In a word, YES. It wasn't something that was intentional. It wasn't something that we as player's were even trying to gain. It was something that the GM threw out their because of how things were happening IN GAME, not by design. Building characters as the OP stated is shenanigans to me. As a GM I'd never allow it. As a player I'd hate to see it.This sort of GM fiat, in-game evolution would be cool. However, by creating characters that function together specifically through the use of mechanics is complete cheese, with weenie and munchkin on the side.So 'make it up before the game = bad' and 'make it up during game = good'?
Shenanigans, I say.
The existance of teamwork feats in the APG and subsequent books makes you provably wrong. Both players must have a teamwork feat to work, thus the choice to use it must be made together, for mechanical reasons. The behavior you say was not intentional is directly built into the game provided by the creators of said game. Everyone can play the game as they see fit, but calling someone a munchkin or cheesy for playing the game in a manner which is clearly intended is flat out wrong.
I personally applaud you. The game expects you to work as a group. Working efficiently as a team isn't anymore cheap than that.
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My name is Cheapy, and I wrote a book on archetypes that are meant to make everyone work together better.
I am an expert on both cheapness, and teamwork.
It is not cheap, but should be encouraged.
you're supposed to do this. Thats why they make teamwork feats for non druids.
Just work it into your background, the two are brothers/partners in crime/seperated at birth or what have you.
To each there own. The way we've played has worked for us...for years, since 1989. Our style of play, mechanics designed specifically for teamwork is unwelcome. That doesn't make it that way for any other group. The OP asked for an opinion I gave one based on my own experiences...the fact that every group I've ever played within has always started off with all characters not knowing one another, with groups not really becoming a cohesive 'team' until 3rd or 4th level.
I game with a group of players that see the d20 mechanics glut as taking away from gaming rather than enhancing it. Every year we've 'dumbed-down'/removed a little bit more from d20 mechanics for our enjoyment. But, to each their own. For us it's story not detail. Mechanics for teamwork is detail, detail interferes with story - for MY GROUP. I stand by what I said, from my own limited perspective, and within the context of the groups I've played within: creating characters that function together specifically through the use of mechanics is complete cheese, with weenie and munchkin on the side.
I game with a group of players that see the d20 mechanics glut as taking away from gaming rather than enhancing it. Every year we've 'dumbed-down'/removed a little bit more from d20 mechanics for our enjoyment. But, to each their own. For us it's story not detail. Mechanics for teamwork is detail, detail interferes with story - for MY GROUP.
I think there's a bell curve to this. With no rules knowledge and proficiency there's no rules to worry about so you can just have fun.
With some proficiency/comfort you're worried about breaking the rules, and that worry takes away from gaming.
With complete mastery though you hit a point of zen rules. The rules aren't rules they simply are. They're reflexive, automatic, and so far out of your mind that they may as well not be there, and you can get into the role playing at the table.
I'd make sure there is a story element to why the 2 first level characters work so well togther... other wise it's fine.
It's essentiall Caramon and Raistlen.
I think it's MORE fun to develop things IN game... there was the time that the monk and the minotaur decided to try blending their styles inot one fighting style... THAT was fun to play out.
Just recently I leveled up my rogue and specifically said at the table. "I just got dastardly finish!!! I can coup de grace stunned enemies... Can anyone get the stunnin' part??
They've been fighting together a long time... and I don't see a problem with out of character 'mechanic' talk once in a while...
I would undoubtably roll my eyes if the first night the wizard and warrior say....
"HI I'm bob... I am a fighter, who used to work with a wizard quite often..."
"REALLY?!?! I'm Tim!!! I'm a wizard who used to fight with a warrior a lot!!! Let's be friends!!"
and then hug.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a bit surprised to see so much negativity on this teamwork idea. I agree they should have a good backstory for why they work together, but I can't possibly see punishing people for 1) working as a group and 2) investing in feats to do so. Feats are not easy to come by and the fact that they want to build themselves up to that way should be fine. There are plenty of ways a GM can prevent them being too powerful if need be. Hell, considering the feat costs, they are going to be as far away from optimized cheeze monkeyz when they are more than a move action apart.
