Parties, Roles, Tropes, and Stereotypes

[Jiggy]

Branching an off-topic bit into its own thread for further discussion. (Because who doesn't like discussion? ;) )

Painlord wrote:

It's already fact that a party table doesn't need a balanced party to complete PFS scenarios. You don't need to play an X, Y, or Z to succeed...that's a myth that I wish I could stomp to death and beat into a non-resurrect-able mush then feed into a Sphere of Annihilation which I would then touch with a Rod of Cancellation.

I truly believe that the game is at its best when players are playing the characters that they want to play rather than feeling that they need to play an X, Y, or Z out of some misguided notion of 'balance'.

I get that you don't want to run the same thing as someone else. It's not a big issue for me, but understand how coming in the same costume to the holiday party might be embarrassing for some.

I, for one, won't tell people what I'm playing before the game starts. I do this for two reasons:

1) I don't want players determining what to play based of what I am playing because they mistakenly think we need an X, Y, or Z.
2) I don't want other players to expect me to do A, B, or C because my class can do those things. I find that to be incredibly annoying when players put class ahead of character when the primary objective should always be character ahead of class. I play characters who can (but may not) do A, B, or C. But I don't 'play' a class.

So, that said, there might be more players out there like me who aren't trying to annoy you when they don't help you decide what to play.

They might feel as I do...and it's not personal.

Personally, I agree that you don't need anywhere near the classical party (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) to succeed in PFS. Some of the parties I've been in (or GM'd) include:

• Three greatswords and no arcane casters (and only one divine character, who I don't think could cast spells either, but could activate healing wands).
• No spellcasters whatsoever - a single 1st-level ranger with a wand was the only "healer" we had. The party also included 2 rogues, a ninja, a barbarian and a cavalier.
• A ranger, a paladin, and three monks.
• A wizard, a bard, two rogues, a paladin (all of whom were level 1-2) and my level 5 fighter, at subtier 3-4.

Every one of these groups was unquestionably successful.

There are way too many assumptions among the Pathfinder community. Here are some that I've encountered and are wrong:

• That you need a healer.
• That you need someone (like a rogue) with the Trapfinding ability.
• That rogues need high CHA and ranks in UMD to be worthwhile.
• That a druid needs an animal companion to be worthwhile.
• That a fighter with 13 INT and Combat Expertise can't be worthwhile.
• That a bard needs Inspire Courage to be worthwhile.

The list goes on.

Anyway, thoughts from the rest of you?

[TwilightKnight]

I have never witnessed an unplayable character/concept. I have, however, seen many under-optimized characters that made adventuring/surviving a greater challenge than intended. So while I do not disagree with you assessment, I temper it with the idea that many of the things you say are not required, they are certainly suggested.

If you go with the idea that most adventures are designed to require a diverse set of skills to complete, then it stands to reason the more diverse your characters are, the better chance of success.

At the same time, good game-play and thinking outside the box can often overcome obvious shortcomings in the character's skills.

My opinion is usually play whatever you want. While roles and party diversity is a good thing to have, it is not the end all of character design and should not shy someone away from playing what they are most interested in.

What I really object to is when I say here is my character build and someone evaluates it based on the numbers on the page. "Oh, you suck because your barbarian didn't take Power Attack," or "what, your cleric doesn't have Selective Channel? That's just stupid." [/soapbox]

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I have never witnessed an unplayable character/concept. I have, however, seen many under-optimized characters that made adventuring/surviving a greater challenge than intended. So while I do not disagree with you assessment, I temper it with the idea that many of the things you say are not required, they are certainly suggested.

I would point out that I consider The Sliding Scale of Optimization to be completely separate from the notion of party roles. I.e., sufficiently de-optimized characters can wreck a party that has every "role" filled, while sufficiently optimized characters can succeed in spite of lacking certain roles.

So as I see it, the effects of optimization/de-optimization have no bearing on whether or not a certain party role is needed.

Quote:

What I really object to is when I say here is my character build and someone evaluates it based on the numbers on the page. "Oh, you suck because your barbarian didn't take Power Attack," or "what, your cleric doesn't have Selective Channel? That's just stupid." [/soapbox]

The third, fourth and fifth assumptions I listed are all currently being defied by characters of mine, and I dare say most of the locals who have played alongside those characters would approve of their effectiveness. (Well, except possibly the druid while he was at level 1. He was a slow starter, but he got dramatically stronger at level 2.)

[WalterGM]

I'd agree that thinking outside the box when it comes to what is "standard" for a society party happens frequently. Most of the time, to great success.

Here's the weirdest table I've run: 3 barbarians and 1 ranger. I was skeptical at first, telling the group how they'd likely want someone who could cast spells. The ranger replied that she was an urban ranger, who had grown up on the streets (picking up the dangerously curious trait, along with a wand of CLW) and they'd be fine. Everyone seemed content with the 3 barbarian / 1 ranger team and proceeded to waltz through Shades of Ice pt. 3 - Huscarl king.

They didn't destroy the scenario because they were optimized (only one barbarian had a 2 handed weapon, one fought with a sling and the other was more of a raging diplomat), but because they worked beautifully as a team.

Spoiler:

The ranger successfully scouted ahead, the barbarian with stealth helped her, the barbarian with diplomacy listened intently to the in-game storytime part and was able to very eloquently negotiate with the natives, and the 2 handed barbarian did his best to protect his teammates, rather than rushing in and pulling the group out of position.

