If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.
I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths.
Got a party of rogues? Don's sit around and let the earth elementals bash you to bits like idiots. Run away and set up traps. Be sneaky and inventive like rogues are want to do. You're faster and smarter than they are. Pull an ewok.
A party of spellcasters fighting a golem? Keep your damned distance for starters! You can generally outmaneuver a golem by a factor of ten. Use no SR spells on them or target the terrain around it (trapping a golem is often as good as destroying it as far as XP and survival is concerned).
A bunch of physical types against a spellcaster? Rush him. He can have a bunch of buffs up that make hitting him in melee or at range incredibly hard, but he can't cover all of his bases at once. Something will get through. If there are four of you attacking him at once with full attacks, he's likely to take enough damage to go down in round 1 despite his defenses.
If the party asks me to make a rogue because they have no way of dealing with traps, I may just make a rogue with the scout/thug archetype and let them think their way out of the traps (mage hand and knock goes a long ways towards opening trapped doors).
The only thing forcing roles does is kill imagination and verisimilitude. Try thinking your way our of a situation for a change.
/rant
Discuss.
|
If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.
I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths.
Got a party of rogues? Don's sit around and let the earth elementals bash you to bits like idiots. Run away and set up traps. Be sneaky and inventive like rogues are want to do. You're faster and smarter than they are. Pull an ewok.
A party of spellcasters fighting a golem? Keep your damned distance for starters! You can generally outmaneuver a golem by a factor of ten. Use no SR spells on them or target the terrain around it (trapping a golem is often as good as destroying it as far as XP and survival is concerned).
A bunch of physical types against a spellcaster? Rush him. He can have a bunch of buffs up that make hitting him in melee or at range incredibly hard, but he can't cover all of his bases at once. Something will get through. If there are four of you attacking him at once with full attacks, he's likely to take enough damage to go down in round 1 despite his defenses.
If the party asks me to make a rogue because they have no way of dealing with traps, I may just make a rogue with the scout/thug archetype and let them think their way out of the traps (mage hand and knock goes a long ways towards opening trapped doors).
The only thing forcing roles does is kill imagination and verisimilitude. Try thinking your way our of a situation for a change.
/rant
Discuss.
I don't think roles in and of themselves, as you say, kill imagination. Only relying on what's on your character sheet, on the other hand, does that.
...relying on what's on your character sheet, on the other hand, does that.
Most certainly.
|
RD I dislike many topics you start.
I am in total agreement with you here however. I don't play much, but when I started DMing my pet bugbear was always that the group 'needed' XYZ. It was nearly always 'Cleric', and people would always be saying 'i'd like to play this but the group needs a...'
It would make me rage... I spent years trying to get my regular group out of this mindset.
Yes, it's happened to me. I'm playing a healbot life oracle now in my Friday game because I said I'd play the healer when the campaign started, and my cleric died. Many of our sucesses running in converted 1st ED dungeons/mods for pathfinder was that clerics channeling in many instances saved the party. When I was told "don't feel like you have to play a healer" I laughed inside. I toyed around with the idea of a character that was self surviving, but knew they party could not continue to do well without a dedicated healer, so I rolled my oracle.
RPGs are a team effort. Yes, you should be able to play what you want, but in an RP party, group sucess is more important than individual sucess, as you rely on each other for survival. I wasn't about to bring in a character that would not contribute to overall sucess, even though he was a bundle of whoopass (1/2 orc barbarian/cat druid).
I may not like getting pigeon holed as the healer, but I'll do it becasue it needs doing.
On a side note, I role-play my oracle as a jerk. He was a strapping young lad before the gods came a-callin, struck him blind, turned his hair white and told him to go places. He resents it, and lets everyone know. He's very unforgiving of apparent stupidity, being stingy with his spells outside when he needs to heal in combat. But when the rogue isn't looking for traps and falls taking 10 points of damage, he tells him to "walk it off son, you got a 'get out of stupid free' card" and doesn't heal...
