Pixie, the Leng Queen |
So I have seen in my few years many a person demand or get annoyed at not getting stuff from another player. Examples include:
Cleric/Oracle buffing self and not martial
Alchemist not getting infusion asap
BSF/Glass cannon not spending turn/AoO to move into flanking.
Wizard not preparing haste for the fighter
Ect.
So qhat do yu guys think? Are you obligated to break from your theme or build or whatever to give someone else something?
Redjack_rose |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh no, not the dreaded teamwork! How dare someone expect teamwork...
Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't say someone is obligated to make a cookie cutter build, but they are obligated to try and work best with their team withing their character parameters.
Are you a wizard capable of casting haste? You should be casting it in the first round rather than chucking a magic missile cause you have some witty catch phrase you want to spout off.
Does the buff your casting benefit someone else significantly more than you? Don't be selfish.
Should you have to take infusion or a particular feat that is grossly outside your character's purview because it helps the party? Probably not.
Long story short, if you are reasonably capable of doing so within your build, than yes, you should feel obligated to work as a team.
Pixie, the Leng Queen |
Oh no, not the dreaded teamwork! How dare someone expect teamwork...
Sarcasm aside, I wouldn't say someone is obligated to make a cookie cutter build, but they are obligated to try and work best with their team withing their character parameters.
Are you a wizard capable of casting haste? You should be casting it in the first round rather than chucking a magic missile cause you have some witty catch phrase you want to spout off.
Does the buff your casting benefit someone else significantly more than you? Don't be selfish.
Should you have to take infusion or a particular feat that is grossly outside your character's purview because it helps the party? Probably not.
Long story short, if you are reasonably capable of doing so within your build, than yes, you should feel obligated to work as a team.
What if your a blaster wizard? Your level 3 slots are gonna be kinda tight with fireballs.
Or what of your a battle cleric? Ypu built him to be a delf buffing melee machine (you know, like the typical warpriest trope). You built him so YOU can be in combat,not so Mr. Fighter can be useful at it while you stand back and watch.
Or say your a self buffing druid. Sure you can expend a spell slot to cast SNA to give your fighter a flanking buddy, but your supposed to be a wildshaping melee bot. Why waste a turn to summon when you prefer to go in and duke it out ypurself.
Or the oh so popular bard. When you take an archetype that DOESNT focus on "spam Inspire Greatness" and your fighter gets annoyed since you are not buffing him (say you took Thundercaller instead for awesomeness).
Redjack_rose |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if your a blaster wizard? Your level 3 slots are gonna be kinda tight with fireballs.Or what of your a battle cleric? Ypu built him to be a delf buffing melee machine (you know, like the typical warpriest trope). You built him so YOU can be in combat,not so Mr. Fighter can be useful at it while you stand back and watch.
Or say your a self buffing druid. Sure you can expend a spell slot to cast SNA to give your fighter a flanking buddy, but your supposed to be a wildshaping melee bot. Why waste a turn to summon when you prefer to go in and duke it out ypurself.
Or the oh so popular bard. When you take an archetype that DOESNT focus on "spam Inspire Greatness" and your fighter gets annoyed since you are not buffing him (say you took Thundercaller instead for awesomeness).
1st. A simple calculation, is your 1 round of fireball equal to or greater than an entire party under haste for 5+ rounds? If the answer is no, yes you should cast haste.
2nd. Does the buff on you do more for the over all party than on the martial? If no, then cast that buff on the other person.
3rd. That's just a silly question. If you could just flank the thing, go flank it yourself.
4th. Once again, is your thunder call equal to or greater than the entire party receiving bard buffs for 1 round? In this case, the thunder call is probably more effective.
Why is teamwork such a bad thing. This is honestly a two way street as well. The fighter/martial/whatever receiving a benefit from you should either pull their weight with the gift you gave them, or cede the buff/action to you.
Pixie, the Leng Queen |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
What if your a blaster wizard? Your level 3 slots are gonna be kinda tight with fireballs.Or what of your a battle cleric? Ypu built him to be a delf buffing melee machine (you know, like the typical warpriest trope). You built him so YOU can be in combat,not so Mr. Fighter can be useful at it while you stand back and watch.
Or say your a self buffing druid. Sure you can expend a spell slot to cast SNA to give your fighter a flanking buddy, but your supposed to be a wildshaping melee bot. Why waste a turn to summon when you prefer to go in and duke it out ypurself.
Or the oh so popular bard. When you take an archetype that DOESNT focus on "spam Inspire Greatness" and your fighter gets annoyed since you are not buffing him (say you took Thundercaller instead for awesomeness).
1st. A simple calculation, is your 1 round of fireball equal to or greater than an entire party under haste for 5+ rounds? If the answer is no, yes you should cast haste.
2nd. Does the buff on you do more for the over all party than on the martial? If no, then cast that buff on the other person.
3rd. That's just a silly question. If you could just flank the thing, go flank it yourself.
4th. Once again, is your thunder call equal to or greater than the entire party receiving bard buffs for 1 round? In this case, the thunder call is probably more effective.
Why is teamwork such a bad thing. This is honestly a two way street as well. The fighter/martial/whatever receiving a benefit from you should either pull their weight with the gift you gave them, or cede the buff/action to you.
But then your forcing people to not play their character.
MAYBE their fireball does less, BUT THEIR CHARACTER IS BUILT TO CHUCK FIREBALLS .They want to chuck fireballs, not play vending machine for someone else.
Maybe the cleric wants to have fun going in at hitting things. Why should he have to give up his wanted playstyle for a class that cant self buff? Regardless of what is more effective, its also about what the PLAYER wants to do. He wants to go up and things! Unless your suggesting clerics should never be self buff bots and instead be vending machines bacause "teamwork."
