| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just have the monsters move into melee with the party. The ranged guys and the sorcerer may think twice when they roll up their 2nd characters.
What is there to address
If they can work well as a group and are good players then things will be just fine
of course, I have no idea who the rogue thinks they are going to be flanking off of when in combat, hopefully they are maximizing alternative ways of generating sneak attacks
but, if you are feeling that it is necessary to break their notion that melee-oriented characters have to be big, armored and dumb, show them archetypes like the Lore Warden or Tactician Fighter, the Urban Barbarian, Order of the Tome Cavalier, etc.
|
Combat Expertise requires 13 int, as does all of its really nice child feats it unlocks. Really the best way to fight it is to let them play without a melee character. The cleric should be able to heal his on wounds, and can set up flanking for the rogue. If they can't keep the ranged character from getting overwhelmed, then maybe they will rethink tactics. On their next characters if need be.
There are intelligent fighters. Just because you wield a sword doesn't mean you do so stupidly. If they are truly creative then they could just ditch the "fighters are morons" idea and purposefully make a front line warrior that is quite intelligent.
Also, if magic is life and you were willing of course, there are magical classes that do well as front line fighters. Magus, Hyde Alchemist, Synth Summoners, hell normal and master summoners can pop front liners onto the field like weeds.
I would agree with the others however. They have their characters set, so I suppose just run the game and see if a front line melee is needed. If one dies and you allow re-rolling characters, hopefully they will get wise.
Good luck.
|
Alchemists and Magi both make decent frontliners yet prioritize Int.
Introduce the party to one of those guys, either as a temporary ally or as a villain. Have them be the picture of intelligence-- uses long words, has a library in their home, etc. Have them get up in melee, and be good at it. Decent at least.
uh apparently two people in the OP's group really do
Well first of all, I think big stupid fighters can be alot of fun. But if you want to play someone on the smarter side, you can always turn to 3rd party material. In particular the Battle Scion by kobold press, and the archon by super genius games are both capable frontliners with magical abilities mixed in for a bit of spice. Or you could just you know, play a paladin (personally I dont like playing paladins but thats just me not liking all the bagage they carry around)
However if you really want to stick it to those who think they know best about the game, I would like to introduce you to the summoner and the druid. Both have bruising pets that can serve as frontline fighters (remember animal companions can take armor feats and use barding). On top of that they have lots of interesting other abilities including considerable spellcasting.
Don't rule out the value of summoned flankers for the rogue, in which case, the rogue becomes the frontline fighter flanking with his summoned allies and kept on his feet by his secondary frontline fighter buddy, the gnome cleric.
Or the group just learns lots of hit and run tactics and the rogue gets used to never doing sneak attacks except at the start of combats, or whenever he can use invisibility and/or sniping.
Some might argue that if a lone PC in a group of ranged PCs decides to go engage the monsters in melee maybe he really is kind of a moron. This could have a little bit of truth to it if the "lone tank" focuses on doing big damage and shrugs off defense. When I tank I try to make my defenses as strong as possible. Sometimes the monsters stop focusing attacks on me because they want to go attack somebody they can hurt more easily. Usually by then the ranged folks have begun to kill stuff off though.
The Rangers could pick up animal companions to serve as meat shields. The Cleric or Sorcerer could summon monsters. There are a lot of potential solutions here. An obvious one to both your party composition problems and your "how to address this stereotype" issue might be for you to make the frontline melee character and make him or her both effective and smart. I guess that won't work if you're the DM, but you could at least give the players some ideas. In addition to the classes listed above I'll throw in Bards and Paladins. Bard might seem like an odd choice for a front liner, but if you carry a shield you can get your AC up reasonably high. Add Mirror Images and you'll be pretty tough to hit.
Overall, pets and summoning are probably the best way to help the PCs stay out of melee. Some DMs feel the game is boring if PCs aren't being attacked directly each round though.
Nobody likes Rangers?
They have 2 of them. Apparently someone does! Speaking of which, you can talk to them about maybe doing melee with a ranger. Rangers are good at lots of things, and eventually get a meatsheild friend of their own.
