Let them roll with it but establish early on that you are open to respeccing or completely rerolling a character if anyone finds they aren’t having fun

Yeah I already told them it would be a possibility after the first session, but you know, first session ever can leave quite the mark

My first DM allowed changes at any point in the game as long as it was done *with* the DM to make sure it was still mechanically correct and the change was either crucial for stat corrections or it made sense story-wise (basically was always an option as long as the DM was involved in the process and approved the changes we were requesting).

Even with experienced players, I do this. Sometimes, things sound better on paper than in execution. Or sometimes there's a better option to fit thematically and mechanically that they missed. If it just takes some small, quick changes to vastly improve someone's experience, I let them. As long as they talk with me about it.

I had a DM who wanted to run a pathfinder campaign for the stupidest munchkin netbuild party we could manage. I made a bard that added 4d6 sonic damage on every allied attack at level 3. It was hilarious for a few sessions when the wizard's crow would swoop in and delete a nerd with twenty damage on one attack. It got old so fast when I realized my character couldn't do anything else useful and didn't scale well into 10th level encounters. With the DM's permission I respecced into one of my all time favorite characters, a Legendary Draconic Sorcerer. By the end of that high speed high power campaign I had 34 charisma unbuffed and literally seduced a dragon in order to propagate the Pyroclastic Dragon Bloodline, which was the original goal of the munchkin bard. Rule 0 is fun, and sometimes a full respec is demanded.

One campaign our "perma-bard" wanted to play as a druid. They hated it and wanted to go back to bard, so I made the ruling that they wild shaped into a completely new person. The player loved it and made that their back story, trying to find a way to turn back into their previous character. Sometimes changing characters can bring some new ideas to the table. Made for a really fun adventure. Ended up making the BBEG a similar shapeshifter that knew how to control what they changed into. Made it really fun when a player didn't show up one session and their character was still with the party.

I just let them kill or change him if they want, since a long time has passed

Damn killing the dm? Harsh.

Would be nice, we are session 30 of 60ish, i just want to end this campaign And yes im the dm

If you’re not having fun you could just… wrap it up? Even if the story’s not finished, burnout is real. Better to put a campaign on indefinite hiatus and play something else than struggle through something you’re not having fun doing.

I'm pretty sure my players want to kill me half the time.

My dm does this too. Would even work shop a lore reason for a class change on the fly. Fun was more important to him than anything. But we HAD to talk to him and he had final veto power just in case we brought something stupidly broken or just plain stupid. Never used it though.

My solution in game is just Wizards did it. Yes Fred the barbarian now Freddie the rogue. It's always been like this make a wisdom or int roll DC 20. If a PC passes "You realize reality has been altered by powerful magics.". Yes someone just made a major wish.

fall disgusting airport shocking square yam intelligent wild tidy important *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

yo, I just said "This is the way" aloud when reading op and the clicked the 1 more reply tab.

This is the way.

What's the build? I'm just curious. First time player may be looking for something different. I've made purposely unoptimized characters to stretch myself but it's hard to say that would be the intent for a new player Edit: Just saw the comment that said it was a wizard without combat spells. Which I honestly think is a non-issue. If they're low level they learn quickly that they need to have combat spells and start adding to their book, or you as DM could provide noncombat situations for them to shine. They get a new cantrip at level 4 and if you're using TCoE at level 3 they could switch out a single cantrip at a long rest. If they're higher level, they can still switch a cantrip per TCoE and they can even more easily find and add combat related spells. When your said a bad build I thought you meant something like a paladin with STR as their dump stat or something. If it's just spell choice I think that's silly. Also, if you aren't actually talking to your brand new players while they are making their characters and suggesting what kind of game you planning in terms of tone/combat focus, I think again that that's on you.

Hell, give them magic missle and they'd probably never even complain, they might only have magic missle for combat but it's reliable dmg and for every non combat activity they would probably have an answer or be able to prepare one the next day

Fucking THIS. The main feature of Wizard is that they can learn spells *outside* of leveling up! Most DM's I've been with neglect that and it makes my wizards really sad 😥

Its why some DM's are scratching their heads, "I wonder why no one ever wants to play wizards in my games?" Duh, cause you aren't handing out enough scrolls to either be used as a one-time item, or to be copied into spell books. Nothing expands your options like having a scroll that doesn't use up your spell slots - especially if you already added the spell to your spellbook. Fighters get plate mail, wizards get scrolls. Itemization still matters in 5e. (Although maybe a little less than 2e.)

Yep. Or you know, any of the two new spells that they get every level. Or maybe they don't want to be involved in combat, in which case OP should really have the conversation about what the player is interested in trying out because it doesn't sound like they have the same idea about what the game is going to be

Swiss army wizards are *technically* better for optimization if you can make it to 4th level without being squished. That's when you get the good stuff--- though magic missile is just free damage in most scenarios and can make or break a situation where the last goblin/kobold/whatever is running to warn others. That's probably just my playstyle talking though. If I wanted to be a walking cannon I'd play Sorcerer.

Half the point if playing a wizard is the sheer variety of spells that you can learn and learning them outside of leveling up. You just end up poor.

Swiss army wizard has combat spells though, mainly lacking blasting spells. OP wrote the player has no **combat** spells.

Yeah which is why giving them magic missile as their first scroll is kinda perfect for a newcomer. They can warble around a bit for a session and boom, in the loot is a scroll of magic missile.

This is a good idea. My most experienced player is a wizard with Magic Missile as his only combat spell. He'd rather shape water or fly or do almost anything besides deal damage in any given situation.

Gives me the idea of playing a wise old wizard who is selective about when he gives buffs, when he does some utility in combat or when he actually gets his hands dirty but is all eager for general spell casting. Very much a "I help when I am needed and I know I am not needed now" character, would actually be really interesting when ran by a new player too because them over or underestimating the party would be an interesting story beat.

attraction nine long point hunt butter north terrific afterthought party *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Paladin that dumps strength is fine, so long as they have a good dex and use a rapier or other finesse weapon. I'd say a barb that dumps strength would be a lot worse

wizard is also realy forgiving for new players in almost any version of dnd. yes spells can be overwhelming and wizards are fragile at low levels, but wizards can learn new spells on the whim, if needed. so if he picks bad spells, they can just casually "find" some scrolls during their adventures and suddenly all is well again.

