| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed in the last few months that many of me fellow players strongly disapprove of the way I pick my characters' classes. You see, when one of my friends announces a new game, I quickly determine what levels it is expected to run through.
If it is a low level game that is unlikely to see high levels, I will generally play a martial character, since they tend to perform better than sorcerers and wizards at such levels and are unlikely to leave me with nothing to contribute with but a crossbow after the first encounter (which just isn't fun for me). However, if it starts in the mid- to high-levels, then I will most likely play a spellcaster, as they are far more versatile and allow me to really let loose with my creative, world-altering thinking.
If the game starts at low levels, then plays through high levels, then I will begin play with a martial choice, with the expectation that he likely won't survive through to high levels and will then be replaced with a spellcaster (note though that I don't actively try to get such a character killed, our games are just REALLY rough).
I do this because, after years of gaming, I know what is fun for me. Martials at high levels feel stale, since they can only really kill things (and generally possess one or two good methods of doing so). Spellcasters at low levels often feel lackluster during the first encounter, and are nearly useless for the rest of the adventuring day due to their low number of spell slots.
But for my friends, it's just another form of metagaming, and is frowned upon. What's more, any time that one of my martials DOES die halfway through a game's campaign (fairly rare, as I'm a pretty clever player) I can't make a spellcaster without people all but accusing me that I "let him die on purpose." (Which I have NEVER done with ANY character.)
So is this somehow bad/wrong/fun? How might I assure my friends that I am not deliberately killing off my martial characters in favor of spellcasters?
Whatever advice you can offer is most welcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you explained it in depth like you did in the post? After laying it out like that my first thought was it is a pretty rational and well thought out way to enjoy the game despite the touch of metagamey-ness (I metacreate characters too, usually waiting to be the last of the party to pick a class and choosing what the party needs). Or does the problem perhaps run a little deeper, maybe there are other contributing factors?
RD, what would happen if your GM adapted his style so that your martial character survives till high levels ?
On that line of thinking, if the group really enjoys the game as they are currently playing it, I feel like they shouldn't hold his process of character selection against him.
|
in my experience gamers are often quite fickle and judgmental. it is best to take such comments with a grain of salt. it is probably just jealousy that they didn't think of it. though if you were assigned a specific role for the party at the beginning and you are changing to something else and make the party unbalanced that i can understand.
How in depth are the story backgrounds for your characters?
|
Honestly, it feels to me that the end result is that RD is always playing the most powerful/interesting character at every level.
I can see why this would make the other players unhappy.
Also it does diminish the importance of story-driven characters and roleplaying, which is likely why they categorize it as metagaming (which it actually is in fact).
After laying it out like that my first thought was it is a pretty rational and well thought out way to enjoy the game despite the touch of metagamey-ness
Spot on imo! Sometimes a bit of meta is needed if your staring down mechanics. Nothing wrong with it. Its how you know what your doing and how to handle it and make the informed and educated decision on your own fun. All part of playing a game, and its hard to expect someone to choose to play something you don't enjoy.
Unfortunately its hard to change someone's mind once they get something in their head sometimes. I'm really not sure what to say about them thinking your killing your characters off on purpose. Best you can do might be to just prove them wrong by not dying, but that doesn't do much for the animosity if there is any and that can be hard to handle and deal with. Hopefully they can leave those feelings aside and have fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get it, choosing a character is a metagame decision. You're not playing Traveller where you generate your character's entire lifepath and determine what class they are in character. What's wrong with basing it on metagame decisions?
What I also don't get is why you would wait for the martial character to die. Can't you just tell the GM "We're getting into higher levels where I don't really enjoy playing martial characters as much. Could we give my character an excuse to retire (perhaps being knighted and remaining to defend the realm) so that I can play a character that I will enjoy more?"
If you changed characters through metagame discussion it might help shake the idea that you're deliberately killing off your characters. (Whether this is appropriate to your group or not is another question).