Not sure how to address the problem really. Stereotypes can be hard to break. Introduce examples of not so stupid characters maybe. Give fighters 4+ skill points and explain they are also tactical commanders and the like maybe. Rangers and Barbarians are both good at being intelligent up in the front lines peeps, but not sure how to explain that directly.
The problem with having them deal with the problem by playing anyway, is its likely the cleric and the rogue who would get punished outright. Punishing players for choosing what they want to play isn't the best thing to do I don't think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't the party just hire mercenaries or trained attack-goats?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't do anything. You'll look like you're trying too hard, and I don't think there's a way that won't come off as extremely transparent and heavy handed.
Plus I'm also getting pretty sick of these 'gah, nobody will be tank/healer, what do I do?'. It's their prerogative, leave it to them.
Also, I think there is a chance that anyone who gets up in the big scary ogre's face while their friends pelt at it safely from a distance will probably start to feel like a sucker. Roy included possibly. Doesn't matter what fancy archetype or skill points they got.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have them fight a group of BSF's and show THEM who is stupider-er
Yeah, I'm with VRMH. Pay some dumb muscle.
Nobody likes Rangers?Speaking of which, you can talk to them about maybe doing melee with a ranger. Rangers are good at lots of things
No, no, no.
If there's any ONE thing I've learned from EVERY MMO on the planet, it's that rangers are RANGE-ers. That's all they do, ranged combat. Nothing else. Heck, why would they have RANGE in their name if they weren't going to used ranged attacks?
You want them to melee, well, you just better rename the class to something that suggests they "fight" instead of "range". I dunno, maybe try FIGHT-er.
Yeah.
/idiot rant
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe give the fighter class enough skill points to actually feel like a competent, skillful character and see if that improves anyone's desire to play one.
Salamandyr, you're a bit behind the times. A skillful fighter isn't hard to build in Pathfinder. A human fighter with INT 13 can bring 5 points to the table with every level (2 + 1 INT + 1 Human + 1 Favored Class). There are plenty of build options that will make that Int 13 a worthwhile investment. Start him with Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip (or Improved Disarm), hand him a polearm, and watch as he makes foes cry with frustration.
As another option, give your monsters a custom feat that allows them to automatically close any time someone near them makes a five-foot step. That'll get rid of the annoying "melee archers" who back up and full attack repeatedly.
You overlooked a couple of my favorite Pathfinder feats: Step Up and Following Step.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Actually, I think this could be a pretty fun group. So no one wants to play a beefy front-line fighter with a target painted on his shield. So what? Let 'em play their ranged and/or sneaky characters! It actually opens up some interesting tactical possibilities.
For example, sneaking past the bad guys becomes a lot more attractive when there's no one clanking around in full plate. Or maybe the Rogue could sneak ahead and flush out the enemy, drawing them into an ambush where they will get caught in the ranged crossfire from his allies!
DM_Blake's idea of using summoned creatures is a good idea as well -- if the spellcasters are specced for it.
Ultimately, if no one wants to play the fighter, then don't force it. Instead, have them play what they think will be fun, and design adventures to support that play style. Remember: there is no badwrongfun here!
|
How about a magus? It's Intelligence-based melee/casting. A bladebound kensai can fight on the front lines with ridiculous AC and melee output, and still look smart.
But don't coddle the players too much. A ranged ranger who takes Power Attack is suddenly a functioning switch-hitter. All it takes is one feat.
Let your enemies use smart tactics (within reason) to close into melee range; fog spells, smokesticks, wind walls, darkness spells + darkvision, cover (when you're not fighting on the infinite plane without obstructions). It makes sense for any intelligent enemy to use some these things (particularly cover) to close the distance to ranged characters.
Then they're fighting against critters in melee; they'll have to sort it out for themselves how they're gonna do that, or perish. It's (super)natural selection in action.
If they're really good at summoning, kiting and so forth, they may be able to function without any melee at all. If they succeed, more power to them.
