Generic question DrDeth or you are referring a specific build?
If it is a generic question a illusionist can have plenty of spells hat will be useful for a group, if they don't charge screaming anything they see.
Yep, Nives Burer.
spells:3rd-level (4/day) – major image 2nd-level (7/day) – blindness/deafness, detect thoughts, false life, invisibilityB 1st-level (8/day) – charm person, feather fall, identifyB, mage armor, magic aura, magic missile, shield.
Now sure, Magic Missle is offensive, but most of those do nothing but make Nives harder to hit.
In other words- why would any party "carry" Nives? Basicaly our OP has done up a PC which he is forcing the rest of the PC's to play with, one that he will have fun playing- at their expense.
To DrDeth
That's an excellent point, for the most part, its seems like the direction of the thread has largely covered Hama over Nives.
Right, but why? Nives is the current PC. Hama is the several times previous PC. In this discussion, she's a red herring.
Also, how do you design your sheets?Microsoft Word.
I'm also a graphic designer who's had a number of layout editor jobs, so I know a thing or two about making things look nice.
If someone would cut me in on some of the profits, I could probably design a killer third party E-book for sale here on Paizo. (Though I'd limit my involvement to layout and design, rather than rules elements.)
Great! Is the artwork in the pages yours?
I would say that the current character is rather underpowered and not particularly useful party addition. I don't even care about damage potential much, it just doesn't have much going for it to help with party offense or defense. Some neat tricks for sure, but I get the feeling that more effort was spent on powers matching back story than actually being useful or effective.
IDK, I'm probably just wary of special snowflakes or full blown M. Sue's, but it just seems too much of a fluff bunny to useful against an adversarial GM. I don't leave recommended CR for APL at all, and I've killed better PCs than that without being adversarial, a killer old school GM should make mincemeat out of it.
I think what really is going on is the party is so good that they are able to weaken the overpowered(APL+4 or more)enemies enough that even a weak minimal contribution caster can finish them off or at least manage to escape.
Great! Is the artwork in the pages yours?
No. I generally get it from DeviantArt. Whenever possible I get permission from the artist, or at least credit them if they are unavailable.
If the artist is unknown, I link back to the site from which it came from (in some of the documents you can click the pic to get to the site).
Its all about how far you take it. If you max your defense until that is really all you are it is a problem for the group. Fun example, i once played in a group with a monk that literally could not hit most enemies except on a nat 20, for a 1d6-1 or 2 at level 8. His AC was nearly 40, his saves ridiculous but did NOTHING to help the party win a fight. At BEST a monster would go for him first once in a while and waste a round missing.Building for survival isn't a horrible idea and anyone who builds to get their character killed, ought to go and play what they really want to play, since they obviously don't want to play that character.
Personally, I think you should just find a better group.
There are plenty of ways of forcing an enemy to only engage you. You just have to use the terrain and turn order to your advantage, having a few feats that allow you to move your allies around the field also helps. That said, it's clear that Ravingdork could actually help his party, unlike that monk.
Nives' ability to confound his foes with illusions, or blinding them with his necromancy, can go a long ways towards turning the tide of a battle for his allies.
Magic missile is mostly just a pea shooter for the occasional incorporeal creature, to ensure he has SOME reliable damage capability, and to mollify the party (since they mock any arcane caster without it).
However, I do not think that staying in the back of the group since you are a squishy is a bad thing.
However, I do not think that staying in the back of the group since you are a squishy is a bad thing.
No, but not doing anything to help the party from back there IS a bad thing. The Tanks take the hits so that the Controler can lay down hurt upon the Bad Guys, not just posture and pose.
|
I have seen this happen a lot in a similar situation where I was the GM. The 'coward player' was playing a blasty sorceror who would play not to defeat the enemies, but to minimise risk to himself.
He was also roleplaying a selfish, evil character, so this considerably added more motivation for him to be 100ft back, well out of the threat's range. This often got me thinking about the things he did that generally pissed people off.
Here's a quick list of five things that an arcane caster needs to be aware of in order you do not build a status as a coward.
1. Ensure your character can see the fight. If you are so far from the fight that the clouds of the sky, the foliage of the forest or the fog of the underworld would mean you're not even in sight of the enemy, then you're effectively not 'in there' and not in distance to move to your friends and feed them a potion if needs be.
