After a few decades of playing I've reached a odd situation of sorts in my current campaign and am curious to know if others ever feel as I do.
Without much planning the PCs in my current group ended up with high-initiative / high-stealth PCs; two of which are front-liners (a paladin & monk) and two archers (a rogue & ranger). Due to there being a lack of spellcasters, I went ahead and made a mystic theurge to cover both divine and arcane casting. Because of our proclivities we generally favour stealth/surprise attacks.
Due to a high level of teamwork (in my experience at least), thorough reconnaissance, having the right magics at hand and decent tactics we've proven to be rather formidable in battle. We usually end up gaining surprise in most every fight, follow it up by winning initiative and then defeat our enemies before they can really mount a defence (if any); even the big boss fights. We've managed to go through half a module without suffering a single PC injury as a consequence.
I'm not complaining; it's certainly gratifying to see one's preparations pay off. But here's the weird part; I often find myself holding back. Certainly I've tailored my character to be versatile and effective but I'm hardly a gaming savant. It's just that, if I were to pull out all the stops, my spellcaster sometimes wouldn't even need the other PCs' help at all. Occasionally, while performing reconnaissance, I envision a means by which I could solo-defeat an enemy and then discard it in favour of going to fetch the party so that the other players won't miss out on the fight. Only twice have I pulled out all the stops to defeat enemies by myself; once when confronted by a high CR creature which I guessed could wipe out some PCs if attacked with conventional tactics and the other to quickly defeat an army which both the players and GM were loathe to battle one-by-one.
The flip side is that I often find myself sitting back, delaying round after round, to watch the martial characters wipe up the bad guys. After having prepared the group with buffs, advantageous tactics and positioning it often seems a superfluous waste of magic to further beleaguer the NPCS. Physically beating NPCs is what the other PCs are designed to do, so why rob the other players of their fun?
As is, I figure that I'm perhaps playing at 80% of my character's potential. Even so, our group dominates most battle to such a degree that I'm considering, perhaps next campaign, easing up even further; perhaps to 60% to 70%. I have to admit though that the notion feels oddly meta to me. Why would PCs purposefully ignore advantageous opportunities or purposefully favour less-effective tactics?
I'm just wondering if others ever find themselves acting similarly. Do you ever find yourself holding back while playing? If so, why?
On the few occasions which I DM(usually just one adventure per campaign), I often hold back on my character because I don't want them to be the star. The DM is supposed to present the story for others to shine. I am about to DM an adventure where my spellcaster will use buffs and his high intelligence to support the party in the puzzle type dungeon. If I went at his full capacity and solved all of the riddles, where would the fun be. Likewise if I cast spells at my full potential, I would be the star not the players.
Yes i have done it as a player, making "wrong" decisions in combat, not assuming tactical advantage and such. It was during Kingmaker (very very easy if the DM sticks to the book too much) and me and another player had to do that sort of thing because the game was too easy.
Reaper Miniatures
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would PCs purposefully ignore advantageous opportunities or purposefully favour less-effective tactics?
In character "I've used my most beneficial spells to enhance your abilities. I must reserve my remaining power in the event that we face another threat like this, and I must enhance you further. Besides, what a waste it would be to grant you the strength of a bull and then obliterate the foe with fire - why spend two spells to do what one spell can do. The foe lies vanquished, and you were in no danger"
I've held back as a player before, sure. I was playing a 3.5 druid (pre-wildshaping rules change) in a group of 6 players that had several characters kitted out with custom (player-made) prestige classes and handcrafted (player-designed) magic items. Most fights were over in 1 round...2 tops. During one dungeon crawl I purposely tried to not do anything every encounter (delayed, moved but not attacked, buffed myself but didn't engage, etc.). It wasn't the most fun campaign from a combat perspective (other things made it interesting but combat wasn't one of them).
So yeah, I've been there. Hopefully you can find hooks outside of combat that keep you interested in the game. Good luck!
