everyone in my group just makes what ever character they want and deals with any weaknesses from missing classes or archetypes.
no one really wants to be put in the position of a fill character, a party should be able to survive without optimizing.
i do have to admit that everyone in my group likes different archetypes so we never have too much overlap but once in a while we have more than 1 player going for the same archetype and the only problem we get from that is if one character is better than another.
I agree with Dudemeister. In my group, we agree on character concepts and roles before anyone starts building an actual character.
The only 'rules' we have are:
1. If someone was in a supporting role in the last game and wants to play a more starring role this time - they get first dibs on their class choice. So if Clyde the cleric (last game) wants to play a Fighter - he gets it.
2. The player who wants to try a class they've never played before gets preference on that role over someone who has played it frequently.
i do have to admit that everyone in my group likes different archetypes so we never have too much overlap but once in a while we have more than 1 player going for the same archetype and the only problem we get from that is if one character is better than another.
This kind of thing can be solved by group character building sessions. For instance, one of my current campaigns has 2 rogues and a monk... so overlapping skill-sets. The rogues divvied up their skills - one is the con-artist/spy and the other is the burglar/boxman. The monk is the 'muscle'/2nd-story man.
|
It always bugs me when I hear people say they were pressured into playing a certain class.
Dudemeister speaks much wisdom.
You can also fill a certain role in a way that is more satisfactory to you. At low-mid levels most healing is done via cure light wounds. Almost 3/4 of the classes can use a wand of cure light wounds to some degree or another. Another possibility is a sorcerer with Infernal Healing.
Ultimately if you are playing a class you don't want to play you are going to have less fun. See if you can get the group to work together to come up with a way to solve the problem without anyone playing something they don't want to.
Yeah, this happens alot. As a GM mostly these days, I tell the Group to play what they want. I then let them Hire to fill the slots they need. Give them an NPC to run and everyone seems happy.
I know folks hate playing classes they don't like. Cleric comes to mind alot in groups. If the group needed a healer and you got 'The Short Straw', a druid makes an okay healer as can a Bard in a pinch. Wands and things like that can supplement your spells and you can still do other things than be a Heal / Buff bot.
If the GM doesn't like NPCs in the group and you run an 'alternate' healer and your group gives you grief, just smile and use what our druid does... "Well, you could always roll up a Cleric and BINGO, problem solved! Or, you can buy more potions or a wand for me to use on you." and you know what, EVERY PC bought her a Wand for Curing with their name on it. Genius. In some fights, the NPC Cleric is down right bored now. They even wonder if they need to keep her along anymore.
Chat with your group and see if you guys can work out a compromise. If not, I hope some of this helps you out.
Have fun out there!
~ W ~
|
It's worth pointing out that, in pathfinder, a dedicated healer is superfluous. Having one along certainly helps, but it's not required the way it is in earlier versions of D&D.
All you need is someone that can trigger a wand of cure light wounds, so any divine spellcaster, bard, or UMD works.
Having a dedicated healer lets you fight more encounters per day. It lets you be "stupider" with your tactics and generally more wasteful. It makes things easier, which helps and is certainly valuable. But you don't need one in order to play.
I have to say, my group has only once had a ballanced party, and has always gotten along just fine. In fact, the ballanced party was the only one to ever TPK. Most of the time, we are missing a healer, but sometimes its the arcane support or tank that is missing. Often, this is with a 6 man party too. Imballanced parties are not as much of a problem as people think they are, its not hard to work arround weaknesses.
I always tell my players to make whatever they want, and I as DM work around that, rather than making sure they fill prescribed roles.
Ditto. It's rarely been a serious issue in my experience; I've never seen an all-sorcerer party or an all-fighter party, for instance.
|
The people I play with, as of 3.0 and 3.5, fight over who gets to play the Druid (1st choice) and then the Cleric (2nd choice), and we've had multiple four man groups with two Clerics, so that exact issue never comes up for us.