2. Never, ever, EVER, make mention of how much damage you took. Do not call it to attention. It's like comparing apples and oranges in play style and it'll cause the fighters to resent you and it'll cause the GM to make a Chuul appear and grapple you. Not good.
3. Buff intelligently. I get it that you're squishy. I get it. But if your friends are being cut to ribbons while you're casting your third defensive spell, your party tactics are out of order. Discuss as a party your tactics and make sure people know how much buffing will occur.
4. A true hero has nothing but contempt for the 15 minute work day. If you are constantly whining to the party to rest to restore spells because you 'can't' fight without having all your best spells ready, that's being a coward. Be brave with resources.
5. Never, ever use the word 'meat shield.' Your party members are your friends. They're not hired muscle. They're not your sidekicks. They're your equals, whether they can cast spells or not. Respect them. They put their bodies on the line to protect you. Reciprocate once in a while.
SO guilty of 2 and 5.
SO guilty of 2 and 5.
And it looks like 3, also.
|
I have to say, reading the original post and later RD talking about how he tried to talk but no one seemed to take things to seriously...I don't actually see a problem.
Call me crazy, but that kind of group playstyle isn't uncommon in my group. My own brother plays a Bard, we have songs, buffs and saving spells, but his character is also very selfish - Heroism on himself, Mirror Image, Vanish when a big bad guy shows up - then reappears near the end when the GM tells us it's looking badly hurt and he gets the Kill! He refers to himself as the one man army.
The result is our group ridicule him, when the GM hits him we cheer and laugh, when he gets the killing blow on a monster we all roll our eyes and groan, we also grumble about no Heroism for any of us real frontliners - our Wizard has even cast grease on his weapon to stop stop him 'kill stealing' a monster. This may sound like there is some kind of tension in the party ranks, yet ask anyone who their favorite character on the table is and it's our Bard. Banter and mocking is just part of the way we do things.
If we had a member like RDs char, we'd also probably cheer when the enemy actually managed to hit him, we may even disrupt his safety buffs (if we were confident it wouldn't actually kill him) but if things went down we'd have his back, we'd still mock him in game and likely out of game to, but we wouldn't change him
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a meat shield (I may DM mostly in PnP, but I am a born and bred tank in MMOs) I can't say that the cowardly DPSer/Controller really bothers me.
It's MY JOB to get punched in the face. If a guy in a dress is getting stabbed, I am failing at that job.
And you can tank in PF, it's just a little different than MMO tanking.
I always think it is funny when players tell each other how many hit points they have after a hit. When I am asked I usually say, doing fine or not doing good at all.
I am not guilty of over-self buffing (#3).
I don't think I've ever cast three buffs back to back in the middle of combat. Heck, I've even used spell slots to heroism that whole party for half the day. Definitely not a selfish buffer.
|
|
When I play a wizard, I avoid the "I have to cast every round" mentality. It isn't my job to shine in every combat. My job, as I see it, is to save my best resources for instances where my teammates' skill sets aren't better suited to handle the threat type.
In encounters where the martial guys should be able to handle the threat with minimal resource cost, I might cast a buff or two on my compadres, then just grab a wand of something that does damage and help it go a bit quicker. Conversely, if I'm particularly vulnerable to a threat (high SR for my level, invulnerability to any types of spells I normally carry, etc), I am going to have to rely on them to keep me alive until the time I can return the favor.
But I pay my way by being there when the bruiser is up against something with DR-/whatever, and he didn't carry a 4 iron that day. Or it's just some critter doing damage faster than they can absorb it, and the fight needs to end two rounds ago. I think if wizard players would resist the need to shine every encounter, and the front line guys understand that the wiz is conserving for when he needs to shine, and this is why you chose infantry instead of artillery in AIT, everything would go pretty smoothly.
Wizards still get to acquire more gear due to crafting costs, so there's no excuse for not having enough scrolls and gizmos to cover the basics, saving spell slots for special need situations. The fifteen minute adventure day should never happen as a routine, only as an "otherwise we were dead" occurrence.
When I play a wizard, I avoid the "I have to cast every round" mentality. It isn't my job to shine in every combat. My job, as I see it, is to save my best resources for instances where my teammates' skill sets aren't better suited to handle the threat type.
In encounters where the martial guys should be able to handle the threat with minimal resource cost, I might cast a buff or two on my compadres, then just grab a wand of something that does damage and help it go a bit quicker. Conversely, if I'm particularly vulnerable to a threat (high SR for my level, invulnerability to any types of spells I normally carry, etc), I am going to have to rely on them to keep me alive until the time I can return the favor.
