Don't give me that 'It fits my character'! Crap

[Lago_AM3P]

Because I haven't spewed enough hate or hypocrisy lately (as I'm known for intentionally picking suboptimal choices), here's another hate-filled rant for fellow haters.

Well, not as much hate as it could be. I'm going to be a little nice this time and summarize it.

It is possible in D&D to reach a point where having you around is actively harmful to the game.

If your character can't meet a minimum level of effectiveness, your character slows the game down, steals treasure, steals experience, and hinders the party by making them protect your broke-ass character.

Expecting people to put up with the burden you put on the party just because you have a real life-presence and people have to deal with the consequences of not letting you in when the game is done is just rude.

So if you refuse to listen to arguments or suggestions about your character choice that allows, in the eyes of other party members, to rise to the level of expected challenges then you are being wrong.

And if the people who are actually pulling their weight in the game get more screentime than you, then shut your goddamn mouth. No one forced you to pick a crappy character; in fact, they're being nice to you by allowing you to suck the at teat of success.

So in conclusion, I don't care if you think it 'fits your character' that you take levels in dragon disciple. Shut the fuck up and hit the books.

Man, I hate roleplayers.

[User3]

1161746920[/unixtime]]If your character can't meet a minimum level of effectiveness, your character slows the game down, steals treasure, steals experience, and hinders the party by making them protect your broke-ass character.

One of the things I've noticed in gaming groups in my locale (there's about 5 groups I'm familiar with) ... as we enter the 6th-7th year of 3.X gameplay, more groups are moving towards the collaborative "team build" process over the usual "I'm building my character the way I want and you all can go fvck yourselves".

In that team build process, groups are determining not only current builds for the upcoming adventure, but also evolving team build aggregates. In essence, via group collaboration, everybody is able to build and play the character they want, but within the group acceptance paradigm as well.

This way, the player is happy, as well as his teammates. As a result of all this, I'm seeing less maverick players ruining game play for entire groups.

Well, that's my related rant in response to your Ranty McRantypants.

Otherwise, I know exactly what you are talking about.

[AlphaNerd]

Some people want to play particular characters. It's not exactly his fault that the character he wants to play is short in the pants via the rules. Fix the fvcking class, not the player. No system will make all possible players equally awesome, but it can do a whole lot better...

Is your party so close to destruction that you can't afford to have one slack party member? Most DMs I play with try to scale challenges to the party, not the party's CR.

Joshua

[Lago_AM3P]

Some people want to play particular characters. It's not exactly his fault that the character he wants to play is short in the pants via the rules. Fix the fvcking class, not the player. No system will make all possible players equally awesome, but it can do a whole lot better...

Some people will still intentionally choose suboptimal choices (such as wanting to roleplay a goddamn blind archer or a monk that uses a longsword--seen both happen) even in the face of balanced rules.

Furthermore, as a player, there's only so much you can do. While a DM can sneak in extra stuff to make the sucky player do good, if someone on the team isn't pulling their weight and the DM doesn't notice/feel it's a big problem, then you have to resort to using out-of-game solutions.

Is your party so close to destruction that you can't afford to have one slack party member? Most DMs I play with try to scale challenges to the party, not the party's CR.

No, it just pisses me off that people have to hand out an equal share of experience and treasure to people who aren't pulling their weight. It's like putting up with a party rogue who occasionally steals potions that aren't hers.

It's one thing if I'm playing in a suboptimal group and I'm the effective person, but it's another thing if everyone but the little shithead is pulling their weight.

[AlphaNerd]

Some people will still intentionally choose suboptimal choices (such as wanting to roleplay a goddamn blind archer or a monk that uses a longsword--seen both happen) even in the face of balanced rules.

Does your DM believe in natural selection and the survival of the fittest? Sometimes, characters need to be killed.

Edit: grammar

[Imban]

Fvck, I hate PvP violence in most games and I've killed the party rogue before, Lago.

Hiding instead of fighting and refusing to actually disarm the traps on doors is one thing. Stealing treasure that the rest of us could have used after that was just the last straw.

((Of course, that's was a case of the rogue being actively useless. I'm getting the feeling that the character you're whining about is passively useless, instead.))

EDIT: I've seen the "goddamn blind archer" thing before, too. However, it's always been an excuse to take Zen Archery, get yourself Blindsight somehow, and be an uber death archer instead.

[Crissa]

Actually, I have the other side of this argument, Lago:

Are you playing my character, or am I?

Because the team wants someone to heal the Rogue while he does his combo on the baddie doesn't mean that I want to be the one wasting my actions on keeping him alive.

In D&D, a Cleric can either swing a sword at the same effectiveness as a Rogue, or they can cast heals. Should the Rogue be choosing the Cleric's actions, as well as their own?

If the group chooses what a single member does, why is that member there?

-Crissa

[fbmf]

I have no idea where the hell that even came from, Crissa.

