RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I was serious. But if that is indeed the trend, then I could see where some of the issues with the new seasons are coming from then. Not having a true healer (by which I mean someone who can cast level-appropriate healing spells; doesn't have to be a cleric) really reduces the margin for error in combat, which is not desirable at all with a random group.
What you learn when you play in a lot of randomized tables without healers is that there's no such thing as "we don't have a healer" - the correct statement is "we have X instead of a healer". And that "X" could be enough battlefield control that you no longer need a healer, or it might be enough additional DPR that you can kill the enemies before a PC drops, or it might be a buffer who increases everyone else's DPR and/or defenses so that you don't need a healer, or it might be a debuffer so that the enemies are less threatening and you don't need a healer, etc.
If you buff your allies' DPR, you reduce Y.
If you bring substantial DPR of your own, you reduce Y.
If you have answers to obscure enemy defenses, you reduce Y.
If you have obscure defenses of your own, you increase X.
If you hinder enemies through battlefield control, you increase X.
If you heal, you increase X.
If you buff defensively, you increase X.
If you debuff the enemies, you increase X.
As long as each PC is doing at least one of these things, and doing it well, you'll end up with X > Y and the team wins. It very rarely matters which method any given PC uses - you may notice that there are more methods of changing the X:Y relationship than there are PCs at a table. There will always be something "missing". It doesn't matter which of those methods is unused - even in-combat healing. As long as everyone's working on that X:Y relationship and doing it well, you're on the road to victory. When a team loses, it's almost never because someone was increasing X in one way instead of another way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the theory. I just find through experience that the easiest way to compensate for a random dead weight combat character is to have big healing. It is certainly possible through other means, since I played a cleric in two scenarios where I did literally nothing because we had a fighter archer that massacred everything trivially.
Your theory effectively demonstrates how the PCs have multiple avenues for making it through the newer scenarios. If any given random group have two or more people than can do none of the things you listed, that is not the fault of the scenario writer in any way.
|
Sometimes healing is nice, especially when crazy stuff happens, like someone gets crit and it can bring an unconscious dude back into the fray (because then your action is buying more actions.. :D)
Most of the time dedicated healers aren't important. My PF group just finished a campaign at 16th level without a divine caster, Sorc with UMD and wands did nearly all the healing. Sometimes creatures were summoned to fight, and used some healing after fights (like Bralni).
In combat healing isn't needed, it's sometimes "nice" but removing an enemy from the fight is more important almost always.
|
|
Focusing on "Combat Theory" is why so many people feel like the "fun" of most scenarios is missing. It goes back to what Eric and I said about the players at the table. Without a great GM, a player who wants more role play will not enjoy playing with players focused on heavy roll play (and vice versa).
|
the correct statement is "we have X instead of a healer".
** interesting and correct X>Y spoiler omitted **...
If you are playing up or by chance have a scenario inappropriate party then Y might well be bigger than or very close to X. Then it only takes bad luck with the dice to kill a PC or three.
I think an element to this may also be that some GMs get more out of enemies through experience and/or prep, such that you may be lulled into a sense of false security by past experience or soft-balling GMs.
Hmm, Healer PC = comfort blanket.
|
|
Focusing on "Combat Theory" at the table is why so many people feel like the "fun" of most scenarios is missing.Fixed that for you. Have a competent grasp of character effectiveness when making your behind-the-scenes decisions, then come to the table and roleplay.
Fixed what exactly? My original statement stands since this thread wasn't posted at the table.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think an element to this may also be that some GMs get more out of enemies through experience and/or prep, such that you may be lulled into a sense of false security by past experience or soft-balling GMs.
Indeed, my list of methods was far from exhaustive. Smart tactics can increase X and decrease Y at the same time. Preparation (such as by having a varied and smartly-chosen inventory of consumables) can negate enemy attempts at reducing X. Focus-firing on a single enemy until they're down instead of spreading the love can reduce Y (or X, if you're the GM). The list goes on.