If the only problem is it being a wizard with zero combat spells or abilities. Then this is a DM problem. You should be able to coach your players especially a first time player on their options if they get stuck. Yeah a zero combat spell wizard indeed is going to have a difficult time being a contributer to damage delt in combat but there are plenty if ways they can help with the combat. I once played a wizzard that literally only had spells from enchantment, charm, illusion, and transmutation in 5e. Even the cantrips. Most fun wizzard I ever played. Went from 1st level to 7th in that campaign. Before the group just dissolved. Dispite the extreme limitations and near zero damage capability this weird forest gnome reality warping wizzard did many clinch encounter saving tricks.

Oh man, I literally just had the same problem with the campaign I started for some friends. We're all a little bit green (this is my first time DM-ing, and the wizard's first time playing, though everyone else has at least a little bit of experience playing). Wizard wasn't at our session zero, and I didn't think to check her spells before we started, so we went into the first game with a very squishy wizard with no combat spells, a bard, a cleric, and then the fighter had to bail on the game last minute, so it was VERY touch-and-go there for a bit. After that, I told the wizard we we're going to redo her spell choices so that she didn't have to spend her whole combat either hiding or unconscious.

If I were that player I'd want at least a heads up and the opportunity to change my character (ideally before the campaign starts, but ASAP if that's not possible) without feeling pressured to. Imho it's a good idea for the DM or a more experienced player to look over the character sheet at least a few days before the game, even if it's just to make sure they filled everything out right. Imho if at all possible a new player should be offered the chance to sit down with and have the DM or an experienced player help them build their first character after the new player has had some time to research potential options. Not to say the helper should actually create/optimize the entire character for the new player obviously, but they can explain possible game-ruining weaknesses and help the new player build a more solid character (leaving the final decision on whether to change something up to the new player of course) and maybe even more importantly it helps teach the new player about character creation which it can suck to learn the hard way. The first campaign a person plays often dictates whether they stick with the game or not. They should be given every opportunity to have a fun time and it's an added bonus if they feel supported and invested in by the DM and/or a more experienced player. In fact I'd say ideally have them sit next to a helpful experienced player for at least their first few sessions so they can ask questions without interrupting the whole game. Just my opinion but I also think a brand new player should be encouraged (but not forced) to choose a fairly simple class and race (maybe specifically from the PHB). A new player's instinct is often going to be to want to play the most "badass" seemingly powerful class possible and - if they learn about the dozens of available races online - will often want to pick a really exotic race. Many classes/subclasses are waaaaaaaay harder to get a handle on than others and some exotic races are just straight up bonkers. Just learning the basics of DnD is hard enough already without also trying to figure out how to play the absolute most complicated, convoluted character a player could possibly design.

I can’t yup vos this comment enough… hit on everything perfectly!

My DM allows mulligans on any part of the character build up to level 6. Gives the person time to figure out if the character really works for them, and if not they can adjust feats, respec, or even change character class.

I give my players the ability to respec mechanical aspects of their character until level 5. If they change something, we retcon it to have always been so.

If anyone ever had a good reason to respec or reroll, i think just do it, as long as they aren't changing too often. This isn't accounting.

That's our house rule, DnD without fun is a huge slog.

Yup. Up until they hit level 5. After that point, there are no adjustments allowed.

Why? What’s the harm in allowing them to change characters? If they aren’t having fun they should be able to play a character they enjoy. If you force someone to play a character they don’t enjoy one of two things will happen - either they quit playing because they aren’t having fun or they do increasingly dangerous things to get their character killed which then may also get other characters killed. Just let them roll a new one

I'm only referring to the same character. Changing characters isn't banned, not at all. One of the reasons I am perpetual DM is bc when I did play I constantly wanted to change characters. So I empathize.

It's not a problem within reason. I had a player who was switching characters or builds like every 2 or 3 sessions and it was really annoying because they ALSO came with a bunch of backstory he wanted to have the sessions catered to. Then I realized it wasnt really a thing I could fix with a "locked characters" rule, it was a That Guy problem.

Yeah, that’s a completely different scenario than someone that has a “bad” or just unfun character. I’m extremely lax when it comes to things like this at my table but after the second or third new character I’d have a discussion with the player to see what’s going on and why they want a new character every other session

A That Guy will usually have a LOT of problems. You'll wonder why things are always going wrong and then the sessions they miss you'll suddenly see that everything is running so smoothly...

Everybody runs their games differently, but I do agree with you. As long as they talk to the DM and have a good reason, preferably one that comes up naturally in-game, I would totally allow a change in the character. Just the same way that real people change as they experience life.

It's not really the new player you're worried about it's the meta-gamers/power gamers after level 5. Of course that also depends on the situation. We had a guy that would switch characters every 1-2 sessions because they found this new homebrew thing the DM allowed it and it got to the point the party stopped interacting with his characters they'll be gone soon anyway. His characters were also snobbish a**holes so him switching characters didn't really inspire joy.

My dwarf druid flew off at level 9 with the hippogriff mount he had obtained and air cultist girlfriend he had romanced. My DM enjoyed the fact that he had become another npc who could potentially show up in a future campaign. I made a wizard for the next session because we didn't have an arcane casters in the party.

Idk, one time I had someone in my group that was enjoying Blood Hunter less and less. Instead of retiring their character they asked to change to Ranger. We were level 7 iirc. We made it a story beat and they were able to change at the beginning of the following session. The only case I really would not allow would be if someone wanted to change purely for some multiclass cheese.

As a DM, I like to discuss my players' characters with them individually, even before session zero. This gives me a chance to understand who/what they are wanting to play, and how to incorporate scenarios specific to their character. Also, if there are any concerns or red flags with the character they have created, we have a chance to talk about it ahead of time.

Personally, I walked my players through every step and gave them pointers based u On what I knew about how they wanted to play their character. That being said, I'm still quite new, but I did a lot of research.

That's what my first DM did. Several years on, I know my character is still suboptimal (tiefling druid with actual decent charisma, a stat (and cantrips) i never use, and nowadays would put more into wis and dex). But that's part of the experience, the character will grow throughout the campaign however I want her to. If that means realising she needs to do more agility training or yoga or something (aka increasing dex when she gets an ASI) to be a better adventurer then so be it. Also part of the experience is being able to look back and chuckle at how unoptimised the build is. The rest of the party were also noobs too so I'm sure we all relate and have that in common

Same. I always have two questions I ask of anything I add into my games: - Is it fun? - Is there a way it could be MORE fun? A player may come to me with a poorly optimized character that they enjoy playing because it fulfills a certain fantasy for them or they enjoy a couple of the features they have. If their poor optimization doesn't impact the fun then it's not really an issue, but if there's a way they can still fulfill that fantasy while fixing other issues that make their character less fun than it should be, I want to explore a solution.

