As I was reading some other threads, my mind wandered and this thought crept in.
How much do your groups coordinate at character creation to make sure your group can do everything?
Examples:
Some sort of arcane caster
Some sort of divine caster
Some sort of "high AC" person (i.e. tank'ish)
Some Damage dealers.
Folks to deal with various skill checks
(either one individual, or spread out across the group).
Example would be- someone who can open doors, or
to make sure all the commonly relevant Knowledge checks were covered.
Our group seems to have most if not all of it covered and largely without alot of planning on our parts before hand.
How much planning- if at all- does your group do when you start a new campaign?
-S
I have never had a group that did that other then a few pbp's that is. I feel you should always play what you want to play not be forced or feel like you must fill a role.
As I have said a few times I ran savage tide with no casters at all. I think having all the bases covered makes it easier but is not a must have to enjoy the game.
I just started in a Kingmaker game and we all talked about what we wanted to play and did some thinking on how our character combination would work.
Generally though when I play I usually have a couple different ideas for characters and don't have a problem filling a need (unless it ends up being the same need over and over again)
I haven't been in a group that has ever coordinated their characters. Sometimes one player will mention that they are playing something so others don't play the same thing. Its never caused an issue. Our groups are always missing 1 or more of the examples you gave, and its never been an issue.
|
There are tons of ways I've seen this done.
Probably the most common is the "Who's playing the cleric?" method. This is where everyone shows up to the game and starts rolling up characters then someone says "Who's playing the cleric?". I suppose this works but if no one wants to play the cleric it's not a lot of fun.
A close relative of the "Who's playing the cleric?" method is "We need a cleric". Essentially everyone rolls up a character and the guy who missed the session get's told we all rolled up our characters but "we need a cleric".
Recently in our kingmaker campaign we just skipped it all and everyone made their characters separately. The result was an alchemist, a witch, a druid, and a ranger... pretty much everyone can do their own healing to one extent or the other. Some groups this wouldn't work nearly as well and would wind up with no healing at all.
My feeling is as a GM it's best to just facilitate whatever characters your players want. If they all show up with fighters then throw in a cleric henchmen to help them out. Playing a class you don't particularly want to so your party can 'fill a role' takes away a bit of that players fun. Since it's my job as a GM to facilitate fun I don't want to do this so I will work to avoid the situation entirely.
Sort of On Topic but a few years ago our DM had us come up with our char ideas in secret.. and apparently all 5 of us picked barbarian.
Needless to say that was an experiment that was short angry and didnt work :P
usualy if people have made chars ahead of tiem i like to get an idea of what they have made so as to not duplicate anthing but the only time i ever co-ordinate is if say My char and another players char die in a game at the same time its easier to brin new charactrs into a game if they co-ordinae a backstory togethr and such.
But never sat down at a table and worke dit out with the whole group
|
|
Sort of On Topic but a few years ago our DM had us come up with our char ideas in secret.. and apparently all 5 of us picked barbarian.
Needless to say that was an experiment that was short angry and didnt work :P
usualy if people have made chars ahead of tiem i like to get an idea of what they have made so as to not duplicate anthing but the only time i ever co-ordinate is if say My char and another players char die in a game at the same time its easier to brin new charactrs into a game if they co-ordinae a backstory togethr and such.
But never sat down at a table and worke dit out with the whole group
First one to the cemetery rolls up a cleric?
I kind of think an all barbarian group would be fun. I'd probably reduce the price of healing potions by 5 in a campaign like that.
his lack of clerics
Cleric is the least played class in my groups. We have never had a need for one. They are nice to have, but by no means necessary. I can't count the number of campaigns we have gone through without a divine caster, and I have never really missed it. Wands work just fine.
While I'm personally all for it, my group does very little if any coordination. Which has led to some strange party compositions. We recently finished a year+ long Eberron campaign that went from 1st to 17th level, and for most of those levels we didn't have a cleric. Our current Kingmaker party composition is a Ranger, a Wizard and a Rogue. Once again, no cleric. It's going to be painful :(
For our latest campaign, Second Darkness, I asked the group to roll their characters "in secret". It also resulted in a party of very versatile, self-healing types. I am enjoying the interplay immensely. I really wanted to stress a less meta-game approach to character design and play and I feel it succeeded.
That being said, I have been a party to the "We need a cleric" conversation, on both sides of the screen, many times.