Although I wrote that to demonstrate that a healer is no more necessary than any other type of PC (what the healer accomplishes is necessary, but accomplishing it via healing is not), it also applies to this thread in a broader sense: it seems that in older scenarios (with some exceptions) X would be so high and Y so low that your PC could actually be counterproductive and still end up with X>Y. But now, the two numbers are so much closer that you have to make sure you're changing the math in your favor (consistently/in as many circumstances as possible) in order to maintain X>Y and win.
The question is, does it now take too much work to do so?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Fixed what exactly? My original statement stands since this thread wasn't posted at the table.
I may be misunderstanding you. I understood you to mean that people getting into combat theory somehow detracted from other people's fun. I can of course see how that could be disruptive at the table (talking about build choices instead of playing the game), but I don't see how Player A spending time away from the table to make sure his own PC is effective in combat will take away from Player B's fun at the table.
I wonder now if you meant that scenarios focusing more on "Combat Theory" is making them harder and becoming less fun?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Not everyone wants to think about "combat theory" at ANY point when thinking about their favorite hobby. Those people should have an equal right to have fun without others trying to force their "combat effectiveness" beliefs upon them.
Who's forcing beliefs? Or do you mean harder scenarios are forcing that?
|
|
Not everyone wants to think about "combat theory" at ANY point when thinking about their favorite hobby. Those people should have an equal right to have fun without others trying to force their "combat effectiveness" beliefs upon them.
I believe that PFS requires a balanced approach. What you propose is the equivalent of just being a combat machine with no roleplaying aspects. Since combat *will* be part of the scenarios, I find putting no consideration into combat effectiveness to be a huge mistake.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I noticed a bit of this at gencon, and I tried to stay out of it.
Mustering - some people (players, not staffers) were looking for specific people, and builds, asking about stats stuff like that. I'm not a huge fan of gearscoring in PFS, but I think season 4 has been creating that mentality more and more.
I honestly don't care what people do, I was just saying that having a "healer" doesn't make things easier or harder based on theory, it does often slow things down, as instead of defeating the enemy you prolong the fight.
I know that PF and MMORPG comparisons are taboo to many, but MMOs are the easiest reference point of basic military concepts. Numbers win. Reducing enemy actions in any way possible is just beneficial.
I'm mostly against the so-called arms race, mostly because I don't see the point. Groups of optimized characters with people that know what they are doing destroy anything anyway. While groups of unoptimized characters played by more casual folks are going to get pushed away from the game, because dying and being unable to hit things isn't fun.
(Specifically the ghoul cleric in Wrath's Shadow) Now, I cut his chain shirt in half and the party shredded him, but without that type of play, the party wasn't in great shape his AC was simply too high.
Why weren't his allies better fighters, hell give the mooks items and levels before making the "big bad" the SUPER big bad.
I LOVE in wrath's shadow, but that cleric fight takes forever because of infinity rounds of needing to roll far too large of numbers to hit.
Aid another is a great action to take in the fight, it really is. I did it to make my Eidolon's sunder's hit, guess what PCs don't want to do? use aid other in combat, they want to make their own attack rolls.
|
|
I did it with a spear standing behind the party fighter :D, whip is also good for that.
Also, this is the exact situation where everyone should aid one person. Eidolon has power attack and a Adamntine 2-hander, he wants to sunder that armor (+6 ac worth). If everyone aids for a round the AC gets lowered enough (by sunder) that they can start attacking effectively :D.
It's tactically correct, but that doesn't make your aid other action feel heroic :-p.
I agree it's corner-case, but they seem to be moving towards things like that more in season 4, because it's stuff that most players don't think of. Now I think of things like that, because I, as a gm, love doing that to my group just to see the puzzled look on their faces :D
idk, some things just aren't fun to do. Climbing a wall while someone shoots arrows at you, that's not as bad :D Also a great time for Fog cloud !
|
|
For the record, I love the increased complexity and challenge of some of the encounters. I just wish there were less of them per scenario.Games with one or two bit fights are great.