Personally, I love when PCs make characters that challenge stereotype (ala Roy in OOTS - the "smart" fighter) and have a smattering of useful skills and abilities rather than being focused to a point. And now that I reflect, such groups are often a delight to GM for, which makes it even better.

[Jiggy]

WalterGM wrote:

The ranger replied that she was an urban ranger, who had grown up on the streets (picking up the dangerously curious trait, along with a wand of CLW) and they'd be fine.

Er, unless said Ranger was also a Skirmisher, she didn't need UMD/Dangerously Curious to activate a wand of CLW.

[Iammars]

One of my favorite parties to DM for was what got known as the "Liberal Arts Party". The party consisted of:
- A 7 STR melee rogue
- 2 bards, one of which was an archaeologist, and another being an archivist
- 2 clerics of desna, only one of which was any good with a melee weapon.

If they needed to know anything, they did. But as for creatures with DR...

Possibly the funniest table I've ever run.

[nosig]

I point at all the posts telling us to "be prepared". The concept of having a CLW wand - or of having some way to heal your character has the same root as being sure that party has someone who can disable device.
I recently finished a mod in which my party took almost no damage (I think the only damage we took was when the Alchemist thru short and splashed several of us). Does this mean that I shouldn't try to ensure my character has the ability to heal? Most of my characters (almost 90%) buy a silver light mace (simple, silver, blunt, light weapon). I almost never use it, some characters never do. I still try to "be prepared" and this is part of it. When I sit at a table I try to ensure that the party has certain abilities. Healing, Talking, Damage, Protection, Detections, Knowledge, Skills, etc. If we are missing one of those abilities I try to supply it.
The difference seems to be that one is about character make up - that is normally done as an individual and before you sit down at the table, and the other HAS to be done thru interaction between the players. It's about the group as a whole and how their PCs will fit into that group. It's sort of like when a group of friend sit down and talk about a campaign they are planning to run. I feel you should discuss how your PC will act as part of the team, what they'll bring to the group.

[Painlord]

Jiggy, thanks for the thread. You are inviting open discussion, which means I can openly opine, yes?

WalterGM wrote:

Good stuff.

Admittedly, one of the reasons I'm so passionate about playing character over class is that I don't want to be bored at the table.

If everyone is playing their class (as a typical big dumb fighter, as a stand-in-the-back mage, as a cleric who focuses on healing), the game can get boring...it's like having a Ferrari and only driving in first gear.

The game, when played by characters rather than classes, becomes much much more.

This game is supposed to be a vibrant roleplaying game and getting people out of knowing what is going to happen or thinking they know what to expect. That's where the awesome of this game lies for me.

Believe me, I know why people like knowing what everyone is playing and what is going to happen:
1) It's comforting and certain.
2) It seems safer.
3) It's less brain power. People can be lazy and quickly stereotype characters by class. People have a tendency (me too, on occasion, of course) to slip into a rut.

But I don't want to play that way. It's boring.

I want to play the game with all the character and surprise I can pack in.

-Pain

[Fromper]

nosig wrote:

I point at all the posts telling us to "be prepared". The concept of having a CLW wand - or of having some way to heal your character has the same root as being sure that party has someone who can disable device.

I recently finished a mod in which my party took almost no damage (I think the only damage we took was when the Alchemist thru short and splashed several of us). Does this mean that I shouldn't try to ensure my character has the ability to heal? Most of my characters (almost 90%) buy a silver light mace (simple, silver, blunt, light weapon). I almost never use it, some characters never do. I still try to "be prepared" and this is part of it. When I sit at a table I try to ensure that the party has certain abilities. Healing, Talking, Damage, Protection, Detections, Knowledge, Skills, etc. If we are missing one of those abilities I try to supply it.
The difference seems to be that one is about character make up - that is normally done as an individual and before you sit down at the table, and the other HAS to be done thru interaction between the players. It's about the group as a whole and how their PCs will fit into that group. It's sort of like when a group of friend sit down and talk about a campaign they are planning to run. I feel you should discuss how your PC will act as part of the team, what they'll bring to the group.

I was going to say this about healing. While you don't necessarily need a dedicated healer, you should probably make sure there's enough healing to go around at any table before you start, even if it just means that everyone brings 2 or 3 potions.

Damage is probably just about that important, too. But you can live without just about everything else, if necessary. My local group has done it. We're a small, relatively new group, so we have a limited number of players and characters. I don't think we've ever had anyone with disable device at our games, and we very rarely have an arcane spellcaster around.

A recent, interesting, and possibly disturbing trend is that my stereotypical big, dumb barbarian with single digit charisma seems to have become the defacto party "face". The last 3 adventures, he's found himself doing most of the talking with NPCs. In two of those, it's because everyone deferred to him when it came to intimidating prisoners to get information from them and/or keep them in line. But this last adventure, we realized that his +5 is the highest diplomacy bonus in our group (he took the Shadow Lodge trait to get a +1 and make it a class skill, then trained it twice).

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

I point at all the posts telling us to "be prepared". The concept of having a CLW wand - or of having some way to heal your character has the same root as being sure that party has someone who can disable device.

The key here is that we're talking about what you should or should not expect other people to do.

If a person wants to be healed, it's their responsibility - no one else's - to make sure that's possible. So if I choose to spend resources (be they gold, or levels in a spellcasting class) on healing for myself, or if I choose not to and accept the consequences of that decision, then I'm being responsible for my character. If I choose not to provide my own healing and try to require that someone else do so instead, then I'm trying to make someone else responsible for me. To reverse it, if I'm a cleric but tell people to bring their own wands, it may seem like I'm making the same kind of demand as the "you need to heal me" guy, but I'm not: I'm just asking you to be responsible for your own character. Once again, the person who wants healing is the one who needs to provide the resources for said healing.

