You as players should probably suggest to him that he's not really pulling his weight. If he suggests that he's simply role-playing and you are a dirty optimizer, role-play his useless character out of the group. Also a coward doesn't really have a reason to travel along with people who go out of there way to get people to try and stab them.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
NITPICK!!!
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."
XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Is he being rewarded by acting as a coward?
He seems to be having fun with it so I would say yes, his reward is having fun in the game. Thats what were all looking for whenever we sit around the table to play. You say he still uses skills outside of combat, which still supports the party. If I were in your shoes I would want him in combat too, at least with a ranged weapon if he didnt want to enter melee but this is his playstyle. I dont think I or anyone really has a right to critisize it
- Is optimizing your character wrong?
No. Never. Optimization is one of the many kinds of playstyles out there. Some optimization is really good and some of it is really bad. Moderation in all things as they say
- Is not contributing to combat at all ok for your standards?
As I said its a playstyle thing. Not contributing to the group at all is not ok for my standards, as a GM and player but clearly he is contributing outside of combat.
- Am I a huge drama queen? (yeah maybe a bit, I think so...hum ok huge Dramarama Queenzalor lol)
I dont think so. I think you have some legitimate concerns that bother you and you've brought them up calmly with your GM and us as an adult. I wish all players were that mature. That said, your GM has made the call so it seems to me you either have to accept that or find another group
The one question I have for you is this: Is this person and their playstyle somehow hurting the fun of the entire group? If not, then I dont see a problem
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.
Actually we divide the share of the loot and when something is not used we sell it.
We have managed to play for 11 to 12 levels and this issue has arised before, actually in the Xanesha fight the Monk and another character died and he was invisible and flying all the time (via potions) he didnt wanted to fight because he would turn visible (boy his character really sucks). Once he switched to another character for around 4 levels and then came back to this one. Weirdly his rogue was not missed and his other character was also a bit of deadweight, all he did was flying invisible and do out of combat healing and exploration.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Actually we divide the share of the loot and when something is not used we sell it.
We have managed to play for 11 to 12 levels and this issue has arised before, actually in the Xanesha fight the Monk and another character died and he was invisible and flying all the time (via potions) he didnt wanted to fight because he would turn visible (boy his character really sucks). Once he switched to another character for around 4 levels and then came back to this one. Weirdly his rogue was not missed and his other character was also a bit of deadweight, all he did was flying invisible and do out of combat healing and exploration.
Healing and exploration doesn't sound like dead weight.
|
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.Actually we divide the share of the loot and when something is not used we sell it.
We have managed to play for 11 to 12 levels and this issue has arised before, actually in the Xanesha fight the Monk and another character died and he was invisible and flying all the time (via potions) he didnt wanted to fight because he would turn visible (boy his character really sucks). Once he switched to another character for around 4 levels and then came back to this one. Weirdly his rogue was not missed and his other character was also a bit of deadweight, all he did was flying invisible and do out of combat healing and exploration.
So it sounds like this is a trend with the player, and not just the character. In that case you need to talk to him out of context, and tell him it's not fun if he's not pulling his weight. It's okay that you both may want different things out of the game, but that doesn't mean you should play together if one of you is unhappy about the way things are going.
He may just be bored.
Combat with 6 characters is often far too long, especially at higher levels. As a rogue with a low BAB, sometimes taking no actions in combat is the best option. It means the tanks get to go sooner and wrap up combat.
Healing and exploration doesn't sound like dead weight.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.Actually we divide the share of the loot and when something is not used we sell it.
We have managed to play for 11 to 12 levels and this issue has arised before, actually in the Xanesha fight the Monk and another character died and he was invisible and flying all the time (via potions) he didnt wanted to fight because he would turn visible (boy his character really sucks). Once he switched to another character for around 4 levels and then came back to this one. Weirdly his rogue was not missed and his other character was also a bit of deadweight, all he did was flying invisible and do out of combat healing and exploration.
Need to clarify, dead weight in combat. His net damage in all the Hook Mountain Massacre fights was zero. He used spiritual weapon and was an Oracle with really low Wisdom and high Charisma hell bent on converting people into his created god...kinda like Nale from Order of the Stick, was very funny. His oracle was actually more useful, actually he did something that helped! I remember he casted silence in himself and was flying above the Necromancer final guy of the module, with good results. Yeah not entirely deadweight.
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.
IIRC party members have died several times, except for the rogue. I don't call that getting along pretty well. You have no information that says the GM did or did not adjust the game for 6 people which would explain the multiple death if he did. A reluctant combatant is one thing, but a noncombatant does not need to be out on military missions or adventures. I would drop him off at the next town.
I remember when I asked my players to show me their characters. Most of them put up a character sheet. Only a couple had it right (it was a big group at the time).
