|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a simple question that, I think, a lot of us all deal with. Now, I'm not necessarily talking about teamwork at the table. People who all get together and play the same adventure USUALLY engage in some form of teamwork.
However, from an optimization perspective, collaborative character building seems like it'd be more popular than it is.
A little backstory:
My best friend and I were recently starting a new Pathfinder game, and we decided to make our characters based off of teamwork. So, we picked the two classes that are normally the more ignored ones: Cavalier and Rogue. You see, by themselves, many people are often unimpressed. Rogues do poor damage, and the Cavalier usually seems pretty bland.
However, teamwork makes this combination a wonder to behold (and I'm not just talking about the feats, but I'll get to that in a minute). The rogue will be taking the weapon finesse/Two-Weapon fighting approach, with an emphasis on getting Menacing weapons ASAP, and the fantastic Butterfly's Sting feat, while the Cavalier will be picking up a rockin' x4 crit weapon, and a decent dexterity modifier so he can pick up combat reflexes.
Now, I'm sure many of you can see where I'm going with this, but think about it for a second. Not only does the rogue have a dedicated flank buddy, but once the Outflank feat comes into play, he'll be getting a +6 or more on his flanking attack rolls. In addition, the Cavalier gets to enjoy the best possible crit range EVER (15-20/x4, essentially), while the rogue gets to use his highest static melee damage in the game (say what you will about strength, the Rogue increases by a flat ~3.5/2 levels). In addition, thanks to all the hit bonuses, the rogue is getting bumped up into auto-hit territory, AND he still gets his cool effects (Assault Leader and Strength Damage come to mind).
Now, with a bit of really simple teamwork and coordination, two somewhat bland classes have become quite powerful. In fact, it's downright awesome.
Now, my point: If something this simple is SO effective, why don't we see more of it in guides and such? Or, heck, average gameplay?
I blame PFS. That encourages thinking of just your character. It bleeds over to the rest of the game too.
Also, people generally have a great idea for their character. Working with another character from the beginning, selecting feats that complement each other, requires planned cooperation between two players, which could possibly kill individuality with regards to your character.
Also, I shamelessly plug this which I wrote specifically to try to address this issue. There's a sequel in the works too.
By the way, take K(Engineering) and Craft(Weapons) and make the fearsome Scythelance.
me and my friend are doing the same thing
|
I have seen some of this over the years. In the old Star Wars Living Force organized play campaign, there were three of us who created triplets - scoundrel, Jedi Counselor and Jedi Defender (?). The three of us could cover everything that a party might encounter, so we could group up with anyone to make a successful table.
However, in PFS, this means you need to consistently play with the same people and that is not possible. Even in our home PFS campaign, people take turns as GM, so with a group of six, you aren't going to be playing together almost have the time. Another issue is what happens if one of the members dies or the player has to move or drop out due to the demands of his job?
It can be effective, but a cardinal rule is that whatever the PC's can do, the bad guys can also do. This caveat tends to prevent exploiting all the possibilities a game system may offer.
I blame PFS. That encourages thinking of just your character. It bleeds over to the rest of the game too.
I really doubt PFS has much of an effect on most PF players. Organized play can be fun, but it's never been more than a minority of players.
I suspect it's more of a character creation style issue that goes farther back than just PF or organized play campaigns. For decades, players have been coming to tables with their ideas, backstories, build plans, mostly designed separately from the other players with the possible exception of coordinating who will play what class.
A fair number of players even do this secretively so that their fellow players don't even know the full extent of their characters. Some players are just paranoid, some use it to enhance the flavor of the campaign. Anybody you know ever play a holy slayer from Al-Qadim? I did and the other players had no idea I was playing something other than a beggar, despite engaging in some missions, until the 2nd to last session of the campaign 15 levels after starting. And it was fun. It can really enhance a campaign, but it's hard to coordinate while doing it.
The difference now is that there are lots of teamwork options on the table, even more now in PF (and 4e too) than there were in 3e. And there were more in 3e than there were in 2e. But habits are hard to change.
If you want good cooperation, you need to set aside time at the table to design it into the characters. Set up group character generation sessions where characters can discuss how they might want to coordinate. Keep in mind, however, that any decision to favor cooperative builds requires discipline. And not all players are up to staying on that track when some other shiny thing comes along.
And many players fear charges of "meta-gaming".
In my experience in the past 10 years, I've noticed that everyone wants for/cheers if someone plays a leader type class (like marshal or cavalier) but NO ONE wants to take his advice when its given about what tactics to take. Everyone wants to play their character.
...If something this simple is SO effective, why don't we see more of it in guides and such? Or, heck, average gameplay?
In my limited experience...
