| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of my fun as the GM is watching the story unfold as the characters live it. Two characters in my Rise of the Runelords campaign played from the first module to the end of the sixth module, and that felt like an accomplishment to me. The story had two main protagonists, who rose from humble beginnings to become saviors of the nation.
Another player had her dwarven fighter die a heroic death at sixth level and let the character stay dead. It seemed right for that character. She tried a druid for Hook Mountain Massacre, who remained behind when the party returned to Magnimar for the next module, so that she could switch to a bard. All the switches were perfectly plausible, but the druid and the bard never felt as important as the more established characters.
I get invested in my players' imaginations.
I have no problem with Ravingdork preferring martial characters for low-level campaigns and caster characters for high-level campaigns. That is simply a preference.
But if his fighter bids his goodbyes at 10th level, despite having been through thick and thin with the party in several adventures, my character (an NPC if I am the GM) will say, "Why are you retiring now? We trust you. We know that we can count on you."
The fighter could realistically reply, "You need to find a wizard now. We are battling flying ghosts and having to cure curses and talk to kings and solve puzzles. It just doesn't seem a place for a fighting man."
But that reply would make me feel like a failure as a GM. If the game provides high-level fighters, I should have a place for them in my high-level campaigns. Enough of a place that the player should think, "I have become fond of my fighter. We had a lot of great adventures. Maybe I won't retire him yet."
Hmmm. It's a tricky one.
On the one hand, you should be able to enjoy yourself, and being stuck with a 100 pound weakling who can't fight his way out of a paper bag is not everyones cup of tea. The GM and players should recognise that.
On the other hand, there is party balance: every party needs a Martial character to dish out the damage at early levels and catch all the flak at higher levels. If they die, a replacement would be expected. While it's not really true that parties must have a tank, it is still a strong expectation among many gamer groups.
Perhaps try some alternatives: Eldritch knight gives martial at lower levels and arcane at higher. Summoners can summon powerful fighting creatures while still having some decent spell facility. I am sure that others can think of some alternatives that lets you have a bitof both worlds.
To me this depends on your groups character creation dynamics. Some groups follow the I build my character in isolation with no regard for what party roles are covered. Other groups build in close cohesion with other players covering all the roles. Most groups lay some where in between.
By choosing what you feel is the best role at that level consistently, if your group works together to build balanced parties, you are forcing someone else to take a less optimal or interesting role. If your group builds in isolation then I don't see any problem with what your doing.
The group I play in has a few members that only ever play one or two types of char and we tend to only have four players. That means if we want to have all the roles in the party covered and not get murdered one of the other players and I are forced to play the same roles over and over again and that gets frustrating. If I had to guess that's were some of the frustration with how your choosing characters comes from.
As for the gm kicking you out if you leave the campaign that is overly harsh. I've retired several chars because of in or out of game reasons and there shouldn't be a problem unless its critical to the story.
This one is interesting to think about.
I would say - if you cycle through campaigns and parties fast enough for your friends to notice that you do this (i.e. you play so much that, even with a low rate of your martial characters dying, and furthermore them dying at mid-levels to allow you to do this, it still happens enough to frustrate your friends), I'd imagine that you guys are playing enough to where they would have had to work out for themselves a similar preference list of what they like and don't like doing/playing, and workarounds for those things. I find it hard to believe they also don't have some routine that can be viewed as meta-gaming (that is, if we're agreeing to what you do as some sort of loose meta-gaming...whether it is or not, I guess I don't care about the label).
I admittedly know nothing about how your friends play, but given my statement above - do they ever role-play a character so hard that they "don't know" they'll need some +1 weapons by a certain level? or need some anti-invisibility tactics/items by a certain level? This isn't necessarily the same thing that you're doing, but it's in the ballpark. That kind of "meta-gaming" is going to always happen.
Your group probably has more fun with you doing this and just doesn't realize it. Anyone at the table that just feels useless is going to bring the fun down a notch.
Lastly, I think it should be painfully obvious if your fighters all of a sudden get a death wish at level 12 every campaign. Your GM can either stop you from switching roles or not. If not, then others know they can do the same if they wish. I've found that players who accept that they'll need to re-roll at some point due to death, play better anyway, as they take more chances.
Cleric.
Good for level 1. Good for level 5, Good for level 10, good for level 15, good for level 20.
Perhaps try some alternatives: Eldritch knight gives martial at lower levels and arcane at higher. Summoners can summon powerful fighting creatures while still having some decent spell facility. I am sure that others can think of some alternatives that lets you have a bitof both worlds.
