| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As of late, I've been getting on-again off-again flack from my gaming groupies. Why?
For optimizing for survival.
Most of the time I'm playing a spellcaster, usually one with spells like mirror image, false life (or greater false life), and a high dexterity and lots of hit points. I also have a tendency to stay in the back row and lay down battlefield control, mind-affecting effects, and illusions to great effect. Occasionally, I even blast something.
It is a rare battle in which something can escape my battlefield control areas, close into melee with me, is lucky enough to bypass my mirror images or invisibility/flight, and then do enough damage to get past my temporary hit points. I am generally the last man standing, occasionally being the lone survivor in a string of near-TPKs.
When I do eventually take REAL hit point damage... well... when that happens, the GM rejoices. Right. In. Front. Of. Me. While the other players congratulate him.
One of the other players even went so far as to say "you always play cowards."
When I made a manipulator-type character (shown here) that I thought would be fun to roleplay, the GM mentioned above simply said "This is just like your last one"--to say nothing of the amazing background that makes the character completely different (not to mention the many plot hooks and character development/story telling opportunities I've handed him on a golden platter).
The aforementioned "previous character" is shown here.
Obviously, my group is a little jaded and I'm biased to my own characters.
What do you think? Are they cookie-cutter characters? Could my builds/play style be considered cowardly? Or is this common sense for a spellcaster?
In short, I'm hoping to get impartial outside opinions on the matter.
|
Well, as spellcasters go, they do have their differences.
But if you step back a bit further, they are both spellcasters, and they are manipulators rather than damage-dealers. So from a broader perspective they are pretty much interchangeable.
Why not step out of your comfort zone, and play something else? It sound as though that's what the rest of your group would like to see. There are a lot of options available to you in Pathfinder - explore a few more of them.
Well, as spellcasters go, they do have their differences.But if you step back a bit further, they are both spellcasters, and they are manipulators rather than damage-dealers. So from a broader perspective they are pretty much interchangeable.
Why not step out of your comfort zone, and play something else? It sound as though that's what the rest of your group would like to see. There are a lot of options available to you in Pathfinder - explore a few more of them.
In between these two characters (which are very similar I admit) I played an archer ranger with a fey background, a battle oracle that was re-flavored so he performed "combat maneuvers" rather than "magic," a magic-missile specialist blasting wizard, a mounted summoner, an inquisitor lawman, a witch-doctor, a disenfranchised knight, and a disarm/trip trick fighter.
Nearly all were short-lived and brought little to the game (only the summoner and inquisitor still live).
My manipulative spellcasters, on the other hand, are remembered (and sometimes reviled) BECAUSE they live long enough to BE memorable in the first place.
How many characters do I have to play apart before I can try an old idea in a new way without upsetting someone?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your problem is clearly that you're better at character design than the other people in your group. The delight at anything that comes close to taking you down is the equivalent of the delight in the international community when the USA has problems. Tall poppy syndrome is particularly English, but I think it's a feature of human nature. So your choice is ultimately to either accept it as a kind of tribute, or de-optimise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tribute it is then.
Here, just how much role playing time do you actually have. You've described nine characters with the implication that they've all been used in a relatively short period of time. I consider that I manage to spend a lot of time role playing with a weekly campaign and two six-weekly campaigns. They all have low kill rates but that means that in the last three years I've had four characters. I have a list of character I'd like to play as long as my arm, let alone campaigns I'd like to GM - how do you do it?
it IS common sense for a spellcaster to stay the crap out of combat (unless your made for it, or your a magus, but even then...)
As for why I said Magus, mine goes down in PFS QUITE a bit. Not to the point of death, but darn close... Probably something to do with playing up or something.
I can't see the character sheets and I can't connect to the site they're hosted on, can you share them in a google doc?
ELINOR: The above list covers about two years of real time.
MARTHIAN: My more memorable spellcasters have gone down numerous times in their careers, but aren't usually killed before the game dissolves.
Going to bed now. I look forward to seeing what everyone has to say in the morning.
Going to bed now. I look forward to seeing what everyone has to say in the morning.
But... T-T
To be honest, I'm not sure why you didn't just teleport away in disgust because of their obvious incompetence, definitely not because it's metahumour, and leave their bodies behind.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah ha, I see what you're doing. You've given me a fact that is broadly relevant to my question but doesn't answer it in the hope that I won't dig any deeper and discover that you're a Time Lord who uses a Tardis to spend 168 hours in a week role playing and still manage a day job. I'm calling Gallifrey.
|
|
Ten different characters? That's more than twice as many as I played in my first 15 years of tabletop gaming!
