PDA

View Full Version : 3.5: Awful Character Concept...what to do?



Hawk7915
2010-01-25, 09:56 PM
I'm in yet another live campaign with my group. We have a pretty solid, fun-sounding party for our (slightly homebrewed) E6 Steampunk campaign...except for one player. His character description was "a scrappy, skillful thug who fights with a sledgehammer and can do a little bit of magic in an emergency." Everyone got a 36 pt buy (except me; as a lizardfolk who got to ignore his racial HD I only got a 28). So what did this guy go for for this concept? Bard? Swordsage refluffed? Wizard gish? Rogue with lots and lots of UMD?.

No. No he did not. He went for a Beguiler with a 10 strength.

I understand wanting to "roleplay instead of roll-play" and freely confess that I am often more guilty of the latter. I understand making interesting and fun characters, and not characters who are super optimized. But this character is just awful. My DM agreed and talked to him...asked him to roll something, anything other than this character, but to no avail (he did agree after our first two sessions to "flip" his Charisma and Strength, so now he has a 14).

His only time being remotely good was dropping Color Spray against a horde of bandits, but he has announced that he doesn't want to do that anymore because "magic is his trump card and 'get out of jail free card', not his main fighting style". That was the 2nd encounter. In the first encounter (a bunch of giant ant things) he spent 10 rounds swinging and missing with his hammer even with flanking. In the third, he spent the whole fight grappled or at 0 HP, and after missing more with his hammer, he switched to a ranged weapon and proceeded to miss more.

So far it hasn't been a big deal because we have a 6-man party and my Lizardfolk Warblade and friend's Warforged Paladin (with racial substitution levels to be a little less MAD) are made of win and chocolate and have, with some support from the party Cleric, Gunslinger (homebrewed class, decent ranged fighter with a ranger-y skill list) and Rogue, but...this character is just total dead weight.

What would you do? Should I help him find a way to make this character more playable, kill his character and make him reroll (Joking! :smalltongue:), ask him again to reroll, or just go for it and escort him? And out of curiosity, what do you feel the best way to do this concept is (psionics is banned, Tome of Battle is on a special case basis but mostly banned)?

Saintjebus
2010-01-25, 10:01 PM
Is he having fun playing his character? If he is, I would wait until he's not having fun anymore(i.e., he realizes that he is almost completely useless in combat) and then help him roll up something better suited to his concept(which isn't a bad concept, just badly executed).

Edit: sorry, just noticed the final question. I'm not a huge optimizer, but he might enjoy a rogue who uses hammers, and put some points into UMD to have the "ace in the sleeve" magic.

Milskidasith
2010-01-25, 10:01 PM
What's so bad about a strength of 10? And even worse, why did he put his charisma, which he uses for spells, at 10 in order to have 14 strength?

I don't see the problem with anything you posted, besides his stinginess with spells (And your DM convincing him to lower his spellcasting stat in favor of strength, and buying a 14 in a spellcasting stat to begin with.)

DragoonWraith
2010-01-25, 10:02 PM
Beguilers use Int for spells. Cha is just there for the party-face skills that Beguilers are so good at. They should have decent Cha, but they don't have to.

And 10 Str with a Sledgehammer? Nothing, if he never intends to use it. But if he wants to be in melee, he needs something (BAB, HD, maneuvers, buffs, class features suited to melee), none of which the Beguiler offers in any great amount.

That said, I tend to agree with Saintjebus.

Milskidasith
2010-01-25, 10:04 PM
Beguilers use Int for spells. Cha is just there for the party-face skills that Beguilers are so good at. They should have decent Cha, but they don't have to.

And 10 Str with a Sledgehammer? Nothing, if he never intends to use it. But if he wants to be in melee, he needs something (BAB, HD, maneuvers, buffs, class features suited to melee), none of which the Beguiler offers in any great amount.

That said, I tend to agree with Saintjebus.

Ah. I could have sworn they were one of those dual stat classes, but I never played them (Never had cause too; if I want a beguiler, I make a theme sorcerer so I can pick up a few more options, and the one game I played that was T3 and lower where I would pick one already had one so I picked a Dread Necro.)

Tengu_temp
2010-01-25, 10:09 PM
Ask him if he's having fun. If not, then offer to give him some optimizing tips. In the best case scenario the DM agrees to rebuild the character from scratch, in which case he should be a Duskblade or a Factotum - especially the latter fits very well here.

If he's having fun though, it's okay and you don't have to do anything. If he's not having fun and he refused your help, you don't have to do anything either - he was offered help, he refused it, so now it's only his own fault if he complains that his character sucks.

Hawk7915
2010-01-25, 10:10 PM
Ah. I could have sworn they were one of those dual stat classes, but I never played them (Never had cause too; if I want a beguiler, I make a theme sorcerer so I can pick up a few more options, and the one game I played that was T3 and lower where I would pick one already had one so I picked a Dread Necro.)
I made that same mistake and had to flip through our PH2 twice last night before realizing that they only need Int to cast. I thought at the very least it was that situation where Int is save DC, highest spell castable, etc, and Cha was bonus spells...but nope.

I'm not sure he's having much fun, but that might mostly because the game has been pretty combat heavy so far and he is pure roleplaying (to the point that he would honestly prefer to just sit in a room with our DM and free-form for 6 hours with no party, I think).

The Deej
2010-01-25, 10:12 PM
You could suggest that he play a Duskblade instead, who just never uses his spells. His concept fits, and he gets to be effective, too. Also, duskblade casting is a slower progression than fullcasters; easy to justify "magic is my secondary attack", but his trump card is still good enough to work if he needs it.

If completely changing his build is out of the question, suggest multiclassing into it instead. He shouldn't even need to change his stats.

Xenogears
2010-01-25, 10:13 PM
I made that same mistake and had to flip through our PH2 twice last night before realizing that they only need Int to cast. I thought at the very least it was that situation where Int is save DC, highest spell castable, etc, and Cha was bonus spells...but nope.

I'm not sure he's having much fun, but that might mostly because the game has been pretty combat heavy so far and he is pure roleplaying (to the point that he would honestly prefer to just sit in a room with our DM and free-form for 6 hours with no party, I think).

I'm pretty sure your in for an escort mission in that case.

Hawk7915
2010-01-25, 10:18 PM
On the very rare chance that this player is on these forums, 6 hours with just the DM in unfair: he like having a party and loves making a joint story. What is not an exaggeration is previous campaign sessions where the party sat at the table and munched Cheetoes for 2 hours while he did roleplaying spy stuff with the DM (no one else in the party had the necessary sneaking skill to even try to help).