Vivisectionist/Wizard(arcanist?)/Arcane Trickster. Alternatively just stick with Vivisectionist if you like it, lots of win in that class if you know what your doing.
|
...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
So here's your stated method of selecting a character class:
-Determine expected play levels-If low, play martial as they are better at low levels
-If high, play caster as they are better at high levels
-If starting low but moves to high play martial as they are better at low levels
-Once martial dies (or if allowed to retire) switch to caster as they are better at high levels
In every case you are choosing to play the best class type for those levels, even wanting to switch once casters become better than martials, chafing at having to wait for him to die. You want to cherry pick the best class type for whatever level you're at and leave the rest of the group to fill the other roles, or be crowded if they're playing something similar. Don't you think this sounds a bit selfish?
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."
Are you just about to start up the current campaign or have your group progressed through it some? Are there like 2-3 martial classes and caster classes you "always" (usually) play? Do you make backgrounds for your characters? If so, do these backgrounds contain goals your characters have in their lives?
A character who has achieved the goals they set out with should retire from adventuring. Also, if a player is extremely bored with a character, they should retire the character for something they will find more fun.
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?
As a DM, I've noticed my players follow patterns. One of my players plays melee characters regardless of starting level. Another player likes playing weird races / the face of the party every time. Another player enjoys mystic theurges / healbots. You follow a pattern too. Following a pattern is not bad. Deviating from the pattern from time to time also not bad.
*sigh* Because your party has deliberately called you out on the pattern you follow, I would suggest mixing it up for 2-3 characters.*edited* I'm going to give you what my table calls 'The Phil Example'. Phil was this guy who needed to be the best. His AC was higher, his DPR was two to three times higher, he almost always role played his class wrong (i.e. playing a LG as NE), he was always arguing rules when he didn't get his way (without quoting books/page numbers: some I could not find), and on top of everything else, he boasted in front of the other players about how good he was and how bad everyone else was. Needless to say, we kicked him from the table. An appearance of balance and a basic level of manners is important in a game like pathfinders.
When your table is bringing this issue to your attention, are they really saying that the other players are not enjoying the game as much when you switch between melee and spellchucker?
My offering is that maybe you can't class into anything already used. If there are already wizards or bards in play, can't be them. Doesn't matter what archetype, specialization or whatnot.
I don't think it is wrong to build something you like based on the amount of levels of play expected, but I admit the martial/spellcaster leap seems a jerk move to me if it bothers anybody else at the table.
Otherwise have at!
Switching characters is a personal choice, and if someone has a problem with it they can go ... themselves.
Sorry.
On to the real problem:
This game has power and functionality imbalances that shift over the various levels of play.
The very fact that a low level fighter has more options and capabilities than a low level wizard is bad. The fact that this changes and reverses over time is even worse.
That is the culprit.
Next time your DM takes issue with you playing the character you want, tell him to fix the actual problem, in his game, and then you wouldn't have to change it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I don't feel you're "wrong" for your schtick, but I would personally be among the eye-rollers at the table. As others have said, it's okay until you're called out. You've been called out. Be a good sport, and pleasantly surprise your friends with a fresh approach.
@Vincent - "Making character decisions with out of game knowledge" is only ONE definition of meta-gaming. The more general definition of "meta-gaming" is to make game decisions based on anything that transcends the rules or the "world" of the game.
As I've said many, many times, not all metagaming is bad metagaming. Using the word pejoratively without a qualifier leads people to believe that metagaming itself is "badwrongfun" and some people will start to act on that prejudice.
@RD, that's what I would say is happening here. I would call what you are doing metagaming, but I consider virtually all initial character creation activity to be either actual metagaming or very close to the line of metagaming.
Whether what you do is metagaming or not is not the issue. The issue is whether you are acting in a way that reduces the fun of the other people at the table. You say that you do what you do because it maximizes your fun.
Maybe some of your painful self-examination in things like this would be reduced somewhat if you made some of your metagame decisions based on what would make the overall group's experience more fun.
I frequently pick characters that are way, way down my list of preferred characters because I want other players to play something they want to play and my preferred choice would conflict with their choice.
I do that for two reasons.
1. I've played this game a long time and have an encyclopedia of great experiences with characters I have played that were my absolute most favorite characters to play at that time. Enough really for a lifetime, although I still intend to create more.