One question, has your group been playing since older editions? Back in second edition days and earlier, there was an assumption that you earned the right to play a powerful spellcaster by suffering through the lower levels as a weaker spellcaster. Perhaps this is a sign of some older attitudes that have been left over as a legacy of earlier editions. I don't think this philosophy is really relevant to modern gaming systems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not play a magus?
You're sturdier than a mage at low-levels and you get some of the best offensive spells in the game at high levels.
Yes, you're sacrificing batman's supreme versatility for better martial abilities, but overall you end up getting the best of both worlds, especially when you get spell recall and can spend arcane points on your pony-trick, allowing you to prepare a better variety of spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off - how ya doin' RD? You ok? Cause if you're ok and having fun and your friends are too, then it's all good. Course if you're not and this is more than you jus blowin off some steam, then here's some real advice:
Tell your fellow gamers everything you feel as articulately as you do above. If they're your friends, they'll say "It's cool" and move on. If for some reason you feel you need to change to accommodate them, perhaps compromise a little, here are some methods:
- Gestalt from the start or multiclass later on. Sure, it won't be perfect, but you'll get a little variety from both sides of the spectrum and have some of the fun you want at low and high levels
- Hunt down magic items that AREN'T the "big 6". One example might be to commission an amulet of Unseen Servant or perhaps buy Wondrous Items that do unexpected things like Pyrotechnics, Web or Plant Growth. One of the reasons you want to be a spellcaster at high levels is for the special effects; use magic items and consumables to give yourself the same thing
- Get a magical cohort. Starting as Mandferd Everyblade at level 1 and picking up Wizardo the Bearded as a cohort at level 7 means that now you've got a guy along w/you that can hurl some spells and thereby scratch that itch without metagaming.
- Get a familiar and then Improve it. Similar to my last point, there's a chain of skills and feats that allow you to access a Sorcerer Bloodline ability to gain a familiar. Then you can take more feats to gain Improved Familiar, qualify your martial levels as spellcaster's for advancing your little buddy, and even give it some 1PT Eidolon Evolutions like minor cantrips.
RD, often you pose hypotheticals on threads such as this just to begin a dialogue. I don't think you're sneaky or disingenuous; rather I think you're honestly attempting to force yourself and other gamers to explore many styles of play within the confines of your examples. I appreciate your phantasmagoria old bean.
However if this is really you in the OP and NOT one of these scenarios, then I apologize if I've cast any aspersions to the contrary. Further I genuinely hope you can make peace w/your gaming group. More importantly: I hope you can make peace w/yourself.
RD, on the personal: it must be hell to have your mind because it never stops. You've been on these boards as long as I have and I've been in here for a couple years now. In that time you've been ever creating fictions and also asking for help on real situations. You've got a thread displaying a literal horde of NPCs complete with stat blocks, pics and histories. Your posts on these boards display an intelligent, curious mind that never seems to pause.
Be at peace, Raving Dork.
RD, often you pose hypotheticals on threads such as this just to begin a dialogue. I don't think you're sneaky or disingenuous; rather I think you're honestly attempting to force yourself and other gamers to explore many styles of play within the confines of your examples. I appreciate your phantasmagoria old bean.
However if this is really you in the OP and NOT one of these scenarios, then I apologize if I've cast any aspersions to the contrary. Further I genuinely hope you can make peace w/your gaming group. More importantly: I hope you can make peace w/yourself.
RD, on the personal: it must be hell to have your mind because it never stops. You've been on these boards as long as I have and I've been in here for a couple years now. In that time you've been ever creating fictions and also asking for help on real situations. You've got a thread displaying a literal horde of NPCs complete with stat blocks, pics and histories. Your posts on these boards display an intelligent, curious mind that never seems to pause.
Be at peace, Raving Dork.
That's a fair description of me I think, but it's really happening in this case (and I try to make it clear when something is a hypothetical).