He frequently makes character concepts that are more "funny" than "good" (a TWF, disarm-focused scout, for instance), but this one seems like he honestly picked the worst possible class in the game for his purposes, then arranged his stats to remove any chance of being remotely useful to the party. Even a wizard could just buff himself and at least stand a shot.

Pink
2010-01-25, 11:45 PM
So, there's a person who is making the character he wants to make...And you think he should not?

If it's really not effecting the party dynamic, and he's still showing up and not complaining or anything and is having fun, then let him go at it. It's HIS character.

I can sympathize with being a heavier role-player in a more combat heavy group. Sometimes it's the best you can do, and you make do with that. You stick around for those fun moments when you can do some nice roleplaying. And as long as that's not ruining anyone else's fun, that's alright neh?

Signmaker
2010-01-25, 11:51 PM
Personal opinion on role-playing vs roll-playing: if you're in a party which does follow the mechanical game, it's perfectly fine to role-play your heart out. That is, provided that you actually have the mechanical capability to. Otherwise you run in to conflict. It's like trying to critique a book by only skimming the words, you're not going to get very far or do very well.

Pink
2010-01-26, 12:02 AM
Personal opinion on role-playing vs roll-playing: if you're in a party which does follow the mechanical game, it's perfectly fine to role-play your heart out. That is, provided that you actually have the mechanical capability to.

I don't quite understand what you're saying in this. What does mechanical capability have to do with being able to role-play? The mechanics of the game determines your success, gives guidelines for what you are able to do, but with role-playing the big thing is that you can always, try anything, you can try to do exactly what your character would do. The success or failure of that action falls upon the mechanics and the DM yes, but if your character's loved one is about to fall down a terrible height, your character should try somehow to swing past on a rope and catch them, even if they have no ranks in climb or tumble or whatever (not the best example maybe, I'll admit.)

Kantolin
2010-01-26, 12:02 AM
Eh? I'm with about half the people above - he's having fun. By your own statement, it's not a problem due to the 6-man party - thus the DM is ensuring things are fair and fun for your party as a whole.

So... he's having fun, and he's not ruining your fun, so leave him to having fun. It sounds like your only problem is that you wouldn't be having fun if you were in his shoes, I guess?

I mean, if nothing else, it wouldn't kill you to accept from a meta-level that he's enjoying his character, and simply pretend OOCly that he's capable at doing his job (When someone asks 'which of your team are frontliners', cite him as one of the list). Aids to his fun value, and all insisting he sucks will do from a meta level is make him have less fun. :P

Go have fun already!

Eldariel
2010-01-26, 12:25 AM
I don't quite understand what you're saying in this. What does mechanical capability have to do with being able to role-play? The mechanics of the game determines your success, gives guidelines for what you are able to do, but with role-playing the big thing is that you can always, try anything, you can try to do exactly what your character would do. The success or failure of that action falls upon the mechanics and the DM yes, but if your character's loved one is about to fall down a terrible height, your character should try somehow to swing past on a rope and catch them, even if they have no ranks in climb or tumble or whatever (not the best example maybe, I'll admit.)

What he's saying is basically, assuming a group where mechanics matter too, once the mechanics of your character are taken care of, you can focus on RP to your heart's content without ever giving them a second thought; your mechanical capabilities exactly match what you view your character as and things are rosy. However, if your mechanics aren't up-to-par, you're going to run into problems as your abilities don't actually match what your character should be capable, and he/she becomes a baggage on the party eventually leading to a situation where every other party member would probably want to get rid of him/her (either for his/her own safety or because he/she is in the way, depending on their outlook) if not for the metagame agreement to keep the party together. And that's if said incompetence doesn't just get the party killed.

If you RP your guy as a great warrior (not just faking to be a great warrior), he should mechanically be a competent warrior as well. And if you RP your guy as a slick, fast-talking face, he should have some competence socially in mechanics. And if you RP your guy as a genius, having some Int may be in order.

Signmaker
2010-01-26, 12:27 AM
If you RP your guy as a great warrior (not just faking to be a great warrior), he should mechanically be a competent warrior as well. And if you RP your guy as a slick, fast-talking face, he should have some competence socially in mechanics. And if you RP your guy as a genius, having some Int may be in order.

Thank you for the clarification. If you're going to talk the talk, it helps to be able to walk the walk first.

Pink
2010-01-26, 12:35 AM
What he's saying is basically, assuming a group where mechanics matter too, once the mechanics of your character are taken care of, you can focus on RP to your heart's content without ever giving them a second thought; your mechanical capabilities exactly match what you view your character as and things are rosy. However, if your mechanics aren't up-to-par, you're going to run into problems as your abilities don't actually match what your character should be capable, and he/she becomes a baggage on the party eventually leading to a situation where every other party member would probably want to get rid of him/her (either for his/her own safety or because he/she is in the way, depending on their outlook) if not for the metagame agreement to keep the party together. And that's if said incompetence doesn't just get the party killed.

If you RP your guy as a great warrior (not just faking to be a great warrior), he should mechanically be a competent warrior as well. And if you RP your guy as a slick, fast-talking face, he should have some competence socially in mechanics. And if you RP your guy as a genius, having some Int may be in order.

Ah, I see. That is a very valid point. It is quite true that a character created should have some basis in the mechanics they possess. I suppose though, I believe that if you build a character like that, you should be fully prepared for the consequences. Making a absolutely horrendously low charisma character that thinks he's the world's gift to all mankind would be a very fun roleplay. And in making that character, I should not be surprised at all that somebody is probably going to shoove the annoying oaf off a cliff at some point. Suck at combat? Well, you'll likely die, if you don't, then you're possible enough at it, or you have great friends, which opens up a very role-playing reason to stick with them and make them like you so they'll keep you around instead of leaving you at the next inn. If the rest of the party does sneak away in the night so they don't have to babysit, too bad, roll up a new character.

Eldariel
2010-01-26, 12:44 AM
Ah, I see. That is a very valid point. It is quite true that a character created should have some basis in the mechanics they possess. I suppose though, I believe that if you build a character like that, you should be fully prepared for the consequences. Making a absolutely horrendously low charisma character that thinks he's the world's gift to all mankind would be a very fun roleplay. And in making that character, I should not be surprised at all that somebody is probably going to shoove the annoying oaf off a cliff at some point.

If you intentionally go for it though, it's no problem. If your character concept is a "guy who thinks he's all that but isn't", then that's all fine; you should match him up with the mechanics.

However, if your character concept is a guy who genuinely is a natural-born leader or the greatest warrior to walk the plane and yet have that 6 Cha or 8 Str on a Str-Fighter, then something is wrong. Your character isn't who you think he is.