Once, when we had that sort of situation, such as our first Vampire the Requiem game, when the ST asked that the four players each play a member of a different Clan, he had us write down on a sheet our top three choices, in order, and then had anyone who had a single Clan listed as their top choice first see if anyone wanted to settle on their second choice automatically, or just roll a die to see which of them got high roll and their top choice.
I found it very frustrating, since I ended up with my third choice, and discovered quickly that the Clan in question was ill-suited to the storyline, but that's the way the cookie crumbled. (A situation exacerbated by the fact that the player who had beat me at a die roll for my first choice ended up moving away a month later, and I wasn't able, at that point, to change characters, as the storyline was already in full swing, with machinations a-flying.)
Still, if we did something like that in D&D, the sheets would mostly have Cleric and Druid as the top two choices of three out of five players...
If it went the other way, and nobody wanted to play 'the healer,' I'd consider some combination of alternatives;
1) Greatly buff up the Heal skill, allowing Heal checks to give someone hit point healing equal to their character level + Con modifier per day by expending a 'use' from a Healer's Kit (so 5 gp / use of this Heal Damage option). Depending on the result of the Heal check, you might hit your 'daily limit' of such mundane healing on the first use.
2) Put some low-powered healing magic in the Necromancy and Transmutation schools for arcane casters (life-energy transfer for the Necromancy school, re-knitting damaged flesh and tissue for the Transmutation school). The Necromancy version would cause the donor (which need not be the caster, but must be touched and willing) to take damage equal to the hit points 'donated,' but can make a Fort save to attempt to make that damage nonlethal. The Transmutation version would just turn lethal damage into nonlethal, leaving the healed person sore until the nonlethal damage was recovered, making either option mostly an out-of-combat choice. These spells would be notably weaker than cure X wounds options, perhaps converting 1d4 or 1d6 damage + hp / 2 levels or something (and requiring 10 minutes or more of recovery on someone's part, regardless).
3) Alchemical healing salves, or Profession (herbalist) poultices, able to cure as the Heal skill option above, but, in the case of alchemy, instantly, and in the case of herbalism, overnight (basically adding yet another multiplier to overnight healing, if combined with overnight care from someone with the Heal skill). Like the Heal skill, there would be a daily limit on how much such healing you can get each day. Mah body canna take it anymore keptin!
Such techniques might become available as the party's first mission involves hunting for rare herbs in a dangerous place, or assisting an alchemist in transporting his wares to the city, with the secrets of the 'healing salve' being a reward from their grateful patron at the end of the first adventure.
4) Arrange the adventure in such a way as to allow for frequent rest breaks, and strongly remind the players that super-fast cure spells will not be an option, and to consider fighting defensively, intelligently and, if need be, running away to fight another day. If the first adventure is a 'trial of champions' type event, running through the maze in the thieves guild, or beating the academy tri-wizard championship, or fighting your way through the 'gauntlet' which all soldiers of the War College must pass to graduate, you can control the pace at which damage comes in, and let the 'graduates' of the fighter/monk/wizard/rogue/etc. training start out at 2nd level, before they are unleashed upon the world.
5) If players choose classes that can 'fake it,' such as Bards, Paladins or Rangers (all with Cure Light Wounds on their spell list), make sure that Cure Light Wounds wands are readily available from the local magic-item-making Adept lady in town. Sorcerers or Rogues can even use Use Magic Device to fake this, if really necessary. (And, in Pathfinder, a Celestial Sorcerer can add Heavenly Fire to his options.)
6) Suggest that someone pick up Leadership at some point, so that 'Brother Maynard and his acolytes' (Cleric and some 1st level Adepts) can travel with the party and handle healing needs.
7) Add the Elysian Thrush to the list of Improved Familiars and 'strongly suggest' that the party arcanist take a look at it. Ditto with adding other creatures with healing abilities to Special Companion / Mount lists. Many celestial critters have limited healing abilities (or, at least, usable at-will Aid spells, such as the Lantern Archon, which can be used to 'pre-heal,' kinda / sorta). If no celestial critter perfectly suits your needs, make stuff up. Just because there aren't currently Improved Familiar-sized Azatas or Angels doesn't mean that you can't make one, and some non-celestial critters, like Axiomites and Formians, are also associated with healing and repair abilities, so that you can even do up some Neutral ones.