In the last year (when I got back into gaming after a long hiatus) I've played exactly one character in a tabletop game, and three different characters in Pathfinder Society games. My tabletop character (primarily a ranger, with a one-level dip into wizard) is quite similar to one of my earlier characters, but that's deliberate - I set out to see how close I could come to recreating that old character under the Pathfinder rules. The only person in a position to note the similarities is my wife; everyone else who saw the old character lives 3000 miles away. The other characters (plus a fourth PFS character who has yet to be played) are a Gunslinger (my first PFS character, and the one I am least satisfied with), a Monk, and a Bard (with a Magus waiting in the wings). My next two characters will probably be an Inquisitor and a (Kitsune) Rogue. The Inquisitor was originally planned for Rise of the Runelords, but I'm now going to be running that campaign rather than playing in it. The Kitsune will be a PFS character (courtesy of a boon from a convention). I think a Bard might be a better fit than a Rogue, but I don't want to end up too similar to my existing character. I'm still working on that one.
There are still a lot of other options I want to explore, too - an arcane caster, a knight/paladin/cavalier/samurai/... of some kind, and possibly revisiting another of my old characters (probably the Barbarian, although if I get an Aasimar boon that would give me another interesting possibility). It will be quite some time before I'll be tempted to come close to repeating a recently-played character concept.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A sorc/witch/wizard slinging spells while hiding behind mirror image, black tentacles, and an armored meat shield is not cowardly, its smart. It's like when I am at a bar running my mouth, but my bigger, more violent, ex-military bouncer friends are there to keep anyone from getting close to me. I'm not a coward, I'm just small, and smart.
So they're mad at you because as a Wizard you aren't hitting things with your staff? There's nothing wrong with being survival conscious, though "cowardice" can get annoying when it means you don't contribute (which is obviously the case if you're dropping control everywhere)...
In a game I'm playing now we have a guy whose playing an Alchemist, who never really does anything... in several sessions he used his bombs only a handful of times (to be fair for a while he was under the impression that he didn't get them essentially auto refilled each day) and when we start fighting he tends to spend a lot of time double moving away instead of really helping out. It's the kind of character that we'd probably just kick out the group if it were a real world situation as opposed to just letting people do their thing because you're playing a game with them.
It does sound like you're possibly optimizing a cut above what the other players are. Perhaps in order to make monsters that can threaten you, the DM has to make more powerful enemies that you can handle, but your party can't.
DOES BATMAN PROTECT US FROM THE FREAKS, OR DOES HE DRAW THEM OUT???
Ahem. Maybe you could help the other players at the table optimize.
Arcanists are supposed to cast AC hack spells like Mirror Image. Whether that's cowardice is perspective, but they are still vulnerable to enemies that the front-liners can't keep at bay. Archers, other casters, and highly mobile creatures that can slip through/around/over/under the lines are potential threats to any PC avoiding the front line, and are a good part of any well-rounded combat.
That's why you have 216 mirror images to protect yourself.
And hey, at a high enough level, everyone has True Seeing because it's a level 5-6 spell and completely destroys an entire school of magic.
|
Hey RD,
I have a similar fate in my gaming group. Long story short is I played a monk in the Second Darkness AP. The only other character this group had seen me play was a fighter/mage/havoc mage combo that really didnt start kicking ass till 10th-11th level. but when it did, it was glorious. ever had a 90pt combust critical?
Well, this monk put me in the same catagory as you but I started kicking ass with it at 4th level, and continued all the way through to the end of the AP.
I now can no longer play a monk in this group, play a multi-class character with monk levels, act like a monk in my spare time, or watch cheesy 70's kung-fu theater.
When I do get taken down into the negatives, it is a time of rejoicing around the table. My character concepts are scrutinized much more than the other players. I get email cartoons from the group where they say, "Curtis is the dude in the hat!" and that guy in the cartoon says something along the lines of 'I think I want xp for christmas,' or how excited I am to get new class abilities and finally completing my 7 feat combo, etc...
I admit, it irritated me.
What can we do? Does it really matter? I had hoped that my skill would rub off on the other players. Instead, I continue to get ridiculed for my monk, and we completed that AP in Dec 2009.