With making sure the party has someone trained in Disable Device, that's another story. If you want to make sure the party has DisDev and you provide it, great. If you choose not to make/play such a character and are willing to accept the consequences of that decision, that's fine too. If you want to make sure the party has DisDev but are insisting that someone else provide it, that's where there's a problem.

So the difference between "you need to have your own healing" and "the party needs to have Skill X" is about who's responsible for what. "You need to have your own healing" means "you need to be responsible for your own character instead of expecting it of someone else". "The party needs Skill X", however, means "someone needs to satisfy my preferences".

The point is that whoever wants X (whether X is "healing" or "a party with [whatever]") needs to either provide it or accept its absence.

To reiterate for emphasis:
The point is that whoever wants X (whether X is "healing" or "a party with [whatever]") needs to either provide it or accept its absence.

[nosig]

Pain - no problem.
But I have to ask... would you like to play with a character that someone else out fitted? selected equipment for and you only found out what he had when you tried to use it?
I do not have this problem in a home game. There I can learn the characters and how my PC can/should interact with them. How I need to grow to better fit what we need to adventure.
In PFSOP game I have 10 minutes to learn your character and how my PC can play with him. And many times the person across the way doesn't even have a table tent to tell me what his PC looks like - not even a name.
Come on - both PCs are Pathfinders - they are about the same level and likely have been trained together. Help me out here - when I ask what you are running I don't need to know your class (unless you are playing the sterotype) tell me what you are bringing to the group.

[thejeff]

So, putting class stereotypes aside for the moment, do you think there's no value in knowing something about roles?
Someone with healing access, even if it's just high UMD for a wand?
Someone with some face skills?
Someway to handle traps? (Not necessarily trapfinding, but something.)
Someway to win fights? (Rare that there isn't someone who can do some damage.)

Or maybe I just would rather not play a character who'll be overshadowed by a similar but higher level character, when I've got someone who'll bring something different to the game.

Avoiding excessive duplication of niches is as important as covering them.

As nosig said, why not talk about what your character brings to the group? Not necessarily his class, but what he's good at.

[nosig]

OK Jiggy - I'll provide it. how do I know it's there unless the other players tell me when I ask "what are you running so I can pick my character"? Unless you mean I should insure all my characters have disable device? (it is close to this now)

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

when I ask what you are running I don't need to know your class (unless you are playing the sterotype) tell me what you are bringing to the group.

thejeff wrote:

[similar stuff to the above quote]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Nobody's opposed to learning each other's capabilities. Alternatively, a more "in-character" approach is to describe your appearance ("strong-looking guy covered in armor, dripping with weapons, and with flour under his fingernails" - Cledwyn).

The point of this thread was not "people should avoid cooperation and coordination". The point of this thread was "there are misconceptions and myths about what is needed for a successful party/character".

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

OK Jiggy - I'll provide it. how do I know it's there unless the other players tell me when I ask "what are you running so I can pick my character"? Unless you mean I should insure all my characters have disable device? (it is close to this now)

This isn't what my oh-so-verbose reply was talking to. As shown by what part of your post I quoted, I was merely contesting your having drawn a parallel between ensuring your own healing and making sure the party has a certain skill.

It may be more of a side issue than the length of my post implied. :P

[nosig]

I can recall being when I played one of the specials. 6 or 8 tables all in the same room, and I'm at the low level table. we need someone with Disable Device - no problem, when building characters my sister gave her fighter (1st level) disable device and paid for masterwork thieves tools with mone from her first adventure. She didn't have a wand of CLW, cause she was with my Cleric. During the adventure she had to help out on the next tier table up. Later we determined that she was one of only TWO PCs in the game that had any Disable Device (the other was at "the Big Boys Table" and she offered to aid over there). She was a 1st level fighter. When asked "what you running" she would say "Archer with some thieveing skills - I'm good with locks and removing traps".

[thejeff]

Jiggy wrote:

nosig wrote:

when I ask what you are running I don't need to know your class (unless you are playing the sterotype) tell me what you are bringing to the group.

thejeff wrote:

[similar stuff to the above quote]

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. Nobody's opposed to learning each other's capabilities. Alternatively, a more "in-character" approach is to describe your appearance ("strong-looking guy covered in armor, dripping with weapons, and with flour under his fingernails" - Cledwyn).

The point of this thread was not "people should avoid cooperation and coordination". The point of this thread was "there are misconceptions and myths about what is needed for a successful party/character".

Not arguing with that. Some of the initial statements seemed to go farther. For example

Quote:

I, for one, won't tell people what I'm playing before the game starts.

Maybe Painlord just meant "what class" not what the character could do.

I do think roles are important. I do think groups work better with most covered without a lot of duplication. I also agree that classes and roles aren't the same thing.

[Jiggy]

thejeff wrote:

Quote:

I, for one, won't tell people what I'm playing before the game starts.

Maybe Painlord just meant "what class" not what the character could do.

Considering some of his other comments, this seems likely.