8) Stack 'healing' in the opposite direction by allowing the party Arcanist to find an item of False Life, usable X / day. (Just another variation on the 'at will Aid' option.)
9) Arrange for the 1st level adventurers to be tasked by a local temple to engage in clearing out the catacombs of annoying critters that are 'defiling' the bones of their dead heroes and saints, or whatever, just so long as they have 'free healing services' (within reason) from the 2nd level 'high priest' of the temple (who is too old and decrepit to go adventuring with them). As they get higher level, either a new 'high priest' can be assigned from the diocese to handle the newly refurbished and popular temple, who is higher level and, with some bartering, could be persuaded to continue the old man's agreement with these 'defenders of the faith,' or, if the party develops their own healing options, can be cut loose.
10) Introduce a race option or two that has unique ways to get around these problems. A Daelkyr Half-Blood could have a symbiont that adds a few base hit points and increases healing rate. A 'Dhampyr' could drink blood to restore hit points, within certain limits (since everybody gets 1 ability point back overnight, 'for free,' the half-vampire Fighter could drain a single Con pt from each willing ally, to help remove some of his own damage before camping). A Warforged will use arcane Repair Light Damage type spells instead.
11) Grab Green Ronin's Complete Psychic Handbook (or their Advanced Player's Guide, which reprints the Psychic rules) and play a Psychometabolic healer. Between Drain Vitality and Psychic Healing, it's one of the flat-out best options in the book (although the Telekinetics are also sexy, and, later, he might want to pick some of that up and start flinging people around with his brain!).
Vary techniques based on the types available. If an all-arcanist party, a combination of the weaker Necro/Trans 'healing' spells, the herbalism/alchemy options and, eventually, Elysian Thrush or Lantern Archon familiars, could work. An all-rogue party are more likely to stick to Use Magic Device and Cure Light Wounds wands, as well as the herbalism/alchemy options. An all-monk party could use the skill-based versions and perhaps even have a lower level alternative to Wholeness of Body, in place of some other talent, either automatically, or as an alternate class option that their monastary teaches, being wandering healers by nature. An all-barbarian party might have a special low-level rage power that allows them to recover a few hit points (equal to rounds spent raging? con bonus? class level?) at the end of a rage, with the understanding that this is a standard feature of the 'Bear Clan Berserkers' and not an optional choice, and their first adventure, before they get this rage power, is a mission from the tribal shaman, who offers healing services for free and a supply of poultices to get them through first level.
We never worry about it and just make do. Play what you want. I had one game where everyone played rogues, that was actually quite fun.
My group coordinates by email. When someone is announcing a game (we always have multiple running at once since most of us like to dm as well as place), he or she lays out the ground work in an email.
IE this is a wilderness adventure starting at level, here are the restrictions for character creation, what material you can/cant use, background for the adventure etc.
Then we email back and forth with a series of reply alls discussing what characters we all want to play. Usually this means we will have most of our bases covered when it comes to the first session. If we dont usually the dm runs an npc, or just accounts for it in the adventure. It also lets us mix or weave together back stories as we see fit.
I find this method works for my group because we all use email, and we also dont have alot of overlapping spare time, so spending a whole session (or most of a session) making characters is not a good solution for us.
|
|
If your GM is using a pre-written adventure and isn't willing to modify it to fit the party composition then it may be difficult.
However, a good GM who is willing to write their own scenarios should be able to tailor those around the party so that it doesn't matter that the party doesn't contain a cleric or rogue or fighter etc.
Mind you some players seem so brainwashed into thinking "we need a cleric" that they persist in this despite the GM saying it isn't necessary. I had that in one of my groups and I just said "I will write the scenario so that you will struggle through - it will be a challenge. If you have a cleric I will likely up the number of encounters of number of opponents to result in the same effect".