Most of our players spend a fair amount of a campaign thinking about what character they will play in the next campaign. Usually none of that is spent discussing with another player. So by the time the new campaign is starting everyone's concept is pretty well set and no one wants to change their concept to better mesh with someone elses.
Most people hardly know what their own characters can do, much less everyone elses.
Also, in pathfinder, charge charge charge kill kill kill usually IS the most effective strategy.
It's been years since a party i've played in/dm'd for hasn't done that. In fact we usually set aside a session or two to brainstorm and figure out what the party is missing.
Usually there's 1 or 2 people that have a set in stone idea, but than everyone else looks at what's there and picks a role that's missing.
Melee Combat
Range Combat
Healing
Utility Spells
Face
We try to make sure that at least one person in the part can do each of the above.
I don't find it a problem with people that have been playing for a while, but players that have grown up on WoW and 4th, I see the 'just worry about yourself' mentality a bit more.
Also, in pathfinder, charge charge charge kill kill kill usually IS the most effective strategy.
I find that's usually the most effective way to create a pile of PC bodies, but to each their own, heh.
Now, my point: If something this simple is SO effective, why don't we see more of it in guides and such? Or, heck, average gameplay?
We don't see it in average gameplay? AFAIC, we do. Our group does this fairly often. Without statistics, I'm not sure what to say. I'm going to go with "we probably DO see it in average gameplay."
Interesting post. I think that there are a few reason why many people don't work together.
One of the big ones (for me) is that most characters are designed at home alone not with other individuals. My group meets up once a week and we get antsy if someone is building a character at game time rather than role-playing. We all work, have kids, go to school, have significant others so carving out a block of time when we can game is hard and no one wants to waste it watching someone else build a character.
I think another reason why we don't see more cooperative builds are boards like these and Optimization guides. With very few exceptions most of the posts (some of my own included) in the advice section are how do I make MY character better at X. The advice given 95% of the time is how to optimize your character in a vacuum because those fellow gamers who are helping out only know about that particular character not any of the others sitting at the table.
OP quick question: Why would your rogue be getting a +6 on his flanking rolls? I'm not familiar with outflank but I thought it bumped up your bonus to +4 not added +4.
That said my particular group is a bit too good at working together and often times breezes through encounters of CR +3 because of the synergy of play.
*Edited: for bad spelling and worse grammar.
|
|
OP quick question: Why would your rogue be getting a +6 on his flanking rolls? I'm not familiar with outflank but I thought it bumped up your bonus to +4 not added +4.
Menacing Weapons. They improve the bonus you get from flanking by 2. In fact, as written, if you dual wield them you'd get an additional 4. +8 to attack rolls while flanking? Heck yeah. All of a sudden that really bad rogue accuracy becomes a non-argument. Combine with Sword of Subtlety for more goodness.
What source is the "Menacing" weapon attribute in ?
OP quick question: Why would your rogue be getting a +6 on his flanking rolls? I'm not familiar with outflank but I thought it bumped up your bonus to +4 not added +4.
Menacing gives a +2 mod for flanking as a weapon mod.
For the OP, my rationale is summed up by my group's last "teamwork" pairing. One of them was killed before Resurrection/Reincarnation/Raise Dead were available in a very difficult encounter.
|
|
What source is the "Menacing" weapon attribute in ?
The APG. Also, it doesn't technically increase YOUR bonus from flanking. It increases the bonus granted by flanking to allies flanking a creature you threaten. You happen to count as one of your allies, but it applies to your flank buddy as well :D
Complexity in presentation for one. Think about how long optimization guides are when only one character is in question, much less duos of who knows how many classes and packages.
Complexity in execution for two. The more links in the chain you add, the more unwieldy gets if something goes wrong. If four characters are perfectly optimized to work together in a fight, if something pulls one of those characters out of the fight, the greater a disadvantage you are at, at least in theory. A two person one trick pony can be catastrophic if something goes weird, and things are always going weird in a RPG.
Here is the Summoner I was referring to.
As you can see the Eidolon is small and built as a "flank buddy"
The summoner himself can not take the precise strike feat (as he does not qualify!)
Instead our fighter took the feat and they work well together!
I try to build characters that help the team as much as possible, but I also believe in making sure the character can stand and shine all on its own. My reason for this is two fold, first the other character wont always be present in game. Story, side quests, character death, divide and conquer tactics can all mean the teamwork oriented characters are separated when they were meant to do whatever it was they wanted to do.
The other is more specific to my group but not completely uncommon and that is there is no guarantee who from our specific group will be at a given session. We dont always have the same people game to game because of scheduling conflicts. So if I build my character to work with someone who isnt there, its wasted for that session. If my character works well on their own or with limited teamwork, then I dont have to worry about such a thing.
Teamwork is munchkin.
What does munchkin mean to you, because as i know it, you just said teamwork is either cheating or for 12 year olds?