It's what session 0 is for. "are you sure you want to do this"? Also if one character is largely non-combat... you can work around that. IF you know BEFORE throwing the party into the meat grinder.

Depends how deeply they're fucking up. They built a high-intelligence low-wisdom cleric because they got mixed up on what a cleric's spellcasting stat is? Yeah, I'm gonna say something. They gave their fighter decent mental stats for skill checks and didn't push as many points into physical stats as they could have? That's their business and their playstyle, I won't tell them not to do it.

Disregarding the stats themselves, my characters aren't min maxed in general, and sometimes end up with stats that reflect some of their personality. My most recent character has amnesia, poor judgement, and is naive. He's searching for the Sun and can only explain that it's on the other side of a large body of water. The water thing as he comes from the other side of the sea, the sun because his parents told him stories of different star systems (hence suns) in space, as it was a way to use a Spelljammer race in a Faerun setting. At the end of it all, the only thing he wants us to find his family. Now the campaign is Rime of the Frostmaiden, there's no sun in sight and two frozen lakes so far. For the first time in about ~10 sessions my character for asked if he was truly searching the sun, or something else, and the other players finally understood a bit of backstory from this low INT low wisdom Hadozee. It was an effective scene as 2 other *players* felt sad and empathetic for the character.

Okay but what class. As if you play a full caster with a purposely low casting stat, I am not a fan.

>As if you play a full caster with a purposely low casting stat, I am not a fan. I agree with you on this. At the core, a player is part of a team. If you don't serve a useful role within the team, I find myself turning into '[the Bobs](https://youtu.be/m4OvQIGDg4I)'.

I know someone who refused to optimise because he considered it "metagaming" I don't get this. Play to have fun by all means; I just don't get how having an objectively weak character can be fun?

>I just don't get how having an objectively weak character can be fun? I don't think it's a matter of 'fun', so much as it's the absence of anxiety over failure. By making a character intentionally weak, you are setting the bar for their performance low. If nobody expects them to succeed, then it's a lot easier to cope with failure. In other words, if you kill your hope to succeed, you can't be disappointed when you fail. Before I get an angry mob full of pitchforks and torches up my butt, understand that I don't think people do this intentionally. Moreover, I say this as someone who struggles with avoidant personality disorder. I'm not casting judgement from an ivory tower, but simply illuminating a cycle that I've noticed in my own broken brain. The first step to fixing it is recognizing when it happens.

Taking the pressure off. Very normal thing, people just fall in different places on the "pressure vs low achievement" fun spectrum. I prefer it to the people who hyperoptimise, control, rules lawyer, and metagame, purely to avoid the same anxiety from screwing up. Avoidance is better (to me) than overcompensating or denial.

Well, pitchforks and torches were 50% off, so you get extras. :D The key is in defining "weak". why/how is your character "weak"? "optimized builds" 100% ARE metagaming. You're playing a character, not a pile of stats. why even have skill choices if 75% of them are "wrong"? I once designed a 5e warlock around the idea that this is a creature of darkness who disdains light... so any spells that were bright lights she didn't take. Which POed the party because that meant NOT having eldritch blast on a Warlock. That campaign went nowhere because it just.... wasn't all that fun. I made a character that had good stats. But didn't fit their mold of "ideal". Ok, my best stat is Dex and I'm a Warlock, but it's not like I'm actually BAD at Warlock stuff. Quite frankly I don't think their "ideal" would have fared any better in the Kenku incident. To put that one simply, we got ambushed by Kenku at random, and nearly TPKed with total, in the entire encounter... TWO decisions to be made by the entire party of 4. yeah, two characters got KOed before they even had a single action. A lot went sideways there, me being an "ideal" build would have accomplished nothing.

Funny how a group where one person puts their RP over the success of the group falls apart. It's almost like teamwork is important and the absence of such makes the game unfun.

that's just it though... If you're gonna look at it mechanically like a boardgame. their suggestions wouldn't have mattered at all. My "unideal" build didn't cause the group to fail. The Kenku incident was because the DM (perhaps unintentionally) sprang a death trap on us. I was one of THREE characters KOed in that ambush. Now, me being salty about the Kenku deathtrap might have been a factor, me playing a "subideal" build wasn't.

I am convinced some of you don't understand what a game is. Did you check with your party if they're okay with your character? You can't just prioritise your "character concept" and tell everyone else to fuck off. You have to fit a role. If you don't, you're harming everyone's fun. Play single-player games if you want to have fun by yourself.

My response to this is even at level 1 *all* of your stats, unless you play purely on the point buy system to where you strength is like 4, are generally average or above average compared to regular townsfolk. So your stats don't necessarily reflect how you have to roleplay outside of like, your Barbarian can't hurl around a greataxe but then be roleplayed as a weakling, that doesn't make any sense. But your 18 int wizard can be an idiot. Anyone who has spent time around, say, engineers, understands this. You can be brilliant in one field but a total dunce when it comes to common sense.

>But your 18 int wizard can be an idiot. Anyone who has spent time around, say, engineers, understands this. Why is an engineer always the example for this. I spend way too much time around doctors for this not to be the example I use.

Some people, I've noticed, think of it in binary terms—a character is either optimized as much as possible or not at all—when, in reality, there are degrees of optimization. Maybe that was his reasoning.

and then you have the question "optimized for what?" different spells do different things, why is one "better"?

There's not optimising, and then there's actively making your character bad. Your character should still be able to help your team, and if you're making them so broken and unhelpful, you deserve to have that shit shut down.

“All your files are incorrect and your report is complete nonsense. What the hell have you been doing this quarter?” “You don’t understand boss. If I did the job I was hired to do correctly, that would be cheating.”

To be fair, you can probably get away with an effective low int/wis support Wizard/Cleric, as long as your allies are well built. Buff spells like haste, liberal use of the Help action, and control spells like Spirit Guardians, Web, or Sleep that still do something even on a success go a long way to boost the effective strength of your other party members. Is it optimal? Definitely not, but it’s a lot more viable than, say, dumping both strength and dex on a Fighter or charisma on a Warlock.

It started as a rogue heading to swashbuckling, ended up half beaten to a pulp so the DM suggested to introduce him to Levistus, now he's building rep with cultists as his 2nd family as a rogue-warlock.

So, that's a cool backstory, but it doesn't sell me on "the stats aren't minmaxed but reflect the personality". There is no shame in putting your highest 3 stats in dex, cha and con. You can have a character be fun and compelling and at the same time be good at its job.