That said, a character like the one described can only exist around powerful allies. He is, in effect, a leech. One that wouldn't be adventuring, since it's dangerous work, and would more likely be found in a big city cutting purses to survive if left alone.
If the party recognizes the leech for what it is, a mildly beneficial (if you can call it that) organism of little consequence and much potential irritation, it would be cast off. If, of course, the party agrees that this is the case.
And to the people saying out-of-combat contributions can make up for it, please stop. Anyone can contribute at any time. Refusing to pull your weight in combat doesn't make your actual contributions more relevant. All it means is that he's doing the work a hireling or even someone else in the party could do, only from the sound of it, worse.
Pretty soon the monk I'm currently playing will take a vow of silence. And he will still be there for social encounters, doing whatever he can without speaking a word. I'm not refusing to contribute because of my vow. In fact, I look forward to the challenge.
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."
Shadowy Stalkers:normally means assassin types
Bandits:They don't fight, really?Bounty Hunters: You think the bandit mentioned above is just going to throw down his weapons because you said so?
The word "combat" is not there, but it does not take require an epiphany to know that a rogue is not meant to not fight. Sneak attack is not just window dressing.
edit: removed snark
One of my groups is right around the same level in the same AP. The rogue is probably top of the damage dealing list. His character could help speed combat along and save his companions lives by killing more monsters faster.
Out of combat healing is dead weight because you can be replaced by a 750 g.p stick.
Exploration is dead weight because well that is what everyone does you are adventures and explorers.
That is the problem with non-combat focus characters all the non-combat stuff will get done by someone else with combat skills if were not there.
The clue will be found, the guard will be talked to, the tracks will be followed because the story must go on. The thing that ends the story is a TPK so if your character is not helping prevent a TPK during a fight, stay home.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Actually, I'd consider that a fair assessment from what we've been told.
- Average damage per encounter was 10. In one he did 4 damage (/cry).
The fact that these mathmatical equations have even been RUN means to me that the OP is interested in teh mechanics version.
As for useless characters... I don't know. I've played with both a kender and a Jester in the group... annoyed me to tears. Caused more trouble then they ever solved. In 2E there were MANY kits that had NOTHING to do with Combat.
Still the player had fun.
MAYBE this player has taken things too far on the other side... but honestly, with a Paladin, monk, and Magus handling the combat... Why do you NEED the rogue to contribute??
We've been averaging 4 player groups since we started pathfinder... and have never had more than 2 actual 'COMBAT' characters... The casters HELP... but they aren't always effective.
With SIX characters... and the typical small combat space on the map... I'd probably get out of the way of hte Paladin and Magus too...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The fact that these mathmatical equations have even been RUN means to me that the OP is interested in teh mechanics version.
You know full well that most people talk about the "average" this or that in a casual sense, being really more of a vague guess than a literal average.
You took the obviously casual, imprecise statement and inserted the idea that he ran calculations to determine average damage output.
Then you took that idea of having done the math - an idea which you invented all on your own and inserted where it obviously didn't exist - and used it as the basis for your claim that the OP "is interested in the mechanics version."
With SIX characters... and the typical small combat space on the map... I'd probably get out of the way of hte Paladin and Magus too...
Wow actually I was kinda ok with him until we started to see some pretty obvious things for example the Monk was very irritated when he told him in character and in combat: You XXXX help me flank this ogre! (he was 10 feet away from him hiding in a bush, and he batlantly refused because he would get hit... then I started to get a bit upset because I kinda asked him to lend me his enchanted keen weapon because I lost it to a disarm and run monk harpy, mainly because of his (crit modifier) and he refused to lend it to me.
So I'm so going to roleplay his ass off:
I can imagine the scenes of me having a dummy and telling him how to strike and he hitting at me because he rolls badly, and explaining him how to wear a new armor and making him assist me in making a Headvand of Vast Intellect and a Girdle of Giant Strenght for him, lol.
More suggestions welcome! Haha
Actually, I'd consider that a fair assessment from what we've been told.
-Please note the VAST difference between an 8% increase in damage and the 200%, 300% thousand fold increase in damage you could reasonably expect from a character of that level that isn't even trying. I don't have the best opinion of rogues but 10 damage per ENCOUNTER? A reasonably optimized FAMILIAR will hit harder than that.
This is not binary. It would be min maxing or munchkiny to complain about a small increase in damage a player could get with a different style. However there is an ENORMOUS difference between complaining about "the rogue isn't optimized to within an inch of his life" and "the other character's contribution to the party is equivalent to the barbarians belly button lint."
The fact that these mathmatical equations have even been RUN means to me that the OP is interested in teh mechanics version.