Your numbers and the character in your head are divorced; you act as a different character than you play, and not because he's pretending but because your character sheet isn't the character you are playing. This is the crux of the problem here; if this fellow wants to play a Beguiler who thinks he's a good combatant but isn't, that's fine.

If he, however, intends on being a warrior and a caster, but lacks the ability to actually be a warrior, he's suffering of this very dissociation.


Suck at combat? Well, you'll likely die, if you don't, then you're possible enough at it, or you have great friends, which opens up a very role-playing reason to stick with them and make them like you so they'll keep you around instead of leaving you at the next inn. If the rest of the party does sneak away in the night so they don't have to babysit, too bad, roll up a new character.

Aye, but here's the issue: Many groups (especially ones I've played with) have an agreement about the sanctity of the party; that the party must stay together regardless of IC logic. Basically, no-PvP rules. Which means their options are basically "bring it up with said player/DM and do something about it" or "put up with it and pretend their characters wouldn't care".

Pink
2010-01-26, 12:57 AM
I certainly understand sanctity, especially concerning pvp, I just wouldn't want such protections forced on me. I may be an exception to the average gamer, but my characters are seperate from me. If he's part of a group of mercenaries and they decide to kick him out because he's not pulling his weight, no big deal, I can roll up a new character. If I intend to actually participate in the group, it should probably be one that does pull his weight. If I presumably make the same mistake, and this is either degrading to the game or the fun of the other players, I would totally expect the DM to talk to me, and if need be, give me the boot so to say. Not to say I'm like that or such, but that's just how I am, and I therefore have understanding the reasons others can't be a bit more clear-headed in table relationships.

Anyway, as far as the mechanics to match character type, even in unintentional screw-ups, if the player is fine with the way it is, so be it. I refer more so to the supposed person this thread started about. Obviously if it's a newbie and such, you help them out, make them understand what represents their character and such.

But if this is someone who can make a character, and does choose to make it likewise, and keep playing it straight, well, again, along as it's not detrimental to the party and game, and they're having fun, go for it. Even a badly unoptimized character is still a large degree better than a commoner, and maybe that's what they want to feel by being a strong fighter. Stronger than the common man. Now, if they're complaining and such about how they suck, but aren't willing to take advice, well, that's becoming far more of a player problem than a character problem.

In any event, my prescription on the matter does rely on some assumptions, namely that this player is not a newb, that they are having a fair amount of fun playing as they already are, that it's not detrimental to the party, and I don't believe I've seen much solid proof to the opposite.

Zincorium
2010-01-26, 04:10 AM
Making a character who detrimentally affects the party mission should never be done without the informed consent of the group. Furthermore, deciding to go on an adventure arc that cannot include the members of the party is also something that you shouldn't do unless they're okay.

Note that I'm saying you should be proactive about getting assent- "they'll complain if they don't like it" is not only poor people skills, it's often wrong.

What I would do in Hawk's place-

-Confront the problem player IC about his poor hammerman skills. Tell him if he can't use it effectively, you're taking it away from him.

-If he responds combatively, ask the DM if it's cool if you duke it out. If he is, continue. Otherwise, take comfort in the knowledge your character isn't going to get stabbed in the middle of the night by this guy.

-Either beat him into oblivion and take his hammer, or, after he whips out magic, tell him that if he doesn't hold back against you, he's got no excuse for holding back against monsters- you wouldn't kill him, but they would.

-If he continues to hold back against the monsters, that, like you said, will kill him, then he's a terrible roleplayer. State this and explain why.

Fitz10019
2010-01-26, 08:46 AM
He may miss even while flanking, but at least he was there to flank for someone else.

I think at this point he may be defensive about his build, and the more you suggest alternatives, the more he defends the choices he's already made. You and the DM should stop making suggestions. Actually, spend the next two sessions complimenting whatever goes right. Good spell, good flanking for the other guy, whatever.

Once he stops being defensive, he may come around to seeing the flaws in what he has compared to everyone else.

Leon
2010-01-26, 09:06 AM
-snip


Inter party conflict rarely helps solve problems.

What Do the rest of your gaming group think?
Do they share your concerns, talk to them (and Him) about it if they are bothered by it.

If its just you then you may just have to weather it and ride out the adventure till something dire happens to the PC

Douglas
2010-01-26, 09:14 AM
he has announced that he doesn't want to do that anymore because "magic is his trump card and 'get out of jail free card', not his main fighting style".
Point out that his choice of class absolutely does not fit with that statement. At all. No pure full caster class does. Full casters are, one and all, designed to primarily use their magic as their main thing (well, maybe not Druids, but that's just because they get superb beatstick ability on top of full casting).

Quote his own RP description of his character back at him and make it clear in no uncertain terms that "can do a little bit of magic in an emergency" is not an accurate description of a Beguiler. A Beguiler "can do a lot of magic all the time", and that's the main point of the class. Point out a class that fits it much better. I'd suggest Factotum. It's a perfect fit. Plenty of skills, ability to hold his own in a fight, and some occasional magic. Its mechanics fit his RP description perfectly. Present it not as "playing a different character" but as "playing a character who actually is what you describe him as".

Hawk7915
2010-01-26, 01:58 PM
To answer a few points:

- How does the rest of the party feel: The rogue hasn't played any games, electronic, table top, or otherwise, since the NES so she is okay with it. The Cleric is his best friend IRL and also really new to the game, so he's fine with it as well. The party Paladin, OOC, has told me that if he had a choice between healing anyone else at positives and the Beguiler at negatives, he'd let the Beguiler die and then try to pass it off as ignorance of how humans work IC. The Gunslinger hates his character as well. To be fair, we might all be more annoyed at the general campaign-destroying, fun-eating playstyle from our last campaigns with him, and less so with his character's uselessness which I guess means I should man up and talk to him instead of b******** on the internets :smallredface:.

The attack him in character thing is actually a fun idea. I'd ask the DM if I could "pull my punches" to just skewer him to around 0 or -1, then patch him up. If he plays smart and hurls a couple spells at my abysmal will save, I can pull out the "why do you insist on hiding your own power from those that truly wish to destroy you" line after I shake it off. We'll see on that one.

@douglas: That's really my source of annoyance. I don't even mind when he makes terrible characters (always) or when he makes reasonably effective character but spends combat doing stupid stuff like climbing buildings, taunting people, and tackling demons instead of just stabbing/shooting/spell-slinging them. But this time, I can't imagine a worse class for achieving the purpose he has in mind. Maybe Monk and Truenamer? But even Samurai, Hexblade, and Fighter despite their lower tier-ranking would work best for this character. Wizard at least can throw a few buffs up and "Wizard-zilla". And with even a 14 STR he could contribute even if he didn't cast his impressive spells. So maybe now that he has that things will be better.