2. I can have a boatload of fun even with less than optimal characters through the creation and role playing of interesting personalities.
I am currently playing a halfling detective bard in a Carrion Crown campaign. Today he did the most damage in a single attack that he has done so far. He critted an enemy with his bow. He did 8 damage. He was psyched. The half-orc barbarian then stepped up and did 18 damage with his greataxe on a mediocre damage roll.
If all that mattered to me was the numbers in the game, I'd be disappointed in my bard. But I am having an absolute blast with him.
Here are some things he's done:
1. In one scene a group of street musicians started playing an impromptu song in the park. He started dancing in front of the musicians, did a "perform" check, rolled high, and the musicians were impressed, so then he stepped up and started singing a made up song, did another perform check, almost maxed, and pretty soon half the town was dancing in the park. This was key to getting the town to accept the party and provide help for the campaign.
3. At one point the party had to climb down into a pit with water at the bottom. As the first two party members reached the bottom, they were attacked and called for help. He leaped into the pit and used acrobatics to reduce the damage, falling 30 feet into shallow water, and rolling to his feet with his bow ready. Yeah, he took a lot of damage, but he was determined to come to the aid of his friends.
I could describe more of his exploits. Because he is fragile and lacks massive damage capability I have to work harder to make sure he's carrying his weight, and then some.
But I like a challenge.
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.
That is almost never the case.
In every case you are choosing to play the best class type for those levels, even wanting to switch once casters become better than martials, chafing at having to wait for him to die. You want to cherry pick the best class type for whatever level you're at and leave the rest of the group to fill the other roles, or be crowded if they're playing something similar. Don't you think this sounds a bit selfish?
No. Not really.
Are you just about to start up the current campaign or have your group progressed through it some?
We've played through it some at this point.
Are there like 2-3 martial classes and caster classes you "always" (usually) play?
Yes. I often play a sorcerer, though nearly all the full casters are possibilities. For martial characters, it is usually a fighter, though I sometimes also play a barbarian or fighter/barbarian.
Do you make backgrounds for your characters?
Every character I've ever played for an adventure path or homebrew campaign (as opposed to a one-shot or playtest) has had a character bio ranging from one paragraph to two pages.
If so, do these backgrounds contain goals your characters have in their lives?
Almost always, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.That is almost never the case.
LOL, RD is far more likely to be the originator of a build that someone ELSE comes to the boards and finds and copies for their use...
I don't have an issue with your approach, RD. However, I think you should consider how well it extrapolates if everyone were to do it. Provided that suits the style of your group (all martial parties at low levels and all caster parties at high levels) then I don't see any ethical issue - they should get over themselves and let you play the way you enjoy.
It's different if your group likes to have a balance of martials and casters. Since your method will never result in you being the guy "taking one for the team" and could perhaps be seen as selfish.
Hey, at least you don't roll randomly for your class. *shudders*
I was hoping he was going to say he just threw a dart at a bunch of half-filled character sheets.
I have played in games with randomly selected races and classes.
It worked. We had fun. I wouldn't say it was more fun than individually creating our classes deliberately, but if it was less fun, it wasn't by much.
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.
I can see their point of view, but I also see your point of view. I dont think you are doing anything wrong. You just want to be effective. There is nothing wrong with that. I think they should leave you alone about it. Sorry I don't have much advice this time. :)
Having read many of your posts Ravingdork I would not classify you as a selfish or inconsiderate individual at all. However, your statement did make me think of a passenger on an airplane who has very specific needs to enjoy the flight.
On takeoff, they need the window seat to see the town out the window. Then, once takeoff is done they want the middle seat with both armrests. Then drinks are about to be served so they want the isle seat with more leg room.
Its fine that they enjoy different positions at different points of the flight, but it does seem a bit inconsiderate of the other passengers who thought they could have the isle seat for this flight and may now need to change seats to accommodate this choosy passenger.
In my groups each player is filling a role (and a roleplay) and it would be very challenging to have someone completely shift from fighter (hammer role, from tactics article) to sorcerer (arm role). Of course, if your group doesn't mind accommodating this then its not a problem.
As others have stated... Play a Hybrid
Magus
Hunter
Alchemist
Paladin
Bard
Fun and effective from 1st to 20th. Or if you really want a full caster that is good from 1st on...
Cleric
Witch
Druid
Oracle
Seriously. There are more classes that are fun at any level then are not. I can think of only a few that have the issues you describe.