And thats wrong... why? Having an interest in the mechanics does not mean ONLY having an interest in the mechanics.
MAYBE this player has taken things too far on the other side... but honestly, with a Paladin, monk, and Magus handling the combat... Why do you NEED the rogue to contribute??
Because the DM is still offing people. It really isn't that hard to make an ok damage dealer and still have the same character, he should be able to ask the crunchier members of the group if he has trouble. If someone abandoned me and my friends in the middle of the fight and someone got killed I'd be giving that person a no expenses spared tour of the next monster's digestive tract.
If someone wants a character that runs away from a fight and hides in a corner pick a mechanical concept that will work with it. In this case, pick a bard with Perform (Girly screaming) to give the party a boost and take a bunch of healing spells so you can patch them up later.
The fact that these mathmatical equations have even been RUN means to me that the OP is interested in teh mechanics version.You know full well that most people talk about the "average" this or that in a casual sense, being really more of a vague guess than a literal average.
You took the obviously casual, imprecise statement and inserted the idea that he ran calculations to determine average damage output.
Then you took that idea of having done the math - an idea which you invented all on your own and inserted where it obviously didn't exist - and used it as the basis for your claim that the OP "is interested in the mechanics version."
Actually the GM runs dmg output by char on his Hero Lab thingie. I mentioned it because the Monk player told me: I think the rogue did 4 dmg on that fight tops...and we were like....yeah I think so. Hummm
I'm pretty staunchly in the roleplaying camp and I fully agree that roleplay and optimization are very separate things. Which isn't to say that a character's power does not interact with their roleplay, but that you can roleplay a character well regardless of stats. Similarly purposefully gimping a character to show off how gimped the character is doesn't make you a better roleplayer (and such a holier-than-thou attitude quickly becomes annoying).
Some of my characters have been built to be powerhouses. That was part of their concept, and they're played that way, from both an RP and mechanics viewpoint. While I've never played something as gimped as this rogue, I have had characters that were combat-weak. (Including a skill-monkey rogue I loved to death, though admittedly his combat was not helped by the GM populating literally the entire campaign with things that could not be sneak attacked...but that's a whole other story.) You don't HAVE to have a fully-optimized, powerful character for the game to succeed, or even to contribute positively to the game.
I think the key problem here is not how the rogue is playing, but the fact that the way he is playing is making the game unpleasant for most others in the group. There has to be OOC respect for the people you're playing with- if they're really not digging something you're trying after a period of time, even if it's exciting to you, it may be time to try something else. It's sort of like bringing in a social-skills-heavy char into a group that just wants to steamroll dungeons, or having a char that really wants to get into, say, the immorality of slavery while the rest of the group just wants treat it as a plot device to get their reward and XP. Everyone ends up unhappy in the end.
Groups do go more smoothly when characters are optimized to roughly the same level. One of the problems with the group my rogue was in is we had a fighter that was powergamed to the max, who could single-handedly defeat pretty much anything the GM threw at us. So she was left with the poor options of raising the encounters to a level that would challenge him but which the other chars couldn't really impact, or having him trivialize encounters the whole group could appreciate. (On top of that, the fighter and others were being augmented by a min-maxed buffing sorceress who couldn't have killed a kitten but dramatically increased the effectiveness of most other party members, well beyond what was probably intended by the rules.) Everything would have gone more smoothly had the characters' abilities been more evenly matched. I think this is something a good GM should try to head off at the start of the game by looking over character sheets and working with players to smooth out any real anomalies, whether it's bringing up a low-powered character or finding an alternative for the super-powered character to feel engaged and rewarded in the game.
So I'm so going to roleplay his ass off:
It's the right thing to do.
Even if it doesn't work, you'll have fun, and nobody can accuse you of being a partisan optimizer (or perpetuating the myth of the partisan optimizer).
Just make sure you have fun with it, even if you don't meet your goals, and you will be the winner.
Hmmmm. A lot of issues here that really come down to having a long talk (not in game, preferably not holding up the game) about what is fun, and what is expected of everyone in game and out.
Part of the problem is that Pathfinder is VERY different then AD&D. In AD&D there were many limits to what your stats could do for a thief character in combat, and your equipment would probably be pretty limited as well. The difference between "optimized" and not wasn't that big- in Pathfinder, it IS a big difference. However, if you have been playing 3.5-Pathfinder for a while, this should be obvious.
Hook Mountain Massacre and Fortress of the Stone Giants are grinds. You have lots of high HP enemies, and the party has to deal out thousands of damage (or equivalent) to accomplish the mission. However most of the enemies would pulverize a rogue in a round or two, so it isn't as simple as just going toe-to-toe with monsters, and sniping isn't super effective either. It isn't easy to be a rogue in those combats, even if you are optimized. If you GM is playing it as written even though you have 6 players, the rogue shouldn't really be needed in combat anyway, (except in boss encounters).
