So, I think I entered a stalemate with my GM.
My party is a well stablished adventiring company currently level 11-12 on its way to Sins of the Savior module.
It is composed by:
1) A witch that has a habit of turning monsters into cute fuzzie creatures with Baleful Polymorph+Ill Omen.
2) A Monk that pins and nulifies a lot of creatures with maneuvers, usually scaring the s~~+ out of creatures twice his size.
3) A Magus that delivers a lot of damage and loves to tank with his high AC.
4) A Paladin that smites the evil away of a lot of monsters
5) A Cleric that manages to heal and outheal and even do battle rezzes and buffs everyone with super specialized spell combos.
6) A Rogue that:
- Will do anything to never enter melee
- That has a very high wisdom score mainly because he like to pass will saves (which he incidentally doesnt haha)
- Has int 10
- Average damage per encounter was 10. In one he did 4 damage (/cry).
- That buyed all of the level 1 Wiz/Sor Scrolls, which he was casting, in the Mokmurian battle (he tryed to cast summ?on monster 1 and failed his Use Magic Device, then he hitted Mokmurian with a level 1 Shoking Grasp), I was like WTF?.
- His gear is mainly for flavor (Hey do you want a Ring of Deflection +2? No thanks my Ring of Sustenance is awesome!)
- And well mainly in battles he runs around staying away from combat hasent buyed a Short Bow at least and refuses to battle because he will get hit and has a low AC: Currently 25.
I was like...hum what are you doing? He does a decent job with trap disarming but my question remains...What the hell? I approached him and told him why not play a bard if he likes to cast spells and it would also be a chance to rebuild his character and he mentioned me his character was super great as it is...
And my GM told me that not everyone is a Min-Maxer like me or the other players that he focuses on Roleplaying and having fun and suggested that if the Magus wanted to do a quest for the gods and casted only level 1 divine spells from scrolls he would adjust the encounters in order for the party to have a chance to succedd...I was like...well weird...WTF :*-<
The classes (from my point of view) are done to fulfill a role. And the rogue (from my perspective) is done to dish high spiky damage, be a buttload of skills and disarm traps (among other things).
I dont know if I'm making a huge mess but last time I checked a lot of characters have died in our adventures and the rogue usually survives by not being in line of sight of the monsters, and running away from danger. In my opinion not being HEROIC NOR ADVENTURING. That being said...he is turning into our personal Nodwick lol
My questions are
- Is he being rewarded by acting as a coward?
- Is optimizing your character wrong?
- Is not contributing to combat at all ok for your standards?
- Am I a huge drama queen? (yeah maybe a bit, I think so...hum ok huge Dramarama Queenzalor lol)
Comments...? ZOMG I needed to vent that hahaha
|
I'll start off by saying that character optimization is NOT wrong. It's just another way of playing.
Sometimes, there can be encounters created that emphasize having a character stay OUT of combat. Makes things pretty interesting. If your GM wants to go that route, id suggest tailoring some that would make it seem campaign-wise that everyone is doing whats necessary(like have him escort a high-value person while others defend).
As for his actions though, Id say it's a mix of two things:
1. Your GM is not being strong handed enough with the consequences of him purposely avoiding combat and generally doing things that his character is simply not skilled at.
2. This rogue player seems to have a completely different agenda than the rest of the group and it's quite obvious. Im guessing he just is fairly new to the whole pen and paper mindset and is going about it like any of us would when we are new to something; mess around to figure out what we really wanna do.
Id say this situation doesnt really need any action at all. Id say to wait till after your campaign to discuss things.
|
My questions are
- Is he being rewarded by acting as a coward?
Yes, it would seem so. He's letting everyone else die and is profiting along the way. That's not illegal by any means, but is definitely anti-social.
- Is optimizing your character wrong?
Nope. But everything can be taken to unhealthy extremes.
- Is not contributing to combat at all ok for your standards?
My personal standards, no. It would depend though on whether or not the campaign calls for it. Since everyone else is fighting, it reads as if the rogue is a fish out of water. With the favorable outcomes and the GM's defense, it seems as if you may want to find another group. A GM's job includes keeping things as harmonious as possible, if possible. The opposite is being encouraged. Not uncommon, mind you, but not excusable either, by my standards.
- Am I a huge drama queen? (yeah maybe a bit, I think so...hum ok huge Dramarama Queenzalor lol)
Huge? No. You've got expectations and they're not being met. You're SUPPOSED to discuss these kinds of issues before things get out of hand.
Just take care to make sure that you're getting consensus. Don't rail-road the group. It could well be that YOU are the one who needs a new character concept, if the campaign isn't supposed to include fighting and is supposed to reward running away. Keep an open mind and try to find the middle ground. If you instead find that it doesn't exist, find or start a new table.
Good luck!
I had a player like that in my campaign. He is a long time veteran like most of us. The difference was that he did focus on skills, but the similarity is that he avoided combat - and this annoyed his fellow PC's.
His reason was that he felt he could never come close to the kind of damage output the fighters, wizards, and archer types were doing - so his focus was on something he could do well. In his case it was crafting... sigh.
I did not like the crafting thing, but I had no problem with his avoiding comabat, and I tried to reward him for using his other abilities well.
But in the end, this did not matter because he was killed by another PC for trying to listen in on a private conversation. And the player who killed him is the major optimizer in our group. In fact he was already plotting to kill this PC becasue of how ineffective he was, and it was only circumstance that gave him a reason to do it sooner.