Munchkin
yes, i know what the game is, hence my comments. So then it means what i thought?
Teamwork is munchkin.What does munchkin mean to you, because as i know it, you just said teamwork is either cheating or for 12 year olds?
You've been accosted by Too Easy Troll! Better luck crossing the bridge next time!
Given that I have fits trying to get my players to work together, I've yet to see anyone create characters who would be aimed that way. It sounds cool.
I do have to ask though, how is someone getting a 15-20/x4 crit? I guess I don't see how that works out.
Here is the Summoner I was referring to.
As you can see the Eidolon is small and built as a "flank buddy"
The summoner himself can not take the precise strike feat (as he does not qualify!)
Instead our fighter took the feat and they work well together!
But I am a ranger;p
Well a lot of players feel as if making effective characters together is mid maxing or something. Also some players don't feel like the character they're going for should mesh with certain characters. Personally I have made a decent amount of characters with one of my friends just to complement each other. I feel pathfinder players could learn a little bit from the warhammer 40k role playing games when dealing with teamwork. Isn't weird that the APG handed players and GM's alike teamwork feats and a class that uses said feats to encourage cooperation. Yet half of the people here don't seem to work with the the materials given?
But I am a ranger;pHere is the Summoner I was referring to.
As you can see the Eidolon is small and built as a "flank buddy"
The summoner himself can not take the precise strike feat (as he does not qualify!)
Instead our fighter took the feat and they work well together!
Fighter in the sense of melee' er!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first PFS character is a dwarven inquisitor who goes out of his way to enable others and keep them in the fight. My most recent character uses bodyguard and aid an other actions to let others shine.
You don't need to know what others are playing to play as part of a team. Total defense and provoke AoO, move to flank, heal checks to stop bleeding. Knowledge checks to I'd monster weaknesses...
Fighter in the sense of melee' er!But I am a ranger;pHere is the Summoner I was referring to.
As you can see the Eidolon is small and built as a "flank buddy"
The summoner himself can not take the precise strike feat (as he does not qualify!)
Instead our fighter took the feat and they work well together!
I use "martial type".
Group size matters -- if you have 3 melee characters a wizard a shield for the wizard (cleric in one recent case actually) and some archers then it makes a lot more sense to grab teamwork feats -- there's more chance they'll be activated.
If you have a group of four and you have a wizard, cleric, ranged guy and melee guy then the chances of teamwork feats showing up isn't as high as they are probably going to use more 'traditional' (for role playing games) tactics for combat.
I'm fortunate (and unfortunate) enough to have a large group of players -- teamwork and team focused characters aren't too uncommon.
However there's an unspoken agreement we won't have a table of inquisitor/bard/cavaliers/paladins and a summoner type with gang up, outflank and shake it off with heavy buffing going on too simply because at that point it becomes too effective for our combat styles.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teamwork is munchkin.What does munchkin mean to you, because as i know it, you just said teamwork is either cheating or for 12 year olds?You've been accosted by Too Easy Troll! Better luck crossing the bridge next time!
Given that I have fits trying to get my players to work together, I've yet to see anyone create characters who would be aimed that way. It sounds cool.
I do have to ask though, how is someone getting a 15-20/x4 crit? I guess I don't see how that works out.
Butterfly's Sting: Requires Combat Expertise -
Whenever you would score a critical hit, you can can forgo the effect to grant the next ally to hit the creature with a melee attack an automatic critical hit.
If you pick up a high-crit-range weapon, you can sacrifice your crits for someone with a HUGE crit range. Outflank (teamwork feat) states that, whenever you would score a critical hit, an ally you flank with gets to make an attack of opportunity against the target. Now, being a dual wielder, you'll probably be scoring quite a few crits. Now, the first crit on your turn you sacrifice to your buddy (to give him an auto-crit), and if you crit again, he gets to make a free AoO, which is an automatic crit, which in turn grants YOU an AoO, which, if it crits, goes towards your ally getting a crit. Repeat ad-winitum.
Butterfly's Sting: Requires Combat Expertise -
Whenever you would score a critical hit, you can can forgo the effect to grant the next ally to hit the creature with a melee attack an automatic critical hit.
If you pick up a high-crit-range weapon, you can sacrifice your crits for someone with a HUGE crit range. Outflank (teamwork feat) states that, whenever you would score a critical hit, an ally you flank with gets to make an attack of opportunity against the target. Now, being a dual wielder, you'll probably be scoring quite a few crits. Now, the first crit on your turn you sacrifice to your buddy (to give him an auto-crit), and if you crit again, he gets to make a free AoO, which is an automatic crit, which in turn grants YOU an AoO, which, if it crits, goes towards your ally getting a crit. Repeat ad-winitum.
That certainly could be a potent combination. Contingent on a fair amount of luck and maneuver, though.
