or build a new PC.

While I do like building characters, I don't want to, nor do I think a new player should have to, go thru the whole character creation process just to test out if our group is a good fit for them. Pregens allow a quick evaluation on both sides with minimum invested effort.



What if I were to decide I wanted to take my character in a different direction than I did when I initially created it?

If I do make that change, do I then have to re-plot every level in advance, all over again (and do so any time I feel like doing something different)?

I want the roadmap to make leveling easy and to ensure power level parity. If a player decides they want to take a different class, then its time to talk to them about the build and see what new direction they want to take it in, and yes, build out the new character progression from that. Its their PC, so I make whatever accommodation I can, too allow them to play what they want.

For example, if the suddenly wanted to take an "evil only" prestige class, I'd say no because no evil alignments are allowed in my game (stated up front in my house rules); I might point them over to another PrC that could interest them though.

My games allow allow re-training (feats, class levels, etc), so just like magic items in my games, no player should have to be stuck with a character build they don't like.

Most players I've seen, though, want to play a single concept all the way thru, and don't change much after the first build is designed.

[SpamCreateWater]

If you and your players are good with it, more power to you! Personally, I would feel extremely stifled by that process, and almost count it as "railroading" of a different color. What if I were to decide I wanted to take my character in a different direction than I did when I initially created it? Maybe I want to change things in response to the way the campaign is playing out: Maybe I went pure healz on a cleric, and nobody is really taking enough damage to justify it? Am I now stuck with the path that has been pre-ordained? Will my DM burst a spleen because I take a level of a different class, instead of the one that was planned weeks, or months in advance? If I do make that change, do I then have to re-plot every level in advance, all over again (and do so any time I feel like doing something different)?

No thanks.

I'm unsure how me giving them options - that make their characters competent while still staying true to the concept they want - is considered railroading. Keep in mind, this only really happens with the players who have no idea what they're doing. The more system mastery someone has, the more I leave them to their own devices.

If they want to take their character in a different direction based on the campaign (or any other reason), excellent! I only ask that these things be done because otherwise levelling up takes a million years, people come to sessions and haven't updated their sheets, characters turn out to be a steaming pile of garbage, etc.

Me dictating that their characters must now level up like this and nothing can be changed is something I didn't feel the need to point out, because I'd never thought of doing it. I've had DMs attempt to dictate what levels I should take, when I have a much clearer picture of the character than they do. I can't see myself doing that. I work very closely with my players to ensure they like their characters, and like playing them.

[arclance]

Well **** me. Nothing like crafting a long ass reply to multiple posts, only to have the forum log you out and dumping everything when you hit submit, lol
This is why I type long posts out in a text editor then copy them into the post text box and preview them to make sure they show up how I want them to.


I think this really depends on how underoptimized the new player is. The ones I've been thinking of have been at the point where I would have to actively work to make terrible choices and make a bad character in order to keep up with them. That or play my character like a complete idiot who has no idea how his own abilities work. And then I'm not having much fun because I had to deliberately make a stupid character. Like, I'd have to make a Monk who dumped wisdom or something to be on the same level.
The issue I see most often with characters who are less optimized than the group average significantly is that since group dynamics usually mean you can't just tell their character to stay home it's too dangerous (or just let their character die) they just turned the game into a escort mission for the other players, and (almost) no one likes escort missions.


Usually my approach with new players is to find out what they want to play and then give them suggestions on how to play it within the system. I've never found as much objection to that. The key is you don't say "play X", you say, "if you want your character to do A, Y or Z are your best options."
That usually works for me too.
Rarely they take great offense at you suggesting there might be a better way to build towards their character concept for some reason.

[Arbane]

The kind who post thing like "kill his character a few times, he'll learn or leave."


I wonder how many people tried D&D once, ran into this attitude, and picked option 2, never to return?

Probably too many.