So it seems to me that if the other PC's don't like what he contributes, it might be better for him to find another campaign.
As for his actions though, Id say it's a mix of two things:
1. Your GM is not being strong handed enough with the consequences of him purposely avoiding combat and generally doing things that his character is simply not skilled at.2. This rogue player seems to have a completely different agenda than the rest of the group and it's quite obvious. Im guessing he just is fairly new to the whole pen and paper mindset and is going about it like any of us would when we are new to something; mess around to figure out what we really wanna do.
Agree with your number 1 and guess what the player has around 20 years of experience in RPGs he's been playing since 1st edition. That also stroke super weird :S
|
|
guess what the player has around 20 years of experience in RPGs he's been playing since 1st edition.
oh lawd. Well then throw the issue into roleplay! Make your character gripe about his absence during the last big fight and could have used his help. Make snide remarks about being a sub par rogue, or better yet, like EWHM suggested (kind of), Use your loot earnings to hire an NPC that makes him feel useless! Obviously these methods require great amounts of tact and good roleplay, but it very effectively brings those issues to light in both worlds.
Is he being rewarded by acting as a coward?
- Is optimizing your character wrong?
In moderation, no.
If you focus on mechanics so much that you don't focus on non-mechanical things your group feels is important (like RP), such that it brings negativity to the table... that's beyond moderation.Is not contributing to combat at all ok for your standards?
Again, it depends on the gaming group. The coward shouldn't get XP for creatures he doesn't help defeat.
Am I a huge drama queen? (yeah maybe a bit, I think so...hum ok huge Dramarama Queenzalor lol)
Drama queen? I dunno. Huge? Well that's a medical question ;p
Comments?
Well I see nothing wrong with RPing a coward, so long as it doesn't disrupt the game too much, and the player is willing to accept the consequences (which may include missing out on the fruits of valor).
I would deal with it in character explain he doesn't contribute to the group and ask him to improve. If he doesn't listen then get a hireling that does what he is supposed to do but lower level, show him how to be an effective rogue. If the hireling starts contributing more give him the incompetent characters share of the loot.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Handle his role playing with role playing of your own: FIRE HIS ASS.
That's right, tell him his services are no longer required by your company of adventurers and send him packing.
When he asks why tell him that he simply is not a good fit with the group and that you need someone who is willing to do their skills AND pull their weight in battle so that all the rest do not die. You need someone you can count on when the s#*% hits the fan and frankly he has proves time and again he is not that person.
Seriously, just because he is playing that character in the game, does not mean that character has to STAY in the game. Adventuring groups are much like a business. If Joe is not pulling his weight then Joe can get lost. Plenty of others in the Adventurers guild who would like the job.
And that is all RP in character. You can tell him he is a nice guy but if he is not willing to stick his neck out for the rest of you, you simply don't need him around.
Send that character packing with a 'thanks for the effort' and have him make a replacement character. Hopefully the next one will be someone who can mesh with the rest of the party.
I mean we don't hang out with people who annoy us in real life, why the hell would our characters?
No, there's a strain of this sort of player from back in the Old School 1st edition days. They identified themselves as 'real roleplayers' and basically believed that the way to prove they were real roleplayers was to be more ineffective that the other members of the party, who they tended to look down on as min-maxers or munchkins. On the GM side, this same strain manifested itself as 'Low Magic Campaigns' were more 'cool/real roleplayer/hip' than standard games. Basically its a perversion of the goal of roleplaying in the same way that Punpun and friends are a perversion of reasonable (and roleplaying appropriate, since most people I know in reality are fairly optimized for the roles they play) optimization.
That is so true a buddy of him was advising a 1st level character to make a Fighter with 10 Str and 15 Cha saying she would have a lot of personality in combat and would pose interesting roleplaying issues.
The question I would ask is: does the rogue benefit the party outside of combat. There are a few times that a member of my group plays a pacifist or a social character and does not gear up to be a combat monster.
The Rogue's role is not always big back stabbity combat. I see a lot of rogues in my games that go for information gathering, clue finding, and intrigue but don't build to do a lot of combat. That is fine I know as a DM that I add a bit of those elements into my game so that he has something to do.
Optimization is not all bad but sometimes a non-optimal choice is just fun to play. You shouldn't be "forced" to min/max a character to survive that is where you get into the roll play vs role play fights.
Try working with your player to find out what role he is trying to fill and include a few bones to make it fun for the player. The weak combatant in the group is not always a bad thing. Try not to let combat rule every game and throw some puzzles at your group, you'll find that a lot of optimized players will quake in their boots.
My group generally tries to include a few non-combat skills because I like them to investigate first then go after bad guys.
The character is 11-12th level he atleast gets two attacks that can do +6d6 sneak attack. It does not sound like he even does this. Not min/maxing is one thing trying hang with the cool kids and do crap like reading a 1st level spell scroll for your round is just garbage.
Look at TV shows where a group of people use different skills to overcome challenges, A-team and Leverage come to mind right away. The other characters all contribute like members of one of those teams and this guy wants to go on life and death missions with them and for 'role-playing' reasons is bringing them all down by playing Gomer Pyle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a somewhat similar player in my long-running group, who simply manages to design his characters to be less than useful in many situations. Contrary to your player, he is also kind of the lump of the group... he doesn't roleplay all that much and mostly enjoys combat and the story.
Still, the rest of the group optimizes pretty decently, so they take up his slack. And he is a nice enough person, elsewise we wouldn't have continued to play with him for 10+ years.