I use my Witch to set up coup de grace attempts with Slumber or Healing Hex my way around the party. That way, I can auto-pilot through most fights and then, when the party really needs it, I can bust out the fun. I had to GMPC a fight (we rotate GMs in our group) and even held back on Slumber so the BBEG of my session wouldn't be a cakewalk.
What I find I really miss is the satisfying dice rolling of a martial class. I don't roll many dice these days. It makes me long for my character's death so I can come back as an archer.
I play melee because casters make the game too easy.
I'm starting to think along those lines too. Casters are complicated to play, so they require a decent grip on the rules, but are likely to be too powerful in the hands of a player with above average game knowledge. Casters are best played by players with moderate gaming experience. Then they're more likely to remain balanced with other character types.
So yeah, I've been there. Hopefully you can find hooks outside of combat that keep you interested in the game. Good luck!
Oh, I'm plenty interested in the game. The GM and story are above par (we're playing Rise of the Runelords) and I'm anxious to see how it'll turn out. So no worries. =)
I play melee because casters make the game too easy.
Hehe, in PFS, I play rogues and bards because melee makes the campaign too easy.
Ambrus: talk to the DM and the other players about this. If everyone contributes to a good time, both by presenting a reasonable challenge and by not playing powerful PCs, the game will be more fun for everyone.
-Matt
Hehe, in PFS, I play rogues and bards because melee makes the campaign too easy.
Oddly perhaps our archers are the group's heavy hitters with the sneak-attacking rogue being the damage-per-round champ.
Ambrus: talk to the DM and the other players about this. If everyone contributes to a good time, both by presenting a reasonable challenge and by not playing powerful PCs, the game will be more fun for everyone.
As I said, I'm not in any way complaining; merely musing aloud. And I haven't heard any complaints from the other players. Our GM probably has the toughest go of it but, bless her heart, she usually rolls with our unorthodox tactics with aplomb.
I've actually joked with her that, this being two of the players' (the two archers incidentally) first tabletop fantasy RPG, they may not realize that what's happening is anything other than typical. For instance neither has ever needed to draw a melee weapon, or run afoul of a trap, been poisoned, caught a disease, been caught in a fireball, or witnessed a character death, etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's fine to do that. It's called Letting the DM Have Fun.
Heh. I had a whole long reply written, but it comes down to this: at a high-enough level, combat becomes both insane and irrelevant :)
I had a player in our group that was a seasoned role player and an optimizer. He had a very strong grasp of the rules and tactics and could be devastating in a fight seemingly regardless of the class that he was playing at the time. However, his last two characters before he moved away for work each had a quirk of some sort that would cause him to play at less than his full capabilities under certain circumstances. He would role play this out in the encounter.
He liked the flavor and challenge of it, and as the DM, I really liked the depth that it gave his characters. Over the years, he had clearly established that he could dish out insane DPR, or use innovative and effective spell combinations. This was less than that, but at the same time, much more entertaining. I made sure to reward it whenever I saw it happening, something that I continue to do with other players in the group.
I don't think there is anything wrong with not playing at 100%. As long as the player is still enjoying the character and the story, it could actually lead to a more interesting PC development.
|
|
It sounds like you need to bring this up to the GM, even if he/she is already aware. The GM needs to change the NPCs tactics from what the AP says and/or make the NPCs more tough.
For instance, I just recently as a GM got sick of my players wiping out the enemies very easily and quickly, without much resource expenditure, so I started to optimize the NPCs. Some I added a level to, others I changed their feats/weapons. I changed npc class levels for class levels, for instance, a cleric 7/aristocrat 7 became a cleric 14.
In pathfinder, I am holding back every time I roll a barbarian and don't go for a lance.
I did play with a BESM group where I had this issue as well. Generally, my system mastery put me about one or two orders of magnitude stronger than the rest of the party, so I generally ended up holding back and pulling punches unless the enemy somehow got the upper hand.
|
I am a Min/Max'er by nature... It just fun for me to sit and take a few hours to read, mix, match up abilities and create a character. The only "bad" thing about it is not many at my table do the same. To each their own I say but you can tell a well thought out character from one that took 20 minutes. Hence like you said you end up holding back or retiring your Character and bringing in some Fluff PC so others at the table will stop complaining.