I’ve been wanting to do something like this for a while, but I haven’t nabbed the other player’s interest in my group well enough. Two of my character ideas I’ve sidelined so far has been a pair/siblings/whatever of rogues that can really work together (on the silly end think Wily Cat and Wily Kit, but the idea occurred to me through GMing because two of the 15+ year regulars in our group are scoundrel brothers and I’ve always wanted them to play that role). My other hopeful situation is less RAW mechanic-based, but I’ve always wanted to play a situation where a fighter type was a “familiar” for a spell caster. I don’t care which role I play, but I think it’d be fun.
In short and to the OP, I think making supporting characters is a great way to approach the game as long as it works out for your table. I’d be stoked to see that at my table.
My wife and I came up with the idea to play a married pair of rogues for a game. In the end the DM decided to go with a gestalt game and the duo didn't work out as expected. We were hoping for lots of flanking stabbity goodness. Alas, it was not to be! I'd still like to see the combo in play at some point, though.
For characters with a shared background, totally works. They need to maintain that fiction, they need to role play that connection, but beyond that, it's great.
Characters created without common history, who do that without role playing developing those techniques... BAD.
So my inquisitor and her twin sister(also an inquisitor) are cheesy because they have the same teamwork feats? I have only one thing to say to that!
I love the smell of chedder in the morning. Smells like... victory.
::Sniffs:: No, that was the smell of the mortar shell landing on your sister... or of the -- what did kill you last time? I forget.
Honestly as a GM I hope my players plan to work together from the start.
I don't even mind if they don't have in character reason to it can still work fine:
For example a tactician fighter with outflank that came out of a military background working with another player's inquisitor from another part of the world is fine with me -- they both have reasons to have what they do.
Yeah it works together well but heck it should.
Heaven forbid players actually step up and plan to have a cohesive group before the game.
This is the exception for me. Why? Group concensus. I can recall one game, Twilight 2000, where the group was a cohesive group right at the beginning of play. It was a wargame.
I didn't think i was coming across as negative, but obviously that wasn't the case. How is the way I've gamed over the years so anethetical to you and others? We play where you have to learn how to blend and become cohesive through game play. Sort of like when you work in real life. YOu've got to learn the job WHILE trying to figure out the people you with whom you work. It just doesn't happen from day 1, it takes time.
|
I don't understand all the haterage at these two PCs if they don't have a 'common backstory.' Hell, they could have met up JUST BECAUSE their abilities are synergetic. If they pay for a teamwork feat, don't browbeat them for it.
On an unrelated note, my friend and I once played a Red Wizard of Thay and a fighter combo that worked out extremely well. We even worked out code phrases to yell at each other during combat so the DM didn't know what we were going to do next.
The existance of teamwork feats in the APG and subsequent books makes you provably wrong. Both players must have a teamwork feat to work, thus the choice to use it must be made together, for mechanical reasons. The behavior you say was not intentional is directly built into the game provided by the creators of said game. Everyone can play the game as they see fit, but calling someone a munchkin or cheesy for playing the game in a manner which is clearly intended is flat out wrong.In a word, YES. It wasn't something that was intentional. It wasn't something that we as player's were even trying to gain. It was something that the GM threw out their because of how things were happening IN GAME, not by design. Building characters as the OP stated is shenanigans to me. As a GM I'd never allow it. As a player I'd hate to see it.This sort of GM fiat, in-game evolution would be cool. However, by creating characters that function together specifically through the use of mechanics is complete cheese, with weenie and munchkin on the side.So 'make it up before the game = bad' and 'make it up during game = good'?
Shenanigans, I say.