Anyhow, thanks for the advice folks. I'm going to talk to him OOC both about the character and about him in our party in general. I'll be tactful and start by complementing the fact that thus far his character hasn't been a scenery-chewing attention hog (better phrasing, of course). And then, if he continues to be a not-Beguiler in game, it is not out of character for my Lizardfolk Warblade of ultimate death to bring the pain.

DementedFellow
2010-01-26, 02:41 PM
So let me get this straight, half of the party is having fun despite the way the battles are going, right?

You said he isn't chewing the scenery so he isn't being a douche, right?

You know what, just because someone can't swing a weapon in battle doesn't mean he is useless. He was still there to flank. Sometimes we roll abysmally, sometimes even the best meleers will still miss. It happens.

I think you're overreacting on this dude by trying to kill his character, because YOU don't seeing him playing the way YOU want him to.

He and others are having fun. Maybe the problem isn't with him at all.

If I was new to a game and a teammate decided to attack/kill my character because I was "CLEARLY DOING IT RONG", that is a perfect reason to stop playing that game altogether. Ideas like that is why people hate playing the game with roll-players.

We are there to have fun. Others are clearly enjoying themselves. Maybe the problem is with YOU.

Saintjebus
2010-01-26, 02:52 PM
*snip

I think you're overreacting on this dude by trying to kill his character, because YOU don't seeing him playing the way YOU want him to.

*snip

I have to agree with this statement. In my RL group, we have a player who always runs a straight fighter. Always. When we tried to get him to run something different, he tried a rogue. Who plinked away with a crossbow. With no ranged feats. Then he tried a cleric- with a 10 Int. Basically, the guy doesn't understand the system. But once we got him back to a fighter(even an abysmally built one) he had fun. In fact, once we stopped trying to get him to play our characters and let him play his, we all had a lot more fun- even if we had to step up our tactics and optimization to make up the slack.

Bottom line: if he's having fun, and the other players are having fun, it's not a problem. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 03:11 PM
Maybe ask the DM to treat him as a lower ECL character when deciding on what CR you are able to face? That way, he is just there, but doesn't effect your chances of winning or losing because you already consider his lower contribution?

faceroll
2010-01-26, 03:19 PM
You know what, just because someone can't swing a weapon in battle doesn't mean he is useless. He was still there to flank. Sometimes we roll abysmally, sometimes even the best meleers will still miss. It happens.

However, he's got d6 HD and light armor. He will go down quick, which forces the cleric & paladin to waste actions bringing him back up, both for IC and OoC reasons.


I think you're overreacting on this dude by trying to kill his character, because YOU don't seeing him playing the way YOU want him to.

He and others are having fun. Maybe the problem isn't with him at all.

If I was new to a game and a teammate decided to attack/kill my character because I was "CLEARLY DOING IT RONG", that is a perfect reason to stop playing that game altogether. Ideas like that is why people hate playing the game with roll-players.

We are there to have fun. Others are clearly enjoying themselves. Maybe the problem is with YOU.

Agree with this part.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:28 PM
However, he's got d6 HD and light armor. He will go down quick, which forces the cleric & paladin to waste actions bringing him back up, both for IC and OoC reasons.



Agree with this part.

To be fair I've seen/read plenty of fantasy stories where the main characters included someone who was basically always in danger and could barely contribute.

faceroll
2010-01-26, 03:31 PM
To be fair I've seen/read plenty of fantasy stories where the main characters included someone who was basically always in danger and could barely contribute.

One's inclusion in a story does not preclude one from being useless.

AtwasAwamps
2010-01-26, 03:32 PM
Bottom line: if he's having fun, and the other players are having fun, it's not a problem. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

So what about the OP and the two other people he stated are extremely frustrated?

Compromise is a two way street, isn't it? Telling him to suck it up and learn to live with it while not telling the other player he has to compromise as well isn't fair to either side.

I'd honestly suggest pointing out he didn't pick the right class for his character concept and make a few suggestions otherwise. If he is resistant or get defensive, fine. Back off. But then don't ever hold back in combat with him. You have powerful and effective characters. Utilize them to the best of your ability while he continues to flail helplessly with his hammer. He'll either get frustrated and ask for help/a solution, or he won't care and will still have fun and you guys can simply regard him as a non-entity in combat situations.

For future reference, though, can we please stop saying "he was there to flank!" as indicating he's not useless? I believe a swordsage can create a flanker for one turn as a swift action at level 1. That's...yeah.

Mystic Muse
2010-01-26, 03:33 PM
Snip.

I think the OP's point is the other player Isn't playing a class that's good for his character concept and could just do better if he wanted to play that character concept while actually contributing to combat.

Everyman
2010-01-26, 03:37 PM
If he's dead set on playing a melee character, but using a beguiler as a base...well..I can only think of a few ways to "fix" that.

1) Feat retraining: He's going to want the feat in Complete Arcane that ups the type of armor he can wear medium armor without spell failure (Battlecaster?), as well as medium armor prof.
2) Class: Suggest to him a level of the Thug fighter variant. A bit of sneak attack and full BAB (and good HD) might be up his alley. Maybe he'll like it better than beguiler.
3) In Complete Arcane, there's a weapon ability that makes your BAB equal to 3/4 your CL (assuming it isn't better than that) Suggest that too (especially if he doesn't go for the Thug variant)

Beyond that, there isn't much I can think of to help your friend. Hopefully you guys can reach an agreement on how to best resolve this.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:37 PM
One's inclusion in a story does not preclude one from being useless.

No but being useless in combat is common in fantasy stories (even the ones that focus on combat)

AtwasAwamps
2010-01-26, 03:41 PM
No but being useless in combat is common in fantasy stories (even the ones that focus on combat)

OKay, but this isn't a fantasy story. It's a D&D game and frankly, everybody is expected to pull their weight in any situation that involves the party. Yes, you don't have to be a death machine, but then you need to be strong in other areas. I'm not sure that's what this player is doing.

DementedFellow
2010-01-26, 03:42 PM
I think the OP's point is the other player Isn't playing a class that's good for his character concept and could just do better if he wanted to play that character concept.
There is a fine line between trying to help someone with their character concept/class and relishing the notion of killing his horribly unoptimized character with your optimized one.

Just saying. Thoughts like that ruin the game for all involved. The moment characters try to fight each other (even for in-character reasons) is the moment when feelings get hurt and the game stops being fun.

And if such an altercation occurs where the OP does try to kill this dude's character. I sincerely hope the beguiler rolls nothing but 20s.