This is one reason I like D&D 4e, even if you do need the typical party composition, a "healer" doesn't need to be a cleric - you can be a Warlord or Artificer as well.
If your GM is using a pre-written adventure and isn't willing to modify it to fit the party composition then it may be difficult.
However, a good GM who is willing to write their own scenarios should be able to tailor those around the party so that it doesn't matter that the party doesn't contain a cleric or rogue or fighter etc.
Mind you some players seem so brainwashed into thinking "we need a cleric" that they persist in this despite the GM saying it isn't necessary. I had that in one of my groups and I just said "I will write the scenario so that you will struggle through - it will be a challenge. If you have a cleric I will likely up the number of encounters of number of opponents to result in the same effect".
This is one reason I like D&D 4e, even if you do need the typical party composition, a "healer" doesn't need to be a cleric - you can be a Warlord or Artificer as well.
In my view a cleric isnt neccessary for 'healing' at least not hit points. Half the classes in the book can replenish hit points with cure light wands. I am more worried about things like removing negative conditions (curses, diseases, poisons, ability damage, negative levels, death) This is where the cleric is difficult to replace in my opinion. But even then, there is no need for the cleric to be a giant bandaid. You can play a cleric many ways, and just when needed break out the requisite spells.
I actually like games where archetypal positions are missing. It forces the players/characters to get more creative in terms of strategy and tactics. My players seem to enjoy the challenge. I think one of the biggest D&D myths is that a 'balanced' party is virtually a requirement.
Off-topic: That myth seems to be flourishing among the 4E crowd from the forums I've seen. I'd be curious to hear from an actual 4E player/DM (publicly or privately) if the game re-design makes party balance a necessity or not.
I feel that parties should not always go overboard to try and cover all their bases. I've enjoyed playing in top or bottom heavy parties (a party with narry a healer, a party with almost purely melee based characters, a party of casters, etc).
This is what I think of as the organic adventuring experience. It is considerably more fun to try and find creative new solutions to problems - rather than rely on the old standbys.
In 4E - the key difference being healing surges are available to everyone, and power/items that may grant additional ones are readily available. This is a further abstraction of HP system and any character may heal in combat (to a limited extent). However, it doesn't totally remove the benefit of having a leader class (healer), and some adjustments will have to be made, or the party will have to be wise (as with any edition of D&D) when there is not a strong healing presence. However, I do find the impact is less in 4E, due to the above and there is a mutlitude of choices for healing classes and/or powers, therefore more people are apt to play that role (i.e. you dont have to play a cleric).
I actually like games where archetypal positions are missing. It forces the players/characters to get more creative in terms of strategy and tactics. My players seem to enjoy the challenge. I think one of the biggest D&D myths is that a 'balanced' party is virtually a requirement.
Off-topic: That myth seems to be flourishing among the 4E crowd from the forums I've seen. I'd be curious to hear from an actual 4E player/DM (publicly or privately) if the game re-design makes party balance a necessity or not.
I've played a fair amount of 4E, and yes, the redesign makes party balance MUCH more neccessary. You almost certainly NEED a striker, tank, leader, and battlefield controller. The roles are way more rigid, and its very difficult to get a character that mixes the two. Tanks (front line guys) are very good at getting the attention of the enemy, but are not as capable of doing damage as strikers. You need some hard hitting strikers to take down tougher enemies. You also need battlefield controllers, particularly in encounters with lots of minions. Without someone playing chessmaster you could get swarmed very easily. Leaders generally provide buffs and healing. Without leaders in combat healing is very limited, and it is (in my opinion) more neccessary in 4E. Since 4E combat is all about hit points. You have to wittle away at your enemy without loosing too much yourself. It isnt like in 3.x where I believe that in combat healing is usually less effective then taking direct action against the enemy.
I think in regards damage output, tanks and crowd control that is a necessary evil for any game, until the creature is dead. In either version your HP are limited and you must take care not to loose to many. But on further thought, 3.5 does offer more in regards to magic items that heal with multiple charges, so in that aspect it may be easier with the appropriate resources available (magic shops, etc.)