.
A story that goes somewhere is often lost in the "little" fights - the judge trying to ensure that every Iron Cobra fights to the last HP... but trims the NPC telling us WHY we are even here.If we are in the boss fight and one of the players asks "who is this guy and why are we trying to kill him again?" then I know I as the judge have failed. It may be a little failure, but it's still a fail.
If we are in the boss fight and the Pistol Cheese Whiz drops the BBE and all the mooks ... and the Sorcerer goes over to kick the body, because the "evil dude" deserves it, that's a win. Even if it was a "Cake Walk"...
+1 This this this.
I have an exception, I had no f'ing clue what was going on in Temple Empyrial enlightenment, I noticed soem odd stuff, enough to know that when I fought a big bad, that he was probably behind bad stuff, but (knowledge checks failing miserably) my Character was completely lost. I had a great GM for that one though :D so far the only time my Eidolon has died :).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are in the boss fight and the Pistol Cheese Whiz drops the BBE and all the mooks ... and the Sorcerer goes over to kick the body, because the "evil dude" deserves it, that's a win. Even if it was a "Cake Walk"...
I would go even further and say that if a NON-OPTIMIZED PC can drop the bad guy and all the mooks and another PC goes over to kick the body, that's a win, too. Even if it's a cake walk for Jimmy Olsen, not just a cake walk for Superman. :-)
|
|
For the record, I love the increased complexity and challenge of some of the encounters. I just wish there were less of them per scenario.
So what do you think, Kyle? Three combats per scenario, tops? Two if the module has things to do other than slog through monsters?
It would be nice to have weeknight sessions again.
Re: Combat Theory: Some of us are okay with overly-tweaking our PCs' combat-effectiveness between games. Others are not. Both groups deserve to have fun. I know I would rather not see a pressure towards PFS-related conversation being all about combat and tweaking PCs for combat-effectiveness. The later modules are applying that pressure.
-Matt
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think 4 combat encounters with one of them being clearly optional, but it still fits within the story. That gives the option for combat-focused tables to experience more combat.
I'd rather more words went into personal NPC story development, pre-defined role play talking points (to help GMs), better tactics, better environmental descriptions, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I recently played
No more "random encounters" in disguise, please.
|
|
"because that's what a 7 Int character would do"WARNING: I am not pulling punches...
[rant]
I absolutely detest this player comment (not directed at Mr. Manypockets) and any player that uses it to justify poor gameplay is, IMO, an absolute douche. Period. Over 30+ years of gaming, I have seen, time and time again, players create characters that are at odds with their companions and/or the majority of NPC's. Personality conflicts, opposing alignments, low-Int PC's routinely screwing the party with bad tactical decisions or jumping to combat and ruining role-playing, low-Cha characters that seem to go out of their way to sabotage any attempts at role-playing, the list goes on. I love balance in my RPG, and the VAST majority of players I have encountered are the same. If you only enjoy combat and don't like role-playing, then play something else. MMORPG and console games may be more your style. If you hate combat and only enjoy the role-playing, then read a book or play Diplomacy. PFS is a game of balance with player cooperation to overcome challenges at its heart. If you are not embracing that premise, then GO AWAY! Both you and the PFS community will be better for it.It has been said before, but demands repeating, characters are not the problem, players are. *We* are in charge of the character, from creation to the grave. I am not saying you cannot create unique and memorable characters with flaws that can define their personality, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well you know the rest. If you create a character who's actions routinely seem to be in conflict with your companions, NPC's, the environment, etc. and said "conflict" is distracting or straight out reducing the fun of the players at the table, STOP FRIGGIN' BUILDING THOSE CHARACTERS!!!!
[/rant]Sorry for the derail
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
I would just make the low INT score character roll INT checks each and every time he wanted to do something stupid and derail the party. If a player wants to be a douche to the party then I feel everyone else has the option to be a douche to them.