Maybe the bard doesnt want to be the spoony bard going around as a cheerleader. Maybe he wants to call down thunder and be a badass. Sure, the normal bard is much stronger, but thundercaller is just rule.of cool. Or maybe they are a Chelish Diva or Spund striker. Heck I made a SoundStriker Bard once with a dip into oracle for the Legalistic curse (and lore mystery... cuz may as well...) and Profession (Lawyer) so that I could flavor my spundstrike as legalese LITERALLY CAUSING YOU PHYSICAL PAIN. Sure, if I wanted to be "teamplayer" i would be a normal bard and focus on buffs... but I wanted to he a.lawyer damn it lol.
Redjack_rose |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
About the bard/build thing first. I haven't said and want to explicitly state I'm not advocating you should feel obligated to make the best build of whatever your class is. This is why I said said someone shouldn't have to take infusion or specific feats if they don't fit within their character concept. So no... I am not saying a bard should only be a buffer and focus on being Buffy McBuff-Pants.
What I have said is that within the parameters of your character concepts abilities, you should feel obligated to reasonably act in the best interest of the party. Whether this means giving up 1 fireball for a more effective haste or buffing the hulking barbarian over yourself. If there is no significant difference between who gets buff, then go buff yourself.
To go into ''but that's what I want to do!'' fine, but don't call yourself a team player and don't be surprised if someone get's mad at you. It's a bit of an immature attitude honestly because you are part of a team all working to be better together.
Once again, this is referring specifically to playing the character once created and not during its design.
On a side note; Imagine, as this is an rpg, that your character is first starting out. He wants to be Blaster the Red, Blast-o-mancer of Fireballs. It sounds cool and so when he first meets up with his team, all he does is blast. This is perfectly fine rp.
Now as he continues to adventure he has two choices. He may either choose to continue being blasty no matter the situation cause that makes him feel cool, or over time he begins to mature. He realizes sometimes you cast that haste spell you found a few dungeons back to help your friends, or cast fly on the grounded fighter so they can fight the dragon. The team is stronger for it, even if he can't make boasting claims about how his fireball killed everything.
Snowblind |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is really more of a social thing where you need to come to an understanding with the other players as to how and when teamwork is expected.
Some groups might be OK with the tactically right choice being the preferred choice, even at the expense of not doing something "fun" or leaving others out. Some might expect players to try to allow others to participate, even if they don't get to do cool things themselves or even if it wastes resources. Some might think that each player should aim to enjoy themselves and not feel compelled to make big sacrifices to benefit the group or the enjoyment of other players. Some expect different Some groups contain a mix of player expectations and everyone has come to a compromise. Some have different expectations at different times, like expecting characters to be good at helping others(i.e. at character creation think of others), but in the middle of combat selfishness is OK within reason. Some expect some sort of balance, but the balance can variy wildly. Unless everyone has come to an understanding, you are going to need to talk with the other players and figure out how it's going to be done in your group.
On a side note, wow, the answer to "I have problems with people" is "talk to them". Shocking, I know.
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
Steve Geddes |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is really more of a social thing where you need to come to an understanding with the other players as to how and when teamwork is expected.
Some groups might be OK with the tactically right choice being the preferred choice, even at the expense of not doing something "fun" or leaving others out. Some might expect players to try to allow others to participate, even if they don't get to do cool things themselves or even if it wastes resources. Some might think that each player should aim to enjoy themselves and not feel compelled to make big sacrifices to benefit the group or the enjoyment of other players. Some expect different Some groups contain a mix of player expectations and everyone has come to a compromise. Some have different expectations at different times, like expecting characters to be good at helping others(i.e. at character creation think of others), but in the middle of combat selfishness is OK within reason. Some expect some sort of balance, but the balance can variy wildly. Unless everyone has come to an understanding, you are going to need to talk with the other players and figure out how it's going to be done in your group.
On a side note, wow, the answer to "I have problems with people" is "talk to them". Shocking, I know.
Very true. The whole premise that there's a "correct" amount of teamwork is silly.
Some people will expect you to be a team player and that the party is effectively a highly co-ordinated special ops unit, some will expect you to be a group of borderline sociopaths who just happen to hang out together.
Probably there are groups who like one style on monday and another on tuesday.
The only thing that's wrong (or a mistake) is to say you're going to play one way and then actually do something else.
Chengar Qordath |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, how teamwork ought to be handled is really going to vary from group to group. Some groups expect tight coordination, and others are fine with everyone doing as they will so long as it doesn't lead to problems like the wizard fireballing the orcs after the barbarian charges into the middle of them. And hell, in some groups the barbarian would be fine with getting fireballed along with the orcs.
I think the real issue Pixie's getting it isn't about how much teamwork you should give, though. It's about when people use teamwork as an excuse to be control freaks, or are in fact being selfish themselves. I've certainly played with people whose idea of teamwork was "everyone else should just buff and enable my character, then let me claim all the glory" or "Proper teamwork is when everyone else plays exactly how I tell them to."
As a general rule, I think players should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own characters so long as they're not being deliberately disruptive, blindingly idiotic, or violating table norms.
alexd1976 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently playing a level 4 hunter who has focused on melee with her cat, and spells are basically just used to feed and heal (the idea was to not burden the party with healing both my character AND my cat). The GM does TONS of damage to my kitty, so all my healing goes into her.
The party has unexpectedly altered in such a way that they now declare MY character as primary healer, despite one of the players having declared their intention to pick up the task themselves (a witch, full caster with access to healing spells, but has chosen to a) not memorize them and b)not taken healing hex).
So, teamwork is nice, but I'm not going to be party healer, because I CAN'T!
So their expectations are irrelevant, I'm not built that way.
Do I prioritize my own healing/my cat's healing over theirs? I sure do. They knew I would be doing that before we started the game.
I told them if they purchased a wand of CLW I could do healing for them, no problem.
They refused. *shrugs*
Mathmuse |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then your forcing people to not play their character.
MAYBE their fireball does less, BUT THEIR CHARACTER IS BUILT TO CHUCK FIREBALLS. They want to chuck fireballs, not play vending machine for someone else.