Gents&Ladies,
Thanks for the thoughtful replies about my 4E question. I appreciate the perspective.
Apologies to the OP for usurping the thread.
A quick aside for the 4e question: A lot of times in 4e the healing doesn't just heal, it provides a buff too, or it also hits the opponent for some damage. So the action spent isn't simply negation but achieves a secondary goal that is just as useful as getting the HP back.
In 3.5/pathfinder this isn't the case. Most times you are healing you simply heal and that healing plus some more is lost the next time a hit lands.
The problem with the cure line of spells:
1. They don't heal enough to make up for the damage.
2. They don't scale well enough to justify the slots they use at higher levels.
I could go into a long thing about how to fix these problems (and I have on other threads) but if you want that you'll have to pop up another thread and ask for it.
A quick aside for the 4e question: A lot of times in 4e the healing doesn't just heal, it provides a buff too, or it also hits the opponent for some damage. So the action spent isn't simply negation but achieves a secondary goal that is just as useful as getting the HP back.
In 3.5/pathfinder this isn't the case. Most times you are healing you simply heal and that healing plus some more is lost the next time a hit lands.
The problem with the cure line of spells:
1. They don't heal enough to make up for the damage.
2. They don't scale well enough to justify the slots they use at higher levels.I could go into a long thing about how to fix these problems (and I have on other threads) but if you want that you'll have to pop up another thread and ask for it.
Now you gave me a great idea. Instead of paladin Mercies having buffs added to the healing. +1 morale to attack or vs fear or whatnot instead of removing a condition.
Regarding 4e:
Leaders aren't healers. They CAN heal, but they have a huge number of others things they do.
Regarding Pathfinder/3.5/3e:
I've yet to see a situation in which "roles" are needed. I've played games without Mr Beefcakes. I've played games without Thieving Git. I've played without Divine Dude. I suppose you could hypothetically say that a wizard or sorcerer of some type is needed, but usually that's the class everyone wants to play. But yes, you could theoretically go without one of those, too - just make sure someone pumps up UMD.
Regarding 4e:
Leaders aren't healers. They CAN heal, but they have a huge number of others things they do.
Regarding Pathfinder/3.5/3e:
I've yet to see a situation in which "roles" are needed. I've played games without Mr Beefcakes. I've played games without Thieving Git. I've played without Divine Dude. I suppose you could hypothetically say that a wizard or sorcerer of some type is needed, but usually that's the class everyone wants to play. But yes, you could theoretically go without one of those, too - just make sure someone pumps up UMD.
I have done without one of the 4 (front liner, divine caster, arcane caster, skill monkey) main roles in groups, or sessions, but I definately think it makes things much harder.
|
|
From the bard, cleric, and druid all take care of themselves quite well. To a lesser extent the sorcerer and rogue can as well using UMD; wizard has some options for healing as well. Maybe the solution is to make your party out of characters that can take care of themselves and cross-buff.
This is one of the things I really like about the APG classes is many of them are mixed role classes. The witch can heal a bit and take care of status effects but she's also an arcane caster with plenty of great arcane spells.
Inquisitor is a martial character that can also take care of some buffing and light spellcasting. Also does a great job taking care of himself with fast healing and healing spells.
Summoner can tank and do buffing and light debuffing.
Oracle has some nice combat options and can tank a bit or cast or a little of both.
heh... I guess I just have lots of love for independent classes :)
For our latest campaign, our GM (Zero Charisma on the boards) had us all make characters in secret. Once the game started, we were not supposed to even know what class, alignment, stats, etc. the other players had. It was a very fun way to set up a party, and created versatile characters, not one-trick-ponies.
My attitude is that terms like "tank" "DPS" "blaster" etc. are best left in WOW, and don't really fit Pathfinder. While the cleric should be able to heal and the fighter swing a sword, that does not mean that they should be shoehorned into a specific role. If your barbarian wants to play recklessly, let them take a level or two of cleric. If your wizard wants protection all the time, summon a monster or cast defensive spells.
