| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with aboniks here and have to disagree with the assumption in the OP that characters "should be designed with the team in mind" . I see no TEAM in "party". If the characters are well-adjusted champions who train together and share common goals then yes, I could see a team. Mostly though I enjoy the disparate raggle-taggle adventurers that have to work to overcome their own inabilities and those of the group as a whole, and work through their prejudices and shortcomings...
Really it comes down to playstyle - some folk want to create a banced role-based party that provides synergies, others just want to create character concepts they enjoy. Then again, it can be a player/character thing too. Where I have a character who is group minded, that character necessarily frowns on selfish actions by other characters. Sometimes its my character being selfish, or stupid.
Apart from that, I agree with all the posters who commented on fun being paramount. Expectations of other characters can only be your own, and you can't expect other players to share your expectations. If you have a specialised interest or need, you need to make that clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to take it a step further and say it's not the party you owe anything to, but the other players. You owe it to them not to crap all over their fun, and to do your best to have a good game together.
What that actually entails can vary, because what your character owes the party differs from game to game, some games may actively encourage party issues.
EDIT: Oceanshieldwolf and I seem to have had the same idea :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once played a game with four elven brothers. Each was a fighter specializing in a different weapon. They rode about on horseback, getting into adventures in a human-dominant world and winning everything, all the time. They got so cocky that when they ran into humans they'd taunt them in the silly French accents of the tower guards from Monty Python's the Holy Grail. "You silly human monkey-boy; why don't you go climb a tree and get yourself a banana? We will take it from here..."
This game can be as successful or as tragic as the players want. It has nothing to do with the characters chosen, but rather with how the participants play.
Precise bombs is good. If you're planning on bombing... that's a nice one. However, there are no feats (that I'm aware of...)that would discount squares from a fireball... that just requires careful aiming. If I'm planning on building a super-Hyde/hulk/werewolf alchemist... I may not bother with improving my bomb abilities. I have other places i need those discoveries.
Same with Paladins... My paladin is the prime healer in the group. I absolutely will NOT take the selective Channel ability. I need more combat feats. So frankly NO channelling for healing in combat.
Well, there's a metamagic feat, but Sorcs & Wiz can just choose another spell, one that won't hurt their buddies. Pretty much a alchemist has one attack. But yes, if you're not bombing a lot, fine.
As to the paladin- what combat feat do you NEED so very badly you can't spend one feat to help your buddies? Pretty selfish if you ask me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In designing a character you owe the other players the following:
(1) Make a character who wants to do whatever the party are going to be doing. If the party are a pirate crew, don't play someone who'd refuse to be a pirate.
(2) Make a character who the other PCs would willingly travel with. Not too annoying, and not so useless they'll get the rest of the party killed.
Surely that's the bare minimum the other players can expect if they're letting you play with them?
That's fine- as a minimum.
|
In designing a character you owe the other players the following:
(1) Make a character who wants to do whatever the party are going to be doing. If the party are a pirate crew, don't play someone who'd refuse to be a pirate.
(2) Make a character who the other PCs would willingly travel with. Not too annoying, and not so useless they'll get the rest of the party killed.Surely that's the bare minimum the other players can expect if they're letting you play with them?
Agreed and seconded. I will add:
(3)When possible try to make a character that is decent in both combat and non-combat situations.
Want to make a fighter with 20 Con and Str with a Int and Cha of 7. Go right ahead. Don`t expect to be as good as someone with the reverse in attributes. Same thing with someone who builds a character with a Int and Cha of 20 and low Str and Con. Your basically the face of the party. Don`t expect to be as good as the more combat focused clases in combat.
I'm going to be a bit long-winded here (yeah, everyone who knows my campaign threads can go ahead and sigh right now), but we're having all kinds of inter-PC issues in our Second Darkness campaign, and it brings to light a lot of what other people have posted. Here we go:
-----
CHARACTER GENERATION: CLASSES. For our campaign, our GM specifically forbade us from knowing what anyone else was being to prevent any metagaming or players playing a PC they didn't want to play. The end balance wasn't bad: Two barbarians, a ranger, a fighter, two rogues, two wizards, and a life oracle. A little short on healing and support, but otherwise not a terrible balance for a 9-PC party, especially since one of the rogues decided to 'go bard' starting at 2nd level.
