the way the game works there will be glory hunters (both in and out of character) who seem to get the most kills, will the support, buffer, controller act as enablers
I always tend to play a support role so very rarely get the kills
dont worry, next time play a killing machine, or not, if thats not you
We have a lot of buffing and helping one another going on. But next to never real teamwork.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, most of the time when I see a thread with a title like this one, it's about a player feeling like their party is forcing them into a role they don't want, rather than being surprised at someone actually taking a role at all. Definitely caught me off-guard.
|
|
One of the wonderful things about this game is that no role is truly required. I've played in groups where everyone was focused on killing bad guys, and others where there were buffers or healers.
They all work well, but the most memorable was my friend's Half-Elf Marshal/Outcast Champion who managed to provide 4 ongoing buffs to the entire party every combat, including +5 to initiative. He upped the power levels for the party through the roof.
|
This reminds me of a game I played in in the late 90s.
A I was playing in one home game, and my friend, who was playing a mage who cast very few spells.....he was always worried about running out of spells and being caught un prepared. Didn't trust the party but that is another story, invited me into another game.
We were playing around 10-12 level. I asked if i could bring in a 10 level elven Blade Singer that i had ( Fighter/ Mage). The GM said ok and i handed over my character so he could look at the equitment list.
This character had resently retired from a "monty" haul campaign, so he had lots of goodies.
The DM was fine with my character's sun blade and other stuff.
Well, we were entering a combat, and trying to be helpful, I asked the fighter to pause for a second, and my character cast Stone Skin on him.
There was a moment of silence and utter surprise on the players face. He said" you can cast stone skin on other people?". He looked at my friend, ( who was playing a mage in this game too), and he said, " I'm tired of having this evil wizard in our party who never helps us. F.....U....Your fired." and to me he said " I like this guy lets keep him".
my friend then tried to explain to me the necessity of conserving your spells for just the right moment..... and I had my character cast a haste spell......
After the fight my new found friend with the fighter said" wow we never finish our fights so quickly, Its amazing what happens when a competent wizard is helping the party".
good times. good times.
one thing the ops group should find is as the game gets harder if they don't adopt some teamwork they'll have lots of problems if the dm doesn't coddle them.
though I've never seen teamwork so bad as to have no experience with party buffing.
Yeah, that is one thing that struck me as odd after returning to 3.x systems after playing 4e for a while. I was used to parties where everyone had a role of some sort or were aware we lacked a role. The individualism of the 3.x systems surprised me.
For example, in one party we had an caster oracle, which I assumed would act as party face with that 18+ cha or at least cover emergency healing from time to time. So we get up to negotitate and everyone turns to my 5 cha bloodthirsty dwarf druid, like he was going to be helpful and pet everyone until they gave in to our demands. I just about fell out of my chair when I realized that the oracle's player never considered that a party would need someone to act as a face. As a result, we got in an unnecessary fight. In this unnecessary fight I was holding off the monsters, as the only melee party member, and asked for a heal so I wouldn't drop from the focused fire.....to silence as everyone looked to me. Apparently I was also the party healer, in additon to face, damage dealer, and tank. No one else even had a wand, despite 2 of the 3 other party member being able to use them. They didn't even have stabalize, so I just sat there and bled out.
With that said, a lot of people do take on roles other than killer in pathfinder. I play with one guy who rarely does anything offensive,to the extent that if the fight is going well, he just readies to heal and does nothing at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm currently planning a "problem solver" cleric for PFS. The idea with him is that whatever disadvantage an enemy tries to throw at the party, he has an answer.
Nasty sonic-dependent monster/caster? I have silence prepared.
Mind control? I have a wand of protection from evil.
Critter spamming deeper darkness? Starting at 8th level, my Sun Domain ability completely hoses it.
Poisons? I have restoration (and lesser) available.
Need a buff? Aura of heroism.
Died? I can actually get to you and use a scroll of breath of life in one turn.