My advice is that if your group enjoys the roleplaying aspect of the character and if the other characters can take up the slack in terms of power ( and they certainly sound like they can... they sound pretty twinked out ) you should let him be.
If he wants to play an ineffectual fop for once, it's his prerogative. I see it more as the duty of the GM to adjust the challenges to that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re the title: Where is that newspaper they use with me when i get growly.. there it is.
There is no Role play vs optimization. Its a completely false dichotomy, they have NOTHING to do with each other. They are not opposite ends of the spectrum, you do not get better at one by getting worse at the other.
A good role player can come up with an amazing, epic, and sweeping tale of love and tragedy for pun pun if they're so inclined. Likewise you can have a dwarf sorcerer with a charisma of 8 who can't role play their way out of a hewards handy haversack.
Good role playing makes good role playing. You do not need a CHARACTER with social skills and creativity to do it well you need a PLAYER with social skills and creativity to do it well.
With that said... the rogue sucks. The party should get together or the group should get together and tell the rogue to start pulling his weight, or they're going to use him like nodwick, throw him into the traps, and tie him to a hook to use as bait.
Tell him that just because you want to role play doesn't mean you have to gimp your character to do so. In the end he should of made a bard that focuses on battlefield control.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, be wary of the echo chamber here. Many people self-identify with one of the two camps that you've outlined in the title, and you're not likely to get real or useful advice from either of them (since they're not actually exclusive opposites).
Second, have you talked to the player in question about this? How about in-character? I would fight fire with fire, and have your character IC give him a little pep talk about not deserting the group, and a concrete suggestion on how he can back you up and be your battle-buddy. If what he really wants is roleplay, let's see him roleplay hanging his friend out to dry.
Always remember that different people have fun differently, and it isn't your job to correct for his style of play. It's the GM's job to make sure everyone is getting their kicks, and it's your job to facilitate the GM in that role, by telling him what you want and not being too bossy to other players about their style.
Allowing that, it is still possible for another player's style to ruin your fun. I think your best shot is to role-play the offending PC into competence, people do it in real life all the time and we call it leadership.
The two play styles are not opposites. You can probably convince this guy to care about your character and get his act together, just as you may in fact enjoy his style-of-play if you get into it.
If you read this, and you want me to elaborate, let me know. It's somewhat different from the other advice I expect you will receive here.
The question I would ask is: does the rogue benefit the party outside of combat. There are a few times that a member of my group plays a pacifist or a social character and does not gear up to be a combat monster.
The Rogue's role is not always big back stabbity combat. I see a lot of rogues in my games that go for information gathering, clue finding, and intrigue but don't build to do a lot of combat. That is fine I know as a DM that I add a bit of those elements into my game so that he has something to do.
Optimization is not all bad but sometimes a non-optimal choice is just fun to play. You shouldn't be "forced" to min/max a character to survive that is where you get into the roll play vs role play fights.
Try working with your player to find out what role he is trying to fill and include a few bones to make it fun for the player. The weak combatant in the group is not always a bad thing. Try not to let combat rule every game and throw some puzzles at your group, you'll find that a lot of optimized players will quake in their boots.
My group generally tries to include a few non-combat skills because I like them to investigate first then go after bad guys.
He is a very decent trap disabler, mainly the magical kind of traps. Other than that he is mainly deadweight in combat. The thing is we dont see him contribute in combat mainly because he stays out of it every single chance he has.
For example: Every other player is risking his life and 2 of them lost it to Mokmurian, the monk and the magus died via a nasty and failed disintegrate, and the rogue came in and casted Shoking Grasp from a level 1 Scroll...and then attacked him with a +2 Keen Rapier and failed to hit (he doesn't have weapon finesse or any feat to boost his stats).
First, be wary of the echo chamber here. Many people self-identify with one of the two camps that you've outlined in the title, and you're not likely to get real or useful advice from either of them (since they're not actually exclusive opposites).
Second, have you talked to the player in question about this? How about in-character? I would fight fire with fire, and have your character IC give him a little pep talk about not deserting the group, and a concrete suggestion on how he can back you up and be your battle-buddy. If what he really wants is roleplay, let's see him roleplay hanging his friend out to dry.
Always remember that different people have fun differently, and it isn't your job to correct for his style of play. It's the GM's job to make sure everyone is getting their kicks, and it's your job to facilitate the GM in that role, by telling him what you want and not being too bossy to other players about their style.
Allowing that, it is still possible for another player's style to ruin your fun. I think your best shot is to role-play the offending PC into competence, people do it in real life all the time and we call it leadership.
The two play styles are not opposites. You can probably convince this guy to care about your character and get his act together, just as you may in fact enjoy his style-of-play if you get into it.
If you read this, and you want me to elaborate, let me know. It's somewhat different from the other advice I expect you will receive here.
I was actually thinking what my character would do in game, mainly:
1) "See" his character sheet and recommend him to let my character craft some items that will improve his prowess in combat
2) Train him to be a better melee combatant or get him a Short Bow in order for him to avoid melee and at least do some ranged damage.
3) Improve his armor, he is not something appropiate for his level I presume plain Leather (unenchanted).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My questions are
- Is he being rewarded by acting as a coward?
Yes. As are many, many, many characters in fictional literature. Not everyone is designed the same. Not everyone WANTs to be a frontline fighter.
- Is optimizing your character wrong?