So I get to do what's needed and b~~$+ about it in character :P
If the party asks me to make a rogue because they have no way of dealing with traps, I may just make a rogue with the scout/thug archetype and let them think their way out of the traps (mage hand and knock goes a long ways towards opening trapped doors).
Well, if my folks would ask me to play a cleric for some healing power and I would roll a negative-energy-channeling one and proclaim "UMD your way out of this, suckers !" I'm sure I wouldn't be going out for beer with them for some time :)
I agree that "filling every slot" is overrated (most of the Pathfinder Society games I've played in have had pretty lopsided parties and they've usually done okay), but this passive-aggressive kind of stuff is lame. I hope you folks are kidding and/or fantasizing about it, rather than doing it.
If you've roleplayed long enough,
Or you know, just played the game.
surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.
I generally choose my class last and volunteer to fill any role missed by the party.
I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths.
If they are varied mid level Wizards...
Got a party of rogues? Don's sit around and let the earth elementals bash you to bits like idiots. Run away and set up traps.
Did setting traps suddenly become an easy thing to do on the run like in Neverwinter Nights?
Be sneaky and inventive like rogues are want to do. You're faster and smarter than they are. Pull an ewok.
Then you get punched in the face because sneaky doesn't work against Elementals.
A bunch of physical types against a spellcaster? Rush him. He can have a bunch of buffs up that make hitting him in melee or at range incredibly hard, but he can't cover all of his bases at once.
Oh yes he can.
If the party asks me to make a rogue because they have no way of dealing with traps, I may just make a rogue with the scout/thug archetype and let them think their way out of the traps (mage hand and knock goes a long ways towards opening trapped doors).
I read this as "If my party asks me to play a character that they find they need, instead of explaining my opinion of 'necessary roles' in the game and my baseless hatred for needing them, I decide to secretly create a Rogue that - on purpose - can do nothing my party asked of me without telling them."
I wouldn't put up with that crap, I'm surprised your party does.
If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.
I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths.
Got a party of rogues? Don's sit around and let the earth elementals bash you to bits like idiots. Run away and set up traps. Be sneaky and inventive like rogues are want to do. You're faster and smarter than they are. Pull an ewok.
A party of spellcasters fighting a golem? Keep your damned distance for starters! You can generally outmaneuver a golem by a factor of ten. Use no SR spells on them or target the terrain around it (trapping a golem is often as good as destroying it as far as XP and survival is concerned).
A bunch of physical types against a spellcaster? Rush him. He can have a bunch of buffs up that make hitting him in melee or at range incredibly hard, but he can't cover all of his bases at once. Something will get through. If there are four of you attacking him at once with full attacks, he's likely to take enough damage to go down in round 1 despite his defenses.
If the party asks me to make a rogue because they have no way of dealing with traps, I may just make a rogue with the scout/thug archetype and let them think their way out of the traps (mage hand and knock goes a long ways towards opening trapped doors).
The only thing forcing roles does is kill imagination and verisimilitude. Try thinking your way our of a situation for a change.
/rant
Discuss.
** spoiler omitted **
Yes, it also a pet peeve of mine. Personally I think archetypes could be good for solving this problem, by allowing separate class builds to fit surprisingly different roles. The most troublesome is the healer role, but archetypes for the paladin, bard, druid, oracle, and witch that allow them to heal on par with the cleric, well at least you have some choices.
PS. Things a Rogue can do at 3rd level: detect & open infinite locked doors and detect & disarm infinite traps.
Things a Wizard can do at 3rd level: Open infinite trapped doors, open exactly 1 lock, disarm 0 traps not on doors or chests, detect 0 traps
with the archtypes and apg there are now usually many paths to fill these roles for instance
"The party needs a rogue to deal with traps" if you wanted to play a fighter type Urban ranger has your back, a caster you have alchemist, you could even ask your dm to craft an archtype for you like.
Ruin Scholar: Unlike most wizards who learn spells by sitting around in towers reading books you're more intersted in ancient writings on the walls of tombs and ruins
Benifits: Scholars add Perception and Disable Device to their list of class skills and choose 1 of their level 1 school powers to replace with trapfinding as a rogue of thier level.