I'm not wrong, within the framework of my group. Within the framework of my group, Teamwork feats aren't used, neither is much of the material in later books beyond the Core Rulebook. It's that sort of "Hey, gamers houserule this stuff in all the time, let's make some codified info for it" continually add to the glut of d20 rules.
Now, as for my assertion that my gaming methodology is better than anyone else, well, that's just bunk from me. For that I apologize.
I tend to forget the erosion of communication and social interaction with digital media - such as this message board...especially when 93% of communication comes from NON-VERBAL cues...at least according to the data provided by the Lecturer at the recent Harassment Seminar I attended.
Because it so often doesn't happen. You have the LG Paladin and the CE Necromancer in the same party and NO REASON FOR THEM TO REMAIN A PARTY.
Again, within the framework of teh groups with which I have been a player or for which I have run, that sort of thing doesn't happen. Shades of grey are treated as varying degrees of evil, anethema to the Good aligned groups that are 99% prevalent. I GMed a group comprised of Evil and Neutral characters. The group ended up TPKed when the world turned against them. I've been a poart of some very cliched groups - Good vs Evil, with Evil being vanquished, no grey areas, you're either good or evil. SO very 'vanilla' games.
So my inquisitor and her twin sister(also an inquisitor) are cheesy because they have the same teamwork feats? I have only one thing to say to that!
I love the smell of chedder in the morning. Smells like... victory.
Not if it suits your play methodology. Just doesn't suit mine. Then again, teamwork feats aren't used or allowed within the framework of my group.
::Sniffs:: No, that was the smell of the mortar shell landing on your sister... or of the -- what did kill you last time? I forget.A vrock after we killed the glabrazu. I can't remember what got me the first time though, I think it was the chaos beast.
Well at least we broke up the monotony with your sister dying instead of you... sarah seemed very non-plus by it though. Can't help it the gun metal dragon rolled so well.
|
Because it so often doesn't happen. You have the LG Paladin and the CE Necromancer in the same party and NO REASON FOR THEM TO REMAIN A PARTY.Again, within the framework of teh groups with which I have been a player or for which I have run, that sort of thing doesn't happen. Shades of grey are treated as varying degrees of evil, anethema to the Good aligned groups that are 99% prevalent. I GMed a group comprised of Evil and Neutral characters. The group ended up TPKed when the world turned against them. I've been a poart of some very cliched groups - Good vs Evil, with Evil being vanquished, no grey areas, you're either good or evil. SO very 'vanilla' games.
Your group has a very strange idea of what "Neutral" means. In any group I've ever played in neutral just means you won't stick your neck out for a stranger, but probably will for a close friend or family member. "Evil" means willingness to sacrifice even your close friends and family for one reason or another.
This usually means that our groups are a mix of neutral and good. Right now we have 4 that are neutral on that axis, and 1 that is good (and has been keeping the others in line when they get a bit overzealous.) The neutral characters are generally in it for the money, or somehow have been pushed into the adventure by one circumstance or another and are just trying to survive.
Not if it suits your play methodology. Just doesn't suit mine. Then again, teamwork feats aren't used or allowed within the framework of my group.So my inquisitor and her twin sister(also an inquisitor) are cheesy because they have the same teamwork feats? I have only one thing to say to that!
I love the smell of chedder in the morning. Smells like... victory.
This post is not to tell you that your method is wrong, it is simply to share my experience with teamwork feats:
I don't mind them -- the party gets actually use out of them about half the time -- the NPCs and monsters tend to move intelligently (when they are intelligent monsters) and do their best to not get caught in a deadly cross fire. I like the teamwork feats because so many of them give the party good reason to work together as a team.
The fact that they are so situational is actually more off-putting to me than the fact they allow neat things to happen since you are spending a full feat for them.
Even with two inquisitors in the party and three melee centric characters they still have difficulty managing to get flank or to set themselves up well.
Please understand this isn't because I have a group that doesn't understand how to do this -- it's because of encounter design on by behalf. Multiple monsters, monsters they have a hard time maneuvering around, terrain issues are just part of what goes into this.
