|
You apparently forgot to read the next line. Just because that player is having fun, that kind of behavior is very good at ruining things for everybody else at the table.Because there are players who, without at least some randomness, would play the exact same character over and over and over and over and over and over, etc.So what?
If they're having fun, who does it actually hurt?
No, I read it. It just doesn't make any sense.
One of our players loves to play hard-hitting melee combat chicks. She hardly ever plays anything else, regardless of the system we're using - MERPs, Rolemaster, 2E AD&D, 3.X D&D, PF.
Her playing a "type" has certainly never impacted my fun at the table, and I can't imagine any way in which it could.
I've seen it in a group where someone always played a wizard it did effect other players fun as they never tried to make wizards even if they wanted to because that player would always play them. Also lots of times people get bored seeing the same person do the same things game after game after game.
If that works for your group, that's great, but in many groups most players don't like to be typed that way or having to deal with someone who refuses to play anything else, ever, for any reason, accept for the one type of character, regardless of whether or not it fits with the rest of the party.
We just ran into a problem with this. Two of my smaller groups lost some players and so they came together to form a new group for a new campaign. There was one player in each group that wanted to be "the tank." Not "a tank" (which btw I hate that word I find it to be very video game, that's just me though) mind you, not one of the melee classes to help defeat bad-guys. They had been the main melee class in their own groups for so long, and reveled in that role so heavily, that they didn't want to share that melee spotlight with the other player. It's started to turn into a cock-fight of sorts because they are both trying to "out-kill" the other, or gather the most "scalps." I'm not joking when I say I spent the last five minutes of our last session having them roll up survival checks to skin the pelts off of the wolves they had killed. One started it, out of a legitimate desire to sell the pelt, then the other didn't want to be "outdone" so they both spent the remainder of the time skinning the pelts of the wolves they had each "killed." Not even remembering that the two sorcerers, the ranger, and the cleric had all helped them to defeat the wolves.
I've seen it in a group where someone always played a wizard it did effect other players fun as they never tried to make wizards even if they wanted to because that player would always play them.Why not just have two wizards?
EDIT:
And Mendedwall's problem is solved via the "Don't be a jerk" rule, rather than some kind of limitation on classes. A bit of intraparty rivalry can be fun, but it crosses the line when you're being an out-of-game jerk to the other players.
Re: skinning the wolves: why waste time rolling? Just say "You both skin the wolves," and move on.
I'm glad your group has players willing to work with each other well enough to have two players able to have similar characters. That is not nearly as common as it should be, especially in areas where people are forced to play with people they don't particularly like or not play at all due to a low number of available players/DMs.
I've seen it in a group where someone always played a wizard it did effect other players fun as they never tried to make wizards even if they wanted to because that player would always play them.Why not just have two wizards?
I never understood how some people could never get past the imaginary "never have more than one of any one race/class" rule.
Just have two wizards, or a party of rogues, or whatever else meets your fancy and have a good time. If you are deadset on being different, archetypes and alternate race abilities from the APG really help to achieve that even with the same class/race combo.
I've seen it in a group where someone always played a wizard it did effect other players fun as they never tried to make wizards even if they wanted to because that player would always play them.Why not just have two wizards?I never understood how some people could never get past the imaginary "never have more than one of any one race/class" rule.
Just have two wizards, or a party of rogues, or whatever else meets your fancy and have a good time. If you are deadset on being different, archetypes and alternate race abilities from the APG really help to achieve that even with the same class/race combo.
This is a great ideal, but in reality, it rarely works as well as it sounds on paper, though the archetypes and similar features help a great deal.
|
|
I've seen it in a group where someone always played a wizard it did effect other players fun as they never tried to make wizards even if they wanted to because that player would always play them.Why not just have two wizards?
EDIT:
And Mendedwall's problem is solved via the "Don't be a jerk" rule, rather than some kind of limitation on classes. A bit of intraparty rivalry can be fun, but it crosses the line when you're being an out-of-game jerk to the other players.
Re: skinning the wolves: why waste time rolling? Just say "You both skin the wolves," and move on.
