| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group is rather an independent lot. We nearly always build our individual PC’s in isolation and if there is overlap and/or gaps in our capabilities, then we just try to figure out how to deal with it.
Sometimes this doesn’t work so well.
We have had groups with no ‘face’ capabilities at all.
One with no healing at all. Not even a PC with a single rank in UMD. Buying healing and status removing potions in large batch lots becomes very expensive very quickly.
Another group had half the PC’s were sneaky and highly mobile the other half were slow armored tanks. We tried to operate as almost 2 separate groups most of the time. We weren’t terribly successful at it.
However, we have been talking about trying something new (for us). A character and group planning session. Dun! Dun!! Duh!!!
Yes I know many groups do that all the time. But a couple of people have expressed interest in running a much more difficult and challenging campaign. Not just hard combats, but all around challenging. Combat, investigation, intrigue, and social interactions all would be more difficult than we are used to doing. But if we don’t want a quick failure, I don’t think our current independent build strategies and mediocre level of tactical cooperation will succeed. Hence the planning session.
I think it likely if we just sit in a room making characters it won’t be much different. But if we setup some guidelines (and discusses them) it will help to make sure our abilities mesh at least fairly well. So I’m trying to put together a list of some guidelines, decisions, and/or talking points to help the process. This is not to put a straight jacket or limit on people. It is to make sure the important things are covered or at least considered. I’m asking for feedback/advice on the list.
Our tactics will have to be a whole nother separate discussion.
So here is my list so far:
- I guess first is does the group have a theme? All member of the same (or allied) religion. A military special action unit. A criminal orginazation. Company/merchant group. All from the same nomad clan. Etc… Some people really like theme groups and some hate them. I think they are nice for a change of pace, but I wouldn’t want to do that all the time.
- Kinda related, is the group going to have a concentration on a particular capability? A highly mobile and stealthy group. A magical group where everyone has some magical capability. Neutral mercenary group (no paladins). Holy crusaders (no animating necromancers). Etc…
- How is healing going to be covered? Not just hitpoints but also the more important status removals (remove disease, restoration, neutralize poison, raise dead, etc…). is the party willing to devote say 20% of the income to go into a joint healing fund that is used to purchase potions, scrolls, wands, and staves of healing and status removal? Will there be a cleric, oracle, or inquisitor in the party? Not necessarily a heal-bot but someone who can use wand, scrolls, and staves to heal and remove conditions. If not, I think we should have at least have one person with a high UMD skill to use those items.
- Should everyone be able to contribute in combat or would the group be ok with a skill monkey, scout, spy, diviner, and/or social butterfly type CP that handles a lot of the out of combat stuff but can’t do squat in combat? Many groups don’t like having one of these in their party, but I could maybe see myself playing one if it was acceptable.
- Is the group ok with complete combat machine builds that can’t do anything except make things worse outside of combat? I personally don’t like these and rarely play them. Some people love them. But then they often get bored or disruptive outside of combat.
- Need at least one ‘face’ PC with a high diplomacy and enough linguistics to speak to most of the locals. High charisma or even more ranks, bonus, and class skill into diplomacy. Could be the same or another character that can back them up with things like intimidate, bluff, sense motive, knowledge local, appraise, and/or disguise. A secondary face character with at least decent diplomacy is often desirable.
- Need at least some ranks in all of the monster identifying knowledge skills. Doesn’t have to be the same person. Each PC could take one or we might have an inquisitor/wizard/lorewarden with all of them.
- Usually need a ‘scout’ type person with a high sneak and perception to look for traps and enemies. Don’t necessarily have to have the ability to disarm traps since can usually go around or set off harmlessly.
- Everyone should put at least some points in perception so they are not constantly surprised by everything.
- Everyone should have enough in things like swim, ride, climb, and stealth to at least function as a group. (Or plan to purchase magic to take care of the same functions.)
- It would be nice to have a prepared primary caster to get a custom load-out when we have enough info to plan for something in particular.
- Must have melee capability. Even if it is just summoned monsters or animal companions to tank damage while casters blast away. There has to be some way to keep the bad guys away from the squishies.
- Must be ranged capability. Sometimes you can’t get in melee range and still have to fight. Ranger archer clear through to blasting sorc will work. But the capability needs to be there.
- Defenses. Yes the PF system does reward offense more than defense. Within reason. The ultimate 1k damage per round build won’t do any good if you go down every time you are hit or fail every save. In fact if you are failing every save vs things like dominate or confusion you may be more of a hindrance than a help. So if you build has lousy saves or armor, you have to think of ways to alleviate that weakness. Things like improved iron will, high level cloaks of resistance, ring of spell turning, etc… need to be planned.
- If we intend to make any significant effort at sneaking/scouting, probably shouldn’t have any heavily armored tanks. At least don’t buy the full plate and tower shiled until they can afford the enhancements or other magic to resolve the issue.
What other things should we talk about?
|
How many players are there going to be in this group? The various roles you've listed could occupy six or seven players, but a four-man group is going to have to overlap some roles. Which classes/builds are best equipped to cover multiple roles simultaneously, and is anyone interested in running them?