Maybe the cleric wants to have fun going in at hitting things. Why should he have to give up his wanted playstyle for a class that cant self buff? Regardless of what is more effective, its also about what the PLAYER wants to do. He wants to go up and things! Unless your suggesting clerics should never be self buff bots and instead be vending machines because "teamwork."
Maybe the bard doesn't want to be the spoony bard going around as a cheerleader. Maybe he wants to call down thunder and be a badass. Sure, the normal bard is much stronger, but thundercaller is just rule.of cool. Or maybe they are a Chelish Diva or Sound striker. Heck I made a SoundStriker Bard once with a dip into oracle for the Legalistic curse (and lore mystery... cuz may as well...) and Profession (Lawyer) so that I could flavor my soundstrike as legalese LITERALLY CAUSING YOU PHYSICAL PAIN. Sure, if I wanted to be "teamplayer" i would be a normal bard and focus on buffs... but I wanted to be a lawyer damn it lol.
A character is not simply a collection of mechanics that the player wants to use. If the player is playing in character, then the character should have a personality. The personality is likely to reflect the mechanics. For example, thundercaller bard could be a proud Shoanti tribesman who considers the tavern music of Inspire Courage to be beneath his dignity. The soundstriker bard wanted to be a lawyer.
Why does the wizard want to chuck fireballs? Why does the cleric want to join the melee? If the reason is that the player want glory, then something is wrong with the character. If the player chose to create a character who is a glory hound, then the other players should ask, "Why did you create a jerk?"
I usually create characters to experiment with character classes, so I understand wanting to play with the mechanics. When the Advanced Player's Guide was published, I made an alchemist Gaspar who was highly intelligent, had studied the new art of alchemy, and wanted to prove to the world that alchemists are awesome. But the GM put us into a political setting where our only option was to become house guards for a lord, who sent us out to do police work for the city. My alchemist made a deal with a local blacksmith, became a crafter enhancing himself and the blacksmith with Crafter's Fortune extracts, and made better armor and weapons for the party. Gaspar would prove that alchemists were awesome by taking the humble path that served the party. And I got to play with alchemical infusions.
Suppose the wizard is a blaster because he loves to demonstrate the raw power of fire. Let the fighter make a deal with him, "Hey, if you cast Haste on me, I will have the mobility to not be in the center of where you want to cast fireball. I will even study up on Dodge and Mobility to dodge out from mobs of enemies so that you can fireball them. Work with me here, okay?"
Teamwork requires talking together as a team.
Do I prioritize my own healing/my cat's healing over theirs? I sure do. They knew I would be doing that before we started the game.
I told them if they purchased a wand of CLW I could do healing for them, no problem.
They refused. *shrugs*
If a party wants to play suicidal idiots, then the only question to ask in character is does the character want to be around for the inevitable Total Party Kill?
DM_Blake |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole premise that there's a "correct" amount of teamwork is silly.
There is, in fact, a "correct" amount of teamwork.
On the one hand, you have your individuality and your "right" (however you define that) to play what you want, how you want. On the other hand, you have a successful adventure, quickly and efficiently destroying every encounter as quickly as you can so you can maximize the amount of exploration and adventure you can enjoy per gaming session.
If you (and the other players too) go too far to the individual end of the scale, your whole group under-performs. Fights take longer, time is wasted, you might even lose fights you should win, or suffer PC death or even a TPK. But if you all go too far to the teamwork end, you pass a point where additional teamwork doesn't bring additional benefit but it costs you your individuality.
Somewhere in the middle is that sweet spot where you are still as individualistic as you can be but also as efficient and successful as an adventuring party can be. The best of both worlds.
Where that sweet spot is will obviously vary from group to group. For some groups, that sweet spot might be right in the middle. Other groups might find their sweet spot very close to one or the other end of the scale. Each group is different.
But if your goal is to have adventure, explore, GET STUFF DONE, and have fun doing it, then that sweet spot is the "correct" amount of teamwork for your group. You just need to find it.
Redjack_rose |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm inclined to agree with DM Blake. There is a correct amount of teamwork, and while it does vary a bit from group to group, it is based off a formula. Not an exact formula...
As I said before, if your 1 round fireball doesn't deal a significant amount of damage/effect more than the whole party hasted for 5 rounds, there is no reason [character or otherwise] you shouldn't help the party. If the character won't do it, your character is an immature jerk that maybe the party of character's doesn't need around. If the player won't do it... well same thing.
Notice I say significant damage/effect. If you compare that giving the fighter a buff and giving yourself the buff is about the same. Maybe the fighter will eek just a little bit more out of it but you're playing a battle cleric, go ahead and cast it on yourself.
Steve Geddes |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Geddes wrote:The whole premise that there's a "correct" amount of teamwork is silly.There is, in fact, a "correct" amount of teamwork.
On the one hand, you have your individuality and your "right" (however you define that) to play what you want, how you want. On the other hand, you have a successful adventure, quickly and efficiently destroying every encounter as quickly as you can so you can maximize the amount of exploration and adventure you can enjoy per gaming session.
If you (and the other players too) go too far to the individual end of the scale, your whole group under-performs. Fights take longer, time is wasted, you might even lose fights you should win, or suffer PC death or even a TPK. But if you all go too far to the teamwork end, you pass a point where additional teamwork doesn't bring additional benefit but it costs you your individuality.
Somewhere in the middle is that sweet spot where you are still as individualistic as you can be but also as efficient and successful as an adventuring party can be. The best of both worlds.
Where that sweet spot is will obviously vary from group to group. For some groups, that sweet spot might be right in the middle. Other groups might find their sweet spot very close to one or the other end of the scale. Each group is different.
But if your goal is to have adventure, explore, GET STUFF DONE, and have fun doing it, then that sweet spot is the "correct" amount of teamwork for your group. You just need to find it.