CONCLUSION: When first creating characters, people have different enough tastes that they don't need a ton of prodding to make a "well-balanced" party. People do it naturally on their own, and if they don't, they can make up for it with consumables, hirelings, or PC deaths. (The fighter's player got sick of being unable to roll over a 5 in combat and declared that his fighter quit in disgust at his lack of ability, then brought in a cleric to bolster the beleaguered life oracle.)
-----
CHARACTER GENERATION: ALIGNMENTS. This was a HUUUUUUGE problem for our group. I'm a lawful-goodie-two-shoes, and I'm *loving* GM'ing a LG group in RotRL, so I decided to play a LG character. Unfortunately, three other players decided that this had to be a 'gritty, underworld' campaign and are playing CN on the edge of CE. (Feeding bound prisoners to sharks and laughing at the spectacle, for example.) Another player wrote 'CG' on his sheet but wants to join the other three in feeding the sharks. Two players wrote 'NG' on their sheets, but on seeing the antics of the 'gritty' players, declared that they had no idea why their PCs would stick around and declared that they were leaving the party!
So the *only* players that are getting along with everyone are the LN elf who's happy with whatever happens as long as there are rules, and the CG human who's perfectly happy to let other people do whatever they want, as long as they don't ask him to participate.
CONCLUSION: Make sure every player agrees how the group is going to play. This is a HUGE source of conflict if you have one group that wants an, "I help the homeless NPC and give her a share of the party funds," game, while another group has a, "I do abominable things to the homeless NPC," approach. Honestly, it's the #1 thing that's tearing our group apart at the moment, and it's really no fun to play a group of PCs who feel so fundamentally differently about things as simple as, "How do we get the necessary information out of this prisoner?"
-----
SKILLS: It never hurts to have redundant skills. Diplomacy? Perception? Disable Device? Acrobatics? All are fine even when multiple people have them. About the only thing that needs to be avoided are multiple people with the same Craft skill, but even then they can take team crafting feats to make crafting go faster.
On the other hand, if you're a fighter or wizard you sure as heck shouldn't have to allot your skill points based on what someone else thinks you should do. I fall into the absolute camp of, "Your skills are YOURS and nobody else's. You do not owe the party ANYTHING in choosing your skills, INCLUDING crafting skills.
-----
SPELLS, FEATS, and EQUIPMENT: This is a particular sore point for me. I am the life oracle in question. We just hit 5th level, so it's vital for us to have Silence to take out enemy spellcasters. I told everyone that Silence was not a good fit with my character concept, so I'd like to see the bard or cleric take it. The bard responded by taking another level of rogue. The cleric responded by ignoring me completely. I said, "OK, fine. If the party funds will pay for a wand of Silence I'll take care of it."
No go. The party didn't want to 'waste' precious funds on a wand of Silence.
So I did due diligence: I announced that I would not be devoting a spell slot to the spell. I recommended that someone else take it. Failing that, I recommended that we combine our funds for a disposable item. With all of that denied, I feel justified in choosing spells that better suit my character.
As someone mentioned previously, it is utterly unfair for the rest of the group to force you to make spell, skill, or feat choices for your PC. Period. You can simply warn them of the consequences of your choices, and let the chips fall where they may.
(Yeah, I'm waiting for the first time a caster drops a fireball on us or we fail to surprise a large group of enemies because we weren't Silenced to hear a big round of recriminations as to why "the healer" didn't take Silence.)
-----
CHARACTER GENERATION: ALIGNMENTS. This was a HUUUUUUGE problem for our group. I'm a lawful-goodie-two-shoes, and I'm *loving* GM'ing a LG group in RotRL, so I decided to play a LG character. Unfortunately, three other players decided that this had to be a 'gritty, underworld' campaign and are playing CN on the edge of CE. (Feeding bound prisoners to sharks and laughing at the spectacle, for example.) Another player wrote 'CG' on his sheet but wants to join the other three in feeding the sharks. Two players wrote 'NG' on their sheets, but on seeing the antics of the 'gritty' players, declared that they had no idea why their PCs would stick around and declared that they were leaving the party!