Anyway, now that we've had this thread's share of miscommunication, shall we return to discussing party/character myths in PFS? ;)

[nosig]

Jiggy wrote:

nosig wrote:

OK Jiggy - I'll provide it. how do I know it's there unless the other players tell me when I ask "what are you running so I can pick my character"? Unless you mean I should insure all my characters have disable device? (it is close to this now)

This isn't what my oh-so-verbose reply was talking to. As shown by what part of your post I quoted, I was merely contesting your having drawn a parallel between ensuring your own healing and making sure the party has a certain skill.

It may be more of a side issue than the length of my post implied. :P

I consider them the same thing though. I am trying to be prepared before the adventure.

My character will/should have a missile weapon (some way to do damage at range).
My character will/should have some way to do blunt damage.
My character will/should have some way to stealth (even a potion of sneaking)
My character will/should... you get the idea.

To me is the same thing as

My party will/should have some way to discover info (Diplomacy, Kn(local), Intimadate, something)
My party will have/shoul some way to find hidden items (Perception?)
My party will have/should some way of dealing with Devices (traps, locks, etc)
My party will have/should some way to kill things.
etc.

If I am not insureing this I am setting myself up to have a less than fun game.
4 hours of the party swinging on a high DR monster that we can't hurt.
4 hours of the party waiting for the DM to figure out a way to tell us to ask the bartender in a NICE way.
6 hours of hard fights to have the last bad guy chasing the last two PC thru the hall while we wonder if we can out run it (thou this was kind of fun in the end - getting there was getting to be a bit of a drag).

Both are being part of being prepared.

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

My character will/should...

.....

My party will/should...

There's a difference between "my character should" and "my party should".

With "my character should", I'm the one who came up with the rule in the first place, and I have complete power to satisfy said rule without involving anyone else.

With "my party should", I came up with the rule myself, but don't have sufficient power to satisfy it on my own, and am therefore insisting that people who had no say in the rule to begin with be pushed into satisfying the rule. (Unless you're talking about "my party should, therefore I will", which is a different matter entirely and not what I'm talking about at all.)

The difference "my character should" and "my party should" is the difference between "I'm responsible for me" and "You're responsible for me".

If someone asks me what I'm bringing to the table (whether so they can choose from their own assortment of characters, or just to know what to expect) I'm more than happy to tell them; I'll probably even follow their lead and see what sort of plans/tactics/etc we can come up with as a group. But if someone tells me what to bring to the table (or tells me I've done something wrong by not bringing X to the table, etc) then they've overstepped boundaries.

[Dragnmoon]

As a GM I always make sure prior that the group has some chance of success, if I feel that that party make up is short and could lead to failing the scenario I will warn the players. In the end though I let the players decide what they want to play and I just advice.

[nosig]

Jiggy wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Quote:

I, for one, won't tell people what I'm playing before the game starts.

Maybe Painlord just meant "what class" not what the character could do.

Considering some of his other comments, this seems likely.

Anyway, now that we've had this thread's share of miscommunication, shall we return to discussing party/character myths in PFS? ;)

Sorry Jiggy - boy did I de-rail this. I thought it was in response to

the post in question:

"When I sit down at a table and am decideing on what PC to run, I ask what everyone else is running. Sometimes it's like I am speaking a different language. I guess I'm just getting to be "the old guy". I realize it's my expectations that are at fault, but come on guys - help the old dude out here. When I say "what are you running?" you can respond with "A face kind of guy" or "A Tank" or even "An insane Pyromanic Gnome" but if you say one of the following, I will make certain assumtions about your character. If you say:

[[assumptiony stuff]]

That's why I'm asking. I have several characters available that I can play (perhaps as many as 5). Each very different. I don't what do run the same thing as you, but I also want to run what the party needs! (or what I think we'll need)

End of mini-Rant - and thank you. "

in this I gave the examples "A face kind of guy" or "A Tank" or even "An insane Pyromanic Gnome", which were not classes, thou they are stereotypes.

And I thought your post was about party makeup and the PC roles in it.

[Painlord]

Thanks for being open and friendly in discussion, nosig.

Editted/spoilered for staying on topic.

Off topic, slightly:

nosig wrote:

Pain - no problem.

But I have to ask... would you like to play with a character that someone else out fitted? selected equipment for and you only found out what he had when you tried to use it?

Heavens, no. I like playing my own, misfit misfitted yahoos.

nosig wrote:

And many times the person across the way doesn't even have a table tent to tell me what his PC looks like - not even a name.

When I judge or play, I encourage players to both have tents and do proper introductions (both of character and of the person behind the character). I'm not always perfect on this, but I like to introduce myself to everyone whenever I sit at a table.

I believe this is a social, collaborative game.

While I understand that you feel that you don't know the player/character across the table for you, there are easy fixes.
1) Setting a good example with your own name tent.
2) Introducing yourself.
3) Politely reminding the judge to allow for introductions at the table...then writing stuff down.

nosig wrote:

Help me out here - when I ask what you are running I don't need to know your class (unless you are playing the sterotype) tell me what you are bringing to the group.

For me, personally, before the scenario starts (and before people have decided on characters), I won't give much, if anything about my character. It's my choice to do so.

After everyone has decided on their characters, I'm happy to introduce and describe my character to the group, focusing mostly on visible identifiers: race, notable scars/tattoos, armoring (or lack thereof), visible holy symbol, and visible weapons.

If you ask me in character more about my character, I'm delighted and happy to answer in character.

[hogarth]

I think most parties can be successful in most level 1-5 scenarios. After that, you start getting into more dumb scenarios where you're required to have a specific countermeasure (e.g. Daylight, Death Ward, anti-Invisibility of some kind, flight, powerful ranged attacks) to have a reasonable chance at succeeding.