But I pay my way by being there when the bruiser is up against something with DR-/whatever, and he didn't carry a 4 iron that day. Or it's just some critter doing damage faster than they can absorb it, and the fight needs to end two rounds ago. I think if wizard players would resist the need to shine every encounter, and the front line guys understand that the wiz is conserving for when he needs to shine, and this is why you chose infantry instead of artillery in AIT, everything would go pretty smoothly.
Wizards still get to acquire more gear due to crafting costs, so there's no excuse for not having enough scrolls and gizmos to cover the basics, saving spell slots for special need situations. The fifteen minute adventure day should never happen as a routine, only as an "otherwise we were dead" occurrence.
Not casting every round as a wiz and sorc just made me twitch.
So the next time I made an arcane caster, it was a witch. Best of both worlds :) can cast when I need to, and have unlimited hexes the rest of the time.-S
I am not guilty of over-self buffing (#3).
I don't think I've ever cast three buffs back to back in the middle of combat. Heck, I've even used spell slots to heroism that whole party for half the day. Definitely not a selfish buffer.
A little hard to do as Nives doesn't even have Heroism.
3rd-level (4/day) – major image 2nd-level (7/day) – blindness/deafness, detect thoughts, false life, invisibilityB 1st-level (8/day) – charm person, feather fall, identifyB, mage armor, magic aura, magic missile, shield
Other than MAYBE Invisibility, there's not a single party buffing spell on that list, and there's five self-buffing spells, almost half your complement.
I am not guilty of over-self buffing (#3).
I don't think I've ever cast three buffs back to back in the middle of combat. Heck, I've even used spell slots to heroism that whole party for half the day. Definitely not a selfish buffer.
A little hard to do as Nives doesn't even have Heroism.
3rd-level (4/day) – major image 2nd-level (7/day) – blindness/deafness, detect thoughts, false life, invisibilityB 1st-level (8/day) – charm person, feather fall, identifyB, mage armor, magic aura, magic missile, shield
Other than MAYBE Invisibility, there's not a single party buffing spell on that list, and there's five self-buffing spells, almost half your complement.
I'm betting RD is guilty of #4 as well. Most casters I play with are, and those that avoid combat like the plague usually invest a lot of spells in the effort and so need to restore spells frequently.
I love Kestler's list by the way. That should be in the Core Rule Book on page 1, chapter 1.
If I'm playing a spellcaster who buffs the party, I buff the party first. I'm not going to be up front anyway, so my first duty is to beef up the guys dealing with pointy sticks. If I'm buffing myself, it's usually because I expect to BE IN COMBAT for whatever reason. If I'm going to be hiding behind the party, I shouldn't need to be getting buffed first, maybe not even at all.
However, I do not think that staying in the back of the group since you are a squishy is a bad thing.No, but not doing anything to help the party from back there IS a bad thing. The Tanks take the hits so that the Controler can lay down hurt upon the Bad Guys, not just posture and pose.I hate MMO speech like "Tank" or Controller", it is the main reason why RPG gets corrupted even as pnp, and why 4th Edition sucks.
Just because someone is a warrior doesn't have to be a living meatshield, just because someone is a wizard doesn't mean it has to throw fireballs all day everyday.I cringe every time when I notice such words/builds/perception of "roles" crawl more and more into normal RPG-s, and sadly I cringe too often recently.
Friend we were using "Tank" and "spell-slinger"* back in 1st Ed, some 20 years before MMO's and I have never played in a MMO- but I have been playing D&D since 1974.
There are and have been 4 classic roles ever since 1st Ed. They work.
* And I think "controller" is better than "spell-slinger" or just "wizard..."wizard" implies only a wizard can do it.
However, I do not think that staying in the back of the group since you are a squishy is a bad thing.No, but not doing anything to help the party from back there IS a bad thing. The Tanks take the hits so that the Controler can lay down hurt upon the Bad Guys, not just posture and pose.I hate MMOspeech like "Tank" or Controller", it is the main reason why RPG gets corrupted even as pnp, and why 4th Edition sucks.
Just because someone is a warrior doesn't have to be a living meatshield, just because someone is a wizard doesn't mean it has to throw fireballs all day everyday.I cringe every time when I notice such words/builds/perception of "roles" crawl more and more into normal RPG-s, and sadly I cringe too often recently.