The day my mind is truly at peace will probably be the day its gone senile and I couldn't tell the difference.
Can't you just tell the GM "We're getting into higher levels where I don't really enjoy playing martial characters as much. Could we give my character an excuse to retire (perhaps being knighted and remaining to defend the realm) so that I can play a character that I will enjoy more?"
One of my GMs specifically told me that if I were to retire my martial character (for the purposes of bringing in a spellcaster), he would kick me out of the campaign.
This leads me to believe that I should take it with more than "a grain of salt."
My fellows don't all feel that way to THAT degree, but at least one does.
Why not play a magus?
I may give that a try.
My Diagnosis : starved for attention, aka hogging the limelight. YMMV ;-)
Honestly, it feels to me that the end result is that RD is always playing the most powerful/interesting character at every level.
I would think that the end result is that their martial character would get ignored and passed over for interesting plots and developments (The GM thinking, 'why bother, they're not going to be playing this character much longer') and that the spellcaster would come in late with the game and have less ties with the story and NPCs.
As such while mechanically you might get more power/interest, you'd actually get much less time in the limelight. That's what I would expect anyway.
I often do the opposite: full caster at first level because nobody else wants to, switch or multiclass to a more martial character at high levels. Apparently OP and I would be perfectly matched. Nothing badwrongfun about it.
Can't you just tell the GM "We're getting into higher levels where I don't really enjoy playing martial characters as much. Could we give my character an excuse to retire (perhaps being knighted and remaining to defend the realm) so that I can play a character that I will enjoy more?"One of my GMs specifically told me that if I were to retire my martial character (for the purposes of bringing in a spellcaster), he would kick me out of the campaign.
This leads me to believe that I should take it with more than "a grain of salt."
My fellows don't all feel that way to THAT degree, but at least one does.
Eesh, that's a big red light in my book. Animosity at the table is bad mojo dontchu' know.
If your fellow players and DMs really don't like the idea of you switching from a martial character to a spellcaster at midlevels, then maybe try starting as a spellcaster. If your character dies, you can just roll up another spellcaster. The others shouldn't complain that you're switching to a spellcaster if you started as a spellcaster.
As far as contributing beyond one encounter goes, there's a few ways to do this. One is to play a witch. Slumber and evil eye are more than enough to get you through most encounters. Or pick up the cantrip daze. It's essentially once per enemy per encounter, but your DC should be high enough that most enemies fail their saves. Flare is less powerful than daze, but can be used on more creatures. You can do quite a bit without expending any of your spell slots and save those for the difficult or important encounters. You have to be stingy with your resources, but fullcasters can be quite effective and fun to play at low levels, though probably a tad fragile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's more, any time that one of my martials DOES die halfway through a game's campaign (fairly rare, as I'm a pretty clever player) I can't make a spellcaster without people all but accusing me that I "let him die on purpose." (Which I have NEVER done with ANY character.)
So is this somehow bad/wrong/fun? How might I assure my friends that I am not deliberately killing off my martial characters in favor of spellcasters?
In general each person should be able to play what they want to play. Choosing what to play based on campaign information is fine.
(The following assumes a "standard" PF world where you can find clerics/etc... willing and able to cast Raise Dead and/or Resurrection.)
And while I believe you, that when a Martial is killed you don't "let him die on purpose." But if the group wants to get him raised/resurrected, do you chose to let him stay dead so you can play a spellcaster? Or do you let him stay dead on purpose. They are functionally the same thing. So you are "deliberately killing off" your martial characters in favor of spellcasters.
Is this bad/wrong? IMO, not really. But it is metagaming. One of the drawbacks of playing a arcane type is suffering through the low levels. You don't. You "cheat the system" by switching characters, and I can understand why it could upset people.
RD, I would be interested to know what your groups rules on making new characters after a character death are?
One of my GMs specifically told me that if I were to retire my martial character (for the purposes of bringing in a spellcaster), he would kick me out of the campaign.