My guess is that the group needs to find another character or role for this player, and that it is going to be different then what you think it will be.
PS Sounds like this player is playing a "coward" sort of like the hobbits at the beginning of the lord of the rings. That is OK to have flaws like that IF you improve them over time, and you develop your character. If you have these flaws, and they only get worse, then your PC will be seen as a bad person, and no one would want to adventure with you.
You never answered one of my original questions.
Is this guy your friend?
Do you even know him outside of the game?
Is he friends with anyone in the group? How many of you?
Maybe he just doesn't like you guys, in which case why should he care if your characters are dieing?
All we have to go on is what you tell us. Does he know about this thread? Maybe he can chime in with his perspective.
There are all kinds of reasons why this problem exists and without knowing more or hearing from both sides we're all just talking out of out butts.
Let me sit in on one session and I can tell you exactly what the problem is, but until that happens we're all just guessing.
With SIX characters... and the typical small combat space on the map... I'd probably get out of the way of hte Paladin and Magus too...Wow actually I was kinda ok with him until we started to see some pretty obvious things for example the Monk was very irritated when he told him in character and in combat: You XXXX help me flank this ogre! (he was 10 feet away from him hiding in a bush, and he batlantly refused because he would get hit... then I started to get a bit upset because I kinda asked him to lend me his enchanted keen weapon because I lost it to a disarm and run monk harpy, mainly because of his (crit modifier) and he refused to lend it to me.
So I'm so going to roleplay his ass off:
I can imagine the scenes of me having a dummy and telling him how to strike and he hitting at me because he rolls badly, and explaining him how to wear a new armor and making him assist me in making a Headvand of Vast Intellect and a Girdle of Giant Strenght for him, lol.
More suggestions welcome! Haha
That is it! You do that mate, roleplay is key, and don't forget to ask him "Dude, since you are afraid, why don't you go home? We all like you, and will come to visit, we have our own lives to worry about, and we need someone to help us out, not someone for us to be worried too!
Make him contribute in a roleplaying way, if he likes you guys, in character, he would do a lot to help, even staying out. Improved invisibility, bows, casting spells from scrolls, he can do A LOT, without getting even close to an enemy. Make him see that, or next time there is an adventure, leave him at the tavern sleeping before you leave.
Ok first i would like to remind the OP (and everyone) that in PF anyone can find traps, even magical ones as long as they are searching for them, the rogue just has the option of taking a talent that get him a check to detect a trap (when getting close) without actually searching for traps, the trapfinding ability is only required to disable magical traps and the rogue isn't the only getting it, urban rangers, trapper rangers, one alchemist archetype and iirc there is one bard archetype that gets it.
And from what you have told us the rogue didn't even take the talent that allows him to detect a trap without looking for it.
And if what you say is true and the rogue actually helped with traps 1 out 4 times then yes he doesn't even help with that.
Now i also have in my group a player whose characters are almost always dead weight in combat but not as much as yours is, not by a long shot. However my group's usuall dead weight isn't such because he chose to be but because he can't make and use effective characters, he tries to but he fails. But we never have characters die because of him yet, although in most cases we would be better without him considering that we would the treasure shared with one less person.
Now what we do with him? Well the rest of us have to built and play our characters' strenghts better and have the DM cut us some slack because of him.
No i don't think that you are drama queen, you just don't want your character to die because of him.
Disclaimer: You said that you play RotRL with 6 players, i assume that your DM changes the AP in order to compansate for the 6 (instead of 4) characters, if he doesn't then you should have no problem surviving.
You never answered one of my original questions.
Is this guy your friend?
Do you even know him outside of the game?
Is he friends with anyone in the group? How many of you?Maybe he just doesn't like you guys, in which case why should he care if your characters are dieing?
All we have to go on is what you tell us. Does he know about this thread? Maybe he can chime in with his perspective.
There are all kinds of reasons why this problem exists and without knowing more or hearing from both sides we're all just talking out of out butts.
Let me sit in on one session and I can tell you exactly what the problem is, but until that happens we're all just guessing.
Sorry, lots of posts didnt expected so much support guys, thanks for that!
He is a newly acquired friend, but I've known him around 10 years. I do care for him. He is a good guy.
He doesnt, god I hope he doesnt find it, I'm trying my best to cite facts in here.
The fact is, he is summed up as a old guard roleplayer that prefers pure roleplaying games. My guess is that he would be far better playing Burning Wheel or Call of Chutulu rather than Pathfinder, as one post noted, Hook Mountain and Fortress are grinds, they requiere a delicate balance and planning of characters, 4 players have already decided what their feat choices and equipment will be for the next 9 levels. Mainly because the GM is playing monsters by the book, Xanesha was devastating and we didnt even stand a chance and that was the first time we saw that a bit of planning went a long way.