I never understood the thought process of having others decide what you can play? I say play what you brought to the table and have your fun and let them have theirs... but in the end its just easier to back off a Min/Max PC then listen to the complaints from the peanut gallery... lol
I do it every single game I am in.
|
Learning how to hold back and let others have the spotlight is difficult for most gamers. Learning how to not-optimize is something even harder for some. If you are doing both (not optimizing while still being effective and standing back when you're not needed) while still having fun I'd say you're in good shape and you know what you're doing. Just keep at it.
I see what your saying. I don't think I've ever felt a drastic need to tone down my characters, though I don't always plan out an optimal build. I usually pick a character idea and run with it even if I know it is not optimal. Though I haven't had what I'd call subpar since my first character.
A good example is the current campaign I'm in. It is a fairly heavily houseruled 3.5 game, low magic. I'm a swashbuckler/rogue. I was talking in another thread about making this same kind of character and how to optimize its damage output (mainly TWF), but I have ignored a good part of that myself because I wanted him to run around with a single rapier (and several hidden daggers). His feats are based around maneuvers so he is more swashbucklery than roguish (though he still has a buttload more skills than anyone else). Also, there is a feat to make the levels from the two stack for SA and a couple other things. I started at level 5, if I had gone rogue 3/ sb 2 I could already have that feat, but I decided to put it off due to the backstory I gave the GM.
I don't think roleplaying needs to be opposed to optimizing, but in this case it's how it worked out and I have no problem making my characters that way.
Its fine to hold back, but remember, the GM's job is not to kill you, however, it's your job to kill the monsters. However, you did ask if it's ok to play "holding back" and this really boils down to, player knowledge, vs character knowledge. The player knows, all the best spells, all the best class combo's, and that trolls are going to be destroyed by fire and all that. If you learned a great trick last campaign, why would a different unrelated character automatically know said trick? And, why pull out the stops anyways? I'll also cast my vote that maybe the GM should bump up the encounters a little too. My group isn't happy with an encounter unless they are literally on the brink of death at the end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that might help your blahs without causing you to feel you were holding back, might be to add more of your character's personality into the mix.
Two examples:
1. One of my players plays a very formidable dwarf with much combat prowess. But he makes sure to keep his low Wisdom and Charisma in mind, even when battling. This allows him to make some really boneheaded decisions in the thick of it. It is not gimping at all in this player's mind. He is an old school player who believes roleplay belongs even in the thick of battle. Thus, despite a character optimized for battle, he still makes mistakes, and these allow me (the GM) to challenge him in different ways and on different levels.
2. I once played a pretty decent fighter/warmage with a real wiseass attitude. Though I, the player, knew that yellow plant was likely a yellow musk creeper, I knew the character would not, and I knew his smart aleck attitude would cause him to risk taking a sniff. I played it fairly, and he ended up in trouble, from which he had to be rescued. I took a chance on a saving throw and lost, but it was behavior that was already well established for the character.
The point of what I am saying is, your character does not necessarily become a robot or shut off all of his normal eccentricities just because a fight has begun. Playing him just as a combat-bot means missing honest opportunities to make the game more interesting and unique. Just rolling the dice and winning endlessly may speak to you having made a great build. Or it may indicate not a lot of creative thought is happening at the table, either from the players or the GM.
Due to a high level of teamwork (in my experience at least), thorough reconnaissance, having the right magics at hand and decent tactics we've proven to be rather formidable in battle. We usually end up gaining surprise in most every fight, follow it up by winning initiative and then defeat our enemies before they can really mount a defence (if any); even the big boss fights. We've managed to go through half a module without suffering a single PC injury as a consequence.