Edit: oops ninja'd by Ismellmonkey :)
Doesn't bother me at all. In fact, when I'm playing rather than DMing, I frequently make my character last so that I can make what I think the party most needs. That's usually, but not always, what the rest of the group wants me to make. There are a couple of other players in the group who do the same thing. We also have a couple who either come to the table with a particular concept in mind that they are determined to play, no matter what, and a couple who strongly prefer playing the same type of character pretty much every time. We certainly don't enforce that parties have to have any particular type of composition, and would never veto anyone's idea for a character (although the DM might). However, over the years, we have seen the strong benefits of having a balanced and diverse party, and so somebody pretty much always volunteers to fill just about every "role". I'm one of the ones who does it because honestly I can have just as much fun playing any type of character.
I think it helps that we have seven players and a DM. With that size group, it's pretty easy to cover all the traditional bases, and still leave room for a couple of people to play whatever they want without dire effects on party balance.
I think problems could easily arise in a campaign if every player just wanted to play their own concept without any consideration for how well that concept works with the rest of the party. That applies to alignment, race and possibly other characteristics as well as character class. It's a group experience, and IMHO it works best if people find a way to make their characters work as a group, either by designing them to fit in and contribute or adapting them as the game goes on to mesh well with the others.
As a DM, I certainly don't insist parties have any particular composition, although I might make suggestions if I see glaring vulnerabilities in any particular area. I'm also not going to redesign an entire adventure to match the skills of the party they come up with. Traps won't disappear from the adventure if there is no rogue, CLW wands won't magically appear everywhere if there is no cleric, and creatures immune to magic won't disappear if the party has all spellcasters. Character/party design choices should have consequences, and part of the challenge of the game is finding ways to overcome challenges, perhaps in a non-traditional way if you have a non-traditional party.
Actually, if I am joining a new group, my usual question is: What does the party need?
Then I will usually take that and put my own spin on it. While I don't agree that every role in the party needs to be filled, there are some times when a certain class will be very helpful.
|
If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.
How long is 'long enough'?
I've been playing (and roleplaying) for over twenty years with various groups and I can't recall ever being in that situation.
If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.
How long is 'long enough'?
I've been playing (and roleplaying) for over twenty years with various groups and I can't recall ever being in that situation.
Have you ever seen it be asked of other people in your groups then? It's been my experience that those who readily agree to it, are the ones most commonly asked to do it.
(Hence why I've never been asked either.)
My group is big, we have upwards of 10 players (give or take real life interference) so we very rarely have any gaps in the party. There have been times when someone has taken a specific role but usually that is because of what the party needs and not because they were forced to.
Actually, when we start a game in our groups, people approach the GM with concepts, and ask "what is X playing?" Eventually, everyone comes up with something. On my part, if I hear someone say, " Darn, I wanted to play a something, but we don't have a whatzit. I guess I will change." I attempt to argue them out of it. Our games are usually more fun if the players play their original concepts. When someone gives up that for "teamplay" they start not having fun and it infects the whole group. I'd much rather an entire group of fighters having fun, and having to work harder to face and survive challenges, than a "balanced" group with one or two people not having as much fun.
Oh, and I think it is important not to change the challenges. When they succeed, it is more memorable, and when they fail it isn't because they were coddled.
Greg
|
|
PS. Things a Rogue can do at 3rd level: detect & open infinite locked doors and detect & disarm infinite traps.
Things a Wizard can do at 3rd level: Open infinite trapped doors, open exactly 1 lock, disarm 0 traps not on doors or chests, detect 0 traps
Well, I'd say the wizard can keep right on detecting traps, until he runs out of hit points. He just doesn't detect them in any way that prevents them from hurting him ;)
I'd err on the side of "If the party is lacking a "role" and the DM doesn't adapt to that, then the DM sucks" though....
I'm not saying he should remove things that will be a lot harder without that role, but he should be making sure challenges are possible to defeat.
I love playing Clerics...
But after EverQuest, i never want to be a Pure Healer again.