As long as the DM doesnt have a 'me vs. your character' attitude, then you should be fine. Keep building your characters for RP (as you seem to do), as this is the foundation of all bad ass characters. (IMHO)
Cheers,
CC
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd have to guess it's the flavor you're bringing to the games, and if I could honestly speak on behalf of your friends as an impartial (or at least outside the dynamic) I wish you could find it in your heart to stop it, and play a character that meshes with the group and is more of a team player.
How endearing is a raging hag that tortures the innocent? I don't know if everyone else in your group is mega evil (are they?) but even if they are, I can't really think of many reasons I'd identify with this person in my group, or why I'd be helping them. I'm be more concerned about slighting them. A con artists and a lecherous hag don't seem like very endearing friend or ally material... which is fine for you because they are both manipulators and you can get what you want... but your party (and FRIENDS!) shouldn't have to be part of that subset... you should probably come up with an angle that sells your character as somebody people would want to follow, if you want a kind of character like this.
As a sidepoint... if you are constantly the last person going down and preventing those TPKs, you may be looking at things from the angle of "I saved the day, they should be appreciative." ... your friends might be thinking... "If he nuked or did direct damage like mages do in every other game I've played the entire party wouldn't have taken a dirt nap... AGAIN."
The fact that you choose to see yourself as separate from the group as regards preservation could possibly be as attributable to you being the last person standing as anything you are doing build-wise. They are stuck in there, fighting and falling for one another. You're hanging back and doing something else. Granted, you may be doing that much better -- but you're still an "other"... For me It would be friggin' humiliating to do my best for my team, over and over again, only to have somebody not pull together and take all the glory by being the last man standing. You're not playing chess, and you're not the king piece. Use your obvious skills at character craft to make a character that does everything it can to preserve it's allies... even if your mean streak requires you justifying them as "Screening Assets."
If I were you, I'd do penance and spend my next incarnation as a healer or front line fighter.
Honestly, when I look at your story craft and your build stacking -- I find it hard to believe it is outside your capacity to design a concept that doesn't play like a "coward" / "Optimized for Survival" character.... you just don't want to, and you're coming here for corroboration of your views, because you're not getting them at your table.
WHAT ANYONE HERE THINKS DOESN'T MATTER A SPECK COMPARED TO YOUR GAMING GROUP.
In fact, the entire term "Optimizing for Survival" is laying out the pretense that your party associates... YOUR TEAM... are NOT "Optimized for survival." ... it's also ignoring the fact that you are so well optimized for survival because they are apparently getting sacked before you do, discrediting their contribution to protect you by getting stuck in while you mince around. Even if it makes perfect sense for mages to mince around in the back, I've already got the impression you're not giving them the credit they deserve, and by establishing a timetable where you snatch victory from the jaws of defeat only after everyone else is down -- you're taking all the credit you don't deserve.
I don't know your relationship with your gaming group, but I can tell (as a player and a GM) that it's obvious your GM doesn't find it fun balancing your unique play style with everyone else's survivability (and he's obviously having difficulties he otherwise wouldn't have if the encounters he's designing are wiping the rest of the party but only seldom hurting you) ... and your party mates resent your play style and what I'd interpret as your contempt for them having a good time, or at least having a chance at THEIR turn in the spotlight.
I also don't expect you to change your ways. If I did, I would think your GM and table-mates would be enough to sway you. You're spoiling people's fun. Internalize that. You've posted a situation where you are pleading persecution, and what I see is a prima donna that is stealing the glory and thinking everyone else a fool for letting him.
Please forgive the serratedness of my perception -- I mean no real offense, you've solicited opinions, and I'll grant I only have the facet of the gem you've shown as a lens on the situation... but I think it's a good enough angle with what you've offered.
Your friends are annoyed, or even actively pissed. Stop it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally...I think it's a sort of foundational bias towards "what wizards are known for" and against "what wizards in D&D and PF excel at." When I was playing as a wizard, my party would continually chastise me for not having access to spells such as Magic Missile or Burning Hands while the GM groaned about "the illusions that made it impossible for the enemies to target the PC's in an effective manner"). And, so, I lived under the title of "cowardly wizard who doesn't do anything" until the campaign ended. :/
In any case, I quite like the two different approaches to the same "category" of character concepts (a *cough* Beguiler and a classic, vindictive, enchantress).