What kind of role would you call that? ;)
I'm currently planning a "problem solver" cleric for PFS. The idea with him is that whatever disadvantage an enemy tries to throw at the party, he has an answer.
Nasty sonic-dependent monster/caster? I have silence prepared.
Mind control? I have a wand of protection from evil.
Critter spamming deeper darkness? Starting at 8th level, my Sun Domain ability completely hoses it.
Poisons? I have restoration (and lesser) available.
Need a buff? Aura of heroism.
Died? I can actually get to you and use a scroll of breath of life in one turn.What kind of role would you call that? ;)
MVP
Many players view playing the game as a way to exercise their cinematic fantasies. Not all of them, but many of them.
It has been my experience that players who enjoy the role described by the OP are unusual, if not rare. I have been lucky to have been able to play in groups with players like that.
However, there is a difference in desire and ability. Wanting to be a party buffer/debuffer/controller/healer and actually pulling it off are two very different things. It sounds like the OP has a good handle on how to do it, but not every player does. When a player wants to play that role but doesn't really know how to do it, the party usually would have been better off with just another glory hound.
There is a larger issue in this that is best described as "tactical planning." Even in the OP's case where the OP adopted the role of support, it doesn't sound like there was much planning involved. It has been my experience that very few groups actually plan their encounter behavior. It's something I've never really understood. If groups spent more time planning tactics I think more of them would discover the power of buffing/debuffing/controlling type spellcasting. Trying to discover that on the fly is commendable, but planning ahead would make it even more powerful.
I'm currently planning a "problem solver" cleric for PFS. The idea with him is that whatever disadvantage an enemy tries to throw at the party, he has an answer.
Nasty sonic-dependent monster/caster? I have silence prepared.
Mind control? I have a wand of protection from evil.
Critter spamming deeper darkness? Starting at 8th level, my Sun Domain ability completely hoses it.
Poisons? I have restoration (and lesser) available.
Need a buff? Aura of heroism.
Died? I can actually get to you and use a scroll of breath of life in one turn.What kind of role would you call that? ;)
Isn't that what clerics usually do, or at least are prepared to do, when the need arises?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Isn't that what clerics usually do, or at least are prepared to do, when the need arises?I'm currently planning a "problem solver" cleric for PFS. The idea with him is that whatever disadvantage an enemy tries to throw at the party, he has an answer.
Nasty sonic-dependent monster/caster? I have silence prepared.
Mind control? I have a wand of protection from evil.
Critter spamming deeper darkness? Starting at 8th level, my Sun Domain ability completely hoses it.
Poisons? I have restoration (and lesser) available.
Need a buff? Aura of heroism.
Died? I can actually get to you and use a scroll of breath of life in one turn.What kind of role would you call that? ;)
To some degree - their spell list is suited for that kind of thing, so any cleric will have some degree of that capability by default, but I'm making it my schtick. Sort of like every cleric is capable of some degree of healing, but only some are true "healers".
My problem-solving will also include offensive stuff that I forgot to mention, like keeping spiritual weapon prepped in case of incorporeals, using hold person, etc.
You might call it a form of battlefield control, I suppose. If the party says "Oh crap, that's gonna wreck us!" it's my (intended) job to say "Not if I can help it!"
This has given me impetus to discuss tactics with my party.
I'd always had some sort of party synergy until this last one. The Barbarian immediately rushes his full 80'(Freaky fast move barbarian) to charge things and gets stuck in then everyone else sort of has to eke in how they can.
I wear full plate, so 4 turns later I get there after shooting my bow every round at the outliers or possibly casting a buff on the 4th turn. By then things are winding down and the barbarian needs me to burn my Wand of Cure light wounds.
If we are outside it's not as bad as I am mounted, but indoors? forget it.
Our mage is pretty good with buffs and rarely casts direct offense which is nice. He's MY vote for MVP after most fights. His glitterdust mixed with a plant growth from an NPC cleric helped us to survive a group of three trolls at 3rd level. They only came at us one at a time so we were able to focus fire them to death.