I find with experienced players, the belief that one "needs a cleric" is a fallacy, however, as creative tactics and caution can go a long way to reducing the damage a party takes.
Usually my group mentions the general idea of their characters less to make sure all bases are covered, and more to make sure 2 people dont make very similar kinds of characters, and also to make sure the character concepts will work reasonably well together. 2 paladins and a lawful good cleric pairing with 2 CE rogues and a LE wizard will be havoc to manage.
Whatever the group's policy, I tend to look at the make-up of the party and see what they may lack before I decide what I will create. Sometimes I do tend to try and bend it to what I want to make, though!
It makes the game more interesting to just play what you want and see how it all works out. So we never do it. Now a person might say they are thinking of cleric or fighter and ask the others before making the choice but they wanted to play one or the other.
my saturday group is very dependant on having a cleric. i often get shoehorned into it reluctantly. and i am fed up with being the cleric. usually this lasts at camapign start until said cleric dies. they don't just want any cleric either, they demand me to play the healing specialist and expect any material components or items to come out of my wallet.
Absolutely. In fact before every game we start we used to have a strategy discussion of who is playing what and how. We got to be so good at it that the GM starting banning us from discussing our characters until we had all finished making them. Afterwards, we've had a few campaigns missing a healer, tank, arcane magic blaster, or anybody that could open locks. It does make a little difficult, but its not impossible.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
From an in-character perspective, it can make a lot of sense. When military brass pick people to go on missions, they don't just pick guys at random.
"Hey, this squadron has five snipers and no medic. Huh!"
You're going out adventuring. Let's make sure we have everything we need to survive. (This is particularly true in pre-written adventures. If you know you don't have any heavy martial type, then a homebrew party can avoid those sorts of adventures that look like they'll include a couple of straight-up fights. PCs going through an Adventure Path railroad don't have that luxury.)
From an out-of-character perspective, it helps make sure that everybody gets a chance to shine. If I'd known you two were going to play a sorcerer and a cleric, I probably wouldn't have chosen to play asorcerer/cleric/mystic theurge.
|
The groups I've been in we've never forced someone to play something they didn't already want to, but we do discuss what we're going to play as we're making the characters to help the indecisive.
In one case we had a party with a Cleric, Oracle, Sorcerer, Wizard and Monk. Eventually the monk player left (they moved), and all we had was 4 full casters. It actually ended up being a rather powerful party once everyone hit around 7-8th level as the sheer amount we could alter reality around us was seemingly insurmountable.
In another we had a party that was 3 fighters and a druid built for melee. Eventually it became Fighter/Paladin, 2 Fighters and Druid/Fighter with Rogue/Monk, Wizard, Cleric/Fighter and Fighter cohorts (all of which, sans the cleric, were mostly passive help). That party was slaughtering RotRL despite constantly being 2-3 levels behind the wealth curve (and was doing so even before the cohorts came into play).
Long story short: Do whatever your group feels is more fun. If they've done it the same way for the last 3 campaigns, maybe try a different way just to see how you like it.
On that note, I think next time I start a campaign I'm going to try the "don't talk to the other players until your character is done" angle. With that I will, however, ask that the players write down a two-sentence description of their character's concept and have players flip a coin for who gets to keep theirs if more than one hits the same concept from the same angle (or have them coordinate complementing styles if that works). I would also ask that players avoid discussing what class they are, though they can talk about what abilities they have (since the characters can discuss that).
We do this all the time.
Not just with classes. We decide "We want to all be circus performers, cruising around the countryside under guise of being a traveling circus." And then we put together a rough idea of a party, and then apportion roles and build characters.
+1. Our group fills "roles" more like something on A-Team. Who's going to do the talking. Who's the magic guy. Who's the tech guy. Who's the specialist. Etc.
That can result in a Ranger being the talker, the Bard being the magic guy, the Monk being the tech guy, the Wiz being the specialist, etc. basically, our "roles" are not defined by what class we play, but HOW we play the class. The Druid can be the healer and the Cleric can be the summoner and the Summoner can be the buff/debuff/pet guy. As ling as you fill your "real" role, you play any class you want. And we have enough players to make sure all roles get played, at least a little.
I've been in groups where everyone just makes whatever strikes their fancy, and we did just fine and had a ton of fun. I've been in groups that did the same, and we performed terribly but still had a lot of fun.