This leads me to believe that I should take it with more than "a grain of salt."
My fellows don't all feel that way to THAT degree, but at least one does.
Well, it seems like they'd be fairly inflexible on this issue.
My personal advice would be not to worry about who is right or which approach is justified. It's a game and not worth too many headaches. If you can change their mind and help them understand your point of view, that's great. Otherwise accept that they will be like this and make a choice whether you're happy to stick with one class for the entire progression to keep the peace, whether you can get away with maintaining your current strategy without too much animosity or whether it's better to find a new group to game with. As far as I see it, those are really the only three options if they remain feeling the way they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's NOT about characters. At all.
This argument, though stated poorly, is about the group of players. You are not doing things the way your fellow players do. And they would like you to.
You might feel, with some justification, that there is no rule about how you make characters, and therefore there is no reason to do things this way.
You're right, this isn't a game rule. This is a social rule, designed to increase harmony among a group of people, and falls into the same category of rules as "Don't talk on the phone while at the gaming table", or "It's your turn to bring the chips". You'll never find it in the book, because it's not in the book. It's part of the social agreement that this group of people has adopted.
I'd suggest listening. Because getting invited to a game isn't in the written rules either, but you need it to take place. Otherwise, you'll be following the rules in the book by yourself.
If this social rule strikes you as unfair, then the thing to do is to TALK ABOUT IT. Have a conversation about what 'should' happen when a character dies, and how that 'should' be handled.
And make sure you LISTEN. The goal of that conversation is NOT to win, but to build a consensus that everyone can live with.
Perhaps you could build in a handicap system, like in golf.
Same party role = new guy is party level
Different party role = new guy is -2 levels
In general each person should be able to play what they want to play. Choosing what to play based on campaign information is fine.
(The following assumes a "standard" PF world where you can find clerics/etc... willing and able to cast Raise Dead and/or Resurrection.)
And while I believe you, that when a Martial is killed you don't "let him die on purpose." But if the group wants to get him raised/resurrected, do you chose to let him stay dead so you can play a spellcaster? Or do you let him stay dead on purpose. They are functionally the same thing. So you are "deliberately killing off" your martial characters in favor of spellcasters.Is this bad/wrong? IMO, not really. But it is metagaming. One of the drawbacks of playing a arcane type is suffering through the low levels. You don't. You "cheat the system" by switching characters, and I can understand why it could upset people.
RD, I would be interested to know what your groups rules on making new characters after a character death are?
I generally only give up a character when it makes in-game sense to do so. If we are in between stories, the character might choose to stay dead just because the after life is better. However, if we are about to save the world from an impending demonic apocolapse, then he will likely return whether he wants to or not because he has "unfinished business."
I make this decision based on campaign/character events first, and my desires second. I will continue playing a martial character through the whole of a campaign if he never dies, or if it never makes sense to retire him early (or would throw a wrench in the campaign's story arc somehow). I still enjoy martial characters, just not quite as much.
As for hoe death is handled? Our characters are almost never resurrected. Most of the time it's because we aren't high enough level, but even when such things are accessible, it is rarely done anyways since the player in question almost always wants to try a new concept (I'm not the only one who changes out characters).
When a new character is brought in, the old character's gear is either given to his family/known associates if a will was left behind, otherwise it is divided among the party and/or sold off. The new character comes into play with a whole new set of gear appropriate for his level.
A character dying (and staying dead) often makes the party more powerful as a result.
None of us really like that side effect, but it is much preferable to what we used to do years ago (if you died, you came back a level lower, which only served to create a perpetual death spiral not just for the player, but for the whole party).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, at least you don't roll randomly for your class. *shudders*
Actually TOZ-manian devil, that's a great idea. Dorkius Maximus: tell your disapproving GM to start a new campaign. Tell him to go off and carefully sculpt an elaborate first scenario with the expectation of standard characters. Then while he's not looking, have your entire group of friends all get out 3d6.