The bolded is all I meant.
voideternal |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think teamwork is that valuable. Even if the teamwork option is the most efficient path to victory, I would not pick it. I would instead pick the option that is the most efficient path to fun.
Now, if every player's idea of fun is victory, and the teamwork option is the most efficient path to victory, then I would pick the teamwork option.
But not every player's idea of fun is to win. Sometimes, a player wants to throw a fireball, for whatever reason, even if it causes them to lose the battle.
If there is one player whose idea of fun is victory, and another player whose idea of fun is being stylish*, and if the most efficient path to victory is not the stylish path, then there is unavoidable conflict at the metagame player level.
* You can replace 'stylish' with whatever other word fits your definition of fun, such as 'roleplay', 'funny', etc.
DM_Blake |
But not every player's idea of fun is to win. Sometimes, a player wants to throw a fireball, for whatever reason, even if it causes them to lose the battle.
Maybe. I agree that some players may define "fun" differently than others.
But I doubt that even this guy wants to roll new characters every week or two.
I doubt any player wants to explore 3 dungeon rooms each week, taking 6 months to finish a single book of an AP - purely because every battle turns into a 15-round slog through tedious crappy combat and all their game time is wasted on fighting and retreating and camping between every battle because they couldn't find a way to win efficiently.
I've been in those groups, on both sides of the GM screen, and I don't recall anyone having fun with that.
On the other hand, players who work together so that their characters work together can shred those same encounters in a round or two, turning a single fight that takes an hour into a fight that takes 5 minutes, so they can explore more than three rooms, and finish that AP book in 4-5 sessions. They have more fun more often with less boredom and less frustration, and they enjoy their game much more.
voideternal |
I think you disagree because your idea of fun is progressing through the AP.
I've played in a group with a lot of optimal teamwork. 'Teamwork' was the entire party buffing me (the Fighter) and me killing whatever encounter that appeared. We played through an entire AP, very fast.
Every turn was basically the same thing. I hit things, and everyone else used whatever buff was appropriate. It was the most repetative, boring Pathfinder experience I ever had. There was lots of teamwork and lots of wining and lots of boredom.
Chess Pwn |
I'm inclined to agree with DM Blake. There is a correct amount of teamwork, and while it does vary a bit from group to group, it is based off a formula. Not an exact formula...
As I said before, if your 1 round fireball doesn't deal a significant amount of damage/effect more than the whole party hasted for 5 rounds, there is no reason [character or otherwise] you shouldn't help the party. If the character won't do it, your character is an immature jerk that maybe the party of character's doesn't need around. If the player won't do it... well same thing.
Notice I say significant damage/effect. If you compare that giving the fighter a buff and giving yourself the buff is about the same. Maybe the fighter will eek just a little bit more out of it but you're playing a battle cleric, go ahead and cast it on yourself.
[kinda sarcasm]
As I said before, if your fighter doesn't deal a significant amount of damage/effect more than another spellcaster there's no reason [character or otherwise] you shouldn't help the party and play a spellcaster. If the character won't be a spellcaster, your character is an immature jerk that maybe the party of character's doesn't need around. If the player won't be a spellcaster... well same thing.Notice I say significant damage/effect. If you compare that playing the fighter and playing a spellcaster is about the same. Maybe the fighter will eek just a little bit more in combat but the other option is a spellcaster.
Redjack_rose |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn,
I have stated very clearly that when making character/character concepts, I'm all for people making what they want, even if what they make isn't the most efficient or optimized.
When playing said character, they should work as a team to the best of their ability. In game, to do otherwise is just asking for death and no reasonable party would willing to invite that kind of weakness into their group. Out of game, to do otherwise just isn't being a team player.
[sarcasm kinda] It's really not a hard concept.
DM_Blake |
Every turn was basically the same thing. I hit things, and everyone else used whatever buff was appropriate. It was the most repetative, boring Pathfinder experience I ever had. There was lots of teamwork and lots of wining and lots of boredom.
So, if they had stopped buffing you and instead fired crossbow bolts for their stylish sense of individuality, and the monsters steamrolled you. Or maybe you won but it took 20 rounds and in the end, the cleric used every healing spell he had to keep you alive so you had to go rest after each fight.
Would doing that have made the game more fun? For anyone?
My guess is the game would still have been boring but it also would have been frustrating and you never would have finished the AP at all - but you might have spent as many hours NOT finishing it as you actually spent finishing it, but with more frustration and less accomplishment.
I would suggest that part of the boredom you felt may have been the fault of the GM and/or the AP. And maybe of the players, too, for not finding ways to spice up the game through roleplaying instead of just running from room to room to "win".
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally tend to approach my gaming with a "narrative first" mindset, so I make a character who has a reason to be part of the campaign. As the campaign progresses, said character's fighting style will tend to evolve somewhat to give the character the best chance of success within the context of his capabilities, personality and motivations. Therefore, each individual character will land in a different spot on the continuum between "Help the group by being reliably effective myself" and "Help the group by increasing their effectiveness".
Furthermore, I think some folks suffer from a dire misunderstanding on the topic of "teamwork". Casting a buff spell (or moving in for a flank, or otherwise helping someone else's actions) is not always an example of teamwork, and teamwork is not always best achieved by casting a buff spell, etc.
For an extreme example, consider a party that includes a greatsword-wielding, Power-Attacking barbarian alongside a 14STR cleric with no melee feats. Both are in melee with an enemy. Now, what would be the "teamwork" option for the barbarian: Would it be to use Aid Another to give the cleric a +2 on his 1d8+2 attack? Or would it be to do his own attack for 2d6+12?
There seem to be an awful lot of people who act like "teamwork" always means doing something to buff your allies, even if doing something "selfish" (as they call it) would make more sense as a means of keeping your friends alive.
voideternal |
So, if they had stopped buffing you and instead fired crossbow bolts for their stylish sense of individuality, and the monsters steamrolled you. Or maybe you won but it took 20 rounds and in the end, the cleric used every healing spell he had to keep you alive so you had to go rest after each fight.