Our halfling rogue has been building up his ability to poison stuff so that's been handy but he also only moves 20' so it takes him a while to get to flanking position as well.
One thing to remember is that in these days, the majority of Pencil and Paper RPG players are also MMO Jockeys.
This is neither bad nor good, but it is different than it used to be.
The majority of MMO players are used to having a single role. Most doing damage, some tanking, some healing. They're usually so ingrained into doing their one specific job that they don't realize (and sadly, often have little appreciation for) people doing the other jobs, such as buffing or mitigating damage.
MMOs bring "false teamwork" to the table. You have 5 or 10 people "working as a team", but rarely is anyone outside of 3 or 4 designated "healers/tanks" working as a team. The only "teamwork" involved is them calling "HEALZ" and maybe killing an add going after the healer.
It's just a different mindset. Back in the 2nd edition days (before MMOs), if you were the new player to the group, you didn't usually say "I'm making a <...>", you first question you asked was "what does the group need?"
The game has adapted and changed to facilitate this, with varying degrees of success. Pathfinder and it's parent, 3.5, do a pretty decent job of still having teamwork while allowing healers/buffers to still "get in the mix". 4th Edition D&D took it to far into the "plays like an MMO" genre. In 2nd edition, if you were a healer you were pretty much just doing heals and buffs (one of the reasons why it was generally the last role picked... it was honestly kind of dull).
It is just the way the game has adapted and changed to meet the demands of the players. And most MMOs these days don't have classes specifically devoted to making everyone else better. I'd say the last game to really have that in a major capacity was FFXI, and in that game, bards, corsairs, and red mages were the first people picked for groups, because people appreciated immensely the people who were willing to sacrifice the "fun" of beating up monsters and generating huge numbers for the enjoyment of making those people better.
Robb, as a person who spent two years raiding in WoW and about six months raiding in Everquest, I would say that MMOs may not require tactical planning and teamwork to level up, but if you expect to succeed in a raiding guild, you're going to be doing a lot of tactical planning. Our raid leaders would set up practice runs, we would watch videos of the fight and would learn how to utilize every freaking skill we had to be successful.
It may be true that the majority of MMO players aren't really very tactical, but the hardcore raiding fraternity plan, practice and execute tactics that are complex, stressful and require exquisite timing. Frankly I've rarely seen a tabletop RPG require anything like the tactical abilities of a top-ranked raiding team.
I play Bards, Paladins, Zen Archers, Summoners, Druids, Clerics, and Wizards. Being a team player is hard for some people and for others it's second nature. -shrug- You don't need a lot of people that care for teamwork for a party to work well. Just a couple will do just fine.
one thing the ops group should find is as the game gets harder if they don't adopt some teamwork they'll have lots of problems if the dm doesn't coddle them.
though I've never seen teamwork so bad as to have no experience with party buffing.
Well, if that encounter is indicative of the campaign, it sounds like it might just be about how many foes in a horde your character can stomp. It sounds like the GM adapted well to what the players want (from combat at least), which is a kill count.
One thing i found is that alot of people (at least those ive played with) appear to think that teamwork is getign everyone to do what you want at any given time.
In the case of my rise of the runelords group of the 5 PC's 3 had initiatives of +7 or higher and the bard with +0 to init instead of taking improved initiative insisted everone always delay to his turn for buffs.
given my rogue had the whole 'i go first' chain of rogue talents It was a bit frustrating.
None of the groups I currently play with do any advance tactical planning. We do attempt to coordinate some tactical activities during battle, but the lack of up front tactical planning greatly reduces our chances to truly optimize our combat.
Which is a major disappointment for me I have to admit. Not enough of a disappointment to make the games not fun, there's still plenty to enjoy about the game, but when we have a hard time with an encounter and I know that we've got more than enough tactical ability to have crushed the opposition, it does bug me.