Are they too attached to their archer-full-attack routines? Smart monsters move around behind cover and obstructions, or throw annoying persistent area spells like Black Tentacles, that will force the archers to stay on the move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what I want to see? A group of Gunslingers that basically act as armies of musket guys acted back in the day. You know, rows of volleys, crap like that.
Let them play their characters as is. When they rangers are suddenly in melee range and the rogue can't get a flanking to save his life they might change their tune. The first time they get ambushed (and it should happen) will probably see them all killed. Then they can RO SHAM BO to see who plays the BSF.
So in a recent first-session, the players introduced their characters and their combat abilities:
Ranger 1 (longbow): “I’m best at taking out the bad guys from a safe distance. I don’t want to get hurt.”
Ranger 2 (crossbow): “Hey, me too! Heck, I don’t even OWN a melee weapon.”
Sorcerer (faintly): “What? I can’t hear you guys all the way back here at maximum range.”
Rogue: “Not to worry. I can sneak around the bad guys and obliterate them from behind. They won’t even know I’m there, so I’ll be safe.”
GM: “Great! So, who’s actually going to FACE the monsters?”
...
Long pause, as all players eventually turn toward the only character with decent armor and a shield.
Cleric: “What? Why’s everybody looking at me?”
I smell a sitcom!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, because shooting into melee is such a wonderful idea. (Even if you've got precise shot, you'll still have to overcome cover.)
I actually have a tank-build that I'd still like to play. I named him Sherman, and he's near impossible to hit. (With some extra focus on his saves too.) Sure, he doesn't hit much but that doesn't matter. Imagine a Dwarf in fullplate and a tower shield dancing around the battlefield. That's Sherman.
|
Maybe give the fighter class enough skill points to actually feel like a competent, skillful character and see if that improves anyone's desire to play one.Salamandyr, you're a bit behind the times. A skillful fighter isn't hard to build in Pathfinder. A human fighter with INT 13 can bring 5 points to the table with every level (2 + 1 INT + 1 Human + 1 Favored Class). There are plenty of build options that will make that Int 13 a worthwhile investment. Start him with Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip (or Improved Disarm), hand him a polearm, and watch as he makes foes cry with frustration.
One of these days, I want to actually make Roy Greenhilt as a PFS character. I already made a Lore Warden fighter who's pretty similar to what you described, but with a completely different personality.
Who's Roy Greenhilt?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who's Roy Greenhilt?
The character in my avatar. Leader of the Order of the Stick.
I'd say that's almost exactly the wrong way to handle the situation. It'll work, in the sense that someone will give in and play a BSF, but he won't want to and he'll probably build a boring one so he won't have fun, reinforcing the BSF's suck but you have to have one idea. Much like the old "Playing clerics sucks, but someone has to get stuck with it" idea.
What you need is a way to convince at least one of them that front-line melee can be cool.
Actually I love playing melee martial characters. Yes, playing the walking shield sucks and if your party members just expect you to stand in front of them and take hits so they don't, you would quickly find me asking my "enemies" to kindly kill me last so I can help them deal with my "friends". However, let me play a 2 handed barbarian who walks around wrecking shop occupying enemies while you move strategically to avoid melee and we can probably work something out.
You can say it's the wrong way to handle it, but one of those rangers should probably just play a fighter with a bow and a backup sword. I don't recall if the most opitimized damage dealer version of a bow fighter used the archer archetype, but going with just the base version fighter with 1st favored weapon bow and second being 2 handed elven curved blade with weapon finese and agile can make you competent at doing both, all while wearing some stylish full plate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I blame this problem on strength being such a weak stat.
Pure Irony in action.
A couple questions -- Is everyone in the party really depending on having somebody else face the monsters, or do their planned tactics involve everyone attacking from range? If the latter, do they have any ways to keep the monsters out of their faces?
If they have adequate answers to these questions, you may still have a playable party. You can certainly have some fun testing out whether they can make sucn an approach to combat work.