It's not wrong. But personally I find it a bit boring. Having gamed for about 15 years myself, I DO like my characters to look and act different. Most of that history was in 2E... and after awhile all fighter stats tend to look the same.
Mixing it up with stats/weapons/personality that is completly different makes things new and memorable.
- Is not contributing to combat at all ok for your standards?
Certainly.
There are pacifist characters out there. There are posters around here that advocate that killing anything for any reason is wrong... I imagine their characters wouldn't help much in combat...
- Am I a huge drama queen? (yeah maybe a bit, I think so...hum ok huge Dramarama Queenzalor lol)
Yep!! ;)
I've never been a big fan of people telling me how I should play my characters... or what Feats I HAVE to take in order to worth playing with... and I could be wrong, but that seems to be what your doing.
You suggested that he should play a bard. Why? Why would you be ok with a bard running around the field avoiding combat and casting weak spells but your upset with the Rogue?
Did you guys start out at level 12? or did you earn all those levels? If he's been doing this from the beginning... then why are you characters surprised by this? Why aren't they factoring in that with their plans?
Just because it says 'rogue' on the sheet... doesn't mean that EVERY Rogue has to act the same... If I wanted to play some kind of gambler, or Politician or... anything else that doesn't fit in with the Caster/Fighter section... He'd be a rogue. It's a good catch all for the oddball characters.
NOW... if you have established that in the next fight, everyone has their places... and he disregards plans and does his own thing and the group dies... THEN it may be an issue. But just because a 'rogue' isn't sneak attacking everyone shouldn't be cause for a mutiny.
My questions are
- Is he being rewarded by acting as a coward?Yes. As are many, many, many characters in fictional literature. Not everyone is designed the same. Not everyone WANTs to be a frontline fighter.
- Is optimizing your character wrong?It's not wrong. But personally I find it a bit boring. Having gamed for about 15 years myself, I DO like my characters to look and act different. Most of that history was in 2E... and after awhile all fighter stats tend to look the same.
Mixing it up with stats/weapons/personality that is completly different makes things new and memorable.
- Is not contributing to combat at all ok for your standards?Certainly.
There are pacifist characters out there. There are posters around here that advocate that killing anything for any reason is wrong... I imagine their characters wouldn't help much in combat...
- Am I a huge drama queen? (yeah maybe a bit, I think so...hum ok huge Dramarama Queenzalor lol)
Yep!! ;)
I've never been a big fan of people telling me how I should play my characters... or what Feats I HAVE to take in order to worth playing with... and I could be wrong, but that seems to be what your doing.
You suggested that he should play a bard. Why? Why would you be ok with a bard running around the field avoiding combat and casting weak spells but your upset with the Rogue?
Did you guys start out at level 12? or did you earn all those levels? If he's been doing this from the beginning... then why are you characters surprised by this? Why aren't they factoring in that with their plans?
Just because it says 'rogue' on the sheet... doesn't mean that EVERY Rogue has to act the same... If I wanted to play some kind of gambler, or Politician or... anything else that doesn't fit in with the Caster/Fighter section... He'd be a rogue. It's a good catch all for the oddball characters.
NOW......
- Yeah well a character might look and act different but they need to be resourceful and contribute something to a combat. See Conan and tell me how cool would he be if he ran around casting a spell from a scroll...
- A bard could do a lot of things to boost us without actually engaging melee! Have you seen bardic performance? That would be so helpful. And he could even cast higher level spells and do a lot of other tricks each round.
- Our party is quite pacifist, we dont kill the majority of our enemies and let them run having previously bowed to make ammends and we are filling Magnimar's Jails lol, our monk actually specializes in pinning and gagging. Because the monk doesnt believe in killing and its starting to permeate other characters!
- Just my two cents :)
A lot of well said things...
Thank you! I could not agree more. Said everything I wanted to much better than I could have. You're a gentleman and a scholar!
Just my two cents but some people love anti-power gaming. They force the adventuring party (a para-military group) into meta-gaming, so they work with someone it makes no sense to work with. They feel it shows they are a better role-player. If you are lucky they cover this up by giving the party a excuse for them being around. Sub-par healing or buffs, or out of combat abilities. Same way some people feel the need to work in a fart joke or a Monty Python quote into every game, it's just something they enjoy that is emotional, not logical. Often these are the same people who will accuse you of meta-gaming if you take actions that seem like they will benefit you or the party.
If they give you an excuse the encourage that they MIGHT think it's good role play and expand it to being someone it makes some sense to have around. If not then do everything you can to ignore them, they tend to take any interaction in or out of character that brings up what they are doing as encouragement.
The question I would ask is: does the rogue benefit the party outside of combat. There are a few times that a member of my group plays a pacifist or a social character and does not gear up to be a combat monster.
The Rogue's role is not always big back stabbity combat. I see a lot of rogues in my games that go for information gathering, clue finding, and intrigue but don't build to do a lot of combat. That is fine I know as a DM that I add a bit of those elements into my game so that he has something to do.
Optimization is not all bad but sometimes a non-optimal choice is just fun to play. You shouldn't be "forced" to min/max a character to survive that is where you get into the roll play vs role play fights.
Try working with your player to find out what role he is trying to fill and include a few bones to make it fun for the player. The weak combatant in the group is not always a bad thing. Try not to let combat rule every game and throw some puzzles at your group, you'll find that a lot of optimized players will quake in their boots.
My group generally tries to include a few non-combat skills because I like them to investigate first then go after bad guys.