Here's what I can think of:
Bards can make good party faces, have bardic knowledge for monster identifying, can use wands of CLW, and are decent in combat, plus they can load up other utility spells when needed.
Sorcerers and oracles can also be the party diplomat, plus whatever role their spell loadout suggests.
Summoners and druids are basically two party members for the price of one-- a spellcaster and a melee bruiser.
Inquisitors are arguably the best at monster identifying, can activate CLW wands, and are solid in combat.
Basically, you and your group should sit down and make a list of roles, then decide how badly you need each one filled. If you have fewer necessary roles than players, you're all set. Otherwise, start looking for multitaskers. Most 3/4-BAB spellcasters can fill two roles at a time, plus a third minor role. Most spellcasters can diversify their spell selection enough to cover at least two roles if needed. Even Fighters and Barbarians can be built to switch-hit between melee and ranged.
Honestly I don't enforce my players into playing classes they don't want. I try to match the adventure accordingly.
But I can relate to what you're feeling. Especially since I've made some of those same mistakes. It may ruin someone's "build" but skills and feats may need to be spent where they're needed, not wanted.
How many players are there going to be in this group? The various roles you've listed could occupy six or seven players, but a four-man group is going to have to overlap some roles. Which classes/builds are best equipped to cover multiple roles simultaneously, and is anyone interested in running them?
Here's what I can think of:
...Basically, you and your group should sit down and make a list of roles, then decide how badly you need each one filled. If you have fewer necessary roles than players, you're all set. Otherwise, start looking for multitaskers. Most 3/4-BAB spellcasters can fill two roles at a time, plus a third minor role. Most spellcasters can diversify their spell selection enough to cover at least two roles if needed. Even Fighters and Barbarians can be built to switch-hit between melee and ranged.
Number floats, but it is usually 4-5 players plus GM.
I guess the list is kinda talking around it without explicitly mentioning it. But I see the list and discussion heading toward, "These are the roles and skills my PC will provide (whatever build I eventually decide on)."
Honestly I don't enforce my players into playing classes they don't want. I try to match the adventure accordingly.
But I can relate to what you're feeling. Especially since I've made some of those same mistakes. It may ruin someone's "build" but skills and feats may need to be spent where they're needed, not wanted.
The GM isn't forcing us to do this. We haven't picked and AP or GM yet. It might even be me.
But there has been talk about trying something tougher. Which could require us to be more of a team than collection of individuals.
I fell asleep about halfway through the list... Woke up, realized what happened, went to finish reading it and fell asleep again...
Just kidding. This just seems like a different breed of optimization to me.
I like party's with weaknesses. gives the gm something to do besides jack up CR's all day long.
I wont deny that i'd love to see a party that REALLy took teamwork feats seriously and invested in them heavily and thoughtfully... But man. At the end of the day is it really worth it?
I'm not so sure.
I fell asleep about halfway through the list... Woke up, realized what happened, went to finish reading it and fell asleep again...
Just kidding. This just seems like a different breed of optimization to me.
I like party's with weaknesses. gives the gm something to do besides jack up CR's all day long.
I wont deny that i'd love to see a party that REALLy took teamwork feats seriously and invested in them heavily and thoughtfully... But man. At the end of the day is it really worth it?
I'm not so sure.
It is a bit dry.
Yes, it is a different type of optimization.
You ever worked on a project where everyone was a planner, carpenter, material handler, etc... But no one could solder an electrical connection? All knew going in the wiring was a major part of the project. Everyone just assumed someone else could take care of that part. That is the kind of thing we are trying to avoid.
The party will still have weakness. A team of 4-5 people can't cover every possible thing. But hopefully they won't be gaping holes and the party will know about them ahead of time and make plans to deal with it.
I doubt our group would cooperate enough to take the teamwork feats, even if they were much better than they are.
Thanks for the link Magda. TarkXT's lengthy monograph does cover some of the same questions. It is definitely something I will show my group.
But I'm not just talking about combat. I'm also talking at least as much about the out of combat stuff.
|
|
I guess the list is kinda talking around it without explicitly mentioning it. But I see the list and discussion heading toward, "These are the roles and skills my PC will provide (whatever build I eventually decide on)."
I wouldn't recommend picking the roles you want to cover first and then building a character around it. Start by brainstorming some fun character ideas, then look at your group as a whole and identify any weaknesses. Then you can talk about how you could fill those holes, or what you'll do to compensate for the fact that you're choosing not to fill those holes. A party doesn't need a dedicated archer/ranged damage dealer, but it does need to know what it intends to do if it encounters an enemy it can't close the distance with.
Starting in on this at character creation will make it a lot easier down the line, but it doesn't have to be about what you're playing and what roles you're filling; it can be as simple as tactics. Make sure that the rogue has a flanking partner, and make sure that he KNOWS he's the rogue's flanking partner. Make sure somebody brings a light source if there are party members who don't have darkvision. Make sure the druid doesn't throw around Obscuring Mist if it's going to prevent the cavalier from seeing where he's charging. Little things like that can really add up, and it doesn't have to dictate what you end up playing.