The problem I have is that one of the first major campaigns I ever played in was with a party that was obsessed with strategy and tactics. We players would get together outside of the gaming sessions and plan secretly so that the GM had no idea what we were going to do. We would coordinate spells and abilities such that certain synergies would lead to awe-inspiring results, and we frequently simply shut down major boss fights through sheer tactical mastery. Our tactics involved mundane and magical techniques, sometimes woven together. We identified, purchased and utilized potions, wands, scrolls and magic items liberally.
One thing I can absolutely guarantee you is that in those days no character would ever blindly charge ahead into a darkened room unbuffed, unsupported and the room unchecked for traps. But these days I see that all the time, and the player will say "hey, he's a raging barbarian, that's how I role play him."
Fine. I call it "suicidal maniac" and if I were the GM he wouldn't last one day.
One thing i found is that alot of people (at least those ive played with) appear to think that teamwork is getign everyone to do what you want at any given time.
In the case of my rise of the runelords group of the 5 PC's 3 had initiatives of +7 or higher and the bard with +0 to init instead of taking improved initiative insisted everone always delay to his turn for buffs.
given my rogue had the whole 'i go first' chain of rogue talents It was a bit frustrating.
This is at least as much a player teamwork issue as it is a player character teamwork issue.
How is it that you built a character that is based on going as early as possible, yet you expect another player to always go before you? Did you and the bard player discuss concept synergies before each of you created your characters?
If not then you should not expect the bard to make any accommodations for your character.
How many accommodations did your character make for the bard?
Hi all, has anyone noticed that some players have preconceived i dears about what role a character will play in a party.
In a recent game I was playing a cleric3/sorcerer4 (yep want to be a MT) I'm quite new to this group only really knowing one other player and he introduced me to them
In a large combat we had (about 30 plus low lvl undead)the party did well but I noted a lack of real team work.
At the end all the players where braging about how many they had killed, when one asked me how many had I finished off so I answered 2.
There was stunned silence followed by" what with all those magic missiles and scorching rays you have you only managed 2
What where you doing all that time" ?
So I told them" well first round I cast bless then next round I buffed the barbarian with bulls strength third round I healed the mage who was taking a battering
Then I cast spitural weapon which I set on the skeleton champions after that I did a channel positive energy to heal you all
And on the last two rounds I healed the barbarian and then held my action in case anything else turned up"
More blank stares then one said" we've never had some one not want to get into the fight before",to which I answered" I did get into the fight by allowing all of you to do your jobs better and for longer" .
My friend later told me on the drive home that teamwork beyond let's flank an enemy was total new to them
I found the whole experience quite odd has anyone else had an experience like this
Our group plays like that. Clerics cast healing spells, but that's about the extent of player interaction.
.I'm pretty sure we'd notice if someone did it differently though.
One thing i found is that alot of people (at least those ive played with) appear to think that teamwork is getign everyone to do what you want at any given time.
In the case of my rise of the runelords group of the 5 PC's 3 had initiatives of +7 or higher and the bard with +0 to init instead of taking improved initiative insisted everone always delay to his turn for buffs.
given my rogue had the whole 'i go first' chain of rogue talents It was a bit frustrating.
This is at least as much a player teamwork issue as it is a player character teamwork issue.
How is it that you built a character that is based on going as early as possible, yet you expect another player to always go before you? Did you and the bard player discuss concept synergies before each of you created your characters?
If not then you should not expect the bard to make any accommodations for your character.
How many accommodations did your character make for the bard?
Well, it wasn't just my character. 2/3 of the party went faster than him. My accomodation was to purchase boots of haste because if I didn't go first I mostly couldn't injure the bad guys. If he had made some effort to be able to go faster I would have accommodated him more. But he almost always went after the monsters.
One of the wonderful things about this game is that no role is truly required. I've played in groups where everyone was focused on killing bad guys, and others where there were buffers or healers.
They all work well, but the most memorable was my friend's Half-Elf Marshal/Outcast Champion who managed to provide 4 ongoing buffs to the entire party every combat, including +5 to initiative. He upped the power levels for the party through the roof.