Would doing that have made the game more fun? For anyone?
Yes it would have. For everyone. I know because there were a few fights in which the party did things other than buff me, and there were a few fights in which I did something other than whack with my greatsword. Those fights took longer. Those fights were not always successful. But those fights were the ones I still remember as the only fun fights.
Edit - to note, in the campaign with my greatsword fighter, buffing him, and him attacking was usually the most tactically sound option.
haremlord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny, this has never been an issue at any table I've played at in the ...uh... 27 years (OHMYGODHASITREALLYBEENTHATLONG?!?) that I've gamed.
If someone does something that helps someone else, we accept it not as something that we expected, but as something given.
We've played evil games, good games, and somewhere in-between. In all cases, we've had party members that helped others, and party members that hindered others. (Fun fact, our evil groups tend to work better together than our good ones, typically)
In fact, unless someone was obviously cheating, we haven't had any fuss if someone brings a character to the table that is significantly more powerful than others (min/maxed... cheating is a different story).
To be honest, however, our last gaming session was roughly 8 hours long, with 7 hours of it with chatting about non-gaming stuff, so... (I may exaggerate, but not much).
Now I want to look back at the characters I've made and take a look if I could have done something different to be more team-oriented (for example, most alchemists I make do not take Infusion because... uh... I want other discoveries? :D )
Chess Pwn |
Redjack_rose,
So I make my character concept of a blaster wizard and you're okay with that.
But then if I cast blasts instead of casting haste or summons or CC is when there's an issue because those are "more efficient" options at winning the encounter than my blasts. Because in your own words if I cast a blast instead of haste that I am "an immature jerk that maybe the table of players doesn't need around"
I feel it's the same as saying, pick any class you want to play as and pick fighter with 5 int. Then be upset at fighter for only hitting things good instead of using maneuvers or skills, not to mention having no spells to help the rest of the party do anything.
Redjack_rose |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn,
Once more, I come back to the idea of effeciency and using the best case of team work. As Jiggy mentioned in his post;
''Therefore, each individual character will land in a different spot on the continuum between "Help the group by being reliably effective myself" and "Help the group by increasing their effectiveness.''
If your Blaster Caster is more efficient to the party blasting, then hell yes he should blast. If the wizard is truly designed to blast, then such will be the case.
If he isn't more efficient to the party blasting, he can spend 1 round not blasting to cast haste. Is it really too much to ask?
Chess Pwn |
Chess Pwn,
Once more, I come back to the idea of effeciency and using the best case of team work. As Jiggy mentioned in his post;
''Therefore, each individual character will land in a different spot on the continuum between "Help the group by being reliably effective myself" and "Help the group by increasing their effectiveness.''
If your Blaster Caster is more efficient to the party blasting, then hell yes he should blast. If the wizard is truly designed to blast, then such will be the case.
If he isn't more efficient to the party blasting, he can spend 1 round not blasting to cast haste. Is it really too much to ask?
Well I'm a blaster caster. I'm assuming that haste on the party is more efficient than my blasts. And that I'm not the most efficient or optimized (since you said you're okay with that) so my blasts aren't all that awesome. Why is it an issue if I play my character as his concept rather than the a buffer?
Would you complain that I take fireball rather than haste as my only lv3 spell known?What if Every spell I prepped is a blast? Then are you okay if I blast instead of casting haste or am I an "immature jerk that maybe the table of players doesn't need around"? What if Every spell I know is a blast? Then are you okay if I blast instead of casting haste or am I still an "immature jerk that maybe the table of players doesn't need around" because I can't cast haste?
Would you complain at the melee for not going archery since that's "more efficient?" For playing a fighter rather than Barb or Any Spellcaster? As they'd be more efficient to the party than your fighter?
Do you complain at my dagger throwing fighter throwing daggers rather than using a bow or a greatsword if those options are more efficient to the party?
voideternal |
If your Blaster Caster is more efficient to the party blasting, then hell yes he should blast. If the wizard is truly designed to blast, then such will be the case.
If he isn't more efficient to the party blasting, he can spend 1 round not blasting to cast haste. Is it really too much to ask?
In a martial-oriented party, haste, being a force multiplier, is a very strong option. If this caster was in a party mostly composed of martials, haste would usually be the best option.
Lets say the caster casts Haste. Next battle, haste is still the best option, so the caster casts haste again. The next battle, haste is still the best option, so the caster casts haste...
After a few sessions of only casting haste, caster player is absolutely bored of casting haste every single battle, but it's the most efficient course of action given his character's capabilities. The other players are also upset because they see the caster player bored.
Now, one could potentially argue that it's the GM's responsibility to mix up the encounters to keep things interesting. The GM could throw in fine swarms, or the GM could throw an encounter of 50 low-reflex fire-vunerable oozes that are in a perfect fireball formation.
But really, isn't it every player's responsibility to pursue fun for the whole table? Who can blame the caster for throwing a fireball, even if it's inefficient, when the caster is so bored after casting only haste for the past 3 sessions?
Redjack_rose |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Well I'm a blaster caster. I'm assuming that haste on the party is more efficient than my blasts. And that I'm not the most efficient or optimized (since you said you're okay with that) so my blasts aren't all that awesome. Why is it an issue if I play my character as his concept rather than the a buffer?2.Would you complain that I take fireball rather than haste as my only lv3 spell known?
3. What if Every spell I prepped is a blast? Then are you okay if I blast instead of casting haste or am I an "immature jerk that maybe the table of players doesn't need around"?
4. What if Every spell I know is a blast? Then are you okay if I blast instead of casting haste or am I still an "immature jerk that maybe the table of players doesn't need around" because I can't cast haste?
5. Would you complain at the melee for not going archery since that's "more efficient?" For playing a fighter rather than Barb or Any Spellcaster? As they'd be more efficient to the party than your fighter? Do you complain at my dagger throwing fighter throwing daggers rather than using a bow or a greatsword if those options are more efficient to the party?