So the *only* players that are getting along with everyone are the LN elf who's...
Yeah...why are you still in that group? The two players that said " that they had no idea why their PCs would stick around and declared that they were leaving the party!" were right.
Not that there's anything badwrongfun about mature players trying a 'all evils" campaign as a change of pace. But, everyone needs to be in on it, and I think that word "mature" may not apply to some of those guys.
Yeah...why are you still in that group? The two players that said " that they had no idea why their PCs would stick around and declared that they were leaving the party!" were right.
Not that there's anything badwrongfun about mature players trying a 'all evils" campaign as a change of pace. But, everyone needs to be in on it, and I think that word "mature" may not apply to some of those guys.
Well, being the only healer in the group helps immensely. "Torture a prisoner to death = You don't get healing any more," ended much of the nonsense pretty quickly.
But yes, there are definitely different maturity levels and gaming expectations in the group, and it's definitely a, "The group is traveling together because this is the ONE game that four of the players can make," rather than, "This group would logically travel together," and it is quite grating.
On the other hand, it's one of FOUR games I'm involved with, so I have the definite luxury of saying, "OK. My goddess personally sent me here to help this group save the world. And they're reprehensible people whom I loathe. But I'm supposed to help them succeed, so the best I can do is get them to mitigate their brutality while I'm around and consider their actions and maybe change them in the long run, and that's what Sarenrae would want, right?"
It's getting more fun to roleplay as everyone says, "Aw, geez! We can't torture him because the angel wouldn't like it! OK, angel! What are YOU going to do to get the information out of him?"
Let's me play my maxed-out Diplomacy skills, AND mitigates the need for torture that they're displaying. But they do enjoy splitting the party on occasion so they can play to their baser natures. And I must admit, I'm OK not taking points in Heal or Sense Motive so that they can do their thing while my PC isn't around. I can use the skill points in places more suited to my character concept.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I once had a group in which half the characters were evil (one CE anarchist and a NE schemer) and the other half good (one CG, one NG), with a CN dwarf caught in the middle. It was obvious after the first adventure that, long-term, this was NOT going to work out. So we split the group in two, that played on alternate weeks, and I invited everyone to roll up another character (of the opposite alignment) if they wanted to play weekly, in both groups. It worked out beautifully that way; the dwarf joined the "good" party, and one of the "evil" players rolled up a paladin for that one as well, and that became one group; the two evil characters went their own way and had their own campaign. Eveyone got what they wanted.
I once had a group in which half the characters were evil (one CE anarchist and a NE schemer) and the other half good (one CG, one NG), with a CN dwarf caught in the middle. It was obvious after the first adventure that, long-term, this was NOT going to work out. So we split the group in two, that played on alternate weeks, and I invited everyone to roll up another character (of the opposite alignment) if they wanted to play weekly, in both groups. It worked out beautifully that way; the dwarf joined the "good" party, and one of the "evil" platers rolled up a paladin for that one as well, and that became one group; the two evil characters went their own way and had their own campaign. Eveyone got what they wanted.
I really like that, as it's a great example of the story taking things somewhere incompatible with the current group setup, and the group obviously enjoying it so much that they adjusted the setup to let the story evolve organically into following those two groups.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was fun to contrive for the good party to enter an area that the evil party had already passed through, and spot a Wanted poster listing the evil characters and summarizing their latest exploit (which we'd played the week before).
Paladin: "Those look like awful villains!"
Other Three: "Yeah, we used to know those guys!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was fun to contrive for the good party to enter an area that the evil party had already passed through, and spot a Wanted poster listing the evil characters and summarizing their latest exploit (which we'd played the week before). "Hey, we know those guys!"
Makes me wish there were more days in the week so I could run half a dozen interconnected games with crossovers...
Anyway, I guess the "moral" is that there are solutions to intraparty alignment issues, as long as everyone is flexible enough to implement them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Makes me wish there were more days in the week so I could run half a dozen interconnected games with crossovers...