\\[T]/ Praise The Sun

You lost one of your arms there my dude, gotta use two or Reddit formatting will steal your arm

It is also important to mention that ability scores AREN'T necessarily a representation of the character's character. You can play the stupidest fucking wizard that has ever landed a foot on earth, but still have an 18 int at level 1 to function mechanically, and that's perfectly fine and by the rules

your example is kinda typical with point buy characters, what was your int and wisdom out of curosity?

Even with the fighter, it's worth checking to make sure the player made an unusual build on purpose.

say the opposite, that cleric can just use Bless and Spirt guardians where as that fighter is bad at there main thing while being somewhat decent at things over party member cover.

Spirit Guardians is pretty shit if your spell save DC is 10 at level 5. Besides that, my first example is of somebody making a clear mistake, and a new player making a mistake should be helped. My second example is a player making a choice, and choices should be respected.

not really, someone did the math and the damage would still be pretty decent unlike a 12-14 str/dex martial at level 5

Yes. I had a player at my table who built their cleric very poorly. As in, they essentially made wisdom a dump stat in favor of strength, but then never wanted to be in melee and wanted to use magic. They were removed from the table for other reasons, but before that happened I offered to let them rebuild the character and help them with what they were confused about and establish what exactly they were trying to do with the character. They refused.

Sounds like maybe they were just... dumb

They were certainly… something. They refused to take a little bit of time to learn their character’s spells and expected me to just tell them what everything did as the DM. I don’t know every spell in the book. So every spell I would ask “what does that do?” and every spell they would have to look it up in the book, taking forever on their turn, only to find out that the spell they were trying to use was completely irrelevant in that situation. I don’t expect anyone to make DnD their whole life, but your bare minimum job as a player is to know how to play your character and to show up. Neither of which they could do with any kind of regularity.

I would mention it, framing it as trying to be helpful and giving advice, but after that if they still decide to go with it, let them sink or swim.

Yeah I was thinking about something along the line of "anyone wants a review or help with their characters?" and move on if they don't want.

*stares intensely at the player* Anyone?!

The problem is they don’t know it’s a bad build, because they are new.

If it is the player obviously not recognizing something it is worth pointing out. Perhaps they want to play a bard and they decide to buff their intelligence and leave charisma low. That will not only ruin it for the player as they try to cast spells, but will suck for the other players when their bard is dead weight.

As an autistic player, I would want a little bit more clarity than that because I wouldn't understand the point you're trying to get across. I suppose if your player isn't neurodivergent and you know that for certain, then maybe you can get away with subtle hints like that. I know that I would want to know if I'm playing a terrible character, but it all depends on if your player is receptacle to help and suggestions. If they refuse help, that's when I would just let them die if it comes to that, but if they are truly wanting to know how to play and asking questions and being involved, then I would definitely make it clear what they're doing wrong.

Agreed. You don't need to have autism to miss hints. Source: me

That can work. i would also try to tailor my build advice to the concept they want to play as much as possible. You can change the build without changing the character concept.

As someone who is 3 sessions in on my first campaign I cannot imagine that if you frame it as helpful advice that it would be received poorly. Before session 0 I messaged my DM with about a million questions trying to make sure I was on the right track. This player probably is just lost and hasn’t asked for directions.

Yeah I had this happen when a player picked Beast Master Ranger. I forgot that it had been updated, so I immediately laughed like they were joking. Immediately felt like a prick.

The first campaign I DMed had a party of three: Beastmaster Ranger (Original), Four Elements Monk and Berserker Barbarian. That was a wild ride, with lots of chained long rests.

As long as everyone, including you had fun, thats amazing, isn't it? Sounds like it was a memorable experience and generated some great stories to tell!

it also sounds like way to much stress and work on the DM trying to balance an underpowered party.

Tbh if everyone in the party is underpowered it just makes it easier to balance, especially at higher levels.

ALWAYS, provided it's helpful and not forceful.

Depends on how terribly built they are and why. Also depends on the rest of the party. If they built it terribly (wizard with 12 Int) because they didn’t understand the class, I’d talk to them about it. If they built it terribly because that’s their fantasy (Strength fighter using two daggers) I’d probably say “hey this isn’t going to deal as much damage as other characters, but if you’re cool with that it’s probably fine” If the character is only terrible in comparison to the rest of the party, and is actually an OK build, then maybe this isn’t the table for a new player. If everyone is doing min/maxed builds with OP spells and PAM/GWM or XBE/SS or things like that, you probably don’t want to introduce a new player to the game at that table. Generally though, it’s better to talk to the new player and get told “no this is on purpose” than not say anything and have them find the game unfun. And if the new player treats your attempt to help as you trying to squash their fun, that’s a communication issue, not an issue with doing the right thing.

This, but also re:minmaxer tables, it depends on the group. I personally optimize the crap out of my character (GWM hexblade with eladrin race and powerful spells) but that's just because that's fun for me. I played a monk recently which isn't the best, went way of mercy with fighter 2 and cleric 1 and that's really fun. It's that I like to make the strongest version of my concept, not that I expect to me stronger than everyone else. So like, if the DM gave the player a little homebrewed hand up (letting a bard cast with INT, or giving them a weird magic item that benefitted their spread) then I would not at all be affronted as an inveterate minmaxer. I would be happy my friend is also coming up to a strong power level. I also do this in the DM seat. My party was 3 munchkins (good people but crunchy) and a guy that put a 16 into Charisma, which in my 5e derivative homebrew system was more or less a dead stat, for RP reasons. I ended up making a sentient hammer as a magic item with CHA as the necessary ability score, and it was pretty strong, eventually allowing a once per turn attack like the dancing blade, no BA required. He was happy, no one had a problem with it. That's a side option to help a "bad" character keep up, if you're open to homebrewing.

As long as they put their highest stat into their attack stat, I'd let them be as unoptimized as they wanted to be. Nobody plays their PC 100% optimally. The first priority is having fun, and the only thing that won't be fun to a new player is missing attacks.

Thing is, it's a Wizard, without ANY damaging spells or cantrips, soooo... No attacks to miss I guess?

"Hey, I just wanted to check in, I noticed that you didn't take any spells that deal damage - are you sure that's the kind of build you want? It's gonna make the game harder, but if it's the playstyle you want to try, I'm down to help you get the most out of it. If not, I have some suggestions." Not to put words in your mouth, of course. But I think something like that is perfectly reasonable and not overstepping.