He is a very decent trap disabler, mainly the magical kind of traps. Other than that he is mainly deadweight in combat. The thing is we dont see him contribute in combat mainly because he stays out of it every single chance he has.
For example: Every other player is risking his life and 2 of them lost it to Mokmurian, the monk and the magus died via a nasty and failed disintegrate, and the rogue came in and casted Shoking Grasp from a level 1 Scroll...and then attacked him with a +2 Keen Rapier and failed to hit (he doesn't have weapon finesse or any feat to boost his stats).
Next question does he do anything else useful beside disable traps, does he craft, use charisma based skills, knowledge skills etc.
I played a Gnome Rogue(Investigator), magical linguist, high intelligence used social and knowledge skills mostly. Combat is main weapon was a rapier did 1d4 damage +2 dex bonus lowish str. No Attribute below 10.
Very poor combatant low damage but was the groups face and information gatherer his skills made him useful enough that his poor combat capability was looked over. In this case his role was not combat at all but information gathering and social face.
From my point of view he was not a sub par build he did what he was designed to do very well. He was far from optimized however.
Pathfinder does not have to be all combat, I have run exciting well run non combat adventures. It can be done and done well, most of the optimized builds I have seen would fall flat and fail at these.
Balance is key to a good game and a nice ratio of combat to noncombat encounters can make a game exciting and allow all the players to roleplay the way they like.
Next question does he do anything else useful beside disable traps, does he craft, use charisma based skills, knowledge skills etc.
I played a Gnome Rogue(Investigator), magical linguist, high intelligence used social and knowledge skills mostly. Combat is main weapon was a rapier did 1d4 damage +2 dex bonus lowish str. No Attribute below 10.Very poor combatant low damage but was the groups face and information gatherer his skills made him useful enough that his poor combat capability was looked over. In this case his role was not combat at all but information gathering and social face.
From my point of view he was not a sub par build he did what he was designed to do very well. He was far from optimized however.
Pathfinder does not have to be all combat, I have run exciting well run non combat adventures. It can be done and done well, most of the optimized builds I have seen would fall flat and fail at these.
Balance is key to a good game and a nice ratio of combat to noncombat encounters can make a game exciting and allow all the players to roleplay the way they like.
Actually not so much, he has a funny back story about his family. And is trying to scholar himself in the ways of the pathfinder society and Thassilonian History, he also has really sub par Charisma around 10ish. He does have 18 Dexterity! He is not a bad guy personally I like him a lot but his character is like so terribly annoying, I do understand him now, he is a old school roleplayer who doesnt care about stats, proper gearing or character abilities, he might as well have played optimized characters in the past and he is just having fun now, at the expense of DEATH CHARACTERS /DRAMA!!! Hahaha
It sounds like he doesn't really want to play D&D and would be more comfortable with a skills-based system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who says the other five members of the group are not much better 'role' players then him. Optimizing a character does not mean you don't role play that character.
Plus we are not even talking optimization here, we are talking just being effective. I have kicked a player out of my group for this kind of BS we got into a big argument after his halfling rogue would just hide behind his pony for the whole fight. He refused to be even helpful to the group and when in character the players tried to talk to him and get him to do his job and contribute he refused so they asked him to leave the group again in character. After all this 'role' playing the player got pissed. So in real life we explained that his characters needed to do something in combat, he then threw a hissy fit sat down and started making a dumb uncharismatic fighter who he said would just say "smash" and hit things with his sword.
I asked him to leave at this point, if you can't understand the difference between making a character that contributes and has personality and making either type of character on the spectrum then no need for you.
Yes we are playing a role-playing game and combat is not everything but it is expected and your character should be expected to handle himself in that situation, just as when we spend a night at a dinner party thrown by the town mayor you should be expected to handle yourself in that situation.
Again why do people assume this guy role plays better because he has a crap character.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying a rogue who avoids combat is a better role-player is like saying I'm a better person cause I'm a underweight syphilitic near-sighted asthmatic wreck.
Since nobody else seems to be saying this, once again I think the onus here is not on the player but the GM.
If the GM blithely throws too high challenges at the party, because he expects everyone to pull the same weight, while in reality this isn't happening, then he is mainly responsible for people like the OP getting annoyed at the other player.
It's totally okay to play a completely non-optimized character every once in a while, when the GM recognizes that the group basically only consists of four characters in combat, instead of the actually present five.
OTOH, the rest of the group sound optimized out the ying-yang, so maybe the GM is simply trying to keep up with the twinkishness of the characters and hasn't found the right balance yet. That has happened to me in the past, too, especially when D&D 3.5 had a gazillion extra splat books and wasn't remotely balanced anymore.
I think that a non-optimal character is stupid. That said a specialized character is an optimal character at one thing.
Case in point
An orc barbarian cleric. 3.5 rules. Why? He had fought unarmed and could grapple level draining undead. He was rocking +8 fort saves(raging) at lv.2. A very special build. In one fight at third level he pinned a troll (good rolls) Still the look on the DM's face was pretty funny. Granted if he been a straight class barbarian with a great axe his damage per round would have been much better. But not good enough to pretty much fall on a wizard and say "he's down".
Specialization is optimization for a specific case. Non optimal characters are just gimpy cripples that should be beggar npcs.
Have to say, be good at something.
Be a talker and in combat use feint and intimidate heck decent cha take UMD.
Be a Trap guy and be good at spotting the ambush and even setting your own with traps.