I find when players make character who work together with game mechanics wise they make character that work together with role playing. Basically you end up with party that functions much better and avoid those instance where you have players questioning why they would hang out with the party. Like Paladin with bunch of chaotic robin hood types.
|
Heaven forbid players actually step up and plan to have a cohesive group before the game.
+1
As a DM, I encourage anything that gets my players working together. If they want to sit down and build a party that works together right from the start I totally support it.
Arguing, misaligned groups filled with inter-party fighting works great in movies and books, but my experience with it gaming groups has been almost entirely negative (and the positives were when it happened in very small doses). So I like character design that encourages cooperation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading through this thread it seems many people think this cheese if you don't have background story explaining it. Do you need to have detailed background explaining why you have any feat you choose?
I think the real issue here is not the teamwork going on but the actual feat. Is a feat that allows you to use a weapon with high critical threat range to person with low critical multiplier. So if you critical on 18, 19 or 20 with x2 multiplier but have feat that allows the next hit by the fighter with weapon that has critical range on 20 with x4 multiplier, is that feat cheese? That's more the question here.
Because it so often doesn't happen. You have the LG Paladin and the CE Necromancer in the same party and NO REASON FOR THEM TO REMAIN A PARTY.Again, within the framework of teh groups with which I have been a player or for which I have run, that sort of thing doesn't happen. Shades of grey are treated as varying degrees of evil, anethema to the Good aligned groups that are 99% prevalent. I GMed a group comprised of Evil and Neutral characters. The group ended up TPKed when the world turned against them. I've been a poart of some very cliched groups - Good vs Evil, with Evil being vanquished, no grey areas, you're either good or evil. SO very 'vanilla' games.Your group has a very strange idea of what "Neutral" means. In any group I've ever played in neutral just means you won't stick your neck out for a stranger, but probably will for a close friend or family member. "Evil" means willingness to sacrifice even your close friends and family for one reason or another.
This usually means that our groups are a mix of neutral and good. Right now we have 4 that are neutral on that axis, and 1 that is good (and has been keeping the others in line when they get a bit overzealous.) The neutral characters are generally in it for the money, or somehow have been pushed into the adventure by one circumstance or another and are just trying to survive.
If it helps, here's the general concensus of the Alignments:
LG: Ethics, code of conduct, follow the laws, work within system to change unjust ones
CG: Unorthodox, generally good guy, will readily stand up to bullies, rules are meant to be broken if it means helping someone out
NG: Puppy hugging selfless person, good peacekeeper or arbiter
LN: It all comes down to laws and rules, no shades of grey, something is or isn't
N: 2E Druid's Handbook has the best way to describe neutral, not uncaring or apathetic, wants to hang around 'nice' people and denizens, but won't fault those that aren't unless they get wronged, more of a philosophy than most
CN: Bipolar, has unique outlook that doesn't mean crazy, simply doesn't fall within the bounds of "normalcy"
LE: Work within the system to get what one wants, at the expense of whoever and whatever stands in way - Palpatine
NE: Selfish manipulator
CE: Might makes Right, takes what ones want, completely lacking any restraint
|
I was just thinking the same thing.
(Note to self: Make a pair like this as a BBEG encounter sometime.)
We had a nicely balanced spadassin homebrew class using dexterity and charisma as major stats before the UM/UC, allowing early for a real, decent dex-based full BAB fighter.
One day, we faced ghost spadassin lovers, ancient masters of fencing and theater actors, dancing forever in an old cathedral on the sound of a church organ. They fought using dancing moves, and teamwork feats.Quick reminder : ghosts gain +4 Charisma, and their charisma modifier as a bonus to AC. The spadassin used Charisma for AC and damage.
It was terrifying, nintendo hard, and f%~#ing awesome.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly... I'm super-delighted and happy whenever my players work in ways for their characters to synergize together. Makes for a much more fun experience if PCs have stronger relationships than "we all met in a tavern together and immediately started adventuring together."