Lots of players don't like to play something someone else is playing, so they see someone playing a wizard they won't play a wizard. In the same way some groups try to force someone to play a healer in the group, I don't force the issue as I was relatively new to the group at the time, but I knew that the only reason some players weren't playing arcane classes was because the one player was, because they told me.
Lots of players don't like to play something someone else is playing, so they see someone playing a wizard they won't play a wizard. In the same way some groups try to force someone to play a healer in the group, I don't force the issue as I was relatively new to the group at the time, but I knew that the only reason some players weren't playing arcane classes was because the one player was, because they told me.
Lots of players also don't like sharing any portion of their spotlight. When the same players that insist on their own spotlight also insist on always filling the same role, it can be a problematic for groups when they have to bring new blood in to keep going or merge groups like in the example with the two fighters clashing.
Lots of players also don't like sharing any portion of their spotlight. When the same players that insist on their own spotlight also insist on always filling the same role, it can be a problematic for groups when they have to bring new blood in to keep going or merge groups like in the example with the two fighters clashing.That's just ... weird, and it just seems like another case where, "No, seriously, don't play with jerks" could be more liberally applied.
Consider my current group's composition (at 3rd-level) is:
Elven Barbarian (2-hand melee)
Elven Paladin (Sword-and-board)
Elven Magus (Me) (Rapier and spell)
Dwarven Fighter (Axe-and-board)
Human Fighter 2 / Ranger 1 (TWF scarf and shorsword)
Human Rogue (Noncombatant :D )
Half-Orc Sorcerer (Spell and axe)We had another Human Figher (Archer); his player decided he couldn't make enough games, so has begged off. We've got another player who hasn't played for awhile that might join in as an Oracle.
As you can see, quite a bit of role overlap going on. The Paladin's our only healer. We're going through Rise of the Runelords, adjusted up for our above-average party size.
Again, I congratulate you on having such a good group. Not everyone is that lucky. Some people have much less choice in who they play with, and have to find ways to make potentially dysfunctional groups work if they want to play at all. These people are generally going to find that not stepping on someone else's toes is a good place to start. If there are only 4 people, than the party probably needs to be fairly balanced; if there are more, than people need to find ways to be the same class, but different function, but respect for other people's characters, especially if you are jumping into an existing game, is paramount, as is being flexible in what you are willing to play, when you are in such situations.
Hit points!
I have a guy in my group who has 18 CON, is a fighter and has rolled "1" for hit points for levels 2,3,4 and last night 5! He has less hit points then the Wizard (16 CON). We have a policy that you roll in front of everyone and you get what you roll. The fighter is mechanically optimised in every way, but given his hp's he's just crap. Don't heal in combat the 'experts' say - well without the cleric dumping every thing on the fighter every round he goes down like a sack.
Anyone else have issues with the Elephant in the Corner? 4e fixed this, variations of 3e fixed this (i.e. A Game of Throne), so why does PF still have the random hp rolls? Perhaps a requirement of 'at least' half on any hp roll. Please tell me I've just missed the relevant rule.
The person in question is ditching the character, unless someone can show we have been wrong by rolling hp's and accepting whatever the dice said. Thing is you can't say he did anything wrong, hp's are rolled during play, and with no control.
Thoughts,
S.
A house rule my buddies came up with is to have the player and the DM roll and you take the higher of the two. You double your chances and usually come out above average. It's a rule that we've used for so long (Even in 2nd edition, I think) that I often forget that it's not a standard rule.
Hit points!
I have a guy in my group who has 18 CON, is a fighter and has rolled "1" for hit points for levels 2,3,4 and last night 5! He has less hit points then the Wizard (16 CON). We have a policy that you roll in front of everyone and you get what you roll. The fighter is mechanically optimised in every way, but given his hp's he's just crap. Don't heal in combat the 'experts' say - well without the cleric dumping every thing on the fighter every round he goes down like a sack.
yada yada yada
Thoughts,
S.
I have only just now come up with an amalgamation of some of the models shown earlier in this thread that I will probably be using with my current campaign. Feel free to use/ignore this suggestion.