No one is suggesting you shouldn't get to decide your characters actions. Lago is saying that characters that (A) min-max so poorly as to not even break even in the party usefulness equation,

It is possible in D&D to reach a point where having you around is actively harmful to the game.

If your character can't meet a minimum level of effectiveness, your character slows the game down, steals treasure, steals experience, and hinders the party by making them protect your broke-ass character.

and (B) refuse to listen to advice on how to make a useful character then you are an asshole for forcing yourself on other people.

So if you refuse to listen to arguments or suggestions about your character choice that allows, in the eyes of other party members, to rise to the level of expected challenges then you are being wrong.

And if the people who are actually pulling their weight in the game get more screentime than you, then shut your goddamn mouth. No one forced you to pick a crappy character; in fact, they're being nice to you by allowing you to suck the at teat of success.

Game On,
fbmf

[Crissa]

Not sure how you thought that actually was against my points, fbmf.

The other side is 'advice which isn't advice', people saying 'you play the cleric, therefore you do blah and blah'.

Sure, I chose to wear chain as the Paladin - maybe I did that 'cause the rest of the members of the party all have Move Silently and I'd like to actually make those checks once in awhile...

Counter arguments aren't always made against other people's exact words; but Lago did say: "Don't give me that 'It fits my character'! Crap" and "So if you refuse to listen to arguments or suggestions about your character choice that allows, in the eyes of other party members, to rise to the level of expected challenges then you are being wrong." (emphasis mine)

Sometimes the other party members are wrong.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

If the other party members want a cleric wasting actions on healing they're wrong.

[RandomCasualty]

Yeah I have to agree with Crissa on this one.

Why do people really care if the group contains some suboptimal characters? They're not stealing the spotlight or anything, they're sitting there being a sidekick to your better characters. If they're happy, why do you care? It sounds awfully selfish to me to screw with a player who is having fun playing the game and for no reason.

This game isn't PCs versus DM where you let down your group because you're not powerful enough. As stated earlier, DMs tend to scale challenges to the party members, not just their CR. So the party bard isn't equivalent to a full character. So you face only 5 trolls instead of 6, who cares? I don't see the big deal here.

[fbmf]

(Apologies for the delay. I've been busy with school. Future replies will likewise probably take some time. Be patient.)

Unless said DM is willing to fudge the CR scale, PCs that cause the party to face a challenge of a lower CR (because they suck so bad that the DM is forced to scale down the challenge) are actively robbing their fellow PCs of XP and thus slowing their advancement.

[Peanut Gallery]But, fbmf, that makes you a point whore who emphasizes mechanics over the guy playing a straight monk having fun![/PG]

I care about the group as a whole having fun more than I care about any one member having fun, and part of the fun is seeing your character advance and become more of a badass.

Being more of a badass is especially a concern if you have to make up for the guy with ten straight levels of monk. Especially if you've offered to help the guy make a better "kung-fu master" by mix/matching classes, and he's refused because he likes the flavor text of the monk class.

Crissa, as much as I might raise my eyebrow about your paladin wearing chain, if you could offer the game mechanical advantage this offered the party, I'd be much less inclined to point and laugh at you.

What Lago was talking about was people who take levels of "Dragon Disciple", which, like levels of Tempest, is never a good idea. I consider it my obligation as a gamer to at least try to talk people out of choices that will cripple their character because, by definition, that screws over the rest of the party, and in my group, the "rest of the party" is played by people I've long considered friends.

Game On,
fbmf

[Crissa]

Well, just plain don't allow classes (like Dragon Disciple) that don't make sense.

Sure, a Bard gone Paladin makes little sense, but the skills that are picked up make a Paladin suddenly playable in the all-rogue campaign. And having waterproof armor without paying for magical is priceless. As is making some Move Silently rolls at all...

But I just wanted to make my whine about parties deciding what I'm doing when I'm at least as competent as they are (if not more, since I'm doing something other than reading a script and expecting it to work).

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

Actually, I agree with Crissa on this one as well. If I want to take 10 levels of fighter, that's what I'm playing. Sure, I know about clerics of war, but if I wanted to be a cleric of war, I would have been a cleric. Sometimes I just want to be a spear-wielding fool instead of a guy looking upward all the time.

Sometimes I like to play sorcerors. There's just times I like to play a character that justs fires and forgets.

I look at it this way: how would everybody feel if all the DM allowed was commoners and healing potions in their campaigns? I'm thinking that everybody around the table would be upset because they didn't have the choice to be what they wanted, and eventually everyone would leave due to the DMs heavy-handedness. And really it boils down to whether your group can handle one less person and whether you really want to still have the player around any longer. If someone kept nagging me about optimum choices for my character all of the time, my knee-jerk response would be to take a level or two of dragon disciple just to piss them off. My honest response would be to ditch the group and find one that played more toward my preferences - hey, life's too short. So the end result is the loss of the player and thus the issue is really player dynamics.