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
In between these two characters (which are very similar I admit) I played an archer ranger with a fey background, a battle oracle that was re-flavored so he performed "combat maneuvers" rather than "magic," a magic-missile specialist blasting wizard, a mounted summoner, an inquisitor lawman, a witch-doctor, a disenfranchised knight, and a disarm/trip trick fighter.
OK, reading this and your description of your wizard, actually I can see why they are calling it cowardice, and your DM is saying that your characters are alike. It's not because you are better at optimizing, although you probably are. It's not because you are not contributing, because you probably are.
It's because all but two of the ten characters you have listed hide at the back of the party. They are a ranged attacker, a series of spell-casters...and two warriors right at the end, only one of whom took the brunt of things (and you didn't play them long).
Tactics
Look how you describe your wizard:
Most of the time I'm playing a spellcaster, usually one with spells like mirror image, false life (or greater false life), and a high dexterity and lots of hit points. I also have a tendency to stay in the back row and lay down battlefield control, mind-affecting effects, and illusions to great effect. Occasionally, I even blast something.
So you optimise your characters to survive rather than to contribute, buff yourself first and foremost (that's two spells that by the sound of things don't get actually tested much and do nothing for anyone else in the party), and then use battlefield control to use the rest of the party as your meat-shields (at least as they might see it). Then make sure you are nearly impossible to hit and then channel the enemy into those that are vulnerable rather than at yourself.
I can see why this is annoying to them, and to your DM. They are taking all the risks, you are reaping the profit. They feel as if they are being used as your stooges to take the hits you don't want to risk. It's not because you are not contributing, but because your contribution is entirely self-interested. Now there's nothing wrong with this per se, except that perhaps you are the only one that seems to be playing on this field? I don't know, but I do know that in character, someone using me as their shield when I am on half their hit points and they are harder to hit isn't going to stay my best friend for long.
Optimization
The optimization thing is worse in this case because you are forcing the DM to increase accuracy and number of attacks so that he can damage you, and the rest of the party are taking those hits because you are in the back row and the enemy have to go through them to hurt you. Yes, you are the last man standing, because that is how you arranged things so that you get attacked last. There are tactics your DM could use to challenge you, but over-using them would stretch his credibility a bit.
What to do about it?
Now I am assuming that you don't want to be a douche to your friends, and would like to remedy the situation. There are a couple of ways of doing this:
Optimize to help the party, not to survive. Your wizards clearly put their own survival first. Perhaps they should be using the time spent casting mirror image and false life casting bull's strength and bear's endurance on the party front-liners instead. After all, if the front-rank never goes down, you will usually be safe.
Improve your tactics to take some risks. Arm yourself with something that makes you effective up close, and then when the fight gets tough move in to help out the party by putting yourself on the line, not just them.
Play a buffer/healer rather than a controller. If you want a new character, and you clearly prefer spell-casters, go this way.
Help other players with their optimal options. Not everyone likes to be told how to best run and play their characters, but some friendly advice can be well received.
Take up the front-rank role. Build the most bad-ass tank you can imagine, and show them how it's done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why your party would go "sigh the enemies missed me again because of those buffs/debuffs you laid out, why don't you suck less and do 5d4 fire damage instead?"
|
|
To Dabbler
Doesn't False Life have an 1 hour/level duration, Dabbler? Depending on the level of the caster, it could last all day, half a day, or longer than either of the previous two options (especially with a Rod of Extend), so it only takes a single round of prep-time to cast Mirror Image before going in to "God Mode," which seems fairly standard for a Wizard (a majority of enemies with casting capabilities are highlighted as doing so in their battle tactics as well - so, at least, it isn't unusual).
To chaoseffect
There's a thread somewhere on GitP about a circumstance similar to Ravingdork's...where the players involved all seem to be unable of appreciating any of the buffs they receive or the penalties inflicted on whatever they happened to be fighting. :/
A caster focused on self-preservation might end up not pulling their offensive weight. And the same can be said for defensive warriors or skilled in getting-the-hell-out-of-Dodge skillmonkeys.
Pathfinder is largely about combat. And fights are won by hitting the other guys, not by not getting hit yourself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading this thread I choose to share some information with you all. We have a player at the local gaming shop for pathfinder society, who's characters are known for being cowards. He likes keeping his characters alive and I can understand his position, who doesn't like staying alive? This player has played a cleric, gunslinger and a couple other characters. He runs from combat frequently, and not when things are going horrendously bad either, just when things aren't going perfect. It has cost him many deaths, because as soon as you move far enough away from the group, well you're now easy pickings!