I've been with groups who plan everything out in coordination with the DM and one another, and we did just fine and had a lot of fun, and I've been in groups that planned ahead and we averaged 3 sessions between TPK or near-TPK...but we still had a lot of fun.
I've played in groups where the DM makes the characters and then lets the players choose which they'd like to play, and I've had DMs who made certain characters specifically for each player. We had a blast in both cases.
Then there were the (thankfully few) cases where no matter what method of generation or level of preparation went into character creation, I wasn't having fun after the first session or three, so I didn't continue playing in those games.
my saturday group is very dependant on having a cleric. i often get shoehorned into it reluctantly. and i am fed up with being the cleric. usually this lasts at camapign start until said cleric dies. they don't just want any cleric either, they demand me to play the healing specialist and expect any material components or items to come out of my wallet.
Sounds like a horrible group.
Yeah it often happens in our groups that one individual "sucks it up" and plays the Cleric because "we need one" even though he or she really didn't want to play a Cleric. Am I a horrible selfish person for never being the one to "take the turn" playing the (undesirable) Cleric? Other players at the table have chastised me for that, but in my opinion I came to the table to play what -I- want to play... not to be the healing monkey. (The actual word we use isn't monkey. Rather it rhymes with witch) They seem to think that because someone else than -has to- play the Cleric and their fun is ruined that I'm somehow having fun at the expense of others' fun. I don't think that's fair to me, personally. What do you guys think?
my saturday group is very dependant on having a cleric. i often get shoehorned into it reluctantly. and i am fed up with being the cleric. usually this lasts at camapign start until said cleric dies. they don't just want any cleric either, they demand me to play the healing specialist and expect any material components or items to come out of my wallet.
Next time, tell them you won't do it before they create their characters, and create what YOU want to play. If there's no cleric, then there's no cleric, but that is not your problem.
In the groups I usually play with we tend towards the following:
Everyone will come to the table with a concept at least. We'll lay out our concepts and usually multiple people will help tweak the feat choices/ class choices if need to help with playability (for example some concepts don't lend themselves to combat -- which is fine, so we'll help that character develop means of avoiding being a target, and helping the party in general during the fight). If multiple people turn up with the same concept generally everyone has a back up and someone will decide (sometimes everyone) they want to play the back up instead. We'll occasionally discuss how to work the concepts together in order to hold the party together but we try not to force concepts in or out unless they don't match the campaign (for example playing a cowboy in an asian themed campaign) -- even then it's generally considered better policy to turn the concept into something closer to the campaign than abandoning it completely.
Yeah it often happens in our groups that one individual "sucks it up" and plays the Cleric because "we need one" even though he or she really didn't want to play a Cleric. Am I a horrible selfish person for never being the one to "take the turn" playing the (undesirable) Cleric? Other players at the table have chastised me for that, but in my opinion I came to the table to play what -I- want to play... not to be the healing monkey. (The actual word we use isn't monkey. Rather it rhymes with witch) They seem to think that because someone else than -has to- play the Cleric and their fun is ruined that I'm somehow having fun at the expense of others' fun. I don't think that's fair to me, personally. What do you guys think?
If you build a party right and fight intelligently, you don't really need a healer in the first place. Heck, have one of the characters take the Leadership feat and have the cohort be a high CHA cleric.
So no, it is not unfair that you should be able to play the character you want to play. In fact that is the only thing that is fair.
i shall tell the group that i won't play the cleric this time. though my dm has this idea that clerics are a mandantory party role. unfortunately, he doesn't allow the leadership feat, and we have 7 players right now. a minimum of 4-5 show up a night and we occasionally have other members that join for a while than quit. almost all these occasional temporary members play clones of either Drizz't or Legolas. either an elven archery ranger or a drow dual scimitar wielding TWF ranger with a panther companion.
Yeah it often happens in our groups that one individual "sucks it up" and plays the Cleric because "we need one" even though he or she really didn't want to play a Cleric. Am I a horrible selfish person for never being the one to "take the turn" playing the (undesirable) Cleric? Other players at the table have chastised me for that, but in my opinion I came to the table to play what -I- want to play... not to be the healing monkey. (The actual word we use isn't monkey. Rather it rhymes with witch) They seem to think that because someone else than -has to- play the Cleric and their fun is ruined that I'm somehow having fun at the expense of others' fun. I don't think that's fair to me, personally. What do you guys think?