Fighter
Barbarian
Rogue
Monk
Wizard
Sorcerer
I look at it from the other players' point of view also. For example:
Player brings in a wizard. He suffers through the "Cast colour spray and then fire a crossbow" levels. He gets outfitted with whatever haphazard random wizard gear might fall in your adventures. A Wand of Comprehend Languages with 3 charges, etc.
You, on the other hand, play a martial...not really caring because you won't have that character at higher levels anyway. Said martial character dies. You get to bring in YOUR wizard with gear specifically tailored to his every need and whim.
Kind of treads on his toes and makes his hard work seem less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that your "creative, world-altering" playstyle may be one of the biggest points of contention your group has with you playing caster characters. Few GM's appreciate it if a player makes himself invulnerable to danger and subverts the "expected" game system. Other players who feel marginalized because your character outshines them also tend to frown upon that.
I'd recommend playing an Inquisitor or Alchemist (or any of the other six level casters). They are in the middle in terms of power and they can do more than reasonable damage and still maintain very decent versatility. I think so far that they have been some of the most successful classes Paizo has created.
In previous posts I have seen that you often argue with or upset the GM, now you say you are upsetting your fellow players. If they can see a pattern that upsets them then there is a pattern. Can you see a pattern in your behaviour? Is that wrongbadfun?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"We don't approve of you having fun the way you do. You need to have fun a way we approve of, even if it isn't fun for you."
Gaming involves a social contract. If one player is upsetting the the rest of the group, and has been doing so for months it is more than an in game issue. If someone cannot have fun without upsetting the rest of the group perhaps they need to find a new group.
The needs of the many....
|
"We don't approve of you having fun the way you do. You need to have fun a way we approve of, even if it isn't fun for you."Gaming involves a social contract. If one player is upsetting the the rest of the group, and has been doing so for months it is more than an in game issue. If someone cannot have fun without upsetting the rest of the group perhaps they need to find a new group.
The needs of the many....
I am trying to sum up what RD is saying his group is telling him.
This does not contain any opinions of mine, except my opinion on what I believe he is saying his group is telling him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(...)
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
This, 100%. Bored of the fighter? Play a ranger, a battle cleric or oracle, whatever, but see that you mainly serve the same purpose as before. Otherwise the party might lose the (much needed) fighter and gain a (not so needed aka redundant) second arcanist, and all players would have to adjust THEIR roles to fill the void YOU created out of sheer boredom. Fun for you? Maybe. Fun for everybody else? Highly doubtful.
Not cool IMHO.
While I wouldn't employ any punitive measures for a player doing this, I can see why people might look unfavorably upon it. I guess that is part of the way melee and casters seem to balance, it is due to the fact different levels largely favor different types. Having the express agenda of playing each group only when it is most favorable feels a bit against the spirit of the disparity.
I am not telling you that you shouldn't do it. I am just saying I understand why others may not like it, it feels a bit like a backdoor to staying top dog. I also understand your frustration with low levels, especially casters, being a bit dry. The up side is, if you have a plan for a high level character that you work through a lot of dead(er) levels, it feels pretty good when the bang kicks in. I have a character now that didn't really become the character I wanted to play until much later. ~60% of my concept kicked in at level 7 and ~20% kicked in at level 8. It is a pretty ridiculously strong character now but I can justify all its insane abilities and unnatural heartiness by the fact that I played 6 levels of a sub-optimal character that I was only interested in playing to get a later investment pay-off, and I love every second that I play him now. If I just built this character at level eight, I wouldn't be too surprised if people were bothered by the big lump of cheese I brought to the table.
I actually have several characters that fit this trend of investment prior to payout, but the one above that really stands out like it wasn't even the same character before all the pieces finally came together. Perhaps you don't get the same chemical rewards, but if you commit to the investment idea, maybe the later payouts might make the lower levels worth it.
(...)
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
This, 100%. Bored of the fighter? Play a ranger, a battle cleric or oracle, whatever, but see that you mainly serve the same purpose as before. Otherwise the party might lose the (much needed) fighter and gain a (not so needed aka redundant) second arcanist, and all players would have to adjust THEIR roles to fill the void YOU created out of sheer boredom. Fun for you? Maybe. Fun for everybody else? Highly doubtful.
Not cool IMHO.If we're talking about level 10+, it is easy enough for an arcanist to fill the shoes of a fighter and bring more to the table besides.
As long as the player doesn't create unbalance in the group, i.e. the new character is able (and the player willing) to fill those shoes without forcing the other players/characters to rethink their skills and tactics to stay effective as a group, that would be fine by me.