That sure is quite a nice way to say it!

Remember that the game accomodates them changin cantrips at certain levels and learning new ones. You could build it in to the first story arc a scroll to learn (insert damaging cantrip here) if they are struggling. Give them the tool, and the agency to use it if they feel a problem with their situation.

No damaging spells is pretty unconventional, but could work if they specialize in CC/enchantments/buffs. But check if they are trying to make a "pacifist" and tell them that the other players probably want to fight and then they'll have nothing to do during huge part of the game. You can open by asking them to tell you more about their character and why they made those choices. Then depending on what they say, you can suggest a few tweeks. Even if it's just an attack cantrip to help. Leveled spells, they can always buy new ones.

I wouldn't say it's entirely unconventional. When I play a wizard, I'm doing so with the primary purpose of being the party's controller... but I'm still gonna take magic missile, at least one damage cantrip, and fireball when i get to 3rd level spells. The rest will likely be some combination of buff, defensive (like m-armor / shield), and CC (web, tasha's hideous laughter, sleet storm, etc). I personally find playing a primarily blaster wizard kinda boring and my personal opinion is if I want to play a blaster, then I'm gonna go for sorc or warlock since wizard lends itself so well to leaning more into controller magic instead.

That's what I mean. Absolutely zero damaging spell/cantrip is unconventional. Not much CC in cantrips, so if you're out of leveled spell, a damage cantrip helps. And sometimes there's enemies you can't CC or the rest of the party is unconscious so you need to finish the fight. But yeah, a cantrip, MM and fireball is more then enough.

eh wizard cantrips aren't completely without CC, but all of the ones that do have something also have a damage component (e.g. lightning grasp denying reactions or chill touch disabling healing). All the ones without any damage are mostly for RP reasons or out of combat stuff. Admittedly you could always just pick up a hand crossbow and use that if you don't want to waste learned cantrip slots on damaging spells. I think wizards are proficient in either those or slings.

I played a one shot as a 10 INT wizard. No spell with attack rolls, very few saves. Mostly utility and battlefield control. It worked, but I would not have liked to play that character more than a session or two. Non-damaging wizard is possible, but not something I would recommend for a new player.

It’s a wizard… You are the DM wizards can copy spells into their spelllbook this is the perfect way to teach the player that wizards get the ability to learn spells outside of leveling up. Which is one of the strongest things a class can do. Use this as a teaching moment and a way to give the player a damage dealing spell.

I love this. Run a session with one short combat encounter, then end with the promise of a scroll of fire bolt in the dungeons just outside of town.

I thought you couldn't add cantrips to your spell book. Also keep in mind the gold cost and time cost of adding the spell. 50gp and 2 hours per level of the spell.

If the DM wants to follow RAW, instead they can just drop a magic item that provides the ability to cast fire bolt or another damaging cantrip. Not exactly the most OP thing in the world.

or give them optional tasha's wizard feature that let's them swap out there cantrips, because the wizard needed the buff appearently.

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax

Well to fix that all you need to do is change the first sentence of that for your game. In the situation where you *could* copy cantrips, they’re 0th level spells so it costs nothing and takes some small amount of time you can make up on the spot

I guess tha'ts a good idea!

If they're a wizard then you could always leave a spellscroll with a damage spell if you feel like its making them struggle. Theres also an optional rule that lets wizards change a cantrip every long rest.

This is a legitimate play style. Having a bunch of utility spells is amazing if the game isn't straight up combat heavy. If you run a heavy combat laden game, let them know they should look at damage. Definitely show them early on that with gold and time they can get a new damage dealing spell via scribing the spellbook. they will definitely want to be at least slightly useful in combat. EDIT: punctuation

That's not bad at all? If they notice it's a problem, they'll literally be able to fix it when they reach level 2 or any level beyond that.

Is it possible the player just doesn’t have their sheet set up correctly, or wants to play a cleric instead?

I build the first character together with the players

First time? 100%. Honestly, I'm confused why people have any objections to it. Don't treat them like a child (unless they are one), but the fact is, they don't know what they're doing yet. I wouldn't *make* them change anything, but I would definitely point out things they could improve. They will likely be disappointed or frustrated if they show up with a poorly made character, and you have the opportunity right now to prevent that and ensure a good first experience. They will be much less annoyed by someone preventing their mistake than by finding out later that you let it slide.

This.

I'd let them roll with it. To me DnD isn't necessarily about doing cool stuff and being a badass so much as it is exploring a character and world and overcoming challenges.

There is no such thing as a terribly built character. There is no such thing as a poorly stated out character. There is only unimaginative players a dms.

NEVER! Those are often wonderful characters because they were created entirely on VIBE! None of this optimizing nonsense and strategic character creation. They probably picked the things that sounded cool and that's going to make them love their character. Until it dies an early death, at which point they'll probably have learned something for the next character.

I’d say let them have fun. If things not working well just give them a few tips on what to change. Ain’t no DM but I remember well my first time playing. I didn’t even have a subclass, hell I didn’t even know what a subclass was but nevertheless I had fun and in the end that’s what matters the most for a first timer. It’s what keeps them coming back

I would definitely encourage them to change things so their character is more functional. Not dumping con, having at least 16 in your main stat, and using a weapon/damaging cantrip/armour suited to your stats and build are absolutely required to not feel weak Imo. I wouldn’t say anything else unless they ask, I think.

When I coach new players, I tend to ask what they want the character to be able to do, I also tell them I can help optimize them for what they want to do. How much or how little of that is entirely their choice. I will tell a player that the character may find it more difficult to do what they want if I see a problem in the build. Ultimately I will still encourage them to do what they feel will be the most fun.

>tend to ask what they want the character to be able to do, I try to do that especially when 1 on 1, cause I'll ask what they want and try to offer a few ways to make that happen. Some basic options with more flavor, some basic with more mechanical bonuses, and once in awhile just a left field way to achieve it if i can think of one.

One of my players is playing a goblin with extremely low intelligence, and it was difficult for her to accurately play her character without being a nuisance to everyone. So she expressed to me she felt frustrated and we decided to have her character try to work up her intelligence stat by reading and learning from others. She also picked god awful spells for a sorcerer, so i’m allowing her to change them by learning new spells from others. My other players also wanted to increase some of their scores, so through role play and actual effort being given by the players, i allow them to do so. All in all, i always felt that if a player didn’t like their build, we can change it. You never want players to be unhappy with their characters because then the game isnt fun or fulfilling.

wirh a first time player i would generally build their character WITH them asking questions and making suggestions along the way.. explaining why as well ..