I'm new... so forgive me when I ask Thorkull, how was this accomplished? I want to be a support cleric... any advice for how to best pump up the party?
In the case of my rise of the runelords group of the 5 PC's 3 had initiatives of +7 or higher and the bard with +0 to init instead of taking improved initiative insisted everone always delay to his turn for buffs.
given my rogue had the whole 'i go first' chain of rogue talents It was a bit frustrating.
This is at least as much a player teamwork issue as it is a player character teamwork issue.
How is it that you built a character that is based on going as early as possible, yet you expect another player to always go before you? Did you and the bard player discuss concept synergies before each of you created your characters?
If not then you should not expect the bard to make any accommodations for your character.
How many accommodations did your character make for the bard?
I think you should look at the bolded bit, AD. Mojorat isn't insisting the bard go earlier, he's pointing out that the bard wants everyone to wait so that he can buff them rather than (a) buff them before hand or (b) let them go on their turns un-buffed and buff them on the fly. If the bard-player wants to get the buffs in before everyone else goes, he needs to plan ahead or improve his initiative. If everyone else wants the buffs before they go, they need to delay.
In my first ever PFS game (I'd played it in home games untill then) I came to the game with a Cleric. A couple of people said "Yay! A healer!" I then had to point out that I was a negative energy channeler (Undead Lord of Urgathoa). This was followed by a stunned silence followed by a chorus of "What's the point of that?" type questions.
Throughout the next few sessions I used him for damaging/debuffing, mostly through his Channel Energy ability, which the group had started to refer to as his "Fart of Darkness", using the Selective Channel and Shatter Resolve feats. Healing via his Death's Kiss ability. My Corpse Companion (A Dire Rat Bloody Skeleton) became the "Nodwick" of the party, soaking up AoO, setting off traps, flanking, and providing a "buff" using the Aid Other action (this spawned about 3 seperate debates as to whether a creature with no intelligence could perform that action, nobody could find a rule against it so it stood).
I think you should look at the bolded bit, AD. Mojorat isn't insisting the bard go earlier, he's pointing out that the bard wants everyone to wait so that he can buff them rather than (a) buff them before hand or (b) let them go on their turns un-buffed and buff them on the fly. If the bard-player wants to get the buffs in before everyone else goes, he needs to plan ahead or improve his initiative. If everyone else wants the buffs before they go, they need to delay.In the case of my rise of the runelords group of the 5 PC's 3 had initiatives of +7 or higher and the bard with +0 to init instead of taking improved initiative insisted everone always delay to his turn for buffs.
given my rogue had the whole 'i go first' chain of rogue talents It was a bit frustrating.
This is at least as much a player teamwork issue as it is a player character teamwork issue.
How is it that you built a character that is based on going as early as possible, yet you expect another player to always go before you? Did you and the bard player discuss concept synergies before each of you created your characters?
If not then you should not expect the bard to make any accommodations for your character.
How many accommodations did your character make for the bard?
I looked. There are multiple interpretations of the bard player's intentions, and multiple interpretations of the quote above. One is simply to read this as the bard player saying "Oh, you wanted to be buffed? Sure, I can do that, but you'll have to delay until my turn in the initiative."
I got my answer from Mojo. He made no allowances for the bard's character. He didn't answer the part about whether they coordinated their builds at all, so I will assume they didn't.
Based on what I see, the bard saying "If you want buffs, delay your turn until I go" is not only reasonable, it's the only option the bard has, assuming he is willing to buff the character. He can't magically make his initiative higher just to accomodate Mojo.
This is a really good example of the point I was trying to make. There is player teamwork and PC teamwork. In this case it appears there was very little effort for the players to coordinate their characters' abilities, which is the "player teamwork" part. So now they are more or less stuck with the abilities they chose without considering the abilities of the other player characters. Since Mojo created his character without consulting the bard player and coordinating initiative considerations, he has no business now saying "you should have..." for any decision the bard player made. If I were the bard I'd simply say "you shouldn't have chosen a concept that expects help you can't depend on."