An exact situation was one of his characters took a withdraw action away from combat when things weren't looking the greatest, up some stairs, abandoning the rest of the party to a succubus and two greater shadows. Naturally my Inquisitor shouted after him that he was a cowardly dog that deserved to die, the greater shadows agreed much to my delight, moved to him and both crit, and dropped him to the dirt... to a Chorus of cheers from the table and grumblings of being singled out by him.
Now, his character is specialized to survive. Not as the OP's characters are specialized, but in roleplaying. Everyone knew he was a coward because of the times we had adventured with him previously, but cowardice is never acceptable and should be punished. Staying in the back of a fight, letting everyone get between you and the enemies time and again is cowardice same as if you ran away.
MY REAL BIG POINT: Currently your group is paying the price for your characters cowardice. They keep dying because your character wont produce what they need, a team member who's willing to put the group before themselves. Your characters aren't appreciated, I think its time to make one that will be, or find a new group.
|
Have you talked to them about their expectations and how you might maybe come to a compromise? I can understand where your party is coming from but at the same time it's pretty s~!#ty to strong-arm you into playing something you're maybe not that excited for at the moment.
And as a side note: why is Nives' charisma modifier +9 when his charisma is 22 (should be +6) and why is Hama's charisma modifier +13 when her charisma is 31 (should be 10)?
Have you talked to them about their expectations and how you might maybe come to a compromise? I can understand where your party is coming from but at the same time it's pretty s@!~ty to strong-arm you into playing something you're maybe not that excited for at the moment.
Where the party is coming from (everyone else) should carry more weight than just one person (him) -- Considering the breadth of options for characters, he should not HAVE to play a character this way to be able to enjoy himself.
I doubt the OP really has any intention of changing his ways, even if 40 people told him to. That's why the question is "Am I playing like a coward" (yes you are) and not "Is what I am doing unfair" (Yes it is)
I'm also curious if you can tell me what the other classes in your party are -- and what their alignments or personalities for the characters might be. I'm just curious if the rest of the party is as... shall we say... "Morally Flexible." If they aren't, well that's one more way you are not being part of the group.
Seriously, I can't be sure which is worse -- all your friends having to be giant milquetoasts to put up with your "Strategy" ... or your seeming unaware/unrepentant penchant for exploiting them?
As long as the resources and time you are spending to survive aren't resources and time that could save the rest of the party then you are ok.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Dabbler
Doesn't False Life have an 1 hour/level duration, Dabbler? Depending on the level of the caster, it could last all day, half a day, or longer than either of the previous two options (especially with a Rod of Extend), so it only takes a single round of prep-time to cast Mirror Image before going in to "God Mode," which seems fairly standard for a Wizard (a majority of enemies with casting capabilities are highlighted as doing so in their battle tactics as well - so, at least, it isn't unusual).
False life I can except, but given that many encounters are over in three rounds, spending the first one to make sure you are even more invulnerable while gettign everyone else to take the risks is extracting the urine. If the character was front-ranking then sure, it's a good idea, sensible buff. He's not front-ranking, by his own post foes rarely get attacks on him and even more rarely hit. That first round action could be boosting his allies who are putting their lives on the line to keep him safe or slowing down the enemy who are attacking everyone including him, or any one of a number of other things.
That one round of grace is paid for in blood by the rest of the party.
A caster focused on self-preservation might end up not pulling their offensive weight. And the same can be said for defensive warriors or skilled in getting-the-hell-out-of-Dodge skillmonkeys.
Pathfinder is largely about combat. And fights are won by hitting the other guys, not by not getting hit yourself.
This is QFT. If you are not contributing for a round, you may as well not be there, and if that mirror image isn't getting used, half the time, why are you bothering? If it's for survival, then you are using your team-mates blood to pay for your survival, and why are they still adventuring with you?
As an arcane caster he's following the usual, advised, caster trope. Of course he could be Tenser and fight from the front rank, use self-buffs that aren't defensive but are offensive instead, and so forth. But while obvious damage is obvious, it's not necessarily an optimal contribution.
I do think he might be doing one or two things wrong, and the party might be doing one or two things wrong.
1) as a Caster (heck, as any character), I optimize for survival, too. However, I see this optimization as primarily pre-combat and/or "escape clause." Pre-casting spells, and contingent or fast-escape spells ("get out of dodge") for when things go t!!# up. But during combat, especially in the first few rounds, your goal should be A) things that buff/enhance the party and/or B) things that control and channel the enemy.