1. Why would you assume haste is more efficient? I said -if- it's more efficient. Is haste more efficient in a fight you know is only going to last 2 rounds. No. Is haste more efficient if facing 10 low cr enemies... no. Is haste more efficient when fighting the BBEG... probably.
2. No, I wouldn't. That's part of character creation and fireball is more in line with your concept then haste.
3. Unless you have a really low casting stat, you should have a decent amount of slots and preparing 1 haste for the big fight of the day isn't too much to ask. However, if you absolutely insist on preparing only fireball, maybe you'd be okay bring a scroll with you. You don't even have to pay for it, maybe the group will split it.
4. Once again, if every spell you know is a blast, okay. That's your character. Once again maybe you could carry a scroll.
5. Nope. Character Concept. However I do expect your knife/barb/warrior/whatever to be a team player and run interference for the caster, or flank an opponent if able, or anything else that is an in game team behavior.
I find it interesting you're so focused on the words ''being an immature jerk.'' Have I struck a nerve?
pauljathome |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer not only varies by group it varies by encounter.
Sometimes you get an easy encounter and you take it easy. Maybe for the lols you do moderately silly things, maybe in order to consume resources you let it go 20 rounds, maybe you try hard not to kill the enemy or reduce collateral damage..
Sometimes the encounter is potentially deadly. Then you go all tactical, pull out the stops, end the silliness.
Redjack_rose |
In a martial-oriented party, haste, being a force multiplier, is a very strong option. If this caster was in a party mostly composed of martials, haste would usually be the best option.Lets say the caster casts Haste. Next battle, haste is still the best option, so the caster casts haste again. The next battle, haste is still the best option, so the caster casts haste...
After a few sessions of only casting haste, caster player is absolutely bored of casting haste every single battle, but it's the most efficient course of action given his character's capabilities. The other players are also upset because they see the caster player bored.
Now, one could potentially argue that it's the GM's responsibility to mix up the encounters to keep things interesting. The GM could throw in fine swarms, or the GM could throw an encounter of 50 low-reflex fire-vunerable oozes that are in a perfect fireball formation.
But really, isn't it every player's responsibility to pursue fun for the whole table? Who can blame the caster for throwing a fireball, even if it's inefficient, when the caster is so bored after casting only haste for the past 3 sessions?
I would actually agree, if haste is the significantly best option for every fight, your GM needs to step up their game and make diverse fights. Haste is only more efficient in long fights with few enemies.
Redjack_rose |
The answer not only varies by group it varies by encounter.
Sometimes you get an easy encounter and you take it easy. Maybe for the lols you do moderately silly things, maybe in order to consume resources you let it go 20 rounds, maybe you try hard not to kill the enemy or reduce collateral damage..
Sometimes the encounter is potentially deadly. Then you go all tactical, pull out the stops, end the silliness.
+1
Chess Pwn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Why would you assume haste is more efficient? I said -if- it's more efficient. Is haste more efficient in a fight you know is only going to last 2 rounds. No. Is haste more efficient if facing 10 low cr enemies... no. Is haste more efficient when fighting the BBEG... probably.
I'm saying I'm assuming Haste is better because that is the situation that I'm wanting to base this on. "We're in the fight and the BBEG has an extra 300hp. And there are 7 melee characters in the party." Is that better to set the scene that Haste is the better option then saying, Assume Haste is the best option?
2. No, I wouldn't. That's part of character creation and fireball is more in line with your concept then haste.
But now I can't cast the more efficient haste? Why is blasting making me "an immature jerk" because I have the option to haste but don't as opposed to never having the option to haste?
3. Unless you have a really low casting stat, you should have a decent amount of slots and preparing 1 haste for the big fight of the day isn't too much to ask. However, if you absolutely insist on preparing only fireball, maybe you'd be okay bring a scroll with you. You don't even have to pay for it, maybe the group will split it.
Why not have the fighter invest in UMD and use the scroll of haste? Why is my blaster the one that has to use the scroll?
4. Once again, if every spell you know is a blast, okay. That's your character. Once again maybe you could carry a scroll.
again why should I need to carry a scroll? I don't see fighters having scrolls of haste to use their actions for to buff the party.
5. Nope. Character Concept. However I do expect your knife/barb/warrior/whatever to be a team player and run interference for the caster, or flank an opponent if able, or anything else that is an in game team behavior.
I can't interfere because I'm a thrower, and throwing doesn't limit movement nor can I flank because then I'd provoke for attacking. Unless you count as throwing daggers as "an in game team behavior" but then why is a blaster blasting instead of haste not "an in game team behavior" since it's doing the same goal as others, to beat the enemy, even if not most efficiently.
I find it interesting you're so focused on the words ''being an immature jerk.'' Have I struck a nerve?
I find such an absolute statement that a player that decides to play his blaster caster as a blaster caster and not as a buffer is an awful human being who is put into question they should even be played with. But playing a character that doesn't even have a choice to help other members doesn't get any flack. Like you say you're fine with a caster choosing to learn a blast instead of haste. Heck you said your fine with one that knows haste but doesn't prep any. But then you degrade a person that has both available but chooses to only blast.
Jaunt |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Make fairly insulting blanket judgment about a differing playstyle.
2. Wait for people to call out said judgment.
3. Insinuate personal insult.
4. ???
I don't think you've struck a nerve with Chess, I just think he's the only one willing to do you the kindness of pointing out to you why you ought not to call people immature jerks on the internet.
Anyway, on topic. There's no correct amount of teamwork, there's only what your group is happy with and what works best for them. If what your group is doing makes you happy, then great, there's no reason to consider the question further. If there is disagreement within the group, nobody outside the group can give you a right answer, they can only hope to guide you to finding an answer that works for the group.