No point buy, no re-rolls. Roll 3d6, assigning the numbers as you get them. "Oh, you wanted to play a martial but you rolled a 4 Str and a 12 Int? You're the wizard..." Now join up with your GM and see if he's happy w/the whole party dying in encounter no 1. Or maybe you roll decent, you rise to the occasion as a gaming group, and it all works out. Either way there's nothing meta about it.
You'll see though that, in this extreme scenario if the GM wants to help your fledgling non-optimized PCs survive he'll have to be far more attentive to YOU and your party; it may even require some "coddling." In the meantime your fellow players may find that they MISS the freedom of assigning numbers to get the PCs they really wanted. You can then point out that that's all YOU are doing: playing the PC that YOU want.
I can understand the basic idea. Gaming is about having fun, and you know what having fun means to you. I dont have your experience, but I already know low levels are a slog, so I prioritize higher stuff. Nothing wrong with that.
In the end, I'm just giving you my vote of support. I have a fellow player who seems to juggle different characters whenever he gets bored of one (and where all ok with it), so maybe it's just an issue of finding a group that plays like you want.
But you have a TON of interesting builds in your emporium, I have a hard time believing you cant cook up some kind of martial that would be fun at high levels! I've been working on a lot of high-level martial builds, and while I admit they generaly focus on murder, with a bit of de-optimizing you can make them fun at other things. (or at least they look fun, havent had a chance to test them out)
Then again, I'm unsure if you're prioritizing mechanical or roleplaying entertainement, so my comments may be ill suited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, at least you don't roll randomly for your class. *shudders*
I don't know, I've had a lot of fun doing that in our Dark Heresy games. I wouldn't want to do it every game, but it's fun every now and then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, at least you don't roll randomly for your class. *shudders*
No point buy, no re-rolls. Roll 3d6, assigning the numbers as you get them. "Oh, you wanted to play a martial but you rolled a 4 Str and a 12 Int? You're the wizard..." Now join up with your GM and see if he's happy w/the whole party dying in encounter no 1. Or maybe you roll decent, you rise to the occasion as a gaming group, and it all works out. Either way there's nothing meta about it.
Plenty of meta in choosing to be a wizard after seeing your point buy. Real gamers pick their class then roll, then deal with the fact they have a 3 constitution/ 3 intellect wizard with roleplay! Wait, no, you have someone else roll, and pick your own feats and name and never get to see your real stats! if you pick a feat you don't qualify for then its null, but your not allowed to know that or you might metagame.
First, I agree with character selection process and enjoy the same elements of the game.
However, to avoid party conflict and stepping on other PC's toes, we've always either directly raised a character or replaced them with a character that serves the same role: martial, arcanist, divine, skill monkey, etc.
cheers
...you have a TON of interesting builds in your emporium, I have a hard time believing you cant cook up some kind of martial that would be fun at high levels!
I didn't say it wasn't fun, just that it was LESS fun.
...to avoid party conflict and stepping on other PC's toes, we've always either directly raised a character or replaced them with a character that serves the same role: martial, arcanist, divine, skill monkey, etc.
In our group, new characters are inevitably designed to survive whatever it was that killed the previous character. Now who's metagaming their character? lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welll. Since the definition of meta is making out of character decisions for your character, and your character died... what you choose for your next character isn't really meta since theres no character to be out of yet...
I have no critique or advice. All I can do is laugh. Very clever. I think the reason your table is having a problem with it is because
1 now its a pattern they've seen too often
2 maybe they were counting on your role as a meatshield and now that the shield is gone, everyone else's character is now more at risk (this is usually only a problem for tables that build 'ideal parties' where all the players fill a role) in this case, you're stepping out of your role and now the rest of the party thinks they've got a big characer sized hole in their armor now.