I also think it would be entirely fair, if the frequency of these crits became really high, for a GM to limit the follow-on effects of these feats to rolled crits rather than auto-crits generated by follow-on effects of feats.
That said, I like to encourage teamwork since it improves the party's combat capability and their roleplay. Plus, there's at least a chance that when one of them dies, the rest of the party will say, "Shouldn't we try to find his next of kin?" before they start looting the corpse. (Jackals!)
For our Iron Kingdoms campaign our GM let us start as the last survivors of a company of militia-skirmishers, that got booted out when the war ended. They get +1 to attack when together.
We´re "Smoke Fish"* and we kick arse. Butt-kicking for goodness and a hot goth-chick to save.In our KM campaign it took three PC deaths and Level 5 to establish weapons/spell-check and a semblance of tactics. Annoying.
Personally, i rather like tac-teams, mostly from a role-playing perspective, but maybe i´m not accustomed to actually having a official, viable and INTENDED choice in the RAW.
I can totally see a very cool team of a cavalier and his slightly disreputable man-at-arms. But still, somehow sitting down optimizing two characters and their respective feat-trees, equipment, before having some concept feels... like you should have a concept;).
PS: Scimitar and Short-sword, put the enemy up for a lance-thrust? My dice-hand IS itching.
*Inspired by Abe Simpsons Unit and the presumed diet of a militia scout-team. When you smell the them, its to late.
Teamwork is munchkin.What does munchkin mean to you, because as i know it, you just said teamwork is either cheating or for 12 year olds?You've been accosted by Too Easy Troll! Better luck crossing the bridge next time!
Given that I have fits trying to get my players to work together, I've yet to see anyone create characters who would be aimed that way. It sounds cool.
I do have to ask though, how is someone getting a 15-20/x4 crit? I guess I don't see how that works out.
there have been 2 threads about this in the past week.
Character A crit threats with his keen rapier, then chooses not to confirm with his feat from "Faiths of Purity" called butterfly stingCharacter B then hits with his scythe, and because of butterfly sting, that attack is treated as a confirmed crit.
|
I blame PFS. That encourages thinking of just your character. It bleeds over to the rest of the game too.
Also, people generally have a great idea for their character. Working with another character from the beginning, selecting feats that complement each other, requires planned cooperation between two players, which could possibly kill individuality with regards to your character.
Also, I shamelessly plug this which I wrote specifically to try to address this issue. There's a sequel in the works too.
By the way, take K(Engineering) and Craft(Weapons) and make the fearsome Scythelance.
ok cheapy i have to ask... how did you make an archetype for an archetype ( shogun(samurai).
You know Davor... I absolutely love that idea. I'm going to have to give you props man.
If i may expand on that idea a bit. Given that Butterfly's Sting says the next ally to attack it "confirms" the critical hit, might I suggest your Cavalier also take Seize the Moment?
"Seize the Moment (Combat, Teamwork)
You and your allies are poised to pounce whenever one of you scores a telling blow.
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, Improved Critical.
Benefit: When an ally who also has this feat confirms a critical hit against an opponent that you also threaten, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent."
Needless to say, if that AoO is a crit, your rogue can Butterfly's Sting again. Indeed, on the topic of AoOs, your rogue should probably definitely pick up Opportunist as an advanced rogue talent.
To my understanding, these attacks of opportunity occur right after the attacks that trigger them, yes? So conceivably if you're lucky enough, your can Butterfly's Sting off your rogues AoOs during your Cavalier's Full Attack, making each strike a confirmed crit... And with Combat Reflexes....
Of course this is all dependent on dice rolls, and on the capability of even striking the creature (and weather or not it is susceptible to crits)... But it can possibly get very ridiculous very fast.... Of course this gets even sillier when you consider the fact the Cavalier's Greater Tactician ability will give every melee fighter Seize the Moment at 9th level...
At later levels just add Vorpal to your scythe...
As for the topic of teamwork, I happen to game with my girlfriend, and since we live together, we sometimes design tandem characters. It all depends on weather or not we happen to have concepts at the time, or come up with a concept together... Unfortunately in my group, almost everybody else there is of the whole "I am a snowflake and I must shine!" mentality.
ok cheapy i have to ask... how did you make an archetype for an archetype ( shogun(samurai).I blame PFS. That encourages thinking of just your character. It bleeds over to the rest of the game too.
Also, people generally have a great idea for their character. Working with another character from the beginning, selecting feats that complement each other, requires planned cooperation between two players, which could possibly kill individuality with regards to your character.
Also, I shamelessly plug this which I wrote specifically to try to address this issue. There's a sequel in the works too.
By the way, take K(Engineering) and Craft(Weapons) and make the fearsome Scythelance.
Same way Paizo did it for the anti-paladin alternative class.