As far as the the other meleers who don't want to play nursemaid to this dude, who is asking you to? Your first concern in battle is yourself. Do your job and end the battle before your party is in terrible danger. That's what tanks are for.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:43 PM
OKay, but this isn't a fantasy story. It's a D&D game and frankly, everybody is expected to pull their weight in any situation that involves the party. Yes, you don't have to be a death machine, but then you need to be strong in other areas. I'm not sure that's what this player is doing.

Remind me not to play with you. I don't expect every character to pull their weight. I expect every Player to contribute (or try to at the least) to the FUN of the group.

Doc Roc
2010-01-26, 03:48 PM
I like me some Factotum, if it hasn't already been mentioned. It's hard to screw it up too badly unless you go with 8 int.


Remind me not to play with you. I don't expect every character to pull their weight. I expect every Player to contribute (or try to at the least) to the FUN of the group.

Christ, dude, I don't think he's being terribly unreasonable to hope that his party might not get toasted by all level appropriate encounters. Pulling your weight isn't the same as standing out, or shining. It can be something as simple as helping people position themselves.

His character does literally nothing. It will continue to do nothing. And the worst part is that there's no reason for it to be like this, none at all. It's not a bad concept. It's not a bad class. It's just that the way he wants to play his character is not in any way supported by his choices. The fix is a trivial change to his character's mechanics, invisible at the level of roleplaying.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 03:52 PM
Remind me not to play with you. I don't expect every character to pull their weight. I expect every Player to contribute (or try to at the least) to the FUN of the group.

And that is something that the player is clearly not doing, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist, as some people actually associate a functional, competent party with fun.

AtwasAwamps
2010-01-26, 03:52 PM
Remind me not to play with you. I don't expect every character to pull their weight. I expect every Player to contribute (or try to at the least) to the FUN of the group.

Which I consider a part of pulling your weight and in this case, this player is reducing the level of fun three other players are currently experiencing.

Look, I'm the guy who takes bard multiclassing in 4E to more effectively bully my allies into standing up. I flavor my warlord "inspiring heals" as me saying "Don't be such a whiner" or grabbing them and shaking them fiercely while screaming "DON'T YOU DIE ON ME TORG! DON'T YOU DIE ON ME!!!" In 3.5, my paladin accidentally seduced a pirate captain while trying to negotiate for a pancake breakfast.

"Having fun" and "Pulling your weight" are not mutually exclusive things, at all, and I don't think it's much to ask.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 03:57 PM
Which I consider a part of pulling your weight and in this case, this player is reducing the level of fun three other players are currently experiencing.

Look, I'm the guy who takes bard multiclassing in 4E to more effectively bully my allies into standing up. I flavor my warlord "inspiring heals" as me saying "Don't be such a whiner" or grabbing them and shaking them fiercely while screaming "DON'T YOU DIE ON ME TORG! DON'T YOU DIE ON ME!!!" In 3.5, my paladin accidentally seduced a pirate captain while trying to negotiate for a pancake breakfast.

"Having fun" and "Pulling your weight" are not mutually exclusive things, at all, and I don't think it's much to ask.

Your post that I quoted seemed to be talking only about mechanical contributions. Also only two of the players have disliked it so far IIRC (the OP and the Paladin I think). So that leaves himself and 3 others who seem fine with it. So at the very lease he is not hurting 4/6 of the people and might even be entertaining them with his antics.

Sanguine
2010-01-26, 03:59 PM
Your post that I quoted seemed to be talking only about mechanical contributions. Also only two of the players have disliked it so far IIRC (the OP and the Paladin I think). So that leaves himself and 3 others who seem fine with it. So at the very lease he is not hurting 4/6 of the people and might even be entertaining them with his antics.

Didn't the OP say the Gunslinger was annoyed as well?

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 04:00 PM
Didn't the OP say the Gunslinger was annoyed as well?

Can't remember. Still leaves it a 50/50 split tho. If him and those two others are greatly entertained by him and his character then he is contributing.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 04:00 PM
Actually:


The rogue hasn't played any games, electronic, table top, or otherwise, since the NES so she is okay with it. The Cleric is his best friend IRL and also really new to the game, so he's fine with it as well. The party Paladin, OOC, has told me that if he had a choice between healing anyone else at positives and the Beguiler at negatives, he'd let the Beguiler die and then try to pass it off as ignorance of how humans work IC. The Gunslinger hates his character as well.

In bold are those that dislike the character besides the OP. With the DM included, and the fact that the other two are quite new so they don't oppose it doesn't mean it is OK. So it is actually not hurting 2/5 of the group, not including the player himself, because if he wasn't enjoying it, it wouldn't be an issue.

DementedFellow
2010-01-26, 04:03 PM
To answer a few points:

- How does the rest of the party feel: The rogue hasn't played any games, electronic, table top, or otherwise, since the NES so she is okay with it. The Cleric is his best friend IRL and also really new to the game, so he's fine with it as well. The party Paladin, OOC, has told me that if he had a choice between healing anyone else at positives and the Beguiler at negatives, he'd let the Beguiler die and then try to pass it off as ignorance of how humans work IC. The Gunslinger hates his character as well. To be fair, we might all be more annoyed at the general campaign-destroying, fun-eating playstyle from our last campaigns with him, and less so with his character's uselessness which I guess means I should man up and talk to him instead of b******** on the internets :smallredface:.


Emphasis mine. Yes 3 of 6 don't like this character, but it seems that there is a history here.

It sounds to me like the OP is just trying to justify his upcoming ****-ish move of killing off a character because he is having a problem with the player.

Doc Roc
2010-01-26, 04:03 PM
On the grasping hand, he may be new enough that he literally doesn't understand what's wrong.
It is possible to be in a situation where you are only having fun because you do not know how much more fun you could be having.

What then, is the sound of one factotum lacking?


Emphasis mine. Yes 3 of 6 don't like this character, but it seems that there is a history here.

It sounds to me like the OP is just trying to justify his upcoming ****-ish move of killing off a character because he is having a problem with the player.

I'm not sure your quote offers enough evidence that I'd be satisfied saying that. An existing bias that exacerbates the situation, but not one that dwarfs it.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 04:07 PM
Emphasis mine. Yes 3 of 6 don't like this character, but it seems that there is a history here.

It sounds to me like the OP is just trying to justify his upcoming ****-ish move of killing off a character because he is having a problem with the player.

Ya know, I don't see how the fact that it isn't the first time he makes a useless character that bothers others makes the OP the bad guy here.. The "kill him off" was offered by other posters here IIRC.. And how come the OP is the bad one if the other player doesn't care that he can have the same concept, but actually be useful and relevant, and not annoy other players?