But don't be the guy who if you weren't someone we played with would never be working with us.
|
|
Since nobody else seems to be saying this, once again I think the onus here is not on the player but the GM.
FWIW, I'm saying that as well. It doesn't bode well for the GM to both allow and encourage a PC that doesn't fit in. It's very similar to permitting an evil PC at your table when there's already a Paladin. Or permitting a Paladin when everyone else is a goblin.
Sometimes the GM has to say 'no, that is a great concept, but it does not fit in because of x y and z'.
Chicken and egg question I guess, but what was the design behind the campaign? Which PC idea should have gotten the axe?
I also agree with the other advice about rp'ing your way out of this situation. Your PC could well take to the notion that Mr Runandhide doesn't deserve a cut of the treasure, or even a spot in the group.
I'm with the roleplaying people on this. You SHOULD take this into the game as a Character concern, talk to his character, not the player. And tell him of the consequences of not following the groups rules.
I'm not even saying about kicking him out, as I can see your group seems to be of a lot of good characters that even let enemies live, so I wouldn't sugest to CUT HIS HEAd OF! But, don't share the treasure equaly, if he doesn't contribute enough in combat, give him a lower cut, and tell him IN CHARACTER why.
Now, bear in mind that I'm NOT saying that he should be AS effective as everyone else in the group (cause this never happens) but he has to take risks and try, I mean REALLY try (no shocking grasp) to do something useful, no matter what it is.
Aside from that, I would be REALLY pissed with a DM who gives the same share of XP for someone like this, but then again, I'm from a roleplay school where depending on how deep you are in character AND what you do in combat gives you XP.
I don't think the GM is wrong for allowing you to play diferent characters, common sense is important, and I've been in VERY weird groups cause od DMs that allowed you to play "anything", but this was solved with good roleplaying in game. Some people even changed alignments mid game cause of character interaction, that is VERY cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Yeah well a character might look and act different but they need to be resourceful and contribute something to a combat. See Conan and tell me how cool would he be if he ran around casting a spell from a scroll...
- A bard could do a lot of things to boost us without actually engaging melee! Have you seen bardic performance? That would be so helpful. And he could even cast higher level spells and do a lot of other tricks each round.
- Our party is quite pacifist, we dont kill the majority of our enemies and let them run having previously bowed to make ammends and we are filling Magnimar's Jails lol, our monk actually specializes in pinning and gagging. Because the monk doesnt believe in killing and its starting to permeate other characters!
- Just my two cents :)
- and see... that's where I disagree. I don't beleive combat is the be-all of RPGs... I've been in MANY combats lately that either due to high spell resitance or dead magic zones... my casters are just about USELESS... I've had battles where my rogues and fighters roll nothing above a 5...
Even characters that are MEANT to be helpful still fail at combat, doesn't deserve a rant about it.
- I'm not a fan of Perfomances... Just a preference i guess. I'm planning a bard detective who will RARELY ever use his performances... he's going to be the knowledge/perception guy. But we got a paladin and Inquistor for combat ;)
- There you go... If your not trying to KILL your opponents (which I applaud...) then it's no wonder why the guy who's supposed to be good at killing is hanging back. If we wanted to take someone prisoner... 6d6 sneak attack isn't exactly ideal..
I think the problem here is expectations. You think the rogue has a 'role' that needs to be fullfilled. I don't. the Fact that you compare his rogue with what 'Conan' would do is a major redflag.
From what I've gathered in the thread... He's great at trapfinding/disarming... (really a typical rogue 'role') He DOES contribute to combat by casting from scrolls... Soooo it's not exactly like he stays outside the dungeon and just waits for you to come back with the loot.
He's just not doing what YOU want him to... And unless your 'team leader' and set up 'the plan'... then he really shouldn't HAVE to.
Really, from the complaining, it sounds like he's playing the same character at level 11 that he was at level 1... so really, it has to be dealt with in character in game.
Still, I think you should adjust your expectations. Really... I mean didn't you complain that his AC is too low... at 25? REALLY?? My rogue in serpent skull right now is 11th level with a 21!! I'd LOVE a 25... Just can't seem to get anything that will BOOST it.
People that think like this guy just irritate the hell out of me.
A rogue has sneak attack , sneak attack can be used to do non-lethal damage, he will be somewhat useful in combat, I mean the guy doesn't even have weapon finesse after at least 6 feats and 6 rogue talents. This player has purposefully built a character that is a waste of time and ruins other people's fun.
The player is a tool, who is getting his enjoyment out of frustrating his friends.
Every character in a party of adventures should be able to contribute to a fight, every round. Yes sometimes this can not happen due to monster abilities like a rogue in a fight with elementals, but that is the exception to the rule.
If all your character is good for is fighting that is a huge problem too, but we are talking about a character that once initiative is rolled he is a liability to his companions.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Re the title: Where is that newspaper they use with me when i get growly.. there it is.
There is no Role play vs optimization. Its a completely false dichotomy, they have NOTHING to do with each other. They are not opposite ends of the spectrum, you do not get better at one by getting worse at the other.
A good role player can come up with an amazing, epic, and sweeping tale of love and tragedy for pun pun if they're so inclined. Likewise you can have a dwarf sorcerer with a charisma of 8 who can't role play their way out of a hewards handy haversack.Good role playing makes good role playing. You do not need a CHARACTER with social skills and creativity to do it well you need a PLAYER with social skills and creativity to do it well.
BNW, you just went up several ranks in my Book of Awesome People (and/or Canines).
