This might be a stupid question. But I have a Level 1 Rogue in my campaign and I am a little concerned. They're kind of an aggressive player, they're not afraid to pick fights and I think they enjoy it actually. But their Dexterity score is literally 13 (+1 modifier). Their AC and their weapons are now not very good. And their other ability scores look pretty similar. With their aggressive playstyle, I'm scared they're gonna get into a battle and due to their lack of weapon power and AC, get themself killed. They almost have once, and I don't want to say, "you did a bad job making your guy, fix him" because that's super rude.

Any suggestions?

Which is more rude:

Your statement: "you did a bad job making your guy, fix him" 

or

Having him actually die based on: and due to their lack of weapon power and AC, get themself killed. 

One unmentioned key point.  Is this a new player that only knows of this type of play via video games, or a very experienced player that is doing something risky?  Is this player something in the middle?  The players actual game experience should be a big indicator of let them die or insist they fix the character.

Fair question. I think it's more rude to tell them that their PC is bad. They wanted an even ability score spread and I've never been one to say that they can't make their character the way they want. Besides, they know when they're in hotter water than they can handle, and three other teammates have healing powers just in case.

I believe my player has played D&D before, but not a whole lot (like, a few one-shots.) They are familiar with the game, just not with the very specific mechanics.

I think I'll point out their ability scores and say "hey if you're not happy with your ability scores, go ahead and fix them." I'd rather leave it up to them, so if they want their character to have more effective ability scores they can but if they prefer keeping it a little trickier they can.

I appreciate the insight, Character77006!

Quote from Potato66807 >>

Fair question. I think it's more rude to tell them that their PC is bad. They wanted an even ability score spread and I've never been one to say that they can't make their character the way they want. Besides, they know when they're in hotter water than they can handle, and three other teammates have healing powers just in case.

I believe my player has played D&D before, but not a whole lot (like, a few one-shots.) They are familiar with the game, just not with the very specific mechanics.

I think I'll point out their ability scores and say "hey if you're not happy with your ability scores, go ahead and fix them." I'd rather leave it up to them, so if they want their character to have more effective ability scores they can but if they prefer keeping it a little trickier they can.

I appreciate the insight, Character77006!

It is NOT rude to tell an inexperienced player that they built their character in a way which will likely hamper their fun - and the fun of everyone else. They might like the idea of having an even ability score spread, but no PC is capable of doing everything equally well. It's a team game, and part of that means trying to avoid being a liability to the rest of the team. Other players and their PC's need to be able to rely on the Rogue to do their job.

Good point. I think I'll point out his ability scores next session and see if we can make some improvements.

Thanks, Character77006 and Stabbey_TC!

If by even ability score spread you mean every score is roughly the same, it might be a good idea to sit them down and explain that it is better to have 1 really good score, and 1 or 2 decent secondary scores, than to have every score so low that they don't give any real help.

There's a saying, perhaps you've heard of it, "Jack of all trades, master of none". A character with a 13 in all ability scores will quickly fall behind the curve. They are good at... nothing. Everyone else in the party will be better than they are, at everything. They bring no specialization, skill, or ability to the party. The idea is that each should bring a strength and weakness to the group, and someone else would have a strength in whatever your weakness is. But it sounds like this character brings nothing to the table.

If, after having that discussion, they still want to do it - then that's their choice. Maybe they intend it to be that way, and plan to roleplay 'the average guy' thrown into dangerous situations. However, it is not a good strategy for a successful character to be built upon the idea that others will need to carry them through ALL situations.