[nosig]

Jiggy wrote:

nosig wrote:

My character will/should...

.....

My party will/should...

There's a difference between "my character should" and "my party should".

With "my character should", I'm the one who came up with the rule in the first place, and I have complete power to satisfy said rule without involving anyone else.

With "my party should", I came up with the rule myself, but don't have sufficient power to satisfy it on my own, and am therefore insisting that people who had no say in the rule to begin with be pushed into satisfying the rule. (Unless you're talking about "my party should, therefore I will", which is a different matter entirely and not what I'm talking about at all.)

The difference "my character should" and "my party should" is the difference between "I'm responsible for me" and "You're responsible for me".

If someone asks me what I'm bringing to the table (whether so they can choose from their own assortment of characters, or just to know what to expect) I'm more than happy to tell them; I'll probably even follow their lead and see what sort of plans/tactics/etc we can come up with as a group. But if someone tells me what to bring to the table (or tells me I've done something wrong by not bringing X to the table, etc) then they've overstepped boundaries.

didn't this start with my line "when I ask what you are running I don't need to know your class (unless you are playing the sterotype) tell me what you are bringing to the group. "?

in other words "my party should, therefore I will"

which is kind of different from being sure that everyone has a way of healing thier PC. I want to insure the Party has a way of healing - and "my party should, therefore I will" - "we ain't got a healer? Guess I'm running Giamo, my armored combat medic."

[TwilightKnight]

It's a heck of a lot better than,
Player A, "So tell me about your character"
Player B, "No"

That's it, nothing. Happened to me recently. *sign*

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

in this I gave the examples "A face kind of guy" or "A Tank" or even "An insane Pyromanic Gnome", which were not classes, thou they are stereotypes.

And I thought your post was about party makeup and the PC roles in it.

Obviously I wasn't clear, but my intent for this thread was to discuss myths about what a character or table "needs" in order to be successful.

For instance, on the table level, I have no problem with someone playing "a healer". But I cringe every time I read an advice thread from someone saying "I'm starting PFS and I don't think there are many healers locally, so I guess I need to play one because a table won't make it without a healer...".

Or on the character level, I have no problem with someone making a high-CHA, "face"-type, UMD-spamming rogue. But I don't like it when I go to either a table or the advice forums with my 7-CHA action-man rogue and get told that J.J. won't amount to anything without high CHA and UMD because rogues "need" it to be worthwhile.

So this thread is (supposed to be) about identifying and dispelling myths and assumptions about table and character "requirements".

Does that help?

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

in other words "my party should, therefore I will"

which is kind of different from being sure that everyone has a way of healing thier PC. I want to insure the Party has a way of healing - and "my party should, therefore I will" - "we ain't got a healer? Guess I'm running Giamo, my armored combat medic."

I agree with this. Thus it seems, as I already suspected, that we miscommunicated somewhere upthread. :P

[Jiggy]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

That's it, nothing. Happened to me recently. *sign*

When something goes wrong, you start speaking in sign language? Or you bludgeon people with roadsigns?

;)

[nosig]

Painlord wrote:

Thanks for being open and friendly in discussion, nosig.

Editted/spoilered for staying on topic.

** spoiler omitted **

not sure how to run a "Spoiler conversation" but I'll try.

Editted/spoilered for staying on topic:

Pain - most of my adventures in PFSOP have started with a VC breifing a selected team of adventurers. I hope someone put some thought into the party make-up. I am trying to - as quickly as possible - figure out who amoung my possible PCs they would have added to this group. Who "Mr Phelps" would have selected to add to the team. I have no control over who you are bringing to the table. I can only control my selection of character. quickly - in an OOC fashion, as a favor to another gamer, help me make that selection so that I can get in character and we can start play.
I haven't selected a character yet. I can't ask you in character what your character is like, I don't yet know what I would ask. My harlot would ask different questions than my Elf hating Dwarf Cleric, who would ask different questions than my Elven Trapsmith, and my Knife fighter is not likely to ask you anything (no social skills there).

[nosig]

"identifying and dispelling myths and assumptions about table and character "requirements"." got it. now I'm on page (I hope)

here's two (kind of related)

1) "you have to have a 14 Con to play PFS" - most of my characters have 10, and no this does not make it a "dump stat". as surprizing at this is to some people - my PCs don't have a habit of dieing. (in fact the ones that do die always seem to have CONs of 14 or higher).

2) "you always get hurt" - many of my characters never get hit. In LG I had a wizard that went 12 adventures with out taking 1 HP of damage.

[AxeMurder0]

I love playing characters who aren't defined by their class.

My first PFS character is a Han Solo type mercenary siege engineer who's gotten tired of the indifference of the evil empire he worked for and started working for the small guys instead.

He's Fighter 2/Rogue 1/Ranger 3/Shadowdancer 5
(Needed Fighter for knowledge engineering)

I also have a lvl 11 Gnomish cleric who unfortunately still hasn't managed much of a personality, but with a strength of 5 and heavy armor he literally almost drowned after stepping into a 4ft deep mud pit. I think his personality has mostly become making snarky comments about everybody else and generally finding himself superior, which I don't think is really that fun to play with.

I have a lot of characters (6) and frequently ask the table what they are playing before I decide which of my characters to play., I would be delighted to hear a bit of description rather than class, class doesn't actually tell me that much.

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

1) "you have to have a 14 Con to play PFS"

Interesting; I've only ever heard that as a suggestion/guideline - "as a rule of thumb, shoot for a CON of around 12-14". Never heard anyone say you needed it to survive PFS.