I see your point, but from what I can see if the bard player is insisting everyone delay, then it's beyond "If you want to be buffed delay until I go" to either "No! Everyone delay so I can buff you!" or "No, I won't waste my buffs before we get into combat just in case it doesn't happen, if a fight starts you will have to wait until I go to be buffed."
You are right, there's a lot of different spins on this, and you are correct that a bit of work coordinating builds could go a long way to resolving this issue. If you are not going to take other character's abilities into account, you can't then rely on abilities they may or may not have (or may or may not be willing to devote to you) when crunch time comes.
I guess I should rephrase. My rogue really only had the first round to damage the bad guys. Slow movement and no one to flank with left me either doing d3 damage or said every two rounds. I had a bunch of the rogue tricks that let me do stuff in the surprise round.
Basically I had a choice use my rogue talents or delay to get buffed. The other characters with huge initiative don't need the surprise round or to go first. But again I mainly saw it as an inability to compromise that everyone went faster than him.
He did make an effort to buff, but as I said it made half my rogue talents useless to delay.
I guess I should rephrase. My rogue really only had the first round to damage the bad guys. Slow movement and no one to flank with left me either doing d3 damage or said every two rounds. I had a bunch of the rogue tricks that let me do stuff in the surprise round.
Basically I had a choice use my rogue talents or delay to get buffed. The other characters with huge initiative don't need the surprise round or to go first. But again I mainly saw it as an inability to compromise that everyone went faster than him.
He did make an effort to buff, but as I said it made half my rogue talents useless to delay.
So, Mojo, are you saying that the bard player built his character without improved initiative trait even when your entire group was telling him to take improved initiative?
Or are you saying that the bard player one or more times chose another feat instead of improved initiative while leveling up in spite of the rest of the group telling him "take improved initiative this time!"?
Or are you saying that he built his character without improved initiative before the rest of the group knew it, and you and the rest of the group just constantly give him crap about it?
You might be surprised to discover that in all of the cases above, I fault the other players as much as I fault the bard. Why do you get to tell him what feats to take? What feats did you take at the bard player's request?
I guess I should rephrase. My rogue really only had the first round to damage the bad guys. Slow movement and no one to flank with left me either doing d3 damage or said every two rounds. I had a bunch of the rogue tricks that let me do stuff in the surprise round.
Basically I had a choice use my rogue talents or delay to get buffed. The other characters with huge initiative don't need the surprise round or to go first. But again I mainly saw it as an inability to compromise that everyone went faster than him.
He did make an effort to buff, but as I said it made half my rogue talents useless to delay.
In that case it sounds to me as if you made a character to basically solo the surprise round, and that is exactly what is happening. This isn't anybody's fault, but your character is built around having the best initiative, so waiting for everyone else (or indeed anyone else) is never going to work for your character.
In the surprise round, you are on your own but can do some funky stuff. Get some boots of striding and springing or boots of speed, and go forth to get in, hurt the enemy, and get out again before they turn on you.
It wasn't an issue at first, it started around lvl 8 I fixed it with sap adept and a +1 returning bouncy ball. In hind sight I made a number of poor choices with the char that seemed good at the time. Really my original point was when 2/3 of your group has +8 initiative its not terrible boy reasonable to always expect them to slow down.
It wasn't an issue at first, it started around lvl 8 I fixed it with sap adept and a +1 returning bouncy ball. In hind sight I made a number of poor choices with the char that seemed good at the time. Really my original point was when 2/3 of your group has +8 initiative its not terrible boy reasonable to always expect them to slow down.
I understand your point. I just don't entirely agree with your approach.
In my experience players either coordinate their characters' builds or they don't. Neither is "right" or "wrong". You could argue, in fact, that coordinating character builds is blatant metagaming. In a pure non-metagaming approach a player should pick feats and abilities that make sense purely from their desire to build a particular concept based on a backstory, personality and goals. If the bard player is building a character concept that doesn't care about going first in combat, then that's just what the bard is.