Now in PFS if that was going on at a table I was GMing, after the first time I would tell the player that goes against the Cooperate rule, and not to continue doing it. If they keep doing it I would just ask them to leave the table. Luckily in my area I haven't run across any players like that in PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a slight disconnect here. People are talking about tweaking,etc. Tweaking is not necessary to steam roll these modules. Everyone merely need be effective, not tweaked.
Tweaked characters are when you get fighter archers that can literally solo some scenarios. I consider almost every summoner to be the same as a tweaked character as well, even if they don't optimize.
There is a world of difference between the three types of combat characters: the effective ones, who do the things that one would expect their class be able to do, the ineffective ones, who can not contribute in any constructive way in combat, and then the tweaked ones that just break scenarios.
I see a lot of conflating effective characters with optimized characters. Again, optimized combat characters are not necessary in PFS. In fact, I play PFS as a break from high-stakes homebrews. A team of six *effective*, but not optimized characters will still own any given PFS scenario when it comes to combat.
|
Actually I was serious. But if that is indeed the trend, then I could see where some of the issues with the new seasons are coming from then. Not having a true healer (by which I mean someone who can cast level-appropriate healing spells; doesn't have to be a cleric) really reduces the margin for error in combat, which is not desirable at all with a random group.What you learn when you play in a lot of randomized tables without healers is that there's no such thing as "we don't have a healer" - the correct statement is "we have X instead of a healer". And that "X" could be enough battlefield control that you no longer need a healer, or it might be enough additional DPR that you can kill the enemies before a PC drops, or it might be a buffer who increases everyone else's DPR and/or defenses so that you don't need a healer, or it might be a debuffer so that the enemies are less threatening and you don't need.
While I agree with Jiggy on this, sometimes thats not the case. In my last two games the new player thought it was a good thing to rush into each and every combat shouting "heal me". It started getting annoying very quickly as both my Cleric and the other had to keep burning heals on him. That and a wierd combo Irish/Scottish/British accent, I think he might have gotten us into more trouble than we should have just to spotlight his character.I probably will not put much effort into healing him next time during combat, but it really seemed like we kept having to, and I kept this sure feels like WoW.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fixed what exactly? My original statement stands since this thread wasn't posted at the table.I may be misunderstanding you. I understood you to mean that people getting into combat theory somehow detracted from other people's fun. I can of course see how that could be disruptive at the table (talking about build choices instead of playing the game), but I don't see how Player A spending time away from the table to make sure his own PC is effective in combat will take away from Player B's fun at the table.
I wonder now if you meant that scenarios focusing more on "Combat Theory" is making them harder and becoming less fun?
Player A will take away from Player B's fun at the table if Player B feels like he needs to have an encyclopedic knowledge of combat theory in order to "compete" with Player A. Unfortunately, there's not a lot that can be done about that, but the combat-heavy nature of the scenarios these days seems to encourage having optimized characters over people just showing up casually to have fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If Player B feels the need to compete with anyone, that's on him.
However, your second paragraph/sentence is what I was referencing with my last sentence of what you quoted - the issue of whether scenarios are so combat-focused that it requires more system mastery than the "typical player" cares for.
|
|
Again, Tamago is speaking of this false choice. You don't need optimized characters to crush these encounters, just effective. The NPCs are still almost always outnumbered and that turns into perma-flanked real fast. Game set match.
Are you assuming the typical players makes a character that is ineffective in combat and is just a skill monkey?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removed some unhelpful posts. Please critique constructively.
|
|
I loved the Godsmarket Gambit. Probably my favorate so far from what Ive playeed, DMed, or just read. And you did an awesome job, too.
Thanks, it's up on my list as well. And I can see about keeping the home group separate from the comic shop group from now on if need be. We have a pretty solid lineup without the barbarian.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's hilarious! Sometimes bypassing a fight is the most fun. :) I think it was earlier in this thread where I mentioned only having two combats in a recent scenario. As I understand it, we could have had a third, but we bought the guy off just because it seemed like the most straightforward thing to do to achieve our goal. Heck, I didn't even know the guy had stats!