I always try to have at least two groups of PCs in play simultaneously, if there is enough player interest. That can also be a great way to deal with optimizers vs. the "Skill Focus: basket weaving" people; put all the former in one group and throw hard-core challenges at them, and put the latter in a second group and give them nonlethal hijinx to have fun with.
SKILLS: It never hurts to have redundant skills. Diplomacy? Perception? Disable Device? Acrobatics? All are fine even when multiple people have them.
You're playing in a very large group. In a more traditional four-PC group, covering all the important skill bases is very difficult, and much worse if there's significant overlap. "Anyone have Knowledge: Local?" "No." "No." "Nope." "No."
SKILLS: It never hurts to have redundant skills. Diplomacy? Perception? Disable Device? Acrobatics? All are fine even when multiple people have them.You're playing in a very large group. In a more traditional four-PC group, covering all the important skill bases is very difficult, and much worse if there's significant overlap. "Anyone have Knowledge: Local?" "No." "No." "Nope." "No."
As I mentioned, that's the 9-player group and it's the "problem child".
5-player group: Some skill overlap, some alignment conflict, some play issues, but nothing "worth noting".
3-player-and-GM-NPC group: A really ideal mix. The best group I've ever GM'ed. There's a reason Paizo recommends 4.
3-player-group: This is the only place I'm seeing the problem you're describing. "Oops! No one took that skill? Carp!" But the players are also 10, 10, and 12 (my kids' game), so they can be forgiven for forgetting to take critical skills, and they're smart enough to notice a missing skill, write it down, and say, "OK, YOU! You have to take this next level!" But they're distributing them in a logical way: The druid has to take Knowledge: Nature next level, for example.
So until you've dropped to 3 players, I haven't seen a real "skill vacuum" that needs to be filled by, "This player MUST take this skill," situation.
Yeah...why are you still in that group? The two players that said " that they had no idea why their PCs would stick around and declared that they were leaving the party!" were right.
Not that there's anything badwrongfun about mature players trying a 'all evils" campaign as a change of pace. But, everyone needs to be in on it, and I think that word "mature" may not apply to some of those guys.
Well, being the only healer in the group helps immensely. "Torture a prisoner to death = You don't get healing any more," ended much of the nonsense pretty quickly.
But yes, there are definitely different maturity levels and gaming expectations in the group, and it's definitely a, "The group is traveling together because this is the ONE game that four of the players can make," rather than, "This group would logically travel together," and it is quite grating.
On the other hand, it's one of FOUR games I'm involved with, so I have the definite luxury of saying, "OK. My goddess personally sent me here to help this group save the world. And they're reprehensible people whom I loathe. But I'm supposed to help them succeed, so the best I can do is get them to mitigate their brutality while I'm around and consider their actions and maybe change them in the long run, and that's what Sarenrae would want, right?"
It's getting more fun to roleplay as everyone says, "Aw, geez! We can't torture him because the angel wouldn't like it! OK, angel! What are YOU going to do to get the information out of him?"
Let's me play my maxed-out Diplomacy skills, AND mitigates the need for torture that they're displaying. But they do enjoy splitting the party on occasion so they can play to their baser natures. And I must admit, I'm OK not taking points in Heal or Sense Motive so that they can do their thing while my PC isn't around. I can use the skill points in places more suited to my character concept.
I had this happen myself. Fairly mature group, but they had gotten very used to low level PvP stuff, I saw this first game playing as a NPC. The DM didn't like it, but was one of those "let them do what they want, they'll pay for it". So I brought in a Aasimar Bard, who had been sent to tell the party "STOP THIS RIGHT NOW!". Oddly, they more or less did.
I had this happen myself. Fairly mature group, but they had gotten very used to low level PvP stuff, I saw this first game playing as a NPC. The DM didn't like it, but was one of those "let them do what they want, they'll pay for it". So I brought in a Aasimar Bard, who had been sent to tell the party "STOP THIS RIGHT NOW!". Oddly, they more or less did.