...
Heal, Heal, Heal, sit.. rest rest stand Heal, Heal, Heal, sit, rest rest stand Heal, Heal, Heal, sit rest rest stand Heal Heal Heal, sit, rest rest, stand Heal, Heal, Heal, sit rest rest stand Heal Heal Heal...for hours, day, or weeks at a time at high levels.
|
The only thing forcing roles does is kill imagination and verisimilitude.
. . . . Well, those and certain DMing styles.
Overall I certainly agree with you -- that this kinda "forcing" is not cool. However, there are some DM styles that just lend themselves to a need for a... (Cleric / Fighter...). Some DM styles need certain PCs, some don't.
Although I would say that here on the Boards there seems to be tons of Threads that ASK "What should I play; I have NO preference and the other PCs are....?"
Anyway, I know that a weakness I have as DM is not coming up with great opportunities for Rogues. When someone plays a Rogue it is very difficult for me to come up with stuff to allow them to shine. And Clerics ain't that great in my games either.
Unfortunately, I realize that means that fighter-types and arcane casters are surely needed in my campaigns.
In my games, additionally, Barbarians are greater than Fighters (fewer encounters per session) and Wizards are waaay greater than Sorcerers (fewer encounters).
Every DM is different.
It's important for DMs to see how their games are being run and be willing to make adjustments to their style for cetain Players -- even just small and short term stuff.
If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role . . .
I love it when I'm asked to play a certain role! My first question when I'm asked to join a game is, "What do you already have, and what do you need?"
Two strong desires drive this question. First, I want to have my own shtick! If there's no one in the group with social skills, I know my role as the face-man is secure. If nobody in the group can swing a stick well enough to hit a sleeping cow, then I strap on my plate armor and pick up my sword, knowing that nobody's going to get in the way of my initial charge!
Second, I don't want to step on anyone else's shtick. If you've got a player all hyped up to play her Barbarian, why would I make a Fighter who has higher AC and out damages her by 50%? That's just mean. I'd much rather make a character who can cast Haste on her and make her look good, than compete with her and make her look bad. (Or look bad myself, for that matter.)
I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths.
I agree, and I'm a huge proponent of themed parties. It's more common in some other games than in D&D/PF, but it's great fun, and creates roleplaying opportunities very well.
I've had a great time with parties like:
The Tunnel Rats - Gnomes, Halflings, & Dwarves, all specializing in underground operations. If you've got a problem under your city, from rats to bulettes, call the exterminators! We didn't have a ranged attack among us that went farther than a thrown knife, nor did we have any healing or charisma.
The Academy - All spellcasters all the time. If we needed muscle, we summoned it!
The only thing forcing roles does is kill imagination and verisimilitude. Try thinking your way our of a situation for a change.
Constraints are key to creativity! Google it and you'll see dozens of articles on the effect.
|
|
Have you ever seen it be asked of other people in your groups then? It's been my experience that those who readily agree to it, are the ones most commonly asked to do it.
(Hence why I've never been asked either.)
Not really. I can certainly recall times when someone has asked ‘what do we need?’, and chosen a class based on the general consensus.
I’ve generally found it quite useful to identify roles at the point where everyone is creating characters for a game, not necessarily so that we can make sure that all important roles are filled (although that’s rarely a terrible idea) but so that everyone in the group is aware of any ‘gaps’ and can plan accordingly. There’s been plenty of times when (for example) it’s been identified that no one is playing a healer and someone in the group will say ‘ok, I might play a cleric instead’; there’s been probably just as many times when we’ve said ‘right, no dedicated healer, let’s figure out how the group can survive (and thrive) without one’.
I’m often quite happy to choose a class or subset of abilities for my character based on what I perceive as a gap in the roles the rest of the group are filling; generally speaking I am more interested in character background, or finding an interesting concept or roleplaying device than playing a particular class/race combination.
|
|
If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.