That's the kind of "comparing notes" I was looking for! :)

Quote:

2) "you always get hurt"

Hm, never heard that one either. Though it's probably an unspoken assumption that you can get hurt and you shouldn't be surprised if you do. But yeah, it is possible to go a whole scenario (or longer) without taking damage.

[Painlord]

nosig, quasi-off topic:

nosig wrote:

I can only control my selection of character. quickly - in an OOC fashion, as a favor to another gamer, help me make that selection so that I can get in character and we can start play.

OOC, I can tell you exactly what character out of your five to play:

"Play the one that you want to right now. Don't worry about balance or roles. Play the guy that you'll have fun playing."

Yeah, I know this answer doesn't suit you. However, it would be my answer. And I know it would frustrate you, but to answer for you would frustrate me (for reasons I've outlined in other posts today).

If you need to know what everyone is playing stems from a misguided need for balance, I know you probably know that that isn't necessary.

If you need to know is based on wanting to bring in a different character to so you can suck up the spotlight opportunities for that role, I get that moreso, but don't prioritize above my personal verisimilitude (I mean, if we really are being called in the middle out of the night almost at random, it should be random!) and other reasons.

I personally don't think you should know what I'm playing until my character sits with you in front of the VC. And then I'll have my character introduce themselves and we can roleplay to our hearts content.

To wit, the discussion that I'm having with nosig reflects something on topic: why some tropes are so persistent and why they exist. However, they are not directly on topic and will remain spoilered. Sorry Jiggy.

[Alexander_Damocles]

People in the Bay Area who have met my titular character know for a fact that magic users can be on the front lines just fine. Alexander Damocles is a melee built caster, who has yet to really get dropped.

Two lessons to be learned here:
1) Don't assume caster's can't be melee. He's not called the Oracle of Doom by a few GM's for nothing.
2) Let the other person play their character. They probably know it better than you. Wait till after the session to bring up any "hey, did you ever think of 'x'?" or "What was your inspiration for doing 'y'?". By then, you know what the character can and can't do, and can point out some other ideas you have had.

[nosig]

Painlord wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

To wit, the discussion that I'm having with nosig reflects something on topic: why some tropes are so persistent and why they exist. However, they are not directly on topic and will remain spoilered. Sorry Jiggy.

Painlord spoiler:

what about if I meet you waiting in the muster area and we see we are playing the same event?
what about if we are riding over to the event together and I ask what character are you planning to play in slot one, two and three?
what if I call you a the day before the con and ask, "are you playing "Whips and Midgets"? who you running?"

if your answer to any of the above questions is Yeah, I'll talk about the character I plan to run in XXX, I'm forced to ask what's the difference? the game isn't started yet.

Or is it you enjoy "the random chance of strangers thrown together by circumstances beyond their control"? Do you run a different character each time you come play? No? then people who play with you regularly know what you are likely to run, but you penilize strangers.

On a related note. Do you talk about your characters OOC? Can we do that before the game starts?

[Fromper]

Painlord wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

To wit, the discussion that I'm having with nosig reflects something on topic: why some tropes are so persistent and why they exist. However, they are not directly on topic and will remain spoilered. Sorry Jiggy.

Painlord, answering your spoilered conversation:

Spoiler:

That would kinda piss me off. Table top RPGs are social games, and your attitude strikes me as anti-social.

No, the venture captain isn't just randomly picking whatever Pathfinders are available, so the choice at the table shouldn't be random. In story, the venture captain has a list of agents available, knows a fair amount about the strengths and weaknesses of each, and he'll usually want to pick the widest variety of skill sets for any given mission.

If Nosig has 5 characters available of the appropriate level, then in story, it makes sense that the character assigning the mission would know about all of them and call for one that brings some variety to the group. OOC, the owner of the characters has to make that call based on available information. Or he can choose to make some of his characters unavailable if he doesn't feel like playing those particular characters that day.

But if you refuse to participate in that OOC preparatory decision making before hand, then you're limiting Nosig's ability to bring the character to the table that he thinks will be most appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, that would be a violation of the Pathfinder Society's "Don't be a jerk" rule.

[Painlord]

Fromper wrote:

Painlord, answering your spoilered conversation:

** spoiler omitted **

Fromper:

Fromper, I appreciate you (and nosig) keeping this a polite friendly discussion of differing viewpoints.

Fromper, just want to make sure you've seen some of the background posts, notably, this one wherein I express why being pushed to disclose my class before the scenario starts annoys me.

Fromper wrote:

But if you refuse to participate in that OOC preparatory decision making before hand, then you're limiting Nosig's ability to bring the character to the table that he thinks will be most appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, that would be a violation of the Pathfinder Society's "Don't be a jerk" rule.

I don't think there is a stated right to that information. Now, if someone gets offended at me for my rational (or irrational, it doesn't matter to my point) reason for not wanting to share my character before the scenario starts, am I being the jerk?

Fromper wrote:

That would kinda piss me off. Table top RPGs are social games, and your attitude strikes me as anti-social.

Lol, yes, I agree that PFS is a social game. You can see this posts wherein I repeatedly state definitively that exact point:

Painlord's Core Tenets for PFS
Painlord's How to be a Better PFS Judge - the importance of introductions
Painlord's How to be a Better PFS Player
Painlord's "What we Teach New PFS Players"

People who know and play with me know that I am very social at the table and away from it.