The only time I really see a need to focus on specific roles is when resources are very limited. If you are playing a 10 point-buy campaign, and you have the only working weapon in the party, you better put some effort into it.
but even if you do each character in secret. somebody is going to metagame anyway. somebody is either gonna sneak a glimpse of your sheet, or reverse engineer your numbers. classes are just that easy to identify, no matter how much reflavoring you do.
We had a too few party members nor really a healer issue on a team recently. Here's how we dealt with it, a rule that we have used in most of our games ever since
Introducing: Reserve Points
You have ½ your HP rounded up RP
Whenever you're not in combat you turn RPs into HP at a 1/minute rate.
After you've used your RP their are gone. When you get healed or rest you heal as many (but not above your max.) RP as you heal HP.
Simple, not too powerful but certainly able to give a low-healing team a longer life-time.
Even on a team with a healer it works neatly at early levels, while I've not yet seen it in higher level play I imagine it slowly fades out of use.
im gming crypt of the everflame w/o a healer, its exciting so far with only minor tweeks
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/campaignWithoutAHealer.
5th man joined after everyone else had rolled, he said "looks like i have to go cleric", I told him to go whatever he wanted, the others agreed, and its been great.
but even if you do each character in secret. somebody is going to metagame anyway. somebody is either gonna sneak a glimpse of your sheet, or reverse engineer your numbers. classes are just that easy to identify, no matter how much reflavoring you do.
If you say so, and even if you are right, does that mean we shouldn't try?
but even if you do each character in secret. somebody is going to metagame anyway. somebody is either gonna sneak a glimpse of your sheet, or reverse engineer your numbers. classes are just that easy to identify, no matter how much reflavoring you do.If you say so, and even if you are right, does that mean we shouldn't try?
you can try if you want, but someday, the party will be found out, most likely by the hardcore rules lawyer.
I think by now, every player knows who and what everybody is, but I remind them liberally that their characters still don't and probably never will. I discourage mechanical table-talk and rules-lawyering quickly and try to retain a grip on the narrative as it relates to each PC.
Thus, they remain individuals, being drawn into an adventure rather than the artificial construct of the "party". I expect this to happen at later levels, when it makes more sense. Great iconic teams often begin as adversaries, unsure of one another or without any great sense of kinship. At mid-to-high levels, the party gels more organically into a seamless unit. Roles and tactics become more defined by the nature of the game.
I also encouraged the players to pre-create a second character in case they just couldn't find a fit in the party, or in case of sudden PC death.
A character in this campaign has no reference of "wizard" and "paladin", "domains" and "feats".. I feel that playing like that seems to instill our sessions with the wonder and sense of discovery that drew me to RPG's in the first place.
It still adds a great dimension, led to some very clever and ingenious builds, (everybody is capable of and sometimes does, survive solo) and enhances the mysterious, moody and edgy atmosphere of the City of Cyphers.
|
|
you can try if you want, but someday, the party will be found out, most likely by the hardcore rules lawyer.but even if you do each character in secret. somebody is going to metagame anyway. somebody is either gonna sneak a glimpse of your sheet, or reverse engineer your numbers. classes are just that easy to identify, no matter how much reflavoring you do.If you say so, and even if you are right, does that mean we shouldn't try?
Err, So?
The post said the idea was they didn't know so everyone would make their characters not knowing what the other players would be. If someone finds out halfway through the first session (likely) then it's still mission accomplished, everyone built their characters in private with no assumptions about what the others would build.
you can try if you want, but someday, the party will be found out, most likely by the hardcore rules lawyer.but even if you do each character in secret. somebody is going to metagame anyway. somebody is either gonna sneak a glimpse of your sheet, or reverse engineer your numbers. classes are just that easy to identify, no matter how much reflavoring you do.If you say so, and even if you are right, does that mean we shouldn't try?Err, So?
The post said the idea was they didn't know so everyone would make their characters not knowing what the other players would be. If someone finds out halfway through the first session (likely) then it's still mission accomplished, everyone built their characters in private with no assumptions about what the others would build.