LOL. Everyone listens to the aasimars! Now if only I could convince the monsters to do the same...
Precise bombs is good. If you're planning on bombing... that's a nice one. However, there are no feats (that I'm aware of...)that would discount squares from a fireball... that just requires careful aiming. If I'm planning on building a super-Hyde/hulk/werewolf alchemist... I may not bother with improving my bomb abilities. I have other places i need those discoveries.
Same with Paladins... My paladin is the prime healer in the group. I absolutely will NOT take the selective Channel ability. I need more combat feats. So frankly NO channelling for healing in combat.
Well, there's a metamagic feat, but Sorcs & Wiz can just choose another spell, one that won't hurt their buddies. Pretty much a alchemist has one attack. But yes, if you're not bombing a lot, fine.
As to the paladin- what combat feat do you NEED so very badly you can't spend one feat to help your buddies? Pretty selfish if you ask me.
He may be the healer, but he's also the king and one of the primary damage dealers... so combat and diplomatic stuff has been very high on my 'need' list.
Besides, I've never heard anything good about 'in combat healing' anyway... so getting the feats that either give MORE healing or 'better' healing after the combat is better then 'fixing' the channel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Communicate.
2. Prevent GM burnout.
3. Have fun.
Any other rules are corollaries to those golden rules.
If the GM is set on using a published module or adventure path as written, that will impose some constraints. Trying to resist those will cause GM burnout. That all Monk party sounds cool, but will not finish the adventure.
If the GM is willing to spend the time and energy required to create encounters tailored to the PCs, then that all Monk party might be delightful and successful.
Etc.
1. find a solution for at least 2 problem types
2. though multiple characters can have the same solution for the same problem type, they shouldn't engage in an arms race over whom is better
3. you will not steal from the party, skimming the excess undivided coppers is fine in some groups
4. you will not play a character that is so useless that it is a burden on the party, while it is occasionally fine for a noble PC to get captured for ransom for an adventure, and while characters are encouraged to have flaws, you will not play a character that is so useless that they become a burden. while you shouldn't be Superman, you shouldn't be Aquaman either
5. you will not play a loner character that doesn't play nice with the party, no matter how cool the wolverine and punisher comics were, wolverine eventually joined the X-men and the punisher played nice with the avengers for awhile. you are part of a cooperative and collaborative experience with shared spotlight
6. you will not play a character that has goals that contradict the party, while it can be fun to play a spy for the BBEG infiltrating the party, expect your spy to require reform and eventually have to betray their patron. if the group is playing Pirates, do not play a paladin with a hatred for Piracy.
7. you will not play a character of a completely different power level. certain power levels don't mix, for example, Thor and Chu Chulainn don't mesh well with Moses. Moses would dominate the spotlight with the power of his god. Thor and Chu Chulainn may be mythic warriors with light supernatural ability, but they can't keep up with Moses
8. you will not create silly joke characters designed as a cheap attempt at humour, this includes intense scrutiny of the following Gag races, Kender, Goblin, Halfling, Gnome, Kobold, and any character with a name or personality created as a joke. like Sir Flatulus, master of the stinking cloud or a Gnome whom calls herself the Pantsu Kaitou.
Wow.... Lots of Aquaman hate here.
I would point out that nearly everytime Aquaman is around... he's the most important person around.
If water and waterbased animals aren't of use... he's off having a solo adventure. But when he's there... he's useful.
Wow.... Lots of Aquaman hate here.
I would point out that nearly everytime Aquaman is around... he's the most important person around.
If water and waterbased animals aren't of use... he's off having a solo adventure. But when he's there... he's useful.
that is because the writers of the Justice League, designed special episodes designed to make Aquaman shine, because they know how lousy he scored on the superpower rating.
in fact, Aquaman's Nemesis, Manta Ray, had the most ridiculous superpower ever that really wasn't a super power. that super power was called "i own a boat" such a useless superpower. anybody with the funds or a good loan, can buy a boat.
in fact, Aquaman was such a useless superhero they had to make up the most contrived scenarios and have everybody else pick up the idiot ball, just to make him look good.