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 04:13 PM
Ya know, I don't see how the fact that it isn't the first time he makes a useless character that bothers others makes the OP the bad guy here.. The "kill him off" was offered by other posters here IIRC.. And how come the OP is the bad one if the other player doesn't care that he can have the same concept, but actually be useful and relevant, and not annoy other players?

Maybe he likes the class? Maybe he dislikes being told how to make his character? Maybe he doesn't care that he is mechanically ineffectual? The OP had a later post basically agreeing with the "Kill Him" Suggestion (or at the least considering it).

So what if his characters are weak? He should be able to make a weak character if he wants to.

DementedFellow
2010-01-26, 04:15 PM
Ya know, I don't see how the fact that it isn't the first time he makes a useless character that bothers others makes the OP the bad guy here.. The "kill him off" was offered by other posters here IIRC.. And how come the OP is the bad one if the other player doesn't care that he can have the same concept, but actually be useful and relevant, and not annoy other players?

Because the main complaint is the character isn't pulling his own weight in battle. That's really the only complaint. Sucking in battle isn't a reason to kill off a character because he is a perceived XP drain. OP even said that the character hadn't been a disruptive member who chews the scenery and spoils the fun of others.

So really the problem is, "He sucks in combat and he won't accept criticism or advice! This ruins my play experience!" In smaller groups this may be a problem, but this is a fairly nice sized group with 3 optimizers. They can handle combat.

And the OP seemed to delight in the notion of killing off the character or at least bringing him into negatives. There is an admitted bad past between the OP and this dude.

It just seems to me like the OP is hunting for a reason to scare away this player. I'm not saying that this player is a nice guy or a bad guy. I'm just seeing a different picture portrayed here.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 04:22 PM
Maybe he likes the class? Maybe he dislikes being told how to make his character? Maybe he doesn't care that he is mechanically ineffectual? The OP had a later post basically agreeing with the "Kill Him" Suggestion (or at the least considering it).

So what if his characters are weak? He should be able to make a weak character if he wants to.

He doesn't have to be mechanically ineffectual, and if it bothers 3 players and the DM (while the other 2 don't care), why should they suck it up instead of the player making the same character concept, but actually being able to do something?

Note that he cares only for the RP aspect, so he shouldn't care if others help him make a better character, unless he does it to annoy them, and there is little IC reason for the other characters to put up with his uselessness and resource drain, and IC they would just let him go.

DementedFellow
2010-01-26, 04:28 PM
Note that he cares only for the RP aspect, so he shouldn't care if others help him make a better character, unless he does it to annoy them, and there is little IC reason for the other characters to put up with his uselessness and resource drain, and IC they would just let him go.

To be fair, we know little about the nature of the game. Whose to say that the beguiler isn't integral in the plot hook? For all we know, the beguiler's sister could be the BBEG ultimately.

And I've never seen a group that said, "You are useless. You stay here in the Inn while we go adventure. You can stay here and suck more, Mister Sucky McSuckerstein. That way we won't waste precious charges of a wand of Cure Light Wounds on you."

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 04:31 PM
He doesn't have to be mechanically ineffectual, and if it bothers 3 players and the DM (while the other 2 don't care), why should they suck it up instead of the player making the same character concept, but actually being able to do something?

Note that he cares only for the RP aspect, so he shouldn't care if others help him make a better character, unless he does it to annoy them, and there is little IC reason for the other characters to put up with his uselessness and resource drain, and IC they would just let him go.

So because his character is weak (even if he loved the mechanics of the beguiler for some reason) he should either make a new character or leave? That sounds like a bad group to me.

arguskos
2010-01-26, 04:33 PM
So because his character is weak (even if he loved the mechanics of the beguiler for some reason) he should either make a new character or leave? That sounds like a bad group to me.
Ok, I'm REALLY confused why there is such fervent opposition to helping him have a character that mechanically fits his RP better.

I mean, he wants to play a dude with a sledgehammer and a touch of magic in his back pocket? Ok, let's make it happen! Sounds like a cool character, honestly. Why the hatred for wanting to help that happen, so he can be effective and RP-licious?

FMArthur
2010-01-26, 04:35 PM
Sounds to me like he's just saving his spells for emergencies... which are very uncommon for your 6-man group. I bet the DM could fairly easily bring about circumstances where your problem player feels they need to start casting spells. It's up to them.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 04:36 PM
Ok, I'm REALLY confused why there is such fervent opposition to helping him have a character that mechanically fits his RP better.

I mean, he wants to play a dude with a sledgehammer and a touch of magic in his back pocket? Ok, let's make it happen! Sounds like a cool character, honestly. Why the hatred for wanting to help that happen, so he can be effective and RP-licious?

Because the Player has expressed disinterest in the idea of rewriting his character? If he wanted help making it fit better mechanically then that's great. Help him. It's a good thing. If he says no? Even if his character blows? Shut up about it. It's his character and if this is how he wants to mechanically represent him that's his business.

AtwasAwamps
2010-01-26, 04:37 PM
Ok, I'm REALLY confused why there is such fervent opposition to helping him have a character that mechanically fits his RP better.

I mean, he wants to play a dude with a sledgehammer and a touch of magic in his back pocket? Ok, let's make it happen! Sounds like a cool character, honestly. Why the hatred for wanting to help that happen, so he can be effective and RP-licious?

Bingo.

And as note to all the people saying "Mechanics aren't important", yes they are, people. If mechanics didn't matter, you wouldn't be playing D&D, specifically. THey are there for a reason. It is perfectly possible to roleplay anything you want within the bounds of remaining effective mechanically in the game. If you can't figure out a way to make your RP concept work effectively or at least not-terribly within the RIDICULOUS amount of printed material 3.5 offers, that's YOUR FAILING.

ANYWAYS, I am not suggesting (and neither is the OP suggesting, if I believe) that he make a whole new character and concept. The suggestion is that he rebuild his current character to do what he said he wants his character to do in a way that is in fact effective. If he is RP-centric, that shouldn't be a problem for him because NOTHING CHANGES FROM THE RP POINT OF VIEW.


Because the Player has expressed disinterest in the idea of rewriting his character? If he wanted help making it fit better mechanically then that's great. Help him. It's a good thing. If he says no? Even if his character blows? Shut up about it. It's his character and if this is how he wants to mechanically represent him that's his business.

D&D is never and will never be a one player game. An RP group should work together. Put-up-or-shut-up does not work for every game, every team, or every situation.


Sounds to me like he's just saving his spells for emergencies... which are very uncommon for your 6-man group. I bet the DM could fairly easily bring about circumstances where your problem player feels they need to start casting spells. It's up to them.

If I understand correctly, beguilers are a primary caster class. Saving your primary class feature for emergencies is...not a great idea, IMO.