And so I think it can be said that I agree that PFS is a social game AND that some people like discuss builds/classes/roles whatever before games HOWEVER, I don't think it makes one anti-social or wrong for having reasons not wanting to.

Fromper wrote:

No, the venture captain isn't just randomly picking whatever Pathfinders are available, so the choice at the table shouldn't be random. In story, the venture captain has a list of agents available, knows a fair amount about the strengths and weaknesses of each, and he'll usually want to pick the widest variety of skill sets for any given mission.

I don't agree with your premise here. We really don't know how VCs are picking people...and if they were deciding to have balanced parties, I believe the campaign structure would be designed to accommodate that. It's not.

* * *

This is a weird discussion to have. I liken it to the "Gift of the Magi". I want to have as little influence into what nosig plays as possible so he can play the character that makes him happiest (and I want to be surprised and amazed at succeeding with whatever party gets thrown together). nosig would be happiest with perfect information so that he can bring in the exact right character.

Sadly, nosig doesn't have the right to know what others are playing. Others can voluntarily give it up...and I can respect them doing such, but I don't it's mandatory nor is it anti-social.

It's just two different viewpoints.

In the end, I believe both sides can still play and enjoy PFS together.

[Jason S]

Jiggy wrote:

There are way too many assumptions among the Pathfinder community. Here are some that I've encountered and are wrong:

• That you need a healer.
• That you need someone (like a rogue) with the Trapfinding ability.
• That rogues need high CHA and ranks in UMD to be worthwhile.
• That a druid needs an animal companion to be worthwhile.
• That a fighter with 13 INT and Combat Expertise can't be worthwhile.
• That a bard needs Inspire Courage to be worthwhile.

The list goes on.

Anyway, thoughts from the rest of you?

I somewhat agree, you can definitely be very non-optimal in PFS (in seasons 0-2).

My core group is a 2H fighter, ninja, rogue, and a "charm" spell sorceror. Hardly powerful in terms of pure combat. They don't have an in-combat healer, except for UMD and Infernal Healing from the Sorc. Even so, they destroy every encounter (even when I buff things, which tells you how easy things must be for a combat optimized party).

However, I've seen situations where the party was all casters and bards and it was obvious (to me) they would fail before they began. They had no DPS.

I've also been a part of groups that had a lot of healing and limited DPS. We could last a long time, but it was so boring having only 1 DPS, I'll never do it again.

So it's somewhat true but not strictly true. IMO you at least need out of combat healing. Also, I personally like to know the party composition, because like I said, I don't want to play as a healer at another table with 2+ healers. It's just boring.

Where are you going with this?

[nosig]

Painlord wrote:

Fromper wrote:

Painlord, answering your spoilered conversation:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Spoiler for Painlord:

Painlord - please watch for me at events. I'm the guy in the white "Take 10" T-shirt. I may need you to tell me to find a different table. This will make both of us happier. And I have always said "if it's not fun, don't play".
It is possible that I may change my mind later. But it looks like you play better with people who are your friends, regular buds. I'm just a stranger.

[Jiggy]

Jason S wrote:

However, I've seen situations where the party was all casters and bards and it was obvious (to me) they would fail before they began. They had no DPS.

I've also been a part of groups that had a lot of healing and limited DPS. We could last a long time, but it was so boring having only 1 DPS, I'll never do it again.

So it's somewhat true but not strictly true.

Note the lack of any references to DPR in my list of myths. ;)

Quote:

IMO you at least need out of combat healing.

Which is quite different from needing a healer. I believe I referenced a table where the only healing was from a ranger with a wand (and some potions, actually). There was healing, but no healer.

Quote:

Where are you going with this?

Many players (both new and old) tend to restrict themselves and their characters based on these myths, and thereby miss out on a lot of potential for fun. (I believe I mentioned how I feel when I see a thread about a new player feeling the need to play a healer even though they don't want to.) My goal was to bring myths to light so that we - all of us - can reexamine our thinking and break molds that aren't doing anything for us.

If you like checking the party make-up and filling a unique role (like nosig), that's great. I just don't like how often people feel like they need to do that (or to build their characters a certain way, or whatever) and I hoped to combat that.

[Painlord]

Jiggy wrote:

Quote:

Where are you going with this?

Many players (both new and old) tend to restrict themselves and their characters based on these myths, and thereby miss out on a lot of potential for fun. (I believe I mentioned how I feel when I see a thread about a new player feeling the need to play a healer even though they don't want to.) My goal was to bring myths to light so that we - all of us - can reexamine our thinking and break molds that aren't doing anything for us.

Such a good point, Jiggy.

Sadness, nosig:

Such a sad thing to say, but I would respect your desire to go elsewhere. However, don't assume it's because I'm anti-social and uncompromising. I've gone and played up and down the West Coast...even traveled to Ohio to play with DougDoug in February. I've play lots and lots of new players at conventions.

Heck: read here.

You'd have a lot of fun playing with me. I'd welcome you with open arms and an extended hand for a shake.

But if you feel like you'd need to know exactly what everyone else was doing and playing to have fun at the table, I can't argue with you.

[WalterGM]

Jiggy wrote:

WalterGM wrote:

The ranger replied that she was an urban ranger, who had grown up on the streets (picking up the dangerously curious trait, along with a wand of CLW) and they'd be fine.

Er, unless said Ranger was also a Skirmisher, she didn't need UMD/Dangerously Curious to activate a wand of CLW.

Don't remember the build down to specifics, just knew about the archetype and the UMD as a class skill feature. Can rangers/paladins use wands without UMD before level 4?