Well, really, I don't think a lot of people think 'stand there and hit it' is all that fun, and that's really all the fighter has going for it. Even the rogue at least gets the fun of rogue talents and Sneak Attack ...
I suspect it's more that than thinking frontline fighters in heavy armor are idiots ... it just doesn't fit their preferences.
The group I'm in is in a similar boat ... we have ...
Barbarian
Ninja
Alchemist
Gunslinger
Wizard
and, technically a druid, who *could* melee, but she spent the entire first game literally (and I mean literally as in literally, not how most people use literally) standing around and waiting for the fight(s) to stop to drop CLWs.
|
If you want to show them a different way to play consider showing them though a brief team up with a fighter. Then they can see first hand.
I recommend the Student of War prestige class :)
or a ranger in mithril fullplate
or a paladin of irori
Build something flavorful and introduce it into your game then you can reveal is butt kicking nature later.
|
|
I think the real problem here is less with the choices made, and more with the WAY the choices were made.
A lot of games, and GMs, encourage players to build their characters at the first play session. Done this way, people can coordinate their characters better for a balanced party. 'Who's playing a healer? Anyone a tank?'
At the very least, hold a short conversation to sort out who will play what, to ensure the party will work together.
Yes, because shooting into melee is such a wonderful idea. (Even if you've got precise shot, you'll still have to overcome cover.)Unless you are a Zen Archer, of course. It's pretty sad that Monks make the best archers, but they do.
I disagree with Zen Archer is "best archer". Best how? Attack roll? Damage? DPR? Defensive? AC? Saves? Out of combat abilities? Etc.
VRMH - Attack goats were likely banned for outshining the party Fighter.
|
|
I disagree with Zen Archer is "best archer". Best how? Attack roll? Damage? DPR? Defensive? AC? Saves? Out of combat abilities? Etc.Yes, because shooting into melee is such a wonderful idea. (Even if you've got precise shot, you'll still have to overcome cover.)Unless you are a Zen Archer, of course. It's pretty sad that Monks make the best archers, but they do.
Pretty much all of it. See Porpentine's excellent guide for specific on why.
So in a recent first-session, the players introduced their characters and their combat abilities:
Ranger 1 (longbow): “I’m best at taking out the bad guys from a safe distance. I don’t want to get hurt.”
Ranger 2 (crossbow): “Hey, me too! Heck, I don’t even OWN a melee weapon.”
Sorcerer (faintly): “What? I can’t hear you guys all the way back here at maximum range.”
Rogue: “Not to worry. I can sneak around the bad guys and obliterate them from behind. They won’t even know I’m there, so I’ll be safe.”
GM: “Great! So, who’s actually going to FACE the monsters?”
...
Long pause, as all players eventually turn toward the only character with decent armor and a shield.
Cleric: “What? Why’s everybody looking at me?”
------------
But what it boiled down to was the Big Stupid Fighter stigma. Nobody wants to play the meat shield, the walking target dummy, the idiot in plate. My group has fully internalized the notion that ‘frontline fighter equals moron,’ and nobody wants to play a moron.
Nope, it’s not that at all. It’s the fact that the Tank/defender actually, you know, takes damage and risks. I mean you had two warrior types right? Both choose ranged as “I’m best at taking out the bad guys from a safe distance. I don’t want to get hurt”.
It’s true a lot of bad, unimaginative players dump INT for their fighter (or their BBN or just about any class but Wizard). But that’s not the real problem here. The problem here is that you’re letting them get away with this.
Just stopping having frontline combats. Have the monsters come at them from all sides. Have a std ‘monster attacks from the front battle’ only 1 time in 4. The rest ambushes, attacks from the rear, flying monsters, etc etc.
Now sure, I have done a few minor fixes: I give fighters three free ranks at start in Craft, Profession & a lesser used Ks Skill, then one more rank in one of those every level. But I also give the Cleric a free profession, too. (Just the one rank to start).
And, I have a 25 pt buy but no stats over 19, and stats below 10 net you no points. CHA is important too, everyone better have at least one social skill.