<snip>
Discuss.** spoiler omitted **
Everyone else was playing Rogue, Oracle, Wizard and Bard. I was originally going to play a Swashbuckler (from Tome of Secrets), but the campaign was going to be more rural and forested than urban, so he *strongly* suggested I play a Ranger.
I'd *considered* playing a Ranger at some point, thanks to Treantmonk's Guides (he makes everything sound cool!), but it wasn't high on my list. Still, I was getting the hint and decided to just build it. I figured I could indulge in a bit more optimization than I normally do (we're playing with the Appearance attribute and I dumped the s!*@ out of it) and just try to have fun with it. Fortunately, I had a concept on the back-burner.
On the one hand, there are concepts I *really* want to play more than this one, but on the other hand, I *like* filling in roles for the group. Normally, I'm the guy who asks, "What's everyone else playing?"
Ultimately, I'm enjoying playing the character; he's a follower of Obad-Hai and doesn't give a f#~+ about people compared to nature. He's fun, but I do feel like I was directed away from something I was more excited about.
A number of other folks have said this, but I'll add. The thing I see being "forced" on players is some sort of healer. Healing is available in a number of classes, but if the party doesn't have a healer already, there is pressure to take one, in cases where the adventure is likely to be damage heavy and remove the party from rapid access to NPC healing.
Solutions to this are pretty easy to come by, like extending powerful healing spells to the sorceror/wizard list or making healing potions and salves very cheap and easy to access for everyone. Those wouldn't change with PF mechanics, either, just lists.
|
Actually, if I am joining a new group, my usual question is: What does the party need?
Then I will usually take that and put my own spin on it. While I don't agree that every role in the party needs to be filled, there are some times when a certain class will be very helpful.
Wow, that's almost exactly like what I do. I'll usually ask what the group doesn't have instead of what the group needs.
Prior editions made the four "basic" archetypes more critical for effective play but for the most part no specific class is required, even if some roles are still pretty much necessary.
The Cleric is often considered to be the "critical" class. However in 3.x pretty much anything that has access to CLW (either spell list or UMD) can pretty much handle the healbot role since most healing is wands of CLW.
As such Bards, Sorcerors, Druids, Paladins, etc can all handle the "healer" role to a degree even if they are less optimized for that role than the bog standard cleric.
"Skills" guy is probably best handled by Rogue, but Ranger, Monk, Bard all do well.
"Tank" is typically a Heavy Armor, Full BAB role but it really doesn't have to be.
The game generally works best if you have an arcane caster and a divine caster because access to both spell lists is really nice but as long as you have some casting you can generally shoulder through (although you might have to tone down difficulty).
I don't like it when I have to completely change a concept just because someone else thinks a certain role is "required." On the other hand, especially with the archetypes, it's not all that hard to tweak one or more of the concepts presented to make it so that the gaps are covered adequately for the needs of the party. Especially with APs and other printed adventures, certain roles are assumed, and as such, the party usually needs to find a way to cover most of them somehow, however, the importance of some of the roles is sometimes heavily inflated, especially combat healing. My experience is that while most roles do need to be covered somewhat, party composition has a bigger influence on which ones are more important than others, and thus which ones truly need to be fully covered, and which ones can be handled as secondary roles. Secondary roles are usually easily enough covered if everyone is willing to make their characters have more than one dimension to them.
My group usually designs all the characters without talking to eachother. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. The 1 time we had the "ballanced" party was also the 1 time I have had a TPK. Some games we totally lack healing, others we have 4 healers. Usually we lack dedicated arcane support. I've never seen the game worse for it, and it is fun to play arround your parties weaknesses. You will always have some other strength.
Expecting party roles makes role playing feel like a video game to me. At that point, it is more of a tactical simulation than a story. There is absolutely nothing 'wrong' with that, it is just not my preference.
On the other hand, I strongly agree that players should build characters that will work well together. This does not mean everyone has to be best of buddies and take long, hot showers together. They could hate each other's guts. There just needs to be a strong incentive for the group to work together. Working together does not necessitate everyone filling clearly defined roles.
In fact, from a purely tactical sense, it is not a bad idea to have overlap of essential needs. Why do you think everyone has some kind of combat ability? Two healers would be better when one, especially when your sole healer goes down.