Those terms predate MMOs and videogame RPGs.
They've existed in pen and paper for longer than I've been alive.
It's just that they're more well known terms now.
And you're right, not every fighter is a meat shield, but SOME ARE.
Some Wizards are going to be controllers, some will be nukers, or combinations of the two.
These roles have always existed, they just weren't as well defined before.
@ Ravingdork: This is not the first time I've seen you relate a story which amounts to "the people I play with are a bunch of jerks." I've been around for years (nevermind the join date on this "corporate account"), and this seems to be a theme. From what I can tell, you seem to be a good player who appreciates both the mechanical and roleplaying elements and appeals of the game, and you seem to care about the fun and success of the entire group.
I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
@ Ravingdork: ...
I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?[/b]
Except for how they ALWAYS fall through, yes.
Read this, evaluate the GMs other campaigns, and consider submitting something before Monday.
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
@ Ravingdork: This is not the first time I've seen you relate a story which amounts to "the people I play with are a bunch of jerks." I've been around for years (nevermind the join date on this "corporate account"), and this seems to be a theme. From what I can tell, you seem to be a good player who appreciates both the mechanical and roleplaying elements and appeals of the game, and you seem to care about the fun and success of the entire group.
I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?
Of course, you have to realize that when someone complains that whatever group he's with is "a bunch of jerks ", maybe the problem isnt with the other players.
|
Of course, you have to realize that when someone complains that whatever group he's with is "a bunch of jerks ", maybe the problem isnt with the other players.@ Ravingdork: This is not the first time I've seen you relate a story which amounts to "the people I play with are a bunch of jerks." I've been around for years (nevermind the join date on this "corporate account"), and this seems to be a theme. From what I can tell, you seem to be a good player who appreciates both the mechanical and roleplaying elements and appeals of the game, and you seem to care about the fun and success of the entire group.
I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?
And sometimes, people have friends who just happen to be jerks.
Even if RD has been lying through his teeth through this whole thread, you're the one who is getting adversarial.
Of course, you have to realize that when someone complains that whatever group he's with is "a bunch of jerks ", maybe the problem isnt with the other players.
And sometimes, people have friends who just happen to be jerks.
Even if RD has been lying through his teeth through this whole thread, you're the one who is getting adversarial.
Of course they do. But if I play with several groups, and I come out of each thinking they are all jerks, the issue may not be with them. Nor would that make RD in any way lying. I mean, if you feel that they are jerks, then how can you be lying? Even if what's going on is that you are setting the bar too high or that they are reacting negatively to your play style, to *YOU* they would seem jerks.
And of course, everyone has different play styles. I like a moderate amount of RPing, and I was in a group with 2 guys and a girl who were all very much into RPing, and 3 guys who were into optimizing and 100% combat. The DM split us into two groups, as both sides felt the other were being jerks. Of course, really neither side was actually being jerks (other than being not very adaptive) , just that the play style was so very different.
Of course, you have to realize that when someone complains that whatever group he's with is "a bunch of jerks ", maybe the problem isnt with the other players.@ Ravingdork: This is not the first time I've seen you relate a story which amounts to "the people I play with are a bunch of jerks." I've been around for years (nevermind the join date on this "corporate account"), and this seems to be a theme. From what I can tell, you seem to be a good player who appreciates both the mechanical and roleplaying elements and appeals of the game, and you seem to care about the fun and success of the entire group.
I have a question for you: do you enjoy Play-by-Post games?
While technically true, the question has already been answered in that RD and his group simply have differing play styles.
RD likes to think tactically, and be imaginative and inventive.
RD's group like to get stuck in and hammer the enemy for as much damage as they can.
I get the impression that he finds their approach unimaginative and they perhaps think he's spending far to much time mucking about trying to be cleaver rather than getting on with dishing the hurt.
There's room for give and take on both sides.
All of us are friends outside of gaming.Only one of them will listen to me talk for more than a few minutes, and even then, I think it's more out of politeness than a true desire to make things better.I've got bad news for you, RD. They aren't your friends outside of gaming.
Allow me to clarify. They like talking to me just fine (as friends are want to do). However, if I'm talking about tabletop roleplaying OUTSIDE of our scheduled gaming day (as I often do) they tend to tune me out.
I guess my broken record fixation can get old and aggravating after a a decade or so.
Then talk inside your scheduled gaming day.
What? And cut into good gaming time?