Not every group of PCs is a SWAT team, nor is every group a handful of psychopaths who just happen to be near each other. Personally, I think that if you "have to" always make the most effective decision in combat, even if it's to the detriment of your character concept, personality, or whatever, then you're equally obligated to make the most effective decisions in character creation. And a Pathfinder where you're all stuck playing Wizards or Ragelancepounce is no Pathfinder I'd want to play. More than once at least.
Steve Geddes |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn,
I have stated very clearly that when making character/character concepts, I'm all for people making what they want, even if what they make isn't the most efficient or optimized.
When playing said character, they should work as a team to the best of their ability. In game, to do otherwise is just asking for death and no reasonable party would willing to invite that kind of weakness into their group. Out of game, to do otherwise just isn't being a team player.
[sarcasm kinda] It's really not a hard concept.
There really are lots of different ways to play. Our group is not terribly good at playing PF I suspect, but we don't really try that hard either - in game or out. We tend to run unmodified, pre-written adventures and as a consequence of our 'not trying very hard to win' approach, we inevitably run into something around levels 6-8 that just seems totally impossible and wipes the floor with us.
I don't think we've ever managed past level eight in a pathfinder or 3.5 campaign without running into a TPK and abandoning the campaign for something new. We still enjoy ourselves - we just play the game very differently from how you do. I can confidently say that the issue of "team player vs glory hound" has not come up once in our entire time playing together across multiple systems. Considerations like that just don't come into it at our table.
Redjack_rose |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it very simply for you.
You don't get mad at the fighter because he didn't breath of life you because he can't. You do if the cleric who can decides not to breath of life you.
-however-
If the fighter has a scroll and the UMD to use it, then yes, you are well within reason to be upset with that fighter.
If someone is capable in the moment of doing something significantly beneficial to the party and won't because it doesn't ''fit their character'' then either that character or that player is a jerk.
@Everyone else...
I do understand there are other play styles, and that no play style is objectively ''better'' than others. However there are some that are generally better than others... and generally, acting to the best of your ability within the confines of your abilities is better than not.
claymade |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone does something that helps someone else, we accept it not as something that we expected, but as something given.
This. This right here. This is, IMHO, a far more healthy approach to go with than this sort of "fun police" attitude where someone tries to force other players at the table to make the choices in combat that they've decided will be the most optimal.
Personally, I think that if you "have to" always make the most effective decision in combat, even if it's to the detriment of your character concept, personality, or whatever, then you're equally obligated to make the most effective decisions in character creation.
Agreed. I really don't get this strange dichotomy, where (supposedly) you're totally allowed to make sub-optimal decisions in character building, based on your character's personality... but once you actually get into combat you're at that point obligated to completely ignore that self-same personality, and go into pure ROBOT VULCAN OPTIMIZER mode.
Conversely, some of the most memorable moments in some of my group's combats have been the moments when we've discarded sound, purely optimized tactics for in-character reactions, actual role-playing, and/or the chance to do "cool stuff".
Turns out? That can be a lot more interesting than just methodically "winning the game" by using the bloodlessly-calculated, mathematically-best approach, over and over again.
So yeah. If I were in a party along with an optimizer like the ones in this thread, and that optimizer was trying to browbeat the party's caster into buffing him, instead of blasting for their own damage, I expect that my sympathies and support would totally lie with the caster. Even if it meant we weren't quite crushing the opposition by as large a margin as we might theoretically be capable of, or pulling off the absolute biggest numbers possible, as a result.
Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me put it very simply for you.
You don't get mad at the fighter because he didn't breath of life you because he can't. You do if the cleric who can decides not to breath of life you.
-however-
If the fighter has a scroll and the UMD to use it, then yes, you are well within reason to be upset with that fighter.
If someone is capable in the moment of doing something significantly beneficial to the party and won't because it doesn't ''fit their character'' then either that character or that player is a jerk.
You know, it's funny, I was actually just thinking of bringing up a cleric I played (this alias, in fact) as an example.
See, he's a melee cleric, and spent most of his time in combat on the front lines. As such, my spells were mainly spent on self-buffs, and my actions were mainly spent ending fights.
Thanks to being good-aligned, I could cast cure spells spontaneously to heal up my allies. But I didn't; I always had something better to do. When I would talk about this character to people who hadn't played alongside him, I'd catch a lot of flak for not being a healbot. When I wouldn't foot the bill for cure wands for the whole party out of my own share of loot, folks on the boards said I wasn't being a team player. When I said that someone who refused to chip in for healing wands would not be getting my spell slots and actions, I was called a sociopath. And my favorite: after trying to get it through a guy's head that this cleric typically had the best accuracy and AC at the table and therefore I had better contributions to make than casting cure spells, he finally said "Fine! If you're gonna be stingy with healing, then if I'm ever at a table with you, maybe I'll just have my barbarian get behind you and pull out a shortbow while all the enemies fight YOU in melee! Maybe then you'll stop being so selfish and learn some teamwork!"
Meanwhile, in actual gameplay? Folks were always happy with me. Some even literally cheered when they found out I was playing Thomas the Tiefling Hero that day.
Even though I was a cleric who was neither party-buffing nor healing.
alexd1976 |
haremlord wrote:If someone does something that helps someone else, we accept it not as something that we expected, but as something given.This. This right here. This is, IMHO, a far more healthy approach to go with than this sort of "fun police" attitude where someone tries to force other players at the table to make the choices in combat that they've decided will be the most optimal.
Jaunt wrote:Personally, I think that if you "have to" always make the most effective decision in combat, even if it's to the detriment of your character concept, personality, or whatever, then you're equally obligated to make the most effective decisions in character creation.Agreed. I really don't get this strange dichotomy, where (supposedly) you're totally allowed to make sub-optimal decisions in character building, based on your character's personality... but once you actually get into combat you're at that point obligated to completely ignore that self-same personality, and go into pure ROBOT VULCAN OPTIMIZER mode.
Conversely, some of the most memorable moments in some of my group's combats have been the moments when we've discarded sound, purely optimized tactics for in-character reactions, actual role-playing, and/or the chance to do "cool stuff".