I used to be the guy who hated playing the party medic...but then 2nd edition faded away, and I tried a Cleric in a high-level game of 3.5e. I was hooked! The PF Cleric is pretty awesome too, able to cover just about any role very effectively, depending on how you choose to build them.
i shall tell the group that i won't play the cleric this time. though my dm has this idea that clerics are a mandantory party role.
There's no such thing as a mandatory party role, although it's a good idea to have one. Just tell your DM that it is somebody else's run to suck it up if he wants the party to have a cleric, or run an NPC one.
|
We do this all the time.
Not just with classes. We decide "We want to all be circus performers, cruising around the countryside under guise of being a traveling circus." And then we put together a rough idea of a party, and then apportion roles and build characters.
We do this too. RotRL got us mostly outdoorsy PC's. ..druid x2, bard, cleric, etc.
We get a theme going, then everyone picks what they want to play and we finagle the party together.
Our "unplayed" class is usually Rogue, since they're my usual pick, and I FM about 75% of the time.
I see appeal in both methods, but for ease of party cohesion I prefer the players to know roughly what everyone else is playing.
|
In almost every group I have been a part of, one or two people will almost immediately hit upon some character concept they want and NEED to play, which kind of leaves the rest of us open for interpretation. Usually we discuss vague concepts in email/chat/text. Sometimes one or two of us will coordinate on ideas/feats/weapons/skills, but really each character is an extension of what each player wants to do.
I do have one player who chronically used to "play __________ because we don't have one and the party needs one."
He almost always hated his concepts and either swapped builds halfway thru a game, or allowed his character to die/sacrifice himself so that he could play something different.
This last time we built, we had speciffic rules for him that NOONE could tell him what they rolled and he had to make whatever he wanted to play.
The result is a very terrifying combat effective inquisitor of Asmodeus.
|
|
We do this all the time.
Not just with classes. We decide "We want to all be circus performers, cruising around the countryside under guise of being a traveling circus." And then we put together a rough idea of a party, and then apportion roles and build characters.
So you wander around the countryside dressed as clowns and play D&D?
|
|
Yeah it often happens in our groups that one individual "sucks it up" and plays the Cleric because "we need one" even though he or she really didn't want to play a Cleric. Am I a horrible selfish person for never being the one to "take the turn" playing the (undesirable) Cleric? Other players at the table have chastised me for that, but in my opinion I came to the table to play what -I- want to play... not to be the healing monkey. (The actual word we use isn't monkey. Rather it rhymes with witch) They seem to think that because someone else than -has to- play the Cleric and their fun is ruined that I'm somehow having fun at the expense of others' fun. I don't think that's fair to me, personally. What do you guys think?
I don't have any problems with you being unwilling to play cleric. It is however pretty much douchery to pressure other people to take on a party role you are unwilling to take. If no one wants to play cleric then figure out a way to play without one.
|
|
Ever since reading through (and then trying out) Starblazer Adventures' take on character creation, I've been a fan of making characters together that have some sort of tie to one another. That's my only been preference for a short while now, though, and in most of the games I've played or GMed, everybody brings their character concept first.
In fact, they usually have the concept thought out before they even know what kind of campaign it is, and well before stats are rolled.
I really feel like it's time to shake up my players' characters a bit, limit their choices somehow or introduce a couple of random elements. Meh.
|
|
i shall tell the group that i won't play the cleric this time. though my dm has this idea that clerics are a mandantory party role. unfortunately, he doesn't allow the leadership feat, and we have 7 players right now. a minimum of 4-5 show up a night and we occasionally have other members that join for a while than quit. almost all these occasional temporary members play clones of either Drizz't or Legolas. either an elven archery ranger or a drow dual scimitar wielding TWF ranger with a panther companion.
Play a class that can self heal and let everyone else worry about themselves. 11 of the 16 Core and APG classes have some form of healing so it's pretty easy to do at this point.
This is my Chaotic Neutral guide to character creation.
|
i shall tell the group that i won't play the cleric this time. though my dm has this idea that clerics are a mandantory party role. unfortunately, he doesn't allow the leadership feat, and we have 7 players right now. a minimum of 4-5 show up a night and we occasionally have other members that join for a while than quit. almost all these occasional temporary members play clones of either Drizz't or Legolas. either an elven archery ranger or a drow dual scimitar wielding TWF ranger with a panther companion.