DementedFellow
2010-01-26, 04:41 PM
Ok, I'm REALLY confused why there is such fervent opposition to helping him have a character that mechanically fits his RP better.

I mean, he wants to play a dude with a sledgehammer and a touch of magic in his back pocket? Ok, let's make it happen! Sounds like a cool character, honestly. Why the hatred for wanting to help that happen, so he can be effective and RP-licious?

There is such a thing as tact, which the OP and DM have tried. The player swapped two ability scores as a concession, so he has met them half-way once already.

Now the player is stonewalling, because he wants to play that character. Why? Who knows? But it's still HIS character.

Now it would seem like the OP wants to play mini-DM and railroad this character into changing his playstyle. This is wrong on many levels.

He's not the DM.
Railroading is bad.
It's not conducive to a good environment to use your uber character to curb-stomp another player's weaker character.

I still stand by my earlier assertion that something deeper is going on here.

arguskos
2010-01-26, 04:42 PM
Because the Player has expressed disinterest in the idea of rewriting his character? If he wanted help making it fit better mechanically then that's great. Help him. It's a good thing. If he says no? Even if his character blows? Shut up about it. It's his character and if this is how he wants to mechanically represent him that's his business.
I saw nothing about that player having been ASKED though. Just hatred for the sheer idea.

Look, I'm not advocating that he be punished IC for OOC bad blood, that's just poor manners and a ****ty thing to do. However, if his mechanics are dragging a majority of the group down (as it seems to be), then perhaps a rebuild is in order. If he really doesn't care for the mechanics, then nothing changes from his perspective, and everyone wins. That's the best possible outcome, right? It maximizes fun, and that's what everyone wants.

If he really turns down a rebuild, I'd be curious as to WHY. Explain that more than a few people's enjoyment is being hurt by this, and ask him to reconsider. If he absolutely refuses, I'd ask myself why I'm gaming with someone who isn't willing to empathize with my point of view, when I'm being very reasonable, and I might excuse myself from the game, depending on how unfun it was for me.

Xenogears
2010-01-26, 04:43 PM
Bingo.

And as note to all the people saying "Mechanics aren't important", yes they are, people. If mechanics didn't matter, you wouldn't be playing D&D, specifically. THey are there for a reason. It is perfectly possible to roleplay anything you want within the bounds of remaining effective mechanically in the game. If you can't figure out a way to make your RP concept work effectively or at least not-terribly within the RIDICULOUS amount of printed material 3.5 offers, that's YOUR FAILING.

ANYWAYS, I am not suggesting (and neither is the OP suggesting, if I believe) that he make a whole new character and concept. The suggestion is that he rebuild his current character to do what he said he wants his character to do in a way that is in fact effective. If he is RP-centric, that shouldn't be a problem for him because NOTHING CHANGES FROM THE RP POINT OF VIEW.



D&D is never and will never be a one player game. An RP group should work together. Put-up-or-shut-up does not work for every game, every team, or every situation.

Telling someone how to construct their character when they don't want you to is extremely rude. Just as rude as telling a Roll-Player that their character concept sucks and if they just acted as Character X they would be so much more interesting.

I mean if they only care about the mechanics it shouldn't matter right?

AtwasAwamps
2010-01-26, 04:47 PM
Telling someone how to construct their character when they don't want you to is extremely rude. Just as rude as telling a Roll-Player that their character concept sucks and if they just acted as Character X they would be so much more interesting.

I mean if they only care about the mechanics it shouldn't matter right?


Not QUITE the same thing, though I see your point. Let me see if I can explain where I'm coming from here...

This particular player's choices have resulted in frustration for four people in the game(3 players, 1 DM). This is BAD. Period. I'm sorry, there's no way around that. Whether it comes from negative feelings in the past or not, four people are having significantly less fun because of this decision. They are offering a solution that does not negatively impact the player in any way beyond him having to admit he made a bad decision/doesn't know what he's doing as well as he thought he did.

Your example would work if the character the player RP'd was distinctly ruining the game/causing distress to a >50% of the player group, in which case YES, I would be okay with pulling that player aside and having a discussion with them on how they are roleplaying, the distress it is causing, and the possibility of changing that for the sake of group solidarity.

I don't feel that's unreasonable at all.

arguskos
2010-01-26, 04:49 PM
Telling someone how to construct their character when they don't want you to is extremely rude. Just as rude as telling a Roll-Player that their character concept sucks and if they just acted as Character X they would be so much more interesting.

I mean if they only care about the mechanics it shouldn't matter right?
Actually, I welcome suggestions to change my roleplaying to grate less on the party, as a note. It's a courtesy thing, and I'm happy to shift my character's personality a little if it'll increase overall fun.

Still not sure if this thread's violent response is towards the idea of improving another person's character so everyone can have more fun (including them), or if it's towards the OP and the tendency that has been observed by several folks that he might be digging for a justification for IC violence (not one I agree with, but I can see how it might come across that way).

Sliver
2010-01-26, 04:51 PM
arguskos - The OP said they asked the player to change it, he refused.

Xenogears - And RPing 1 on 1 with the DM for 2 hours while the others are watching only because you have skills that they don't isn't rude? That is really considerate, right?


And I've never seen a group that said, "You are useless. You stay here in the Inn while we go adventure. You can stay here and suck more, Mister Sucky McSuckerstein. That way we won't waste precious charges of a wand of Cure Light Wounds on you."

And I never seen a player that refused to make a character that has mechanics that actually match the concept..


So because his character is weak (even if he loved the mechanics of the beguiler for some reason) he should either make a new character or leave? That sounds like a bad group to me.

Maybe he loves the beguiler, but he doesn't play a beguiler. There is no connection between what he claims is the concept, and what he has on the sheet.

arguskos
2010-01-26, 04:54 PM
arguskos - The OP said they asked the player to change it, he refused.
Didn't see that. In that case, were I the OP, I'd think really long and hard about this, and probably breach the issue one more time. Say "look, I know we talked about this already, but you being ineffective in combat is really bringing the rest of us down. Would you consider it one more time perhaps? So we can all have more fun?" If he refused again, then I'd either suck it up and deal (if it's not that big an issue) or leave the game (if it was a huge deal, as it seems to be). It's really easy, and it's geared towards maximum fun for all, not towards bashing another player.

Gnaeus
2010-01-26, 04:56 PM
Having tried out of character, I would now try in character.

"Excuse me, John Henry, but we can't help but notice your total failure to aid us in our vanquishing of evil today. You see, you may have trained as a carpenter or something, but we mostly protect people from monsters and evildoers, and that is what earns us our rewards. You haven't hurt anyone in the party, so you can continue to come along with us if that is what you want to do. Now, people who actually contribute to the party get full shares in the treasure. People who do nothing but be a flanking partner to the rogue and completely fail to help us in combat are referred to as "henchmen" and get a half share. Thats where you are now. Pick up the slack and we will return you to full treasure status."