It looks like your teammates are playing their characters very well, or aren't very challenged. Maybe both. Either way, they don't need much help from you.
The flip side is that I often find myself sitting back, delaying round after round, to watch the martial characters wipe up the bad guys.
Nothing wrong with that. It's fine to say "I'll jump in if you need me," and save your magic for more important things. That's just smart resource management. If the melee can handle the little stuff, or get lucky and wipe it out fast, you can save your magic for the big bads.
I think the GM needs to raise the challenge level a bit. Half a module without an injury? He needs to add more mooks, raise some hit dice, add some alarms and traps, or use more magic (probably all of that).
In my games, people get hurt by things that really can hurt them, and spellcasters have to use their magic a lot. They jump for joy when the fighter ends an encounter with a lucky crit.
I don't generally down-power my characters by holding back in combat. Instead, I just don't optimize at creation. If point buy, i never go higher than a 16 before modifiers, even on a SAD class. I generally avoid 2 hand weapons, but if i go handed, i generally use a 1h wep in 2 hands. Sometimes i will play a small sized front line fighter. Most of the ppl in my group follow a similar standard.
I salute you, sir.
In the past several weeks I've begun making a few of the same choices when it comes to character building. I'd love if my group caught on too, however. I'm hoping to systematically drive the Inquisitor away from his greatsword by cracking jokes about size issues.
I first noticed the change statting NPCs. Without the pressure to perform thats led to years of shameless optimising I found I was making much more fun, well rounded characters. Its begun to bleed into my own characters in a big way.
I find once I've reached a certain comfort zone with my damage (a relic of playing a str 10 gnome with a rapier for well over a year...) I can begin to take the more sub-optimal, theatric combat options. Manuever's I'm not built for, drawing a belt knife and leaving it in an enemies throat, casting aside by greatsword and my falcata... Usually this comfort zone involves 14+ str and power attack. I like to have deadly aim to round this out. Maybe I still have a long way to go, but I've yet to touch the two-handed fighter archetype, and I recently took persuasive on a PC, so I'm really quite proud of myself. I discovered my own personal nirvana of character building.
After a few decades of playing I've reached a odd situation of sorts in my current campaign and am curious to know if others ever feel as I do.
Without much planning the PCs in my current group ended up with high-initiative / high-stealth PCs; two of which are front-liners (a paladin & monk) and two archers (a rogue & ranger). Due to there being a lack of spellcasters, I went ahead and made a mystic theurge to cover both divine and arcane casting. Because of our proclivities we generally favour stealth/surprise attacks.
Due to a high level of teamwork (in my experience at least), thorough reconnaissance, having the right magics at hand and decent tactics we've proven to be rather formidable in battle. We usually end up gaining surprise in most every fight, follow it up by winning initiative and then defeat our enemies before they can really mount a defence (if any); even the big boss fights. We've managed to go through half a module without suffering a single PC injury as a consequence.
I'm not complaining; it's certainly gratifying to see one's preparations pay off. But here's the weird part; I often find myself holding back. Certainly I've tailored my character to be versatile and effective but I'm hardly a gaming savant. It's just that, if I were to pull out all the stops, my spellcaster sometimes wouldn't even need the other PCs' help at all. Occasionally, while performing reconnaissance, I envision a means by which I could solo-defeat an enemy and then discard it in favour of going to fetch the party so that the other players won't miss out on the fight. Only twice have I pulled out all the stops to defeat enemies by myself; once when confronted by a high CR creature which I guessed could wipe out some PCs if attacked with conventional tactics and the other to quickly defeat an army which both the players and GM were loathe to battle one-by-one.
The flip side is that I often find myself sitting back, delaying round after round, to watch the martial characters wipe up the bad guys. After having...
No I have never held back. My GM is evil. If the game is too easy ask the GM to up the ante. When I GM I will adjust monsters on occasion to even things out.
Edit:I had a GM who was very RP based, which is not a bad thing, but the combats, even boss fights, were trivially easy. I asked her to make things harder and she obliged.