I hope he likes us if not he would be stabbing us in the back!
Xanesha was devastating and we didnt even stand a chance and that was the first time we saw that a bit of planning went a long way.
She is always devastating, that is no fault of your group.
Probably, that needs a spoiler tag, but in this case, I say we leave it unspoilered as a public-service announcement.
I hope he likes us if not he would be stabbing us in the back!
And he would FAIL, cause he sucks at it. :)
That is it! You do that mate, roleplay is key, and don't forget to ask him "Dude, since you are afraid, why don't you go home? We all like you, and will come to visit, we have our own lives to worry about, and we need someone to help us out, not someone for us to be worried too!
Make him contribute in a roleplaying way, if he likes you guys, in character, he would do a lot to help, even staying out. Improved invisibility, bows, casting spells from scrolls, he can do A LOT, without getting even close to an enemy. Make him see that, or next time there is an adventure, leave him at the tavern sleeping before you leave.
Im so going to do that: I was actually thinking about crafting him Boots of Greater Invisibility, getting him an Enchanted Short Bow and Bracers of Archery.
I hope he doesnt take it the wrong way, if not we might leave him in the inn while he is sleeping, I can so imagine my character casting 5 Phantom Steeds and leaving him behind hahaha
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He is a newly acquired friend, but I've known him around 10 years. I do care for him. He is a good guy.
He doesnt, god I hope he doesnt find it, I'm trying my best to cite facts in here.
The fact is, he is summed up as a old guard roleplayer that prefers pure roleplaying games. My guess is that he would be far better playing Burning Wheel or Call of Chutulu rather than Pathfinder
My guess is that you are probably right, but I'm betting that he can't find a group willing to play those games. He's probably only playing in your campaign because that's what everyone else wants to play. Chances are he doesn't even like Pathfinder that much, at least not the way you guys play it. It's a pretty issue these days and I've experienced it myself. For a long time I "sucked it up" and played in groups I didn't fit in, out of necessity.
My guess is that he is desperately trying to make the game fun for him by playing it more RP style and that's difficult to do when he's not only fighting the system, but the other players. Playing in an AP doesn't help either. It sounds like the GM is the only one that has his back at all.
If you're truly his friend, maybe you can work with him a bit and work around his style of play. Try RPing more and putting fewer combat expectations on him. I bet if he starts having more fun he'll find ways to make his character useful in the campaign. A player's first priority is having fun, everyone else having fun is a close second. Let him get to his own fun first.
Back on the subject of character death. How many of those deaths were followed by raise dead spells? Once your cleric can cast 5th level spells, death is meaningless. Collect the corpses and start praying.
Also, are you winning? Are the bad guys ultimately being defeated?
My guess is that you are probably right, but I'm betting that he can't find a group willing to play those games. He's probably only playing in your campaign because that's what everyone else wants to play. Chances are he doesn't even like Pathfinder that much, at least not the way you guys play it. It's a pretty issue these days and I've experienced it myself. For a long time I "sucked it up" and played in groups I didn't fit in, out of necessity.My guess is that he is desperately trying to make the game fun for him by playing it more RP style and that's difficult to do when he's not only fighting the system, but the other players. Playing in an AP doesn't help either. It sounds like the GM is the only one that has his back at all.
If you're truly his friend, maybe you can work with him a bit and work around his style of play. Try RPing more and putting fewer combat expectations on him. I bet if he starts having more fun he'll find ways to make his character useful in the campaign. A player's first priority is having fun, everyone else having fun is a close second. Let him get to his own fun first.
Back on the subject of character death. How many of those deaths were followed by raise dead spells? Once your cleric can cast 5th level spells, death is meaningless. Collect the corpses and start praying.
Also, are you winning? Are the bad guys ultimately being defeated?
In the end the most important thing is to have fun, because it is a Roleplaying GAME. I just find it frustrating on his playstyle and complete lack of heroic performance. We are after all, the Heroes of Sandpoint. A lot is expected of us and legends will be weaved in hour honor including The cowardly non stabby rogue!
Each character death is at least 7,000 g.p in material components for the Raise Dead and Restoration spells not to mention a week of walking around with a negative level. That is pure mechanics, on a role-playing side no one wants to die, dying sucks. You get a member of the team dead by your inaction then you are just as bad as the monsters they fight.
Why should the rest of the group encourage or condone this behavior, this is not a child this is a grown man who acting like a child.