Of course... that DOES mean that if two or more players want to build characters in a game I'm running where those characters are built and meant to work together that they HAVE to give me a roleplay/character reason for the fact that they work together... but since I demand those details from my players anyway, no big deal there.
I'm not wrong, within the framework of my group. Within the framework of my group, Teamwork feats aren't used, neither is much of the material in later books beyond the Core Rulebook. It's that sort of "Hey, gamers houserule this stuff in all the time, let's make some codified info for it" continually add to the glut of d20 rules.
'I wouldnt allow it in my game/at my table/in my group' is not the same as 'It's cheesey weeny munchkinism'.
Now, as for my assertion that my gaming methodology is better than anyone else, well, that's just bunk from me. For that I apologize.
I tend to forget the erosion of communication and social interaction with digital media - such as this message board...especially when 93% of communication comes from NON-VERBAL cues...at least according to the data provided by the Lecturer at the recent Harassment Seminar I attended.
93%? Really? Interesting, I knew there was alot but not that much.
Anyway, I saw from later posts a little more of where you are coming from, I just think that you didnt word it well. I consider munckinism to be an insult most of the time (especially when someone is saying what they dont like) and I dont think that was called for given what the OP was talking about. By all means cut everything you want out of d20/pathfinder/whatever. I think its just important to qualify your opinions with the fact that your group really isnt playing the same game as everyone else. Its kind of like we are playing madden and you are playing nfl blitz. Neither is wrong, but you have to understand you arent playing the same game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the real issue here is not the teamwork going on but the actual feat. Is a feat that allows you to use a weapon with high critical threat range to person with low critical multiplier. So if you critical on 18, 19 or 20 with x2 multiplier but have feat that allows the next hit by the fighter with weapon that has critical range on 20 with x4 multiplier, is that feat cheese? That's more the question here.
Can the characters operate on their own? That would be my question. If they were built in such a way that separately they were considerably less viable, then as a GM, I would occasionally exploit that, using some method or another, such as separating the characters for setting up scenarios where they are forced to fight different enemies. Every character design choice a player makes in this game has consequences, good and bad (even if the bad just means not getting to take a different ability instead.) In this case, the players are making a choice that can grant their characters considerable advantages in combat. That choice has to come with disadvantages from time to time for a sense of game balance to exist.
I agree with what Kolokotroni said, "I saw from later posts a little more of where you are coming from, I just think that you didnt word it well. I consider munckinism to be an insult most of the time (especially when someone is saying what they dont like) and I dont think that was called for given what the OP was talking about."
I didn't think i was coming across as negative, but obviously that wasn't the case. How is the way I've gamed over the years so anethetical to you and others?
You started with "However, by creating characters that function together specifically through the use of mechanics is complete cheese, with weenie and munchkin on the side." That is VERY strong language on a gaming forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You started with "However, by creating characters that function together specifically through the use of mechanics is complete cheese, with weenie and munchkin on the side." That is VERY strong language on a gaming forum.
I thought anything without Godwin's, limburger, a strawberry shake, your maternal parent, anatomic references, a clown and a donkey were considered mild...
I assumed this was Teamwork feat. It's not, it's just regular feat anyone can take if they have combat expertise. So nothing cheesy here, just using feat you have chosen. The ally using the scythe isn't invested at all, any ally could make use of the critical you confirm with this feat. A two handed fighter just makes sense to do so.
I think the real issue here is not the teamwork going on but the actual feat. Is a feat that allows you to use a weapon with high critical threat range to person with low critical multiplier. So if you critical on 18, 19 or 20 with x2 multiplier but have feat that allows the next hit by the fighter with weapon that has critical range on 20 with x4 multiplier, is that feat cheese? That's more the question here.Can the characters operate on their own? That would be my question. If they were built in such a way that separately they were considerably less viable, then as a GM, I would occasionally exploit that, using some method or another, such as separating the characters for setting up scenarios where they are forced to fight different enemies. Every character design choice a player makes in this game has consequences, good and bad (even if the bad just means not getting to take a different ability instead.) In this case, the players are making a choice that can grant their characters considerable advantages in combat. That choice has to come with disadvantages from time to time for a sense of game balance to exist.