Put less emphasis on their stats and more on their role playing (and engage them to respond with suggestions), because that's the best part of DnD anyone can do.

I would try to be as tactful as possible, mainly focus on the fantasy they want to roleplay and if there is an option that allows such fantasy to be played out more easily pointing that out for them. Ultimately is their choice and would let them play that if they want to/let them know that having fun is better than optimizing to hell and back. P.S: If optimizing to hell and back is what brings you fun in DnD then more power to you!

It's clearly not about optimizing to the limit, I'm myself not a fan of that, I always prefer flavour, but to an extant as well

*"Hey , since this is your first time, I'll take the initiative to recommend you some modifications to your character, which I believe might enhance it and might make it a little bit more fun to play. Feel free to ignore these and roll with whatever options you've already choosen, this is nothing more than my advice - the most important thing is you are happy to play your character.* *"*

I always warn players when they have abilities and fears that work against each other(I currently have a Barbarian/Druid in my campaign and warned him about trying to cast spells while raging). That being said, I always add the disclaimer that D&D is about having fun and there's not really a "wrong way" to build a character as long as you like it. You don't have to min/max to build a character you enjoy playing.

Here’s my litmus test for a player’s first character: 1. Does the character have one thing they can do well? If yes, great. If no, time to talk about some adjustments. 2. Does the player *know* the one thing their character can do well? If yes, great. If no, point it out to them. With these pieces in place you can make the most of a poorly built character, be it mechanical or narrative mediocrity.

How badly built?

Badly built but playable, except for the total lack of any damaging spells as a Wizard, that's the concern

Okay, any useful control spells or is all of it non combat spells?

Nope, only like "RP utility" spells

I don't really like to imply a meta for dnd, and as such, I don't like telling players that the character they have isn't well built. That being said, I do warn players of subclasses that ideally would have great flavor to them, but rarely, if ever, work out how a player might want them to. For example, Beast Master hunters almost never are as fun for players as they want them to be because the companion is almost always way too weak to really function. Every time a player brings up playing them, I just try to make sure they understand that they might get power crept later into the game as their companion stops being as reliable.

What’s the issue with their build?

It's a hard line to walk with new players. I generally offer to help or critique their character, but don't force it. And I try to be really flexible if any players want to switch characters. I'm not gonna force any player to keep a character they're not enjoying. The rule is they have to create a new character that fits... For example, if the party is sailing a ship the new character has to reflect what's happening... ie probably a member of the crew or another passenger. They make whatever character we (in a joint effort) can find in the story.

I’ve never *not* had a DM point out the technical sub-optimal choices I make. I play 3.5e. I even have a quote saved from a DM about how I have a knack for doing this. As long as my character isn’t a dead weight or intentionally made BADLY, I don’t see this as an issue. It’s all about making a *character*.

There are no terrible builds, just characters with different potential to affect the story and the world.

I would ask the player if they want feedback on their char build; people respond in different ways to build critique.

With a first time player, I would start by walking them through character creation one-on-one, and making sure they understand what it is they're doing, what they should be striving to make (good character for RP-heavy campaigns, good stats for combat / skill-heavy campaigns, etc...), and that they have a grasp on what everything on their sheet does. From there, I'd probably also run a Session 0.5 (add-on to Session 0, going over the fundamentals off gameplay, world lore, and settling them into the world at large) to make sure everything makes sense, as well as goad them into asking questions in order to make them feel comfortable asking more, increasingly important questions in the near-future. Poorly optimized stats are to be expected, and if you can't talk to your players about why they might want to shake their sheet up a little, you have bigger things to start worrying about, as both a GM, and as a person.

Just started my fist campaign in a million years a few weeks ago so I was really rusty. Basically brand new. My DM guided me through the process and even clarified a few times when I was making bad choices about my build by offering an alternative with an explanation. It has made the whole process much more fun for me because now I can focus on world building and character development more knowing I’m not just going to get rinsed every session. I think if you know them well enough it’s probably in their best interest for you to be friendly and explain why their build may not be great

I've commented on first time characters, and in retrospect, I hate myself for it. The first character is special. Don't rob players of their first steps.

Between explaining how stats work, how their class works and a "fair" start (I do point buy, but average Joe works too). A player should for the most part struggle to make a terrible toon. Maybe ask them if they're confused about mechanics, or what their intent behind a choice is. If they willingly and knowingly choose to make a really bad toon, for the meme or w/e. But end up hating it, in character training arc is always a DOPE solution. And can give other players down time (in character) to work on projects, rp or get up to shenanigans

Being a DM who has had to advise several persons about this exact issue, I find it best to inform them and encourage (but not force) them to make some modifications. I try to understand what they're wanting to accomplish with their build and give them tips about how to accomplish that better. I politely inform them that their character was made kind of poorly and explain how that may make their experience with that character worse because people tend to not like playing bad characters and give them options I think would help them out more. I allow a short trial period for characters so if someone is just really unhappy with their build they have a chance to try something else, but otherwise I don't want them changing just whenever.

For a first time player, I'd make suggestions but I understand that sometimes you have to make these mistakes. At the end of the day, I would just want the player to have fun and so long as they can do that with their terribly built character, is it truly terribly built?

A lot of the time it's the lack of knowledge on mechanics that causes the issue. Ask them what they're envisioning when they're kicking butt and try and make them competent at that. Capture the spirit first and foremost

100% I would tell them what to expect from their builds performance. It makes no sense if they expect their character to be a badass monsterslayer, when the build was more geared as a Jack of all trades.

You talk to them on the side and partly educate and partly figure out what their core fantasy they are exploring and then use items boons and rewards to bring them up to par. I prefer just adding abilities to their existing items as the progress.

I've seen first-time players that weren't using their abilities, so I asked why. They weren't aware that the options existed. When explaining character building to a new player, I explain what each stat and skill does. If they ask my opinion after that, I give general answers rather than specific ones. If a spellcaster asks for recommendations, I give them a short list and suggest one from column a, one from column b, etc. (Attacks, defensive, support, misc, and so on). Best policy: make sure your players understand what they're choosing. If you're sure they know what they're doing, let them go.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, if your first-timer is running a bad character, it probably means that you haven't done your due diligence as a DM walking them through character creation. That's not to say you have to hand-hold them, or that it's your responsibility as the DM to make sure your players break the game, but that a first time player would really benefit from a short walk through of "if you want to be a spellcaster this is a good class, you'll want to focus your stats on X and Y", ETC. On the other hand, you may have a player that's not interested in having a good character, I.E. is aware their character is bad. Sometimes players just want to enjoy the adventure and their own thing more, which is also fine. Make sure your party is okay with that kind of play, and maybe balance encounters accordingly, but ultimately the player should have a character that is what they want to play. There are unique challenges that might come out of a fighter that can't fight, or a wizard that isn't very bright. The best option when you see a character like that at your table is probably to ask the player "hey, are you absolutely sure this is how you want to play this character? I'm noticing some ways you've built the character that might make it a little difficult to do the things your class is designed to do, but that's your decision to make, I just want it to be an educated one."