I think you and the rogue want different things from your game. I used to play with a guy who loved to steal from party members to give the coin to an orphanage or buy fancy clothing or spent it on anything else that would make us less powerful. It was a hoot to play with him and we learned not to let him take watch at night. We also started trying to sneak past enemies rather than fighting them. I believe either one of you has to find a different group or you have to learn how to play nice together.
Playing nice while the only person living is the one not contributing is hard to do. It is just like when I go to work, and only half of us are putting in a full day's work, but all of us get a paycheck. This guy does not care for the combat at all.
If my GM suggested that the rogue was how the rest of us should be then I would get the group to all play exactly like that, and run from every combat. :)
If my GM suggested that the rogue was how the rest of us should be then I would get the group to all play exactly like that, and run from every combat. :)
That is an idea... next combat, everyone hide behind the rogue. It isn't a solution, but it might get the point across if everyone played like the rogue for an encounter.
I like to roleplay, I try to optimize, and I absolutely love playing rogues. I just cannot imagine how one could prefer to play a character that would rather run than fight.
When I play a rogue, I understand that I am not the toughest PC in the party, and I don't try to be. But I want to contribute at least something to the fights.
This situation seems a lot more clear cut to me simply because all of the other PC's think it sucks. In that case there is just no reason for those PC's to continue adventuring with the rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
+1 to pretty much everything Matt said.
Not only are we not required to make a character who is good at combat, we're not required to make a character who is even interested in it. There used to be a Vow of Pacifism available for strictly non-combat characters, this sort of thing isn't new. I'm currently playing a venerable half-elf caster who explicitly refuses to risk his health for any reason. (He's "getting too old for this s$@%!")
I would venture a guess that if you only had four party members the player would make more of an effort to be useful during conflict but... it sounds like what the player is doing is fun to him. And he probably very much appreciates efficient optimizers like you enabling him to play in the fashion he likes. Does he ever rant and rave at you for not running away with him to play dice in an alley? Just leave him be and assume he's a non-combatant.
If you absolutely MUST make an issue of it, I'd confront him in character. That way you can vent your frustrations, maybe even be abusive for the sake of catharsis, without making it personal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.+1 to pretty much everything Matt said.
Not only are we not required to make a character who is good at combat, we're not required to make a character who is even interested in it. There used to be a Vow of Pacifism available for strictly non-combat characters, this sort of thing isn't new. I'm currently playing a venerable half-elf caster who explicitly refuses to risk his health for any reason. (He's "getting too old for this s!@+!")
I would venture a guess that if you only had four party members the player would make more of an effort to be useful during conflict but... it sounds like what the player is doing is fun to him. And he probably very much appreciates efficient optimizers like you enabling him to play in the fashion he likes. Does he ever rant and rave at you for not running away with him to play dice in an alley? Just leave him be and assume he's a non-combatant.
If you absolutely MUST make an issue of it, I'd confront him in character. That way you can vent your frustrations, maybe even be abusive for the sake of catharsis, without making it personal.
I don't disagree with you. But the main problem I see is in character. For instance, why the HELL would a cowardly character get into a demon infested dungeon with a bunch of bloodthirsty guys?
Why would anyone share their hard earned treasure with someone that did nothing to help?
And why should he get XP for monsters he did not help defeat? Just being in the same room does not count you know?
Players need to fit to each other.
There are different styles, even among players of a same typically used category like "role players". Some fit together, some don't.
Some people in this thread said "do it in character, if the rogue does not contribute, sack him" - that's a big NO.
When one of my characters has a problem with another one, then this is ONLY because the characters have said problem, NEVER when I have a problem with another player.
Doing such stuff in character related to out character is just harrasment, see Tom et ses chums which is based on that.
Get together and talk about it. And prepare for the possible outcome that you just don't match, which means that you can't play together (you like that guy? K, then do other stuff with him like going to the movies or whatever)
As for the optimize or roleplay subtopic, in my opinion a hero trains himself to be strong, eh? There are some differences between optimizing and optimizing, important thing is style (oh and fun)
Especially with the system I play in (also the campaign) the amount I omptimize can fluctuate to a great deal... d20 is the system where I omptimize the most. d20 is focused on battles (4e even more), the major part of the sheet is battle stats, eh? I could imagine a d20 campaign based on intrigue and other non combat stuff but other systems would be more suitable for that.
The most funny thing on that is my current VtM campaign - we're playing two parties, each one for as long as a story arc goes, both are located in the same city and as you may have guessed, yes, one is Camarilla, other one is Sabbat. Which translated in second one is extreme PG, other one is mixed (my char is able to fight to some degree but he is not actually build for that) - it's quite fun to switch between both styles (as a note, as some others already said, extreme PG does not exclude RP and RP we do)
Players need to fit to each other.