To the OP:
This is not "roleplayers versus rollplayers". You have a simple question to ask: Does this PC contribute to the adventure? Note that this is different from whether or not he contributes to combat. As some others have said, having a noncombat specialist is nice. If you know Stargate, think Daniel Jackson. He translates, does knowledge rolls, acts as something of a diplomat, and so forth. That said, the refusal to even carry a shortbow concerns me. Even Daniel Jackson carries a gun just in case, even though he hardly ever fires it. If this player refuses to at least do that, there's something else going on.
Of course, if he doesn't meaningfully contribute to the adventure, then you clearly have a problem. You do mention that he's good at disarming traps - is that it? Are you often in situations that might have traps? You might consider buying him a horse, leaving him in town, and saying "We'll call you if we suspect traps" if that's all he's good at.
Also, if he's allegedly doing this for roleplaying reasons, then make sure you get him to roleplay his reasons for wanting to embark on life-threatening adventures in the first place.
Re the title: Where is that newspaper they use with me when i get growly.. there it is.
There is no Role play vs optimization. Its a completely false dichotomy, they have NOTHING to do with each other. They are not opposite ends of the spectrum, you do not get better at one by getting worse at the other.
A good role player can come up with an amazing, epic, and sweeping tale of love and tragedy for pun pun if they're so inclined. Likewise you can have a dwarf sorcerer with a charisma of 8 who can't role play their way out of a hewards handy haversack.
I want to point out that it's good to defend the theory that role playing and optimization are not incompatible. That certainly can be the case. It's also true that the two issues could be at loggerheads as well, depending on the play styles of the players at the table and how they view the issue.
From my reading of the OP, it sounds to me like he's an optimizer whose view of the game is playing out a mechanical role. And that puts him in a style conflict with the party rogue player who apparently cares little for mechanical optimization and more about the interesting quirks of the character. Both of these play styles are fine and can work in Pathfinder, particularly when in sync with the rest of the players. That is, apparently, not the case here.
If you're going to continue to play together, I think you need to hammer out an understanding of what your game's parameters are and how all players are going to adjust to meet them. I think it's great your DM is game to accommodate players with divergent play styles. But for the good of the group as a whole, it's probably the oddball who needs to make the most adjustment to carve out a more functional niche (Ring of sustenance? Great - you're elected the night watch. Now get yourself some goggles of night so you're better at it. You prefer to fight non-lethally? Get a sap or take the improved unarmed combat feat so you can more easily bring your sneak attack to bear...) while retaining some of his quirks.
BNW, you just went up several ranks in my Book of Awesome People (and/or Canines).
To the OP:
This is not "roleplayers versus rollplayers". You have a simple question to ask: Does this PC contribute to the adventure? Note that this is different from whether or not he contributes to combat. As some others have said, having a noncombat specialist is nice. If you know Stargate, think Daniel Jackson. He translates, does knowledge rolls, acts as something of a diplomat, and so forth. That said, the refusal to even carry a shortbow concerns me. Even Daniel Jackson carries a gun just in case, even though he hardly ever fires it. If this player refuses to at least do that, there's something else going on.Of course, if he doesn't meaningfully contribute to the adventure, then you clearly have a problem. You do mention that he's good at disarming traps - is that it? Are you often in situations that might have traps? You might consider buying him a horse, leaving him in town, and saying "We'll call you if we suspect traps" if that's all he's good at.
Also, if he's allegedly doing this for roleplaying reasons, then make sure you get him to roleplay his reasons for wanting to embark on life-threatening adventures in the first place.
In Charisma and Leadership the Monk usually does the talking. And Is our diplomatic voice and also sometimes our voice of reason and peace.
Regarding traps well I think so far we have gotten like 4 traps yeah those were funny:
1) He didnt disarmed and fell into it.
2) He wasnt searching for them and my char, took quite a chunk of dmg
3) Got disarmed well
4) He entered the magical trap and managed to disarm it in 2 rounds we all got the activation debuff nevertheless
And yeah thats it. Horse idea sounds very interesting.
Saying a rogue who avoids combat is a better role-player is like saying I'm a better person cause I'm a underweight syphilitic near-sighted asthmatic wreck.
I think this sums up the essence of this post. I'm not saying he is a bad person, I'm just thinking he is deadweight. I have played with poorly planned characters in the past and they were frustrating because they coudnt do well in combat, or social skills or normal skills, yet they always have elaborate back stories and motivations.
His character can improve a lot by just thinking for better items and gearing more appropiately.
From my reading of the OP, it sounds to me like he's an optimizer whose view of the game is playing out a mechanical role.
You have no basis for this conclusion.
And that puts him in a style conflict with the party rogue player who apparently cares little for mechanical optimization and more about the interesting quirks of the character.
There is no conflict here. I would not want to work at a biological weapons factory with a complete klutz, nor would i want to go into a dangerous combat situation like adventuring with a coward who can't watch my back or throw a punch. He's not saying "omg 64.2 dpr you should be doing at least 67.8" he's saying that the rogue is less useful than the male wonder twin in a sponge factory and its getting people killed. He has every IC AND OOC reason to address the issue.
Both of these play styles are fine and can work in Pathfinder, particularly when in sync with the rest of the players. That is, apparently, not the case here.
What does someone gain by having an ineffective character? Both of those playstyles can and should both work IN THE SAME CHARACTER.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My party is a well stablished adventiring company currently level 11-12 on its way to Sins of the Savior module.