Agreed. After game play has started you would naturally begin to learn what your new companions can do. The characters would talk. Eventually info would be passed. However this is still a great way to start a campaign.
I think by now, every player knows who and what everybody is, but I remind them liberally that their characters still don't and probably never will. I discourage mechanical table-talk and rules-lawyering quickly and try to retain a grip on the narrative as it relates to each PC.
Thus, they remain individuals, being drawn into an adventure rather than the artificial construct of the "party". I expect this to happen at later levels, when it makes more sense. Great iconic teams often begin as adversaries, unsure of one another or without any great sense of kinship. At mid-to-high levels, the party gels more organically into a seamless unit. Roles and tactics become more defined by the nature of the game.
I also encouraged the players to pre-create a second character in case they just couldn't find a fit in the party, or in case of sudden PC death.
A character in this campaign has no reference of "wizard" and "paladin", "domains" and "feats".. I feel that playing like that seems to instill our sessions with the wonder and sense of discovery that drew me to RPG's in the first place.
It still adds a great dimension, led to some very clever and ingenious builds, (everybody is capable of and sometimes does, survive solo) and enhances the mysterious, moody and edgy atmosphere of the City of Cyphers.
The "we grew up together/trained together" takes care of that.
|
|
you can try if you want, but someday, the party will be found out, most likely by the hardcore rules lawyer.
If everyone is told to 'make whatever character you want, and don't pay any attention to what anyone else may or may not be playing,' and one player deliberately peeks and then designs a character that complements his fellow players choices, he may be ignoring the second half of the directive, but he's still following the first half, and 'playing what he wants.' Does it matter, in the end?
If he later realizes that, in the attempt to optimize his character around what other people are playing, he's utterly surrendered his own character choice to the choices of others, he's the only loser.
Either he remains clueless and enjoys himself, playing the sort of character he wanted to play, or he figures out that everybody else got to play whatever the heck they wanted, and he got stuck building a character based off of the freedoms they had, and he denied himself. Either way, nobody who followed the design goals loses.
A character designed deliberately to interweave with a party is also subject to falling down if another player changes their mind. If he's expecting to benefit from my Bardic buffs or my Marshall auras or synergize with my Sneak Attack flanker or capitalize off of my Monk Stun's to set up his own Sneak Attacks, he's gonne be a sad panda if I change my mind and play a Warlock instead (or my Bard or Marshall gets killed and I switch to a Barbarian or Binder).
Yet again, he's subjecting his own fun to the whims of everyone else at the table (since they those whatever they wanted, and can just as readily choose something else, either by switching characters or taking levels in something new, all part of some goal he didn't expect from the 1st level they chose), and it's hard to consider such a player to be 'optimal' if he's chosen such a vulnerable position, his own choices subordinate to those of everyone else.
In any event, just because someone *might* cheat, is no reason to not try something new (or to have game-rules at all!).
|
|
One of the curious things about organized play and con-games is you tend to have a lot fewer one trick pony type characters who lean heavy on other characters because you never know what to expect. If you wind up in a group that has 2 archers, a rogue, and a wizard then suddenly the game becomes a race to the rear, without a front line the party gets trounced. When I'm building a character for organized play I'm certainly thinking a lot less in terms of one trick ponies and more in terms of versatile characters who can fill multiple roles or simply be self sufficient. I suspect others who are doing OP plan likewise.
out of a variable 6-10 members in my group. i never get to play the characters i want to. because they don't mesh with group playstyle, because the dm doesn't want to study the mechanics, no matter how simple, because he is afraid of cheese, even if the class is mathmatically proven to be the weakest on the planet, or because, the character's ethnicity is something other than the generic "white" you see drawn in many published works.
|
|
out of a variable 6-10 members in my group. i never get to play the characters i want to. because they don't mesh with group playstyle, because the dm doesn't want to study the mechanics, no matter how simple, because he is afraid of cheese, even if the class is mathmatically proven to be the weakest on the planet, or because, the character's ethnicity is something other than the generic "white" you see drawn in many published works.