2) Which brings me to the second apparent problem; either the party as a whole, or you, may not be using the control you lay down optimally. If they're getting crunched and near TPK'd a lot, the control isn't as effective as it should be. From your description I have no way to know for sure, but it sounds like either they're rushing the foes in a way that effectively negates the advantages of control spells, or your characters are laying down control in ways that primarily protect themselves and only secondly help the party as a whole.
If it's the later, then I can see why they'd be upset: spells that are used to keep the mobs away from you, while giving them a free hand against everyone else, won't endear your caster to the party.
If it's the former - using them as they should be used, to give the party a tactical advantage by setting up "monster conga lines" and otherwise reducing their ability to reach the party as a whole, so the party can concentrate on defeating them in detail (one or two at a time, or at range/out of the reach of the enemy), but the other characters are nerfing this by their own behavior, then you might give them tips on how to make the most of the control you're laying down.
I think it goes too far to call them "essentially clones."
But. . .OMG she killed Pooky!!! That bustard!
I've been playing a control wizard for a little while now. My party knows they are my meat shields. but, in fights vs. multiple opponents, my battlefield control spells remove more enemies than all their stabbity combined.
At first it was, you don't have xxx spell on your spell list? Nope, not my job to do damage. It's my job to either a) make it easier for you to hit them, or b) make it so they can't hit you. If I do that, we win. I could blast the enemy, but it really isn't that effective. I stay in the back, and almost never get hit either.
does this make me a coward too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intelligent defensive actions are common sense to the people they protect, and cowardice to the people they don't.
Intelligent offensive actions are ruthless evil to the people they destroy, and common sense to the people they protect.
If you were fully a member of the group, then defending yourself would probably not raise any hurt feelings. However, it looks like you're already an outsider to them, so anything you do that only directly helps you instead of the party, even if it's strategically better for the party as a whole (debatable if they're all being wiped out), will look like cowardice to them and further cement your outsider status.
One of the other players even went so far as to say "you always play cowards."
In short, I'm hoping to get impartial outside opinions on the matter.
I think dabbler hit the spot on this issue a few posts above.
There are many ways to optimise. The wizard given as an example was optimised to not take damage. IMO, it's a sound and smart strategy but in all objectivity, it take optimisation to built an efficient untouchable battlefield controlling wizard, but a untouchable battlefield wizard is not optimisation. It's a "all square are rectangle but not all rectangles are squares" situation.
It is unfair to link your fellow gamers frustration (or perception) to optimisation. As dabbler said, you could just as well use optimisation to build a character made to withstand frontal attacks and accept controlled loss of hp as part of the concept.
Regardless of what is smart to do and how a character with an Int score of 26 would behave, many are into RPG for the thrill of taking risks and reaping the fruits of your gambles. What I perceive is that your attraction to the game is different. This difference in style or interest is not even incompatible, but if your character cause frustration around the gaming table, perhaps that's an issue that should be discussed with the others.
There is definitely a common thread running through your casters and artillery RD. I can't tell from what you posted how effectively you actually play any melee character, but knowing your proclivity towards exploiting rules advantages wherever plausible, I suspect they are pretty hard to hit and probably aren't the first in the party to take a dirt nap either.
None of what you described qualifies as "cowardly" to me, but several of my melee based characters would probably consider the behavior of your first described character to be contemptible, some of them would even call your character out for it in game.
For comparison I played a deliberately cowardly wizard in one short campaign. She was literally sickened by the thought of sharp pointy objects getting intimately acquainted with her vital parts. She would hide during combat, using her illusion spells to avoid detection while she buffed her party members, summoned monsters, put up walls, etc. But if there was a chance someone was going to take a swing at her, she would flee in terror.
In spite of that she was very much a contributor to the party's combat success. She once managed to go ten encounters without taking a single hit point of physical damage. When the GM did finally manage to drop-kick her spleen, the players all cheered. Not because she had been hit, but because she had gone so long without being hit. As we moved up in level it became harder and harder for her to avoid physical damage, so she retired and became a scholar.
But she was a lot of fun to play. I constantly asked the other players to let me know if her antics were causing them any concern, or if her role playing was too demoralizing. They all assured me that she was one of the most hilarious characters they had ever played with, and that in spite of her sheer terror of physical pain, she managed to contribute very effectively to the group. They loved her.