3 you've got a high level caster at a discount price (no low level weakness to slog through
4 if the rest of the party is casters maybe your new role is stepping on the toes of the role they think someone else has.
One of the drawbacks to killing off a pc can be that suddenly theres a character that was scratch built with clearly defined and less regulated application of wbl to gear. It's gonna be likely more badass than whatever died in the first place to get him there. Then to make that new thing a full caster? Heheheheh. Yeah. You're having fun alright.
I guess I don't have a problem with it because at my table we don't build 'ideal parties'... if everyone else in my group died and came back as monks it wouldn't have much effect on my character or how I play it even though a lot of people think high level monks are ineffective compared to most of the other things one might choose.
Thats an argument for another thread.
I kinda consider building the 'ideal party with everyone filling a role' is just as meta as what you're doing. If thats the case they're just pissed because your meta is subverting everyone elses meta. Which, like I say, is actually pretty funny.
Some tables would be fine with a party with 4 monks or 4 synthesist summoners and nobody would bat an eye. Your table does not sound like that table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Vincent is on to something. The other players may resent that you always scoop up the most powerful class. That will either enable you to outshine them, or will hedge into their baliwick. If you do it consistently, they may well dislike it. They may see it as you maximizing your fun at their expense.
What would happen if all the players used your algorithm for class selection?
In general what do people think of the guy who always takes the last slice of pizza?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general what do people think of the guy who always takes the last slice of pizza?
I don't think about that guy, I think we need more pizza though!
Not sure what to put as advice. From reading the whole thread, sounds like your group has some issues. While some people say your meta-playing, I read that everyone is, too. Maybe you do it more often then them, maybe you don't. Just not sure on this one. Sounds like the group needs to come together as a whole though and hash out some details on the do's and don'ts as a group. Like others have stated, everyone should be having fun. If everyone is not having fun, then something is wrong. To be a bit hagged off here and there, it happens. But sounds like some people are really upset over things. This should be addressed asap, before the group falls apart.
Wish you the best of luck on this issue though. Hope all is worked out and you all have a great time playing. Without the issues, of course.
My Diagnosis : starved for attention, aka hogging the limelight. YMMV ;-)
RD, what would happen if your GM adapted his style so that your martial character survives till high levels ?
Better question - RD, what would happen if everyone in your group decided to play a martial character at early levels and then rerolled to a caster in the higher levels? Would this work for your group or would it cause problems? If the answer is that it would be acceptable, then I see no problem and would encourage every player in your group to do the same thing. (Note, this would probably annoy your GM, lol.)
If (as I suspect) the answer is that the group needs a martial or two to hold the front lines at mid to high levels and a caster or two at lower levels to dispose of a few specialized enemies and help control the environment, then I would also frown upon your decision. In this situation, it is self-centered since you are considering what is fun for you without taking the other players into account.
Edit: Remember that RavingDork is giving us one side of the story. Chances are that if the majority of his group is annoyed, there is probably more going on...
One of my GMs specifically told me that if I were to retire my martial character (for the purposes of bringing in a spellcaster), he would kick me out of the campaign.Why exactly does that person feel it is a problem if you switch out your character, so you can have more fun?
Is it because the GM spent a lot of time creating a story around your character?
If so, why not just homebrew some interesting high level martial abilities?If you give your high level martials some interesting things to do in game (combat and out of combat), you and other will probably have more fun actually playing them.
If there is some other reason, then just talk to your other players, understand their issues and work it out somehow.
I doubt that, since that statement was made before we ever even started playing in that campaign.
Regardless of whether your gaming group has a logical premise maybe it could be worth sacrificing some of your fun in order to enhance theirs?
I always prioritize the fun of the group over that of my own, Desidero.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You build your characters how you want, I'll build my characters how I want. Not your PC, not your business."
Phrase it a bit more politely if desired.
Unless one of the players who objects is the DM, it's really nobody else's concern.
