You and Mr. Interesting Concept (but ineffectual build) are two players that clash in style. You have a history together that isn't helping the situation. Adding someone else for Mr. IC to interact with will provide a needed buffer so that you're not frustrated by his unhelpful combat ideas, and he's not frustrated by you making suggestions that run counter to his roleplaying concept.
He doesn't just clash with me, but with the whole group. Three of us are totally on the same page. He is not. But I am the only one willing to point this out--the other two are too nonconfrontational to say anything. So, Mr. Interesting thinks that I am the odd one out and that the group is doing me a favor keeping me around rather than the other way around. They like him out of the game, though, so he's not going anywhere.
I really have made peace with this, though. If I had a way to find new groups, I would have already done it.
As a group, you ought to sit down and kind of hammer out the "what's our tone/gameplay going to be like?" before you even get started on characters. And you need to compromise.
We did that, and three of us agreed. The fourth won't bend. So, we play around him.
You might be fine with it, but the "casual" guy sounds like a wee bit of a tool. Why are you making a grown man's character for him? If he knows enough of the game to play an oracle, he knows enough to make one. And, if not, it will be a good chance for him to learn. If he refuses to learn to make his own, I would a fighter, a rogue, and a monk and tell him to pick one, as he's too lazy to explain spell mechanics to.
He is more than willing to make his own characters, he's just not able to optimize at all. I offered to help him and he graciously accepted. I do not consider making characters for the party to be a bad thing--frankly, I prefer it.
The other guy's a little bit more complicated. He probably thinks he's being a good roleplayer by making suboptimal characters. This is problematic: Is the guy's concept that he's incompetent at battle?
Preaching to the choir. I have had these discussions very often, trust me. The end result is that he wants to tell a story and we want to play a roleplaying game. And I think he likes being contrary.
Ultimately, it's a communication failure between this guy and your GM. Either the GM needs to tell him it's a combat game and ask him to adapt his character accordingly, or the GM needs to adapt his game to fit the character.
I agree, and wish the others were more willing to speak up about our playsryle issues. The casual guy did once, and Mr. Interesting said his opinion didn't count because he's too casual.
If you can't solve the problem any other way, my advice is to go with it. Make an equally crappy character who focuses on equally trivial things.
I would not be very interested in a game like that. Frankly, I don't think the problem guy would even enjoy that.
Honestly, though, my intentions with this thread was not to whine about the situation I am in--I really don't mind it. The one guy is annoying, but the games are still fun. I am in no way unhappy with carrying the team through danger.
In the past, I have done it as:
A druid, two different rangers (an archer and a shield + cutlass build), and three paladins (an archer, a polearm user, and I am currently one in 5e).
I don't want to repeat those classes again (or any kind of archer), and I would really like a finesse or gun build this time around. I like Inquisitors, but I feel like they need to use a big two hander or bow to really work. Melee Alchemists and investigators seem reliant on polymorphing into weird stuff which is a taste issue. Rogues are weak. Slayers seem like boring Ranger/rogues.
So, my own pickiness has left me with Magus, Swashbuckler, Gunslinger, some kind of Monk, and, I don't know, maybe that weird dex barbarian. My leading ideas are kensai (with arcane deeds) or swashbuckler. It seems like the kensai has the bursty offensive edge (though it's limited by spell slots and arcana), but the Swashbuckler is far more sustainable (all the time higher attack bonuses and a regenerating panache pool for parries). Maybe I should start a new thread for that.
|
I do love the challenge of a self sufficient character; but realistically since the GM is going light on you to make up for the fact that your party intentionally sabotage themselves I say play what you like. A reasonably well build bard or cleric can endure a fair amount of punishment and bring a lot of diverse capability to the table that is useful. They can carry a surprising amount of campaign weight without you having to play the main combatant all the time; but let you step up into that role when you want. An alchemist is also able to do a lot and be a lot of fun without stealing the show; and you get to toss bombs and go all Jekyll and Hyde when you need too. All three also fit well into a social type campaign (and that sounds like what your other players want).
If you need more muscle because the DM likes combat (even if he's going light on you) try a bloodrager, a warpriest, or maybe a skald from the Advanced Class guide. Reasonable combat with some of the varied skills and abilities you like. In fact several of the classes in the ACG might be ideal for you since you like support characters but are being pushed into the front line by necessity.
Alternately we have a game that plays on the second Friday of the month. I promise you that we'd love a good support character. Especially a healer of some type. We've got two front-liners and a rogue right now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the weirdest thing happened: most of the problems I've hinted at here seem to have resolved themselves for this game. Thursday is our normal game night and we discussed this future game more a bit at the end of our session.
It's set to start sometime in February. I presented my ideas and the GM recommended, to fully embrace the game's themes, that I play the Gunslinger. The casual guy asked to be an Alchemist, and Mr. Interesting is going for Technomancer. His non-combat related obsession is going to be...building me high tech guns! It's ridiculous--they set themselves up to be my caddies, and they're excited about it. I'm blown away.
The problem guy even said, "hey, we're a really teamwork focused party this time, huh? How weird that we're all on the same page this time."
And what's more--because the Technomancer is totally new to him, he's even asking for my help building it. So, yeah, thanks for all the suggestions, but the whole issue resolved itself.
Hopefully it will stay resolved. If not, you can always move to the Dayton area.
Ha, thanks for the offer. Give me a job there and we'll talk. For now, I'm in South Jersey.