Something for your party to read.
The Problems
Some players think they *have* to have a cleric or druid to cover the healing role, and place healing as an extremely high priority, even in combat, and even if they don't, many even spend inordinate amounts of money on extremely inefficient healing items that may hurt them more than help them.
To summarize a few common issues:
- Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them.
- Players spend too much money on healing, often spending wads of cash on things like potions of Cure Moderate Wounds.
- Players believe they can't heal efficiently without a Cleric or Druid or similar class in the party, and view such as an essential role, to the point where some even *force* others to play a Cleric or Druid just so that they can have a dedicated healer, and then downplay the extraordinary talents of those classes and belittle them to a mere healing role, making for an unenjoyable experience for the victim of this treatment.
- Many players just don't know how to get the best healing for their buck.
Some Information and Comparisons
First, an effort at dispelling some of the myths. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions, perhaps with the exception of Cure Light Wounds or a similar level 1 spell. The reason for this is simple. The cost is exorbitant, and it's really not worth it. A Cure Serious Wounds potion will heal, on average, 18.5 hp, and it will cost you 750gp, and it will take either a standard or a full round action to use, and it will provoke AoOs unless you did some further investment to prevent that, and on top of that it probably smells bad and tastes bitter. Yuck. For the same price, you could have gotten a Wand of Cure Light Wounds (275hp total instead of 18.5hp), a Wand of Lesser Vigor (550hp total instead of 18.5gp), or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Would you rather get 18 hp, or 18 hp per day? Now would you rather use a standard or full action that provokes AoOs, *and* need to draw the item, or would you rather use a standard action that doesn't provoke AoOs? And hey, wouldn't you like the option to heal even more for efficiency, outside of battle? There's even another option, this one for artificers, that costs a mere 50 gp a pop: Infuse an ally with Greater Healing armor. This will give them 6d8+30 total healing (3d8+15 as a swift action, usable twice). As an added bonus, it will even automatically heal you if you get knocked unconscious. The point is... potions are bad. Potions are inefficient. So are scrolls of Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, and so forth.
Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Seriously.
First off, healing often does not outpace damage. Moreover, removing an enemy a threat can often be much more effective at saving your allies' necks than going up and poking them with Cure X Wounds. If an enemy were to deal 50 damage to an ally, and you can take that enemy out by either disabling or killing them, then you've "healed" that ally of the 50 damage he would have taken. Additionally, as healing often does not keep up the pace with damage, even if you can't disable the enemy, healing the ally might not be good enough to save them. Instead, you might want to use an ability to help the ally escape, or block the enemy from attacking them (this can be something as simple as Benign Transposition, really). In fact, healing in combat is only situationally a good choice, and is often a subpar tactical option.
Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. In fact, you can even get good, cheap burst healing comparable to the Cleric or Druid's ability at low levels with items like the Healing Belt.
Actually, the Artificer can prove to be a fantastic healer, cheaply (we're talking 37.5% market price here) turning out healing belts, wands of lesser vigor, and providing Greater Healing armor infusions (a mere second level infusion) at an early level. The Paladin and Ranger can use wands of Cure Light Wounds without penalty, and the others can use UMD to master the efficient wands. On top of that, members of *any* class can easily chip in with the very efficient Healing Belt.
These things considered, you really can get by without a Cleric or Druid. In fact, if you do have a Cleric or Druid, they're probably going to be more useful in most combats if they are doing something OTHER than healing, since they have considerable talents in many regards.
How to Heal Effectively
(Author's note: I have excluded a few very potent and efficient means of healing because things like the infinite-healing-for-cheap trap and other such things are just plain abusive, and few sane DMs will allow them)
[LIST]
Instead of taking up an action to heal during combat, take an action to heal up to 1 hour / level before combat ever happens! See also, Aid (Cleric 2, PHB)
I find the idea of a "mandatory" cleric slightly absurd in Pathfinder. I mean the last campaign I ran was in a setting where I effectively banned Cleric, Paladin, Witch, and Inquisitor due to long and involved setting reasons I will not get into here. Also druid carried huge social stigma and was very negatively treated if found out.
Still, no one played anything with heals. I ended up with a ranger/sorcerer/arcane archer, a barbarian/beast-master, a rogue, and a monk/drunken monk.
Everyone still talks about how they loved the game. I even made cure potions and magic triple cost and moderately rare.