Turns out? That can be a lot more interesting than just methodically "winning the game" by using the bloodlessly-calculated, mathematically-best approach, over and over again.
So yeah. If I were in a party along with an optimizer like the ones in this thread, and that optimizer was trying to browbeat the party's caster into buffing him, instead of blasting for their own damage, I expect that my sympathies and support would totally lie with the caster. Even if it meant we weren't quite crushing the opposition by as large a margin as we might theoretically be capable of, or pulling off the absolute biggest numbers possible, as a result.
I just wanted to quote you cause of "ROBOT VULCAN OPTIMIZER mode". Thank you for that.
:D
Also, I agree with your playstyle, very much. You focus on fun, and that is kinda the point... :D
Redjack_rose |
Let me offer this analogy;
A persons concept/character creation is their life, their background. They can't plan ahead of time that they should have gotten a degree in physics or gone to medical school because they'll know one day the group their in will need it. Some go to med school, some work out, some do both... etc...
Once in the group though, you work together. Even if you're trained as a marksman, if a guy with better aim comes along you give them the better position and let them take the shot. You bow to the better surgeon. If you are capable of and know CPR... you give it to the damn person who needs it.
That is why you're perceiving some ''dichotomy'' between character creation and tactical play.
Lemme put it another way. In order to ''be the most efficient team work build'' before the characters come together takes player knowledge. Your character doesn't know what he will need to benefit the team ''optimally.''
Likewise, once in combat a mature character will use in game knowledge to work with his team as best as he can. He knows the fighter hits harder than he does. Or even reverse it, the fighter knows the wizard is going to be more effective if he runs interference for him. Either way, playing "ROBOT VULCAN OPTIMIZER mode" once in combat is just assuming your character has half a brain and isn't a jerk.
alexd1976 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me offer this analogy;
A persons concept/character creation is their life, their background. They can't plan ahead of time that they should have gotten a degree in physics or gone to medical school because they'll know one day the group their in will need it. Some go to med school, some work out, some do both... etc...
Once in the group though, you work together. Even if you're trained as a marksman, if a guy with better aim comes along you give them the better position and let them take the shot. You bow to the better surgeon. If you are capable of and know CPR... you give it to the damn person who needs it.
That is why you're perceiving some ''dichotomy'' between character creation and tactical play.
Lemme put it another way. In order to ''be the most efficient team work build'' before the characters come together takes player knowledge. Your character doesn't know what he will need to benefit the team ''optimally.''
Likewise, once in combat a mature character will use in game knowledge to work with his team as best as he can. He knows the fighter hits harder than he does. Or even reverse it, the fighter knows the wizard is going to be more effective if he runs interference for him. Either way, playing "ROBOT VULCAN OPTIMIZER mode" once in combat is just assuming your character has half a brain and isn't a jerk.
Just because 'Haste' is the best mechanical choice for a caster doesn't mean it is the best choice for the player.
If the Fighter insists on having 'Haste' in every fight, he is being demanding, not a team player.
Redjack_rose |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because 'Haste' is the best mechanical choice for a caster doesn't mean it is the best choice for the player.If the Fighter insists on having 'Haste' in every fight, he is being demanding, not a team player.
Or he should buy boots of speed.
I'm not saying people should demand things, That wasn't the OP's question. The question is are you obligated to break from your ''theme'' to give someone something.
If you're being a team player and giving that person something is the best move for the team, then yes, you should feel obligated. Otherwise you or your character is not being a team player.
alexd1976 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
alexd1976 wrote:
Just because 'Haste' is the best mechanical choice for a caster doesn't mean it is the best choice for the player.If the Fighter insists on having 'Haste' in every fight, he is being demanding, not a team player.
Or he should buy boots of speed.
I'm not saying people should demand things, That wasn't the OP's question. The question is are you obligated to break from your ''theme'' to give someone something.
If you're being a team player and giving that person something is the best move for the team, then yes, you should feel obligated. Otherwise you or your character is not being a team player.
Who defines your character?
You?
or the group?
"Your character"... hrm...
Redjack_rose |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who defines your character?You?
or the group?
"Your character"... hrm...
What is that suppose to mean? I didn't say anything about the group defining your character. If anything I've said the group shouldn't define your character.
How you act though, defines your character. If you refuse to act as a team player and give buffs/support/whatever when it would be of significant help to the party, that is the very definition of selfish.
Steve Geddes |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How you act though, defines your character. If you refuse to act as a team player and give buffs/support/whatever when it would be of significant help to the party, that is the very definition of selfish.
I'm not really sure if I disagree with you or not. Tell me what you think of this:
I had a fighter recently who liked knives. He fought with a big knife in one hand (a shortsword) and regular knives in the other (daggers) which he tended to throw.
Do you think that's "being selfish"? He obviously would have done much more damage with a different choice of weapon, but he grew up dirt poor in the gutter and was comfortable with knives (he didnt like metal armor either, although by the time he died he was getting over that).
alexd1976 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
alexd1976 wrote:
Who defines your character?You?
or the group?
"Your character"... hrm...
What is that suppose to mean? I didn't say anything about the group defining your character. If anything I've said the group shouldn't define your character.
How you act though, defines your character. If you refuse to act as a team player and give buffs/support/whatever when it would be of significant help to the party, that is the very definition of selfish.
So any caster that is foolish enough to take Haste as a spell they can cast is obligated to cast it on request, else they are called selfish?
Yes?
Redjack_rose |
One of the joys of the internet.
The only reason I would have a problem with that character is how it acted. If he wouldn't run interference for a caster, or provide a flank for rogue for an unreasonable reason I'd probably not like him.
You didn't mention his skills, but for this example lets assume he had UMD. If he refused to use it on anything but the 1 wand that helps him, [like using a breath of life scroll on a downed opponent] I'd also have a problem with him.
Not of what he is, but what he does.