[Callarek]

WalterGM wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

WalterGM wrote:

The ranger replied that she was an urban ranger, who had grown up on the streets (picking up the dangerously curious trait, along with a wand of CLW) and they'd be fine.

Er, unless said Ranger was also a Skirmisher, she didn't need UMD/Dangerously Curious to activate a wand of CLW.

Don't remember the build down to specifics, just knew about the archetype and the UMD as a class skill feature. Can rangers/paladins use wands without UMD before level 4?

Yes.

Quote:

Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method,

so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action
that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell
being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however,
it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate
a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes
for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the
general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used
while grappling or while swallowed whole.

Quote:

Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell

completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell
finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting
that an appropriate character would know, and a single word
that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone
whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case
even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a
3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is
stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell
trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks
of opportunity.

Note that it explicitly mentions a 3rd level Paladin as an example, too.

[Fromper]

Thanks for posting the wand info. Since the only character I've actually played in Pathfinder for more than one session is a barbarian, I'm no expert on the magic side of things.

I'm making a bard character for PFS, and now I know that I don't need to take CLW as a known spell, since the wands are so common, and he'll be able to use it automatically. That frees up a known spell slot for something else.

[nosig]

I've been thinking about this post alot over night.
The title covers 4 things, each somewhat related (at least I think so).
Perhaps we should/could define these things? pulling definitions from online, with the ones I think may work for us in bold.

Parties:
1a. A social gathering especially for pleasure or amusement: a cocktail party.
1b. A group of people who have gathered to participate in an activity.
2. An established political group organized to promote and support its principles and candidates for public office.
3a. A person or group involved in an enterprise; a participant or an accessory: I refuse to be a party to your silly scheme.
3b. Law A person or group involved in a legal proceeding as a litigant.
4a. A subscriber to a telephone party line.
4b. A person using a telephone.
5. A person: "And though Grainger was a spry old party, such steps couldn't be his" (Anthony Hyde).
6. A selected group of soldiers: a raiding party.

Roles:
1. also rôle A character or part played by a performer.
2. The characteristic and expected social behavior of an individual.
3. A function or position. See Synonyms at function.
4. Linguistics The function of a word or construction, as in a sentence.

Tropes:
1. A figure of speech using words in nonliteral ways, such as a metaphor.
2. A word or phrase interpolated as an embellishment in the sung parts of certain medieval liturgies

Stereotypes:
ster·e·o·type (str--tp, stîr-)
n.
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.
3. Printing A metal printing plate cast from a matrix molded from a raised printing surface, such as type.
tr.v. ster·e·o·typed, ster·e·o·typ·ing, ster·e·o·types
1. To make a stereotype of.
2. To characterize by a stereotype: "Elderly Americans are the neglected sector of the fashion industry, stereotyped by blue hair and polyester pantsuits" (American Demographics).
3. To give a fixed, unvarying form to.
4. To print from a stereotype.

[nosig]

now that I have those definitions:

Parties: the group of adventurers who have gathered together to complete a task ("the mission").

Roles: the "part" within the Party each individual adventurer will play while the Party attempts to complete the mission.

Tropes: (I am not sure how this fits in - so I'm going with a guess here) a word or group of words used to discribe the Role an individual adventurer will play while the Party attempts to complete the mission. (i.e. "A Tank")

Stereotype: A players "conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image" of what the Trope used to discribe the role an individual adventurer will play while the Party attemps to complete the mission. (i.e. "A Tank is..." insert what you think a Tank Character is).

Is that what we are discussing on this thread?

[Whiskey Jack]

Painlord wrote:

It's just two different viewpoints.

In the end, I believe both sides can still play and enjoy PFS together.

One could hope. :-) We need more of that.

I like to try to build characters that buck stereotypes and as a result they are not always "optimized" to what amounts to a published build specification that has been given the blessing by the community at large. If someone asks me (during a muster for tables at a PFS event) what my character class is, I will tell them. BUT if they get upset that I am not playing the optimized build for the class that they expect, that is *their* problem.

[Jiggy]

I used the word "tropes" with the intent of referring to a commonly-known concept, tradition, or expectation (much like the myriad pages of TVTropes.com). For instance, the "big dumb fighter" (and all the assumptions that come with it*) is a classic D&D/Pathfinder trope. Same with the shadowy thief (high DEX, low STR, uses daggers, often party face), and plenty of others.

Basically, if it's been done a million times, if it could be called either "classic" or "cliche" depending on whom you ask, it's a "trope" in the sense I'm meaning.

[thejeff]

Whiskey Jack wrote:

I like to try to build characters that buck stereotypes and as a result they are not always "optimized" to what amounts to a published build specification that has been given the blessing by the community at large. If someone asks me (during a muster for tables at a PFS event) what my character class is, I will tell them. BUT if they get upset that I am not playing the optimized build for the class that they expect, that is *their* problem.

Two different issues kind of mushed together in there. Class expectations and optimization.

This thread is mostly about the former, but that is generally easily dealt with by responding to the character class question by answering what your character is built to do, rather than just the class name.

If all you tell me is a class, I'll assume a stereotypical version, because you're not giving me anything else. If you just say "fighter", I'll assume tank/melee damage. If instead you say, "archer" or "manuever-based melee" I'll know that's what you plan to do.

For optimization, you should be at least competent at whatever it is you do. Which isn't necessarily based on your class stereotype, but you do need to be effective.