This gives the character a hit point roll of somewhere between 1/2 HD and full HD. The lowest possible is lower than an average roll on a die (in which an averaged d6 would be 3.5, and you can add up the point-fives when you get another one).
d6: 1d4+2 hp. Average = 3-6
d8: 2d3+2 hp. Average = 4-8
d10: 1d6+4 hp. Average = 5-10
d12: 2d4+4 hp. Average = 6-12
rolling a d3: assuming the player does not have one of those nifty six-sided d3s, the player rolls a d6, counts 1's, 2's and 3's as normal, but counts 4's as 1's, 5's as 2's, and 6's as 3's.
So that's that, hope somebody can get some use out of it.
- Jack
I've seen it in a group where someone always played a wizard it did effect other players fun as they never tried to make wizards even if they wanted to because that player would always play them.Why not just have two wizards?
EDIT:
And Mendedwall's problem is solved via the "Don't be a jerk" rule, rather than some kind of limitation on classes. A bit of intraparty rivalry can be fun, but it crosses the line when you're being an out-of-game jerk to the other players.
Re: skinning the wolves: why waste time rolling? Just say "You both skin the wolves," and move on.
Oh my goodness I totally agree with you. I was trying to convey my sense of the ridiculous in the post. Maybe I didn't do that. You'll notice that in the same post I mentioned we have two sorcerers as well. I personally don't care about filling any role in a party. I do care about having fun, and not turning every encounter into a chance to "best" your fellow party member.
As for the why roll for the pelts... First off, let me say that just asking that question makes you sound like a bit of a contentious thread troll. Secondly, I have them roll survival checks because I want to convey the sense that skinning a pelt is something that not only takes skill, but time. Rolling a check, to me anyway, conveys that idea to the players. Any schmuck could try to skin a pelt, but he might butcher it so badly that the pelt is unrecognizable. Rolling a survival check, no matter how low the DC conveys the idea that it is a skill that not everyone possesses. :)
I actually had two fighters in my campaign until one had to deploy. I've never understood the 'need' to 'protect roles'.
Me either Tri. Play what you want and have fun. Who cares if somebody kills more than you. We had a rogue in one of our groups once that had this uncanny ability to get the kill shot on every BBEG in every campaign. The martial classes and the casters would wear the thing down, and then this rogue (Corelin the killer) would launch a haphazard crossbow shot and kill off the remaining few HP. It was brilliant. Everyone in the group loved it. That's where the nickname came from, the group. If you have a good group, it doesn't matter who plays what role.
As for the why roll for the pelts... First off, let me say that just asking that question makes you sound like a bit of a contentious thread troll.Seriously? It's just a damn question, man.
Secondly, I have them roll survival check because I want to convey the sense that skinning a pelt is something that not only takes skill, but time. Rolling a check, to me anyway, conveys that idea to the players. Any schmuck could try to skin a pelt, but he might butcher it so badly that the pelt is unrecognizable. Rolling a survival check, no matter how low the DC conveys the idea that it is a skill that not everyone possesses. :)I was more addressing the (apparent) complaint of, "Man, everyone else had to sit there while Tweedledum and Tweedledee rolled dice for 5 straight minutes; boring!"
As a form of table control, having them Take 10 and gloss over the time period might've saved that, especially since they were only doing it (eventually) to be jerks to each other.
Yes, but what you fail to realize is that I was also trying to send a subtle message that their cock-fight was getting out of hand, and I was hoping the rest of the party might jump in and self-police. Also, 5 minutes was probably a bit of an exaggeration.
Subsequently, you don't need to get angry at me. I'm not your enemy. In fact you and I might actually get along if we gamed together. :)
I've had similar troubles with "A always plays the fighter". I had a group of friends, and they always played the same character in every game, regardless of system.
I finally instituted a rule that you couldn't play the same character type twice in a row, you had to play something else. There was a lot of grumbling at first. Until they all sat around trying to decide what to play. Then someone piped up that they'd like to play the fighter, since they never got to. The person that played the fighter all the time said why didn't you play one if you wanted to? The first person replied to the effect that they didn't want to step on someone else's toes. Once they got to talking, they all realized they'd all kind of wanted to play something else but didn't want to step on someone elses's toes.
After a couple of years of this rule, they'd all realized there were other concepts they really enjoyed, some more than what they originally did exclusively. There was a bit higher turnover on characters at first, when they tried something and really hated it, but they had more fun than they did before (per them), so it was a good thing.