- His gear is mainly for flavor (Hey do you want a Ring of Deflection +2? No thanks my Ring of Sustenance is awesome!)
He does a decent job with trap disarming
Sounds like you've gotten by pretty well for 12 levels with his "ineffectiveness", so why is this a problem now? Do your characters charge into combat expecting the rogue to suddenly become someone else?. Does he ever say he's going to help in combat and then doesn't? Plan your attacks better I say.
Seriously, you're playing 6 characters in a 4 character AP, you can stand to have a second noncombat character in the group IMO.This sounds more like a personal problem than a game problem. Is this guy a friend of yours, because you don't sound like a friend of his.
And it sounds like he turns down his share of the treasure anyway. If he's turning down rings of protection+2, that means someone else (maybe your character) is getting it. So, basically he disarms traps for you for minimal compensation. That sounds like a fair deal to me.
The classes (from my point of view) are done to fulfill a role. And the rogue (from my perspective) is done to dish high spiky damage, be a buttload of skills and disarm traps (among other things).
Rogues only do spikey damage under specific circumstances, so no, that is not what they are designed for. This is especially the case in older versions of the game that didn't let you sneak attack because you were flanking. Back in my day you had to actually "sneak" up on someone to sneak attack them and you typically only got to do this ONCE per combat.
Rogues are skill based characters and historically have no place in combat. Can you make a combat rogue? Sure, but why would you when you can make a fighter and get more feats, more hit points and can wear better armor? And why bother when the rest of the group can clearly handle that part of the game without you
This is the definition of a Rogue
1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.
3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant.
I don't see anything in there about Spikey damage.
I dont know if I'm making a huge mess but last time I checked a lot of characters have died in our adventures and the rogue usually survives
Maybe the rest of you should take a page from the rogue's playbook and you won't die so much. Like death even means anything at 12th level. You have a Cleric & a witch with Raise Dead spells coming out their ears. And if by some chance they both bite it, good thing you have a rogue who can cast Raise Dead off a scroll with Use Magic Device. Good luck getting one of the other characters to pull that one off.
And for the record, I'm quite certain that all of the character deaths have far more to do with the game being broken at 12th level than your lack of a few sneak attacks. At that level a GM has three choices, avoid combat entirely, let the party walk through combats, or jack up the bad guys to the point where someone is certain to die.
by not being in line of sight of the monsters, and running away from danger. In my opinion not being HEROIC NOR ADVENTURING.
As the Wizard of Oz says, "As for you my fine friend, you are a victim of disorganised thinking. You are under the unfortunate delusion that simply because you run away from danger, you have no courage. You're confusing courage with wisdom."
And didn't you say his character had a high Wisdom?
- Is he being rewarded by acting as a coward?
Doesn't sound like it if he's turning down treasure. And maybe cowardice has nothing to do with it. Maybe he's being rewarded for roleplaying instead.
- Is optimizing your character wrong?
No, but it's also not a requirement to play the game or to have fun doing so.
- Is not contributing to combat at all ok for your standards?
Absolutely. If a player makes a non-combat character, the GM should give the character other things to do. If he's not, then the problem is the GM, not the player.
- Am I a huge drama queen?
Well, you're something all right. LOL
|
|
Would be entertaining to see you guys stumble across a dead adventurer (read: Foolish), and to find on his body nonsensical things that one would question as to why he even brought that in with him.
I would have to still place the blame on the GM mainly for this issue. He is defending the player and indirectly encouraging him to continue to be a disruptive member of the group, both in and out of character. The fact that this person's character hasn't died already is actually shocking to me considering that your party is level 11-12.
And your elaboration on the traps part; 1 out of 4? That is NOT a decent trap disarmer, ESPECIALLY at his level. Whatever character you are, I would suggest throwing a wrench into his play-style. ANY of my characters, even the goofs would be infuriated by this character's lack of support in any aspect. I would probably try to kill him off during an encounter despite any danger I put myself in.
Fun Fact: In the Stalin Era of Russia, This character would have already been killed for being a coward.
1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.
3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant.
I don't see anything in there about Spikey damage.
Because you're equivocating between personality and character class. ANY class (except a paladin) can be an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person, a scoundrel or rascal, a smoker a joker, a midnight toker. People that like the rogue seem to like it for the personality type.. but a personality doesn't come with a class, it comes from the player.
In soviet russia, trap find rogue!
Ok, then
Here's the OGL description of Rogue. Note the lack of ANY combat reference.
"Life is an endless adventure for those who live by their wits. Ever just one step ahead of danger, rogues bank on their cunning, skill, and charm to bend fate to their favor. Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents. Thieves and gamblers, fast talkers and diplomats, bandits and bounty hunters, and explorers and investigators all might be considered rogues, as well as countless other professions that rely upon wits, prowess, or luck."
|
Ok, then
Here's the OGL description of Rogue. Note the lack of ANY combat reference."Life is an endless adventure for those who live by their wits. Ever just one step ahead of danger, rogues bank on their cunning, skill, and charm to bend fate to their favor. Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents. Thieves and gamblers, fast talkers and diplomats, bandits and bounty hunters, and explorers and investigators all might be considered rogues, as well as countless other professions that rely upon wits, prowess, or luck."
In that case, the group should not have a rogue in it for combat. I second the idea for leaving him in town and ringing him when there's a trap.
I mean, it's fine if the rogue doesn't want to fight. But why is he in an adventuring party that fights then?