Again, this is why I talk about player teamwork and character teamwork. Player teamwork is all about coordinating character abilities. Character teamwork is developing tactics based on the character's abilities as they exist, whether the players coordinated or not.
If I were in your party I would simply accept that the bard player isn't interested in playing a high initiative bard and play my character accordingly. I would try not to let that affect my own character building choices, although I admit that I have been known to adjust my own characters based on party needs in the past.
But again, that is actually metagaming. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Our group is decent on teamwork. We don't let anyone bleed out and there is the occasional buff spell, but we're not very good at focusing fire. Only one player who focuses exclusively on damage.
I rarely get to play the character with the most kills as I prefer to play more diverse characters, but trust me I understand the appeal completely. Its exciting.
@adamantine dragon that's what I did for that game, I purchase bots of haste then didn't worry about it. When we went to our next game I looked at teamwork stuff that didn't need prep like butterfly sting. You just crit then say hey bob crit this guy. If bob likely cannot make it then you just crit. No prep it just happens naturally.
I was looking at the wish rafter archetype and thinking it would be a good way to train PC's to ask for buffs.
|
My group is usually pretty good at juggling the characters people want to play with the roles the party needs filled. It helps that we're usually more attached to our roleplaying concepts than exact builds, so there's some flexibility to pick up a spare ability as the party requires.
Notable exception: a campaign where the cleric's player had to leave the campaign unexpectedly. The inquisitor, who was designed as a tank with the In Harm's Way feat in mind, was promoted from backup healer to full healer. It's hard to tank aggressively when no one can patch you up if you fall unconscious. Luckily he hadn't taken In Harm's Way yet, and the Bodyguard prerequisite proved useful in minimizing the damage he was then required to heal.
Complicated teamwork is a little more rare, but we do usually discuss tactics before a big fight and sometimes manage excellent cooperation on the fly. For example, I was privileged to be party to a highly effective combination: Create Pit + Entangle + Grease. Creatures that successfully escaped the pit were hampered by the Entangle and the Grease, causing them to fall right back in.
However, there is a difference in desire and ability. Wanting to be a party buffer/debuffer/controller/healer and actually pulling it off are two very different things. It sounds like the OP has a good handle on how to do it, but not every player does. When a player wants to play that role but doesn't really know how to do it, the party usually would have been better off with just another glory hound.
I've definitely had this problem. Usually I've got a good handle on defensive buffs and when to cast them, but my debuffing is hit or miss and despite a preference for playing casters I don't think I've managed a decent maneuver as a controller more than once per campaign (one example being the pit above). There is something very satisfying about playing a support role when it works, but when it doesn't you feel pretty worthless.
In my experience players either coordinate their characters' builds or they don't. Neither is "right" or "wrong". You could argue, in fact, that coordinating character builds is blatant metagaming. In a pure non-metagaming approach a player should pick feats and abilities that make sense purely from their desire to build a particular concept based on a backstory, personality and goals.
I'm of two minds on this. When everyone's first level, it doesn't matter much, as there's not a lot of coordinating to be done. If you're building 8th level characters who have backstories that they've worked together, then some coordination is probably in order.
Of course nobody has the 'right' to tell you what to take for a feat/spell/ability/class, but not every player is good at juggling the numbers. When we picked our campaign back up after a hiatus, the GM changed a bunch of rules and allowed us to 'respec', within reasonable limits. Our shortbow Rogue/Druid didn't switch to Ranger* like I thought he should, but he did take a lot of feats I suggested and his damage (and accuracy!) improved dramatically.
It's obviously a lot more better when you can help someone become good at what they wanted to do in the first place, rather than what the other players want that person to be doing.
*when the campaign was still in 3.5, we were using the Ranger-as-prestige-class option from Unearthed Arcana. His character started as a Wilderness Rogue. Regular Rangers opened up when we switched to Pathfinder. He wanted to keep his many, many, skill points, however.