And, on a similar note, I've played in games before where no matter what the person played, they tried to play someone else's character too. For example, I've been in games where the Druid tried to do all the stuff the fighter does. I've been in a game with someone that always plays a rogue, no matter what class he actually is. A magic using crafter that still has Disable Device, Stealth, and Slight of Hand, and wants to pick all the locks and disable all the traps, even though there is a rogue in the party. *shrug*
Of course it will. When that "brave" fighter abandons his friends to flee in terror from that dragon, and then when the fear effect ends, are you going to play him pretending nothing ever happened?The difference is that rolling a 1 on HP affects you for your entire career. Rolling a 1 on a saving throw won't.Nothing unique about this. Dnd is a game played with dice, and the dice can screw with character concepts. For better or worse that's a feature of dice games, not a bug.
The concept of the doughty fighter who then tosses a couple of 1s on hit dice; the concept of the brave fighter who tosses a couple of 1s on his first pair of saves vs fear; the concept of the charming socialite rogue who throws a couple 1s on his diplomacy checks and comes off as an uncouth lout.
My fighter with Bravery, Iron Will, and Improved Iron Will, who believes that courage for its own sake is more valuable than life, running like a little girl from a dragon's fear aura is not the way I envision the character either, but if I roll low on that Will save, that's what will happen. It's just the way Dnd goes.
That is a roleplay choice, not a roll-play one. In our group the fighter would get ribbed mercilessly until the next amusing mishap by another player! If any of our characters got too upset by running away fear - or having a party member run in fear - they'd sell their gear, find a nice quiet pub in a nice quiet village and never let anyone mention the word "dragon" again. Assuming there were any pubs for sale. I imagine they would all be bought up by those retired level 5 fighters who rolled 1 every time they levelled up and realised adventuring was not for them ;-)
That is a roleplay choice, not a roll-play one. In our group the fighter would get ribbed mercilessly until the next amusing mishap by another player! If any of our characters got too upset by running away fear - or having a party member run in fear - they'd sell their gear, find a nice quiet pub in a nice quiet village and never let anyone mention the word "dragon" again. Assuming there were any pubs for sale. I imagine they would all be bought up by those retired level 5 fighters who rolled 1 every time they levelled up and realised adventuring was not for them ;-)Of course it will. When that "brave" fighter abandons his friends to flee in terror from that dragon, and then when the fear effect ends, are you going to play him pretending nothing ever happened?
The difference is that rolling a 1 on HP affects you for your entire career. Rolling a 1 on a saving throw won't.
Sounds about right. The retired fighters with no HP luck bartending for the retired fighters with no Will save luck? The ones with no Fort save luck probably can't hold their drink, though... :p
Roleplay consequences of dice rolls can be just as permanent as roll-play ones, though. If not, often, more so. So my ultimate point would be that there are many, many types of dice rolls that if you roll wrong could go against how you see your character, and that's just something inherent to dnd.
Rules I've used to address the HP issue while still keeping a healthy dose of chance (as I think it is an incredibly important part of the game despite how hard the minmaxers try to remove it):
- Role once and then roll again one time if you think you can do better; but you have to take the second roll no matter what.
- You can roll two dice each time and take the better result.
- You can roll three dice at once and take the average rounded down.
That way, it's really rare to roll only 1 HP... but it can still happen.
I have been the 'gimped' fighter with lower HP than everyone else in the group. I started changing my tactics to more of a hit-and-run fighter with a healthy dose of tripping. I ended up having more fun and was still just as useful.
The way I see it, a game that is constructed around rolling dice gets a little less interesting each time you lessen the penalties inherent in chance. If you can't really fail, a win becomes worthless.
In my CotCT Campaign I use following rule:
Minimum HP:
d6=2
d8=3
d10=4
d12=5
Iron Heroes had the following rule:
d6=1d4+2
d8=1d4+4
d10=1d4+6
d12=1d4+8
This way you have a chance role, but get a flat base bonus for hp.
But Iron Heroes is a system that supports low-fantasy heroics, and the character classes are more powerful, because of magic items being either evil or minor artifacts.