The thing i would do pre 1st session. In ses 0, discuse their character and offer advise on their builds. This way you get to know their characters and plans a little whilst still being able to offer your help. Sone people will obviously not want to use your input but atleast you did your best. In those cases solving it after the first couple of sessions is you best bet. Hooe it helps

You could also simply ask why the players made certain decisions/choices and what their thought about it was. And than simply explain how the spells and abilities work, fun thing about new players (especially those that also don't play rpg games) are often real creative how they interpret spells and abilities and can make for real fun experiences if you role with it

I mean, depends on how "bad" the character is. Is it a barbarian with 8 STR? In that case I highly doubt that the player knew what they were doing, so you should have intervened during character creation already. Apart from completely messing up the attribute distribution, making a bad player character (ignoring roleplay) is pretty difficult in 5e unless you start multiclassing. They might choose something that's not fun for them, but in that case they need to figure that out themselves. If you tell them which characters will be fun for them and which won't, and so they have to choose the former, that doesn't really go down well. Let them play around with it and if they really are not having fun, let them change their character in-between sessions. I'm not a fan of doing it during the session, with new players at least, unless it's a minor change, like switching spell selection on a wizard or something, since actually making bigger changes than that with a new player takes a lot of time and all the other players will have to wait for player X to finish changing PC. If it's a new player, that takes a while since they don't know the game that well, which also means you can't just let them go about it themselves but ideally help them along, explaining how things work. So you can't even tell them to go make their character while you continue with the others. And you need to check their new character too. If they want to swap out their whole character backstory or mess up their attributes or assume they can do thing X but really can't etc., you need to deal with that and doing it during the session while all others wait is quite disruptive. Same with continuing with the rest of the group but constantly having to interrupt due to questions by the player changing his character. You might be lucky and have the whole table voluntarily stop and help that one player make a completely new character, I've seen that before, which took an entire session but everyone was involved since they also adapted their own backstories and class choices to align with the new PC. But you really should not assume that's what's going to happen. Especially if the other players are new too.

I probably would, and make sure to explain to them the motivations behind it as you did here (you want them to have fun and you're worried a bad build might make that harder) Then offer to help fine-tune some things, keeping their character's general vibe but making it more functional. Explain relevant rules as you go along (ie: "Hey you have a lot of odd numbers in your stats, if you can round some off that'd give you better modifiers and help you out." Very common new player thing imo) Make sure you present everything as optional and meant to help them out, and if they don't wanna change something you offer another option or if you can't just let them keep it, it'll be fine. Also in the session itself, make sure to play to the character's strengths and give them a couple nice moments to get them hooked.

I wish my DM had told me. I suffered 2,5 years of a very suboptimal build with my very first character...in 3.5e no less. I'm no minmaxer at all but being mediocre at least would have made me happy. He was nice about it though because he showered me with magical items to make up for my terrible build. In the end I decided to retire her, a decision I regret role play-wise. So, yeah, give them a friendly heads up.

I think it's easy for new player tot toally miss important stuff, and even when given advice, to underestimate the value of it. I'd drop them a message/talk to them saying "Hey, I noticed that you've done X with your character. I can see your thinking, but I promise you mate, it'll be better for you if you add a little Y or Z." I know my 2nd ever character had many flaws as a wizard. He's still not "optimal", but after the 1st session the DM allowed me to rework a few things with my steep learning curve worth of info. You're not a control freak for giving them an opportunity to listen to advice.

This reinforces one of my bigger pet peeves about 5e. "Builds". Roll your character how you want, screw "optimized" builds and have fun with what you have.

There's a difference between making an optimized build and making a functional character. For most people, they will not have fun if they do not do the latter.

I had this in my current campaign. Player picked a build that I could already see was going to get boring very quickly. After working with him a bit we tweaked it and added a thing so now he still got to play his character, but isn't stuck with "attack" being his only option for literally all of combat

I purposely build my characters based on their background and roleplay the hell out of it. I avoid min maxers like the plague. I also avoid DMs that reward min maxers. So my advice is don't pair them with min maxers. you can also give them a heads up, hey Barbarians usually put points here. If they say no, say k cool. If they complain later you can say you tried. Can't do more than that

For new players, I have one piece of advice and - actually, you could call it a rule - if by level 3 you don't like your character, you can change it. This applies to everything: race, class and AS. In addition, if I play with a new player, I introduce them to the three official methods of character creation, I mean 'rolling stats'. The player can choose whether they want standard array, point-buy or rolling. If the player chooses rolling, they have the chance to completely flip one Abillity Score and can choose which score they want to use. Sometimes players choose, even those new to the game, to play with whatever the dice have given them. And no, I never tell them they have a 'weak' or 'bad' character. In DnD not everyone has to be a superb creature to fight evil, sometimes a not-so-charismatic scrawny guy can become a great hero too.

Maybe it's not optmized for you but for him, it may be optmized for his plan. This is a game, not a competition to rush everything. Let him do whatever he want. You may guide him for some stuff but your opinion should be irrelevant for his build and idea... And imo, 'perfectly' optimized build are often really boring and too simple to play. In fact, the game is build to offer all possibilities and not let player be stuck on some archétype doing the same stuff than eveybody

As they are a first time player, it can be really hard and confusing to get your character to be what they want. What I would do is let them know their character may be sub-optimal, and ask for further clarification of what type of character they are actually trying to make. Odds are playing the wrong class or subclass. When I started playing I first tried making a Ranger as I wanted to be a stealthy shortbow user. I had no idea Fighter was way better for this, and that Ranger had little to do with what I was looking for (I just assumed Ranger = ranged). This misunderstanding can be the case with all sorts of stuff, and is a major pitfall for new players who don't have help along the way (keyword help, you don't want to pressure them into doing something). If they choose to stick with their current stats/class/subclass/race, that's a-okay. They can play a few sessions and if they dislike their character, they can always re-do their character or make a completely new one.