This just in: tool-using mammals are cowards for improving their chances for survival.
pfff, real men drop their guns and settle this outside with their bare fists!
Try casting some beneficial spells on your allies. Yes your character survives, but ever though this is a game in which we role play, it is also a cooperative team effort. It sounds like your friends don't think you help the team enough.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This just in: tool-using mammals are cowards for improving their chances for survival.pfff, real men drop their guns and settle this outside with their bare fists!
You mean, you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?
You mean, you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?This just in: tool-using mammals are cowards for improving their chances for survival.pfff, real men drop their guns and settle this outside with their bare fists!
I could have already killed you...
You mean, you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people?This just in: tool-using mammals are cowards for improving their chances for survival.pfff, real men drop their guns and settle this outside with their bare fists!
Unless you're a coward, off course!
... and no kung-fu and ninja moves shenanigans either! That would be considered a useful tool!
And real men don't drive to work; they walk 30 miles every day! And they live in huts!
Now if you excuse me, I'm going to use my super-advanced computer to tell how many other people are yellow-belly softies with my internet posts!
An effectively played spell caster shouldn't ever be called a "coward" in my humble opinion. I played the archetypical Treantmonk style God wizard in a game, and alone I could end entire encounters. If I didn't take an action, no one griped. They knew it was because the encounter was beneath my resources.
EDIT: I should mention that even if I didn't cast a spell in a combat I would typically do things like Dimension Step myself and the TWF blender to the most dangerous looking target and Shift back behind my own lines, thus giving Blender a full attack on first round against the most effective target. There are things that can be done that don't involve slinging a spell every round.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
*shrug* I don't see a problem.
Rey's built around being able to stay way-the-hell-away from combat, using sleep, snapdragon fireworks, magic missile and spontanious immolation to hit targets in large part because he doesn't need to be close. If he makes it to 5th level, mage armor and false life are musts in his arsenal, If he has to get within 30', he's done something terribly wrong.
Mayim's the same way, she's a bard, so she'll be out of reach if at all possible.
Meanwhile I've a Kensai magus who will be in close combat. Different characters different styles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear on a few things:
- I do help the party out. My first spell is often haste, for example. Mirror image is generally second (most enemies don't get past the meat shields in round one). In the case of ambushes and similar scenarios where I'm facing immediate melee threats, I might start off with a personal defensive buff first (a dead wizard doesn't help anyone).
- The two characters above are essentially evil. That's not typical. Hama was played in an openly evil game. Nives is "recovering evil" and though he's still a dirt bag, I have no intention of having him be at odds with the party. Nearly all the other characters I mentioned were good-aligned, and none were evil.
- I do admit, I do love playing manipulative bastards. It stems from all those years of being the only GM. Roleplaying evil (or anti-hero) characters comes more naturally to me as a result.
- Even with openly evil characters, I never sacrifice party members or do anything that might knowingly jeopardize another player's fun. I make up all kinds of sensible rationalizations in order tot ry and stay in character while also not promoting PvP. In fact, I was forced to retire Hama in one campaign BECAUSE I wasn't willing to play PvP and risk damaging another player's fun (even though they were more than willing to ruin it for me).
In short, I often ROLEplay selfish characters. My actual playstyle is anything but.
- I play in a group that has the "if your caster doesn't have magic missile and fireball it's pretty much useless" mindset. It's okay to be a controller and other style of spellcaster, but I must have the above capability ready to go at a moments notice to be taken seriously.
-snip-
Well, if your fellow PCs can't see how a Black Tentacles, Grease, or Haste contribute far more to a combat than any Fireball ever would (I've never cast the spell in PF. So many better uses for that 3rd level slot), then they don't have a good grasp on what it is that makes a spell caster strong. I'd also quit playing with any person that deliberately contributed to killing off a character like that in game, especially after you tried to do the right thing by explaining what your character could do to his, but didn't.
- Even with openly evil characters, I never sacrifice party members or do anything that might knowingly jeopardize another player's fun.
Yet you are still the subject of flack, which says that either your group have a warped perception of your usefulness, or you aren't succeeding. At the end of the day, you are still at the back of the party behind everyone else.
I still advise you: Play something different - like a direct damage melee fighter - to shake the image.
I can't believe this. People are actually advocating deliberately letting enemies hit the wizard? That's like an infantryman tossing the artillery spotter or forward air controller out of his cover. It's not the wizard's job to take hits. It's the wizard's job to keep the enemy from doing whatever they want.
+1 to this.