[User3]

If a player wants to play an archtype which isn't well-supported by the books, hopefully he can work something out with the DM so that it does work. If not, the player is stuck with (1) a weak character or (2) a character which isn't the one they wanted to play. Neither option is especially good, and I can't really blame someone for going, 'screw it, I'm playing a Dragon Disciple.'

This is why it is important to never make an archtype intentionally sucky.

That said, if a player is making intentionally weak mechanical choices for flavor text which won't affect game play, it can be obnoxious.

[Imban]

I wish I could put the name to this principle, since I know I've heard it quoted before. Basically, you should pretend the fluff for a class doesn't exist when you go to take it. And look at what it really gives you before you choose to take it.

Seriously, you should take classes and feats that advance your archetype. Not classes and feats that say they're your archetype but are actually steaming piles of crap.

[Tokorona]

Espically as you can rewrite the flavor of the class, if you talk it over wiht your DM.

[Crissa]

1162012868[/unixtime]]Basically, you should pretend the fluff for a class doesn't exist when you go to take it. And look at what it really gives you before you choose to take it.

Seriously, you should take classes and feats that advance your archetype. Not classes and feats that say they're your archetype but are actually steaming piles of crap.

That's a really great way of looking at it, Imban.

I'm always trying to tell people that classes in D&D are abilities and not who you are. You want to be the foresty type? Great! You wanna stab people in the back? Grand! You can do that with Rogue. Wanna turn into a animal and stab people in the back? ...Umm... We'll think of something.

-Crissa

[fbmf]

Wanna turn into a animal and stab people in the back? ...Umm... We'll think of something.

Exactly. You should help the player have a mechanically competent character to go with his character concept.

That's what I've been saying.

Game On,
fbmf

[RandomCasualty]

1161965848[/unixtime]]
Unless said DM is willing to fudge the CR scale, PCs that cause the party to face a challenge of a lower CR (because they suck so bad that the DM is forced to scale down the challenge) are actively robbing their fellow PCs of XP and thus slowing their advancement.

So what? The sooner you level, the quicker the campaign gets to a level where D&D is no longer playable and you're forced to make a new campaign. This isn't a race and there's no prize for getting to level 15 as quickly as you can.

Getting there quickly just means your campaign is shorter and that's it.

[power_word_wedgie]

I guess it breaks down to three catagories here:

1) The person who is forced to play a certain class. Of course, this isn't appropriate and shouldn't be done.

2) The person who would like to play certain class but mechanically the class is too weak. I agree that in this situation that the player should talk with the DM to see how the class can be tweaked to make them both happy.

3) The person who just wants to play the certain class, even though it is "weaker." As I noted before, the reasons could be the simplicity of the option or just wants to play that class. In this situation, if another player highlighted that there may be other classes that are more powerful, at first I'd appreciate the input. If, after I informed them that I still wanted to play the class, they continue to be fixated on my character's "weak" class, then that's when I ditch the group. If they are going to be dwelling on something like that, then it probably best that I left the group before something else comes to the forefront - it's really more of a symptom of bigger party dynamics issues than that. Really, over the long run, my departure in search of a more like-minded group is going to benefit everyone.

And, to follow up with what RC was mentioning, what do you do when another player suffers from permanent level loss? Their lower level is going to "mechanically" impede the group. Do you as a group try to axe the player for the good of the group? Just curious.

edit: And in many ways, it may be much ado about nothing. After all, I don't share my character sheet with other players (except DM), so there's no way that another character can be annoyed anyways. After all, it's done because the group should focus on who the character is in general, not the conglomeration of classes/feat/skills that they may possess.

[Tokorona]

I usually hold (there's bene an example) that taking a suboptimal choice is fine - but taking one that makes you have no use in or out of combat is not. Ever.

So, a 20 FIghter is fine. A clerical archer that never uses magic and takes skills like "Ride" is not. \

edit: Oh, and incidently. THe clerical archer? That was an actual characterin a game. And no, the feats were the optimal choices. And no, they didn't get why I suggested they play a ranger or use magic. Thankfully, it wasn't a game I was in, since the one I was in, the player used a sorc instead.

[Fwib]

what do you do when another player suffers from permanent level loss? Their lower level is going to "mechanically" impede the group. Do you as a group try to axe the player for the good of the group? Just curious.

After a while, level loss fixes itself, even without magical solutions, since lower-level characters get more xp for the same threat. (admittedly, this may take quite a few sessions)

[Imban]

After all, it's done because the group should focus on who the character is in general, not the conglomeration of classes/feat/skills that they may possess.

Having a seriously wrong combination of the latter can make the answer to the former "Someone useless". This makes me want to go digging for a few hilariously bad character builds and post them here.

[shau]

If you have something worse than the light weapon using, dual wielding disarm-based monk I used to play with, that would be pretty interesting.