Without regarding any of the discussion thus far, I don't see a problem with Ravingdork's choice of characters. If it happens more out of the fact that the two ends of the caster/martial spectrum are boring at either end of the level spectrum, I can fully understand it. I agree that martials get boring at high levels; "Hmm what to do this turn? Oh right full power attack just like the last five turns. Well except for the one when i had to move to another target and could only standard power attack."
And casters at low levels. "I cast color spray. Okay good luck guys, I'm out of spells for the rest of the day."
I also don't like to play either type of character. Which is why I like secondary casters a lot better, like magi and Inquisitors. As well as classes that have a lot of pool options from ki or grit. They can change it up a little bit at high levels and still contribute to the fight after they ran out of spells at low levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the game starts at low levels, then plays through high levels, then I will begin play with a martial choice, with the expectation that he likely won't survive through to high levels and will then be replaced with a spellcaster (note though that I don't actively try to get such a character killed, our games are just REALLY rough).I do this because, after years of gaming, I know what is fun for me. Martials at high levels feel stale, since they can only really kill things (and generally possess one or two good methods of doing so). Spellcasters at low levels often feel lackluster during the first encounter, and are nearly useless for the rest of the adventuring day due to their low number of spell slots.
Dang. This really is a new one, and I thought I'd seen pretty much everything.
First thing I'd do is reduce it to the basics:
You have an idea that is fun.
Others in the group find it un-fun.
If you don't do it, the un-fun bounces back onto you.
I'd say look it at from that perspective, and decide what to do from there as you would any other similar situation. Explaining it in the above terms to the group might be a good start.
Bear in mind that the metagaming might not be the only issue, they may also be a bit miffed that you're changing the group dynamic when they're suddenly down a martial and up a caster.
Personally, this is why I tend to prefer games with players I've picked that have similar styles to me, than playing with a group just because they all happen to be friends of mine - although having the two mesh perfectly is obviously preferable!
From a player only perspective, as I do not run any games, it is a bit metepagame the way you pick the class, but honestly, all class choices are metagame anyways. The choices of low level = martial or the high level = caster is no big deal! that is just character choice for a campaign.
I could see frustration with the mid-campaign switch, though not necessarily for the reasons given. In our groups, the party has advanced in a way that evolves arround the party composition. Casters taking spell selections that support the martials, martials taking feat selections to work better with the others, etc. . . When a character switches out roles so completely as RD seems to suggest, the other players are left with choices that are now less than what they had developed. Not sure if I am really making my point, but I can see that situation becoming frustrating for a group if it happens over every long runnig campaign.
Now, a party that is not as supportive of each other, I cannot see it mattering at all.
From what I've gathered from reading the thread, I'd hazard a guess that your character always tend to be one of the most if not most powerful characters in the party. You probably come on the forums, find powerful "builds" and then want to roll those characters into your campaign at the table.
The other players probably don't visit the forums, and simply make characters that they enjoy playing. Their characters are not optimized and can't do anything especially earth-shattering.
Is that about right?
If so, I've had that exact situation play out at my table many times. Its the classic casual versus hardcore gamer problem. Personally, I can't stand character "builds", am against powergaming and metagaming, etc. So I can see why your way of creating new characters would offend some people.
Saying "I don't have as much fun when my character is not really powerful" would not be an acceptable reason for retiring or refusing to be resurrected in one of my games.
Your best bet is to probably try to bend more towards the group's desire and learn to have fun with a less than optimized character. Or, you always have the option of trying to find gamers that are more like-minded with you.
Sometimes it pays to be mysterious.
If you hadn't told them your character selection method then they would have been happy with whatever you played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pfffft. I'd be totally down for playing with someone with this sort of character-generation mindset. One of the regulars at my table built himself a couple of charts - he randomly rolls to determine both class and race, almost every time he makes a character. Sometimes he even does it for feats, after selecting a handful of them.
It's led to some... interesting match ups.