Got a party of rogues? Don's sit around and let the earth elementals bash you to bits like idiots. Run away and set up traps. Be sneaky and inventive like rogues are want to do. You're faster and smarter than they are. Pull an ewok.
Traps cost money, time, etc. Reread trap creation rules:
You need Craft trap skill.CR x1000 gp = gold cost.
Yes, a simple put trap is a worth a fortune. GM may allow pit trap to be as low as 250 gp x CR.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/environment.html#designing-a-trap
Yeah, not easy.
|
|
Got a party of rogues? Don's sit around and let the earth elementals bash you to bits like idiots. Run away and set up traps. Be sneaky and inventive like rogues are want to do. You're faster and smarter than they are. Pull an ewok.
Traps cost money, time, etc. Reread trap creation rules:
You need Craft trap skill.
CR x1000 gp = gold cost.
Yes, a simple put trap is a worth a fortune. GM may allow pit trap to be as low as 250 gp x CR.http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/environment.html#designing-a-trap
Yeah, not easy.
Buy a shovel, dig a pit and put some branches on it.
You're also a bunch of rogue. Either disable the trap and take it with(if possible) or start picking pockets like crazy and committing burglaries.
I always like seeing players, and GMs, "fill the role but break the stereotype".
I do too, but the problem is those are often sub-optimal builds. It would appear, in some circles, those characters are not carrying their weight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Know your damn role, and shut the hell up!" ~Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
"Know your role, and shut your mouth!" ~Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
FTFY.
I always like seeing players, and GMs, "fill the role but break the stereotype".I do too, but the problem is those are often sub-optimal builds. It would appear, in some circles, those characters are not carrying their weight.
Yes, my least favourite option (fortunately rare) is a character who doesn't fit into any role because he seemingly doesn't do anything at all. It always makes me ask myself: "Why is this guy an adventurer again?"
But Lord Pie Baker feeds the hungry adventures after their belly draining battles! :)
I believe there is a wide gap between "optimal" and "useless". A character should be able to allocate a couple of stat points, and/or a feat, and/or a couple of skill points, without becoming "useless". Note that I do say a "couple". I've seen plenty of players trying to do something 'different' to the point where they negated their ability to perform their class role; paladins with both a low strength and a low charisma, for example. Like anything else, it's a matter of knowing when to stop.
+1
When I actually get to play (which is rare) I always get stuck playing the healer, especially in 3.X (haven't played PF, currently running our first foray into PF).
At first, I hated always playing the priest. After a while, it became tolerable, and after that it became my favorite. My current players sigh heavily when they realize that the end boss of a dungeon/encounter is a cleric.
I've gotten awesomesauce at playing clerics. Give me three rounds to buff and I'll be a godd*mn walking tank. I can heal through any amount of damage, no matter what level, timing my heals. I'm damn good now at playing clerics, and I generally have no desire to play any other class.
Sure, getting stuck into a role sucks, but sometimes you find out that that role is what you're best at, and there is nobody in your group who can play it better.
Idk, my two cents.
+1 but substitute wizard for cleric and it's pretty much me in the party.
Everybody LOVES the fireball thrower but nobody likes to have a D4 for HP.Me I found great ways around it and yes polymorph is my very good friend. Soon as I hit 12HD it's firbolg time and the fighter can step back and heal for a few rounds while the wizard grapples the dragon.
I have played a majority of classes in the 1-3.5 editions and the only thing I lock myself into is the role of spellcaster. cleric,druid,mage whatever I enjoy the variety of useing spells instead of being a HP sponge and tank. Not saying anything bad about them because we need them but their just not for me. Others in my group feel the same about their theives or their fighters so all in all we have a great group.
I believe there is a wide gap between "optimal" and "useless".
So we are agreed! Anything done 'too much' is a problem. Or, "Disruptive player is disruptive"
I believe there is another dynamic in here as well which causes trouble. When you have two or more people, who are both within that gap you reference, but in opposite sides of it.