I'd assume they could. The fighter invests nothing for this to work. The other character picked Combat Expertise and Butterfly Sting. No different that picking any other feats.
|
So does your dm just make everyone's character so nothing is "intentional" or do you roll a d6 and hope that the feats you just choose were good?
Perhaps WHFRP is more your style. Classes include things like Barber-Surgeon, and Beggar.
You dont get to choose your character, so you dont have to worry about players making characters to synergize. class is rolled, race is rolled, stats are rolled. pretty much everything is rolled. You can get a soldier who can barely lift his sword, or an archer who can shoot a target 700 yards away.
No intentional cheese design.
Personally I call it shenanigans.
|
|
Because it so often doesn't happen. You have the LG Paladin and the CE Necromancer in the same party and NO REASON FOR THEM TO REMAIN A PARTY.Again, within the framework of teh groups with which I have been a player or for which I have run, that sort of thing doesn't happen. Shades of grey are treated as varying degrees of evil, anethema to the Good aligned groups that are 99% prevalent. I GMed a group comprised of Evil and Neutral characters. The group ended up TPKed when the world turned against them. I've been a poart of some very cliched groups - Good vs Evil, with Evil being vanquished, no grey areas, you're either good or evil. SO very 'vanilla' games.
I'd not enjoy your group I dont think.
After 10 years of gaming, I've figured out that my 'comfort zone' is the bottom left 4 squares of alignment.
I like being sided with the good guys, but I tend to play lawful neutral with evil tendencies.
I protect the good guys when feasible, stick to a strict code of honor, but if one of the "neutral" NPCs seriously doublecrosses me in a way where I almost die, I won't hesitate to knock him out, drag him into the sewers with the dire rats and giant crocodiles, and chop off his hands and feet, then leave him there, and scatter his hands and feet out over a 2 mile radius. The NPC who kills puppies and kicks babies? It gets much much worse for him.
I have to be a good guy and put up with people getting away with outrageous injustices all day long. Thats not going to carry over into my gaming.
And if the someone else in the group takes an ability to stun the enemy first or knock them out first? great.
I don't understand all the haterage at these two PCs if they don't have a 'common backstory.' Hell, they could have met up JUST BECAUSE their abilities are synergetic. If they pay for a teamwork feat, don't browbeat them for it.
IMO, that alone could work for their fluff. They don't have to be childhood friends if they were recruited to work together because of their complementary skills just prior to the start of the campaign.
There have been plenty of people saying that it's fine as long as there's at least some fluff behind it. I agree, so there's no point in me saying much in the ways of that. Others have more than covered it.
My thoughts are on your actual builds:
It occurs to me that perhaps the damaging partner could be a Blaster of some kind that focuses on spells that can crit. That way he wouldn't have to physically hit the poor guy you're killing in melee and some of the spells have crazy damage if they crit.
If that were to be worked instead, perhaps you could play a different class (ie one that doesn't rely on flanking). I built an Inquisitor that focused on crits. They're quite good at it with their Judgments, especially by 10th level or 7th with Judgment Surge.
FWIW, YMMV, and all that.
Silly me, I forgot it had to be a melee attack. Oh well, it's still doable. A Magus seems likely to handle a good crit range all on his own. Could still work though, as could the original setup.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the feat is a bit silly, but no it is not cheesy to build with another player it can be cooler if it is not restricted to mechanics only though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To each there own. The way we've played has worked for us...for years, since 1989.
I'm just curious, I've only been playing since 1992 and I completely disagree with you.
Does your 3 extra years of experience invalidate my opinion in anyway? If it doesn't, why mention it?
What if I had only been playing for 5 years?