So, Imo cleric is not necessary nor is any kind of dedicated healer.
Just my 2c.
I encourage the players in the campaigns I run to do some basic level of coordination so that they feel they have the resources they want when adventuring. If they feel light in some area once they're playing, it's up to them to come up with a solution. It may be a cohort or some other form of hireling or just a lot more money spent on healing magic, but the solution is on their heads if they failed to incorporate it from the start.
As far as playing what you want to play, by all means, do so. But if everybody does so to the detriment of the group as a whole, how successful will the group be? I fully expect all of my players to take a hand in filling in gaps they feel they have and not leave it to one player to grudgingly drop his plans for the good of the group.
i finally get to use my book of 9 swords with my saturday group. saturday the 17th, we are making characters, we have the 24th off and the campaign starts on the 31st. i am starting with a warblade whom will be replaced with a swordsage upon death.
Yeah it often happens in our groups that one individual "sucks it up" and plays the Cleric because "we need one" even though he or she really didn't want to play a Cleric. Am I a horrible selfish person for never being the one to "take the turn" playing the (undesirable) Cleric? Other players at the table have chastised me for that, but in my opinion I came to the table to play what -I- want to play... not to be the healing monkey. (The actual word we use isn't monkey. Rather it rhymes with witch) They seem to think that because someone else than -has to- play the Cleric and their fun is ruined that I'm somehow having fun at the expense of others' fun. I don't think that's fair to me, personally. What do you guys think?I don't have any problems with you being unwilling to play cleric. It is however pretty much douchery to pressure other people to take on a party role you are unwilling to take. If no one wants to play cleric then figure out a way to play without one.
Oh I don't pressure anyone to do anything. A Cleric is nice to have but I think we could do fine with the Bard using a wand after the battle to heal us. Most of the players in my group are convinced that we will die without a Cleric though. Nothing wrong with that thought but if that's actually the case and no one wants to play it, shouldn't the DM have an NPC Cleric along with us to fill that "role" rather than essentially forcing the players to choose who draws the short straw essentially? ((Note I'm not saying this is necessarily the case in my group since we have a party of 7 and a DM NPC with the party would just make us earn even less xp than normal))
I look at it like this... if some of the players are that convinced that the party needs a dedicated healer and that one of us -must- play one or the party will die, that's largely their problem. I come to the table to have fun, pure and simple. I don't like the idea of having fun at the expense of someone else's fun, but I really don't look at it that way in this case. Why should I have to play something I don't want to play because members of my group are trying to guilt me into doing so?
i shall tell the group that i won't play the cleric this time. though my dm has this idea that clerics are a mandantory party role. unfortunately, he doesn't allow the leadership feat, and we have 7 players right now. a minimum of 4-5 show up a night and we occasionally have other members that join for a while than quit. almost all these occasional temporary members play clones of either Drizz't or Legolas. either an elven archery ranger or a drow dual scimitar wielding TWF ranger with a panther companion.Something for your party to read.
** spoiler omitted **...
That spoiler isn't original material.
|
|
This came in discussion of the Oracle class a few days ago here.
Seriously? Healing spells are few and far between. About 1/3 of the published classes (including the APG) have the ability to heal. In a party with only one character of those classes, they will be REQUIRED to heal sometimes. If a character has an appropriate heal and instead allows his party to die, who is "douchey"?I'd say this should *never* come up. Because when the players were creating characters, and dude 1 says, "I'll make an Oracle", and dude two went "cool, you'll be doing all the healing then?" then dude 1 would say "no, actually I have this cool other concept, one of you guy's in going to need to make up a healer, or at least someone who can share the healing duties with me.".
If that conversation doesn't happen, GM isn't doing his job.
I would argue that the former attitude is a problem with some gamers Clerics and other divine casters tend to get trapped by other players (and some DMs) expectations more than most classes. There are a lot of cool concepts involved with serving the divine that are not used because of these attitudes.
I think a DM supporting those players who, within reason, don't want to get stuck with the stereotype is one of the ups (usually) of making the characters together.
All the Best,
Kerney
|
|
That spoiler isn't original material.i shall tell the group that i won't play the cleric this time. though my dm has this idea that clerics are a mandantory party role. unfortunately, he doesn't allow the leadership feat, and we have 7 players right now. a minimum of 4-5 show up a night and we occasionally have other members that join for a while than quit. almost all these occasional temporary members play clones of either Drizz't or Legolas. either an elven archery ranger or a drow dual scimitar wielding TWF ranger with a panther companion.Something for your party to read.