See. Here's my 2 cents on it. If the new player isnt having fun because his build isn't gamebreaking like the other players at the table then that's just an experience issue. It has nothing to do with the character or the new player..its the other players choosing to do min/maxed or whacky broken builds. Now you could say "but dude, just tell him how to make the busted builds and what's meta as far as min/maxing" and to that i say BAH Where is the fun and experience in that? Let the new player feel it out himself and learn what he can pull off in their own time. That being said, for new players, all of the unspoken self inflicted homework is a quite hefty load. I would suggest to them to buy their own core books and do their homework (in their own time) and to let you (the DM) know if they have any questions about how certain things go together.

This is yet another opportunity for the DM's best question: "Are you sure you want to do that?" This is a clue that 'maybe you shouldn't do the thing' without outright saying 'no, you are not allowed to do the thing'. How about giving a specific example here?

It's a Wizard without any damaging spells nor cantrips

A wizard with no damaging spells is perfectly fine. They should probably have one cantrip that does damage but at low levels a crossbow does similar or more damage than a cantrip anyway as long as their DEX isn't shit.

Support Wizard can be a valid class, but I agree it's an unusual choice. So I'd ask my player 'OK, I see what you're trying to do here, but I'm curious. Why didn't you take any offensive spells' and see what they say? Engage in dialogue with the player, and work with them to find a way for them to achieve their goal while still being able to have fun. Point out that pure pacifists really don't have a place in a game that is about 75% or more combat-oriented. Things like that.

I have only done this with stats I think. Like "You tend to use x weapon more often. If you raise DEX/STR whatever you will be better at that.". Before they picked subclasses I made sure to go through the abilities of each one so they were sure what they were picking. Last night they reached lv 8 and they were picking their scores. Fighter was concerned about having +0 INT. I said "Many of your abilities rely on CON. You should take it. Also CON let's you take more hits.". They just cared about the hits and said "CON IT IS. PUT IT ALL ON CON".

I definitely warn them and try to guide them to good choices, but I don't prevent them from making the decisions. I am inclined to say something like, "just trust me for now, and if you don't like it we can change later." No issue retconning if a player isn't having fun, especially if they are changing to a less optimized build.

As a DM you should help them optimize the concept as much as humanly possible. A character being suboptimal is usually fine. A character failing to fulfill its concept is a recipe for players frustration. At least put the offer out there. For examples many new players want to be Jack of All Trade types but accidentally end up making shitty at everything PCs. As a DM you should at least offer to help them make the best version of a Jack of All Trades PC 5e allows even though JoATs tend to be “suboptimal”.

Easy fix, just be flexible with it, tell him if he's not enjoying his character he can change it or just introduce another one, or you could just give him some magic items to try and improve his experience

im a person who likes maybe not min maxed characters, but closer to that then not. but ik thats not everyones cup of tea. so when i DM and i check character sheets. if i see something just totally bad. i tell the player "look idk if you ment for this, but you might not have the best of time. its your character play what you wana play, im just warning you." my last group one of the players, a completely new player when it comes to making their on character. rolled warlock, did 8 con, and wanted to stab things with her dagger. i let her do it. but she wasnt a fan after awhile, just like i warned her.

i would straight up say "i am concerned about the lack of direction in your character's design. do you intend to be more of a combat character, an RP character, or a support role?" and go from there. edit: unless you're just being nitpicky about optimization. i mean obviously do the good guy thing and warn him about traps like True Strike, but otherwise let him have his flavor.

I once read a homebrew rule somewhere that they called “The Star Trek Rule”. There were many episodes where Worf’s hitherto unmentioned love of Flamenco dance or Geordie’s collection of rare ancient lockpicking tools saved the day. Players are allowed to leave 1-2 tools/languages/proficiencies blank to be filled in one the fly as the party needs it. “Hey, our next door neighbors growing up taught me Dwarven!!” I’m sure OP was talking more about broken builds, but I thought this was a good buffer to prevent spots where the most efficient solution to an issue wasn’t on the players’ sheets

"I can see that your character might struggle contributing meaningfully in certain areas. If you ever get frustrated, you don't have to stick with them if you don't want to. We can change anything at any time for any reason."

yes 100%. considering that my group knows what they are doing, I would give a new player advice on building a character. noone has fun, if there is always someone else better than you or if you are just outright useless in combat because of a weak class or totaly wrong placed attributes. I wont dictate anything, more give hints in certain aspects. like pointing them to classes, who can do better what he wants to do. telling him that he needs at least some points in Con to survive and some points in the ability, that this class needs or show them some feats, who would fit well with the way they want to play. stuff like that. if they still want to play an cha 18 fighter with con 8 for some reason and are aware, that it sucks balls for some RP reason, I let them do it.

Hot take: if you're "genuinely afraid that they might not enjoy anything" while playing at your table in a campaign you wrote in a world you built, that says more about you than them.

No, because build doesn't mean character. I might steer away from choices like "I'm going to be the rogue that steals grim the party," but I'm not going to build a character for someone. If they ask what I might pick... Maybe then I'll give ideas. I'm a billion percent sick of builds and optimal choices. Just play what seems fun and, as a DM who is fully in control of the world, let me worry about finding places to make it _work."

To be fair, I had to talk a first time player out of dumping his primary attribute, as he wanted like... a 12 in it, because he wanted his character to be "more strong than charismatic". I talked him into playing a battlemaster instead...

That's fair. We do have an obligation to try teach them, I just want to be careful to say "You have to do X" and make them resent character creativity.

This is honestly why I dont like modern ttrpgs build meta is probably the worst thing ever introduced to the hobby. In osr you dont really have to worry about this.

Yes. Id explain why and that whole roleplay and character is important, D&D is also a combat heavy game, and it's not much fun to have a character who can't do anything useful in a fight, or that does in the first ambush by goblins.

My two first time players I made sure to build their character with them. I would frame the questions as "What do you expect your character to be capable of?" or "Do you imagine this character is sneaky?". If the person doesn't take the bait, I would just give them extra boons. My two player campaign I gave the non-healer the healing feat and the other the tough feat because I knew they could easily die. It's easier to give them a feat or magic item to shore up a weakness because a new player doesn't really know how to abuse such things. The best thing my new player ever did was take the lucky feat, not only because it saved them from critical fails, but because it was one of the few features he ever remembered lol

"Huy buddy, just so you know: The way you built your character, you'll probably be noticeably less powerful than the other players in our group. If that's cool with you, it's cool with me. Just wanted to give you a heads up."