There are different styles, even among players of a same typically used category like "role players". Some fit together, some don't.Some people in this thread said "do it in character, if the rogue does not contribute, sack him" - that's a big NO.
When one of my characters has a problem with another one, then this is ONLY because the characters have said problem, NEVER when I have a problem with another player.
Doing such stuff in character related to out character is just harrasment, see Tom et ses chums which is based on that.Get together and talk about it. And prepare for the possible outcome that you just don't match, which means that you can't play together (you like that guy? K, then do other stuff with him like going to the movies or whatever)
Mate, they SHOULD have a problem IN CHARACTER with a guy that does nothing when they are on the brink of death.... wouldn't you!? That's all I'm saying.
I would even laugh outside of the table, seriously, wouldn't get pissed with that guy, but in character I would be all over him for leting his friends die, for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that almost everyone has their own take on roleplaying games. It's really up to each gaming group to come to some sort of accomodation.
1: There are ROLEplaying gamers: The character portrayed is the most important aspect of the experience. The rules, character classes and game system merely allow interaction with each other and the game world. For one of these a character who actively avoids combat, yet succeeds in surviving and thriving in the world, may not consider themselves dead weight. Conversley, a character who is played as the best in his/her field may well be optimised in order for the game to more accurately portray their competence. Players that failed to keep the story moving forward, explore their own and fellow PC's motivations, or were just plain boring, may be considered dead weight (even if they contribute to the "physical" aspects of combat.)
2: roleplaying GAMERS: The character class has a distinct role to play in successfully "winning" the game. Each player has to add their specialisation to the group in order to progress to the next level/combat/treasure hoard. A player who fails to contribute, who purposely subverts their character class, or does not use their abilities to their full potential is dead weight, even if the character has "role-playing" reasons for inaction.
3: rolePLAYING gamers: It's a game, and designed in order to have fun. Character classes, rules and bad acting mix in order to create a thing you play. Things that stop fun are dead weight.
Without knowing the actual group and people involved the OP sounds like he comes from the second school. Highly unlikely to be part of the first group. Especially if the characters have not fired, shouted at, killed or otherwise sorted the "problem".
This does not mean that the rogue comes from the first. He might just be playing with you.
At some level all of us are part of group three. If we are not having fun then we woluldn't play, right? The rogue is having fun his way, the GM seems ok with it, hence your frustration. You seem to suggest that you are ok with the player, but annoyed by his characters actions (or lack thereof). Seriously though YOU should not get angry because of something a CHARACTER is or isn't doing. Your CHARACTER would be at liberty to be as miffed as you feel appropriate. You need to work out if it's the player or his character that has you this riled.
In my games I have had many characters who fell out with each other, or even betrayed each other utterly. Sometimes causing the party to fragment. If the character went off alone then usually the player would roll a new character and the party would continue (perhaps with a new NPC enemy). More fun is when the party splits in two, this creates the opportunity to run two groups (each of the players rolls a character that can join the "split" party) which have the same goals. Rival parties, fun ,huh?
In my games I have had, although seldomly, people who I fell out with. I don't play with them any more. Simples innit?
I don't disagree with you. But the main problem I see is in character. For instance, why the HELL would a cowardly character get into a demon infested dungeon with a bunch of bloodthirsty guys?
Why would anyone share their hard earned treasure with someone that did nothing to help?
Socialism?
Seriously though, maybe they're friends. Everyone has at least one friend that isn't quite up to par, but you don't throw him to the curb. It's not like he's selling out the group to the enemy for 30 silver pieces.
Hell, even Eric Cartman has friends.
And why should he get XP for monsters he did not help defeat? Just being in the same room does not count you know?
Because the system doesn't reward characters for roelplaying, which is stupid considering that it's a "roleplaying" game.
Again, if someone actively wants to make a character that's entirely based on skills and never goes into combat...they don't want to play D&D. They want a skills-based game.
So, I think I entered a stalemate with my GM.
So the other player is happy, and the GM is happy, but you think he should play differently? How about minding your own business?
Not everyone has to be as good in combat as the fighter -- or in your case, the paladin or the magus.
But to just find ways to be completely uninvolved in combat? I don't understand that. Any character can run around and apply to party members some of that magical ointment that heals damage. If he doesn't want to fight monsters, why can't he do that?
This is less an issue of optimizing vs. not as it is cooperative gaming vs. not.
I can't really add anything that hasn't been said already a dozen times, but I did get quite the chuckle that your DM is capable enough to keep killing the optimizers.
After all the "OMGZORS!!! MY PLAYERS ARE TOO OP!!!" posts I've read the last few weeks, its a relief to see some GMs are still meting out well-deserved deaths.
Now he just needs to serve a platter up to the Rogue.
|
|
there is a much simpler solution.
adjudicate experience fairly. Split experience according to participation.