** spoiler omitted **...
Never said it was.
|
|
Oh I don't pressure anyone to do anything. A Cleric is nice to have but I think we could do fine with the Bard using a wand after the battle to heal us. Most of the players in my group are convinced that we will die without a Cleric though. Nothing wrong with that thought but if that's actually the case and no one wants to play it, shouldn't the DM have an NPC Cleric along with us to fill that "role" rather than essentially forcing the players to choose who draws the short straw essentially? ((Note I'm not saying this is necessarily the case in my group since we have a party of 7 and a DM NPC with the party would just make us earn even less xp than normal))
I look at it like this... if some of the players are that convinced that the party needs a dedicated healer and that one of us -must- play one or the party will die, that's largely their problem. I come to the table to have fun, pure and simple. I don't like the idea of having fun at the expense of someone else's fun, but...
This is more or less what I suggested above. If someone wants to play the dedicated healer then more power to him; if no one wants to take that role then the group is going to be better able to take down enemies faster and can be content with after combat healing. Or with a demanding NPC cleric.
|
|
In my ongoing Rise of the Runelords, I yelled from another room "what do you want to be?" and we ended up with two rogues, one combat one skill, two fighters one finesse one brute a ranger who doesn't like using his bow and a paladin that is better suited to be a wizard. needless to say after a few sessions (two) Mr.NPC Cleric joined the party, he's going to be a key feature and story character, but for now hes the party heal bot cause if they didn't have one (the paladin won't heal on principle, he sees others that need healing weak)
Now this is for the group I DM for, the group I play in we have no cleric and seem to do fine with a (Rogue, Ranger, Rogue/Wizard, Fighter/Ranger and a Wizard/Fighter) So it might be my DMing but my group usually NEEDS a cleric and only one person doesn't mind being a cleric. I was thinking of making it a round robin character XD just so they get a glimpse of being a cleric.
Hmm... Haven't played that much PF yet, so I don't know how useful my "insights" may be, but two things occured to me.
1) That the general consensus of the thread seems to be, that the "original roles" of old school D&D no longer are necessary in PF, especially with more experienced players. I find it interesting that D&D 4th edition then choose to go the opposite way, and define the characters more according to roles, than to class. Maybe there is no "edition war" - just two different games?
2) I (and I know many others feel the same way) have nothing against playing a dedicated healer in (computer) games like World og Warcraft (PvP especially), DOTA or League of Legends. My understanding is that in the latter (computer) games, the focus is shifted toeards a much more competitive environment with the focus being on overcoming other players, and I think this may be the reason. Well placed heals in such a game can mean the difference of winning and loosing very very easily - in PF this is not the case in the same degree.
This leads me to believe that it actually depends more on the style of play - if everyone is surviving by the skin of their teeth, the healer becomes a huge boon to everyone. If this is not so, he's not that needed and the player playing him doesn't get the same recognition (maybe not even the same recognition as the rest of the party, who might be dealing out more damage). So maybe the idea of "we need a healer" is more of an old trope, which is only true in a small percentage of games - but not understood as such, and therefore still believed by many as 'the Truth(TM)'. I feel that the PF system seems to be going in the right direction to adress this "problem" - allowing people more freedom in their chosen style of play. And I think this is quite nice :)
We coordinate fairly heavily, mainly to see what's being thrown into the mix and wether our character ideas are stealing anyones thunder or are otherwise redundant.
However, we also like to keep more than a few aspects of our character's future development under our collective hats, so as to suprise each other and keep life interesting.
I guess it's an old habit from the days where it was 'Us versus the DM versus the Campaign World versus Us.'
Yeah, keeping watch to make sure your 'adventuring companions' don't sell you into slavery again leaves scars...
We also make sure to coordinate with the DM about the campaign focus so as to support where we can.
As far as making sure we can all do everything - not really one of our habits. Sometimes, yes, but we're really big on the 'interesting characters doing interesting things' way-o-life. We've had parties comprised soley of casters and we've gone for long stretches with no clerics.
Often, not covering all your basis results in interesting solutions when needs demand.
Of course, it doesn't make life any easier.. >_<
Interestingly, after we all got sucked into a well known online computer game, we've started talking about covering the 'essentials' more frequently.