Edit: Then I would talk to the DM, and request that the members of the party who contributed get xp as if the problem player wasn't there. He can get the same share for showing up, or not since he didn't actually overcome any obstacles, but the active players shouldn't be penalized for his presence.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 05:00 PM
Didn't see that. In that case, were I the OP, I'd think really long and hard about this, and probably breach the issue one more time. Say "look, I know we talked about this already, but you being ineffective in combat is really bringing the rest of us down. Would you consider it one more time perhaps? So we can all have more fun?" If he refused again, then I'd either suck it up and deal (if it's not that big an issue) or leave the game (if it was a huge deal, as it seems to be). It's really easy, and it's geared towards maximum fun for all, not towards bashing another player.

I wonder about your reasoning here.. If the player doesn't care if the others just sit around and watch him RP with the DM, and half the group is annoyed with him with the others not caring because of their lack of other experiences, why the OP is the one that should consider leaving?

Although now I start thinking I might have imagined where the OP said that said player refused to rebuild, and maybe confused with a different post.

arguskos
2010-01-26, 05:01 PM
I wonder about your reasoning here.. If the player doesn't care if the others just sit around and watch him RP with the DM, and half the group is annoyed with him with the others not caring because of their lack of other experiences, why the OP is the one that should consider leaving?

Although now I start thinking I might have imagined where the OP said that said player refused to rebuild, and maybe confused with a different post.
Because that way, the OP isn't forcing another player to do something they don't wish to do. Forcing one's will on another is never really justified. In this circumstance, if the other dude is unwilling to compromise, and it's THAT big a deal for the OP, they have to vote with their feet.

DementedFellow
2010-01-26, 05:02 PM
So Gnaeus, let's say the party has a rogue who helps them get through a series of traps unscathed but they are pitted against a foe who is a construct as the capstone of the adventure. Let's say this construct has a high AC and the Rogue cannot land any hits and cannot do SA damage to it.

Since the Rogue was not much help in the battle, then she doesn't get an equal share of the treasure?

We don't know what the Beguiler does OUTSIDE of combat in order to see how useful he is. All we know is he sucks in combat. Combat is big in D&D, but it isn't the be-all, end-all.

Restricting treasure will just increase the butthurt feelings already present in this group.

Gnaeus
2010-01-26, 05:05 PM
Since the Rogue was not much help in the party, then she doesn't get an equal share of the treasure?

The rogue in your example DID help the party. And he tried to help in combat, he just couldn't. Now if they KNEW that there was a construct boss, and they offered to give him weapon crystals to let him SA it and he declined, then they would have to weigh his utility versus his willful failure to help in combat.

In the OP party, they HAVE a rogue. One who contributes both IN and OUT of combat. From the characters perspective, the ineffective beguiler is nothing but dead weight, and should in character be treated as such.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-26, 05:05 PM
Can you, in character justify keeping a person who can't defend them self around? Taking them into dangerous situations that you know you'll have to pull them out of time and time again? And pay them for it? I can't. Adventuring isn't a union job. You can't pull your weight you get cut free. Good people will do this in a town, bad people will do this sixty feet up the side of a cliff.

Sliver
2010-01-26, 05:07 PM
So Gnaeus, let's say the party has a rogue who helps them get through a series of traps unscathed but they are pitted against a foe who is a construct as the capstone of the adventure. Let's say this construct has a high AC and the Rogue cannot land any hits and cannot do SA damage to it.

Since the Rogue was not much help in the battle, then she doesn't get an equal share of the treasure?

We don't know what the Beguiler does OUTSIDE of combat in order to see how useful he is. All we know is he sucks in combat. Combat is big in D&D, but it isn't the be-all, end-all.

Restricting treasure will just increase the butthurt feelings already present in this group.

It is a combat heavy campaign where the player has sent his character off on it's own to scout for 2 hours REAL TIME while the rest of the players just set there and WATCHED. Next time, the characters will decide that they aren't interested in going there anyway and ditch him.

FMArthur
2010-01-26, 05:07 PM
If I understand correctly, beguilers are a primary caster class. Saving your primary class feature for emergencies is...not a great idea, IMO.

Hey, I never said it was a good idea. The player is hoarding his spells to save his ass in an emergency, which is not team-friendly thinking. I'm just saying that when the player himself refuses to change his spellcasting policiy, the other easy way that doesn't involve arguments and defenestration is the DM tailoring some encounters that pose a serious risk to Beguiler-man unless he uses his spells. I'm suggesting a solution to the problem, nothing more.

jiriku
2010-01-26, 05:14 PM
I'm with Doc on this one. Factotum is perfect for him. Heck, you can even introduce it innocently. "Hey, I just came across this cool class! Check it out!" If he reads it and reacts positively to it, you could just remark "I wonder if the DM would let you use this for your character. Seems like it would be perfect." If he takes the bait, great. If not, hey, no harm done.

Also, you could start showing him a few prestige classes and see if he likes any of them. Beguiler/swiftblade is a nice choice, and even a fully martial class like dervish or kensai would support his combat approach. Heck, even multi-classing with fighter would work if he has the sense to pick good feats. Again, if he doesn't like the prestige classes, that's fine, but you can do his research for him and present him with options he might never have considered.

A third way would be to engage party support. For example, if you can persuade him to take wraithstrike as his expanded knowledge for beguiler, the party can chip in and buy him a wand of wraithstrike, install a wand chamber in his weapon, and encourage him to use it. At least he'll stop missing all the time, and if you can convince him to take Power Attack and use that too, he might actually begin to contribute.

Mikeavelli
2010-01-26, 05:33 PM
Whenever we have a similar problem in my group, we make fun of him, ICly and OOCly until he figures out how to fix his character! Being completely ineffective in combat for role-playing purposes is fine, I guess, but look at it another way. You, in-character, are routinely fighting for your life, you don't need dead weight running around getting a share of party treasure, sucking up healing, and needing to be saved from certain death all the time. Your "role-playing" buddy is going to have to Roleplay pretty hard to convince the battle-hardened veterans to not dump his ass off at the next town.

Admittedly, we do the same thing whenever someone makes a ludicrously overpowered character too. We don't have as much IC justification for it, but routine, active hazing prevents party-destroying characters far more effectively than a polite side-note after the session is over.

disclaimer: I've gamed with my current group for several years, and we're all comfortable enough with each other for this nonsense to work. It might make other groups break apart in disgust.