Care to give some examples? I am guessing your GM doesn't literally say "This is a honky only game". I assume you mean non-core races here?
Weve had character sessions.
As of now, one person is planning a snyper. A fighter that focuses on the bow. He's talking about one level of Rogue.
I am working on an NPC cleric who worships the diety of commererce and nobels, Abadar. He's Lawful neutral but can trade out for healing.
I'm not sure the other 2 have chosen, but Charlie wants more build points. He might settle for standard with 2 traits.
I think Brian was talking about some type of exotic spellcaster.
He likes to play semi-crazy characters.
out of a variable 6-10 members in my group. i never get to play the characters i want to. because they don't mesh with group playstyle, because the dm doesn't want to study the mechanics, no matter how simple, because he is afraid of cheese, even if the class is mathmatically proven to be the weakest on the planet, or because, the character's ethnicity is something other than the generic "white" you see drawn in many published works.Care to give some examples? I am guessing your GM doesn't literally say "This is a honky only game". I assume you mean non-core races here?
i don't mean non core races, he plays with the misconcieved idea of D&D=Medeival europe and doesn't allow most of the non european concepts. i have proposed mikos, ninjas, desert bandits, elemental mystics, and a lot of similar things. almost all of which were core classes with human as the standard race. i hate having to bleach my characters white before i can play them.
|
|
i don't mean non core races, he plays with the misconcieved idea of D&D=Medeival europe and doesn't allow most of the non european concepts. i have proposed mikos, ninjas, desert bandits, elemental mystics, and a lot of similar things. almost all of which were core classes with human as the standard race. i hate having to bleach my characters white before i can play them.out of a variable 6-10 members in my group. i never get to play the characters i want to. because they don't mesh with group playstyle, because the dm doesn't want to study the mechanics, no matter how simple, because he is afraid of cheese, even if the class is mathmatically proven to be the weakest on the planet, or because, the character's ethnicity is something other than the generic "white" you see drawn in many published works.Care to give some examples? I am guessing your GM doesn't literally say "This is a honky only game". I assume you mean non-core races here?
Wow, that's just odd. Most GMs will allow at least a little ethnic variation, many encourage it.
i don't mean non core races, he plays with the misconcieved idea of D&D=Medeival europe and doesn't allow most of the non european concepts. i have proposed mikos, ninjas, desert bandits, elemental mystics, and a lot of similar things. almost all of which were core classes with human as the standard race. i hate having to bleach my characters white before i can play them.
That really is odd, I've never seen a DM rule out characters purely for thematics. Non-core races would be understandable, as if I'm running a Forgotten Realms game I don't really want the world's only warforged in the party, but a desert bandit? That's fairly easy to fit in even with a medieval Europe kind of setting. You seem like the type to work out solid back-stories so I'm sure you'd be able to fit in exile fro your homeland or something to explain your presence.
i don't mean non core races, he plays with the misconcieved idea of D&D=Medeival europe and doesn't allow most of the non european concepts. i have proposed mikos, ninjas, desert bandits, elemental mystics, and a lot of similar things. almost all of which were core classes with human as the standard race. i hate having to bleach my characters white before i can play them.That really is odd, I've never seen a DM rule out characters purely for thematics. Non-core races would be understandable, as if I'm running a Forgotten Realms game I don't really want the world's only warforged in the party, but a desert bandit? That's fairly easy to fit in even with a medieval Europe kind of setting. You seem like the type to work out solid back-stories so I'm sure you'd be able to fit in exile fro your homeland or something to explain your presence.
I rule out non-european themes too. Not because I'm a racist or a jerk, but because it doesn't fit my gameworld which is very european. Even worse, the character would never find a magical katana or a kimono of the archmage.
Finding a ninja or samurai or shugenja or shou-lin or dervish or zulu warrior or Cherokee indian or anything else like such things would be as weird in my world as it would be in The Lord of the Rings.
Now, when I run a game in Golarion, you can be whatever is available in Golarion. Wanna be from Tien Shen, then do it. But I don't think even Golarion has Cherokee, so find something similar or get a new character concept.