The old 2e notion of giving characters XP based off of damage done (or healed) or spells cast or devices disabled kinda went that direction, ensuring that the more active and engaged players received more XP than those who let themselves be carried.
It's kinda funky how this players lack of participation is forcing everyone else to *not* roleplay the very appropriate character action of kicking his characters butt to the curb. He's stretching suspension of disbelief beyond recognition, and that's kinda the *opposite* of role-playing, IMO.
There are examples of characters in literature and movies that are cowards who still accompany their "groups" into the most dangerous places imaginable and once inside almost never contribute to fights in a meaningful way and usually hiding during the exchange. One character that immediately comes to mind is the brother in the mummy trilogy of movies.
I have a player who sole purpose in games is to play a counter-productive to the GM attempting to resist becoming involved in the story at every turn and then complaining when he doesn't get sufficent game time afterwards. His excuse is "Sorry that my characters have personal goals". NOW this is a player being disruptive.
I can't really add anything that hasn't been said already a dozen times, but I did get quite the chuckle that your DM is capable enough to keep killing the optimizers.
After all the "OMGZORS!!! MY PLAYERS ARE TOO OP!!!" posts I've read the last few weeks, its a relief to see some GMs are still meting out well-deserved deaths.
Now he just needs to serve a platter up to the Rogue.
It is the adventure path, I have run/running Rise of the Runelords, Council of Thieves, Serpent's Skull, and Kingmaker of all of them Rise of the Runelords is the hardest on players and the funnest to go through. Some conversion is needed to upgrade from 3.5 to Pathfinder but it is well worth it.
On killing the rogue the adventure has a lot of heavy hitting ogres and giants and few area attacks, so a melee fighter would have to ignore the Paladin and Magus tearing him up and go after the coward hiding in the bushes to get the rogue. Not very good use of his actions since the rogue in not a threat at all.
There are examples of characters in literature and movies that are cowards who still accompany their "groups" into the most dangerous places imaginable and once inside almost never contribute to fights in a meaningful way and usually hiding during the exchange. One character that immediately comes to mind is the brother in the mummy trilogy of movies.
I have a player who sole purpose in games is to play a counter-productive to the GM attempting to resist becoming involved in the story at every turn and then complaining when he doesn't get sufficent game time afterwards. His excuse is "Sorry that my characters have personal goals". NOW this is a player being disruptive.
Yes and they are called comedic relief. Especially Johnathan from the mummy. And if the party is fine with you being the comedic relief go for it. Also Johnathan hand a background reason why he couldn't be told to stay home it was a family thing. i dont think this rogue even has that going for him.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The pinning monk reminded me of this...
>playing half orc monk
>decide to play something beyond weeaboo 'i am a master of martial arts'
>spend 100 gp on inlaid mask with intricate tribal designs sewn on the side with a 'fin'
>BECOME LOS TIBURON, THE SHARK OF THE LAND, MASKED WRESTLER
>take feats revolving around grappling
>grapple EVERYTHING
>EVERYTHING
>EVERY. *&^%$#. THING.
>including, but not limited to, a bear
>final part of campaign
>OH CRAP DRAGON
>dragon acts like a boss, ducking into water and popping up to use breath weapon
>*&^% that, I'm charging him
>brother, playing warforged fighter, assists my MIGHTY LEAP into the air, where I pose in mid-air, shouting about the HONOR OF THE MASK
>TACKLE A *&^%$# DRAGON
>deal unarmed damage, latch on, take deep breath in preparation for the underwater struggle
>dragon goes up. forgot they can actually fly.
>DM gives me option to let go before he goes up. Heck with that, I'm still wrestling.
>200 FEET IN THE AIR, STILL WRESTLING A DRAGON AND DEALING UNARMED DAMAGE
>Dragon actually starts hurting me. Have to come up with a plan. BRILLIANCE STRIKES ME.
>"I roll to pin."
>Entire table is silent.
>I roll to 'pin' his wings behind his back, so he can't fly anymore.
>ENTIRE TABLE IS LEANING OVER SO I CAN MAKE MY ROLL OF DESTINY
>NATURAL. *&^%$#. TWENTY.
>I pin the dragon's wings, sending it and me hurtling into ground. I have six seconds to make my final statement.
>"I AM LOS TIBURON! And I am...a lucha!!!"
>Dragon's neck snaps on impact
>Through sheer luck or GM fiat, possibly both, I survive with -4 HP
>Cleric puts me back at one, picks me up, holding one arm into the air
>My brother immediately bangs his shield twice, making a bell noise
>Party's bard/diplomancer: "And the winner is....Los Tiburon!"
>high fives all around
And that was the story of how I made it to level four.