RD...just make sure everyone elses character dies along with your martial...then they can also have the option of changing Character horses mid-stream.
Y'know what kills me about this thread? The Wolverine Dragon had it right when he said:
LOL, RD is far more likely to be the originator of a build that someone ELSE comes to the boards and finds and copies for their use...
This is the unexaggerated truth. Dorkius Maximus is the guy whose threads we all flock to for ideas when we're stuck for a build, or at least ONE of the guys. So you're telling me that the guy w/some of the MOST creative build threads and certainly one of the most prolific can't conceive of a way to make a PC who feels fun, survivable and magical from level 1 to level 20?
RD forgive me, but that's initially why I thought this might've been hypothetical.
Now that being said, I think another poster in this thread had the right of it when they suggested that your fellows felt frightened by the fact that they'd come to rely on your PC filling a role in the group for several levels and then, by switching to a spellcaster that means the dynamic has changed at a more dangerous part of the AP. I can also see where this might also cause some players to feel that this change might distract attention away from their own awesomeness.
I go back to some of my original suggestions. I think a good compromise would be to create a character from the start that would fill in both roles you enjoy and also remain viable and therefore consistent through all levels.
TLDR the above, but please indulge me in this question RD: have you attempted to remedy this in the past, if anything? Have you attempted running hybrids or multiclass PCs? If so, what was your experience?
Right or wrong. Fair or unfair. It's pretty much irrelevant. This is a friendly game. It's something we do for fun.
You may be right. They may be wrong. If it's making the game less fun, it's still screwing up the game. You can come up with iron clad arguments for why whatever you want should be allowed. You can get the approval of the internets. If the people you're playing with aren't happy with it, it's still not going to work.
This should be the key take away from the thread. I've noticed that play and players at the table do not match the forums at all. At the table people are trying to RP, take into consideration their fellow players, etc.
The forums are mostly full of people who are hardcore about the game and are interested in discussing how to squeeze every last drop of optimization out of a character "build". Clearly that results in the forums being more permissive about anything that furthers such an end.
It's incredibly likely that the group you're playing with vastly differs from the forums community. Much in the same way of corporate culture. One company may do things one way, another a different way. Neither is right or wrong, its just the way that company operates. If you don't want to follow the corporate culture, find yourself a new job. Trying to change the corporate culture and convince everyone else there to change to benefit yourself is in very poor taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The forums are mostly full of people who are hardcore about the game and are interested in discussing how to squeeze every last drop of optimization out of a character "build". Clearly that results in the forums being more permissive about anything that furthers such an end.
Bear in mind a lot of that misrepresentation of the forum makeup occurs because those of us who simply don't care for optimizing just avoid the optimization threads because we don't want to crap all over someone else's idea of fun. That doesn't mean we're not here on the boards - we just tend to avoid any discussions that get too crunchy :)
However, you're also right that internet forums in general tend to attract optimizers and character "build" people, simply due to the fact that playstyle lends far more to sharing, collaboration, and wanting feedback.
Back to the problem in hand though, I have to add my voice to those who say the only opinion that really matters here is that of the group in question, and how they want to play, no matter what any of us here may think. Sometimes (and note that I'm not saying that's the case here, just to bear it in mind) the best answer is to find a different group that matches your playstyle. If that isn't possible, however, it's also important to remember that even if it's the only group you have access to they have no obligation, moral or otherwise, to accommodate your playstyle. While that may sound harsh, it's also the cold hard truth. Negotiations probably need to be more about persuading them to find a middle ground that allows your playstyle than persuading them they're wrong to dislike it.
Negotiations probably need to be more about persuading them to find a middle ground that allows your playstyle than persuading them they're wrong to dislike it.
Agreed. Buy in is always more effective than pushback.
Frankly, the rest of the group needs to pull the sticks out and mind their own business. I consider their complaint invalid; it's entirely RD's right to use whatever system he desires to construct his character. It's just ... petty.
They may not like it, but they don't have to.
Name drop that you are Ravingdork, like...do you know who I am?
This isn't WoW, so the necessary class rolls are a bit less fixed, but as long as all the class roles are covered, and your DM is ok with it, do what you want.
If they still stay insistent, play the most broken thing that you can come up with. Play something like AM BARBARIAN, Amy Alchy, or the Vacuum and solo every encounter. After a session or two of that, they may be more open to your play style. ;)