Aquaman pretty much filed paperwork, made coffee, did laundry, played janitor, prepared food, and other deeds that would be considered sidekick or intern duty. it wouldn't really count as a solo mission, not much he could really do.
|
|
On the subject of Aquaman:
Depends on which version off Aquaman you're talking about. If you're talking Super Friends, sure, he's useless. If you're talking about the one in the actual Justice League stuff, he's an expert warrior who's bulletproof, can throw cars, is the king of an advanced civilization (with all the resources that implies), and can occasionally use his psychic powers on people as well as sea-life. So...really depends which one you're talking about.
On the thread's actual subject:
You should avoid stepping on the other PCs toes. Not every role needs to be filled, but you shouldn't make a character that's going to make one of the other characters feel useless.
That's all you actually owe the party in terms of what character you play, though if you wanna be a team player, taking whichever slot is open is a solid choice, and should earn you credit.
In play, it depends on the nature of the specific game, but in Pathfinder I generally agree that you owe the party loyalty. If you don't show said loyalty, don't expect the party to reciprocate. The one time I saw a PC betray the party in Pathfinder, they killed her dead pretty much immediately. The next character by that layer was a much better team player.
Wow.... Lots of Aquaman hate here.
I would point out that nearly everytime Aquaman is around... he's the most important person around.
If water and waterbased animals aren't of use... he's off having a solo adventure. But when he's there... he's useful.
that is because the writers of the Justice League, designed special episodes designed to make Aquaman shine, because they know how lousy he scored on the superpower rating.
in fact, Aquaman's Nemesis, Manta Ray, had the most ridiculous superpower ever that really wasn't a super power. that super power was called "i own a boat" such a useless superpower. anybody with the funds or a good loan, can buy a boat.
in fact, Aquaman was such a useless superhero they had to make up the most contrived scenarios and have everybody else pick up the idiot ball, just to make him look good.
Aquaman pretty much filed paperwork, made coffee, did laundry, played janitor, prepared food, and other deeds that would be considered sidekick or intern duty. it wouldn't really count as a solo mission, not much he could really do.
Still rank him better then Hawkman. "I can fly" would have been the pathfinder equivalent of "I can carry a backpack!!"
Add in strength and summoning sea monsters... Not GREAT, but no pushover either ;)
Wow.... Lots of Aquaman hate here.
I would point out that nearly everytime Aquaman is around... he's the most important person around.
If water and waterbased animals aren't of use... he's off having a solo adventure. But when he's there... he's useful.
that is because the writers of the Justice League, designed special episodes designed to make Aquaman shine, because they know how lousy he scored on the superpower rating.
in fact, Aquaman's Nemesis, Manta Ray, had the most ridiculous superpower ever that really wasn't a super power. that super power was called "i own a boat" such a useless superpower. anybody with the funds or a good loan, can buy a boat.
in fact, Aquaman was such a useless superhero they had to make up the most contrived scenarios and have everybody else pick up the idiot ball, just to make him look good.
Aquaman pretty much filed paperwork, made coffee, did laundry, played janitor, prepared food, and other deeds that would be considered sidekick or intern duty. it wouldn't really count as a solo mission, not much he could really do.
Still rank him better then Hawkman. "I can fly" would have been the pathfinder equivalent of "I can carry a backpack!!"
Add in strength and summoning sea monsters... Not GREAT, but no pushover either ;)
actually, the new Versions of Aqua Man actually got him right, a king whom grew up exercising against the resistance of the ocean floor should be a bulletproof tank with super strength. his kingdom may not often be used, and his sea monsters are no longer useless
but i hated original Superfriends Aquaman because he was so useless. modern Aquaman is pretty cool, not top tier, but definitely better than Hawkman, Plastic Man, Flash, and a lot of the Sidekicks, he's just not uber tier and not keeping up with Batman, Superman, Martian Manhunter and Green Lantern, in Fact, the 4 of the Uber Tier, tend to be the core of the league's offensive force because they have the most broken power sets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
most people whom make negative comparisons to Aquaman aren't comparing to the effective modern Aquaman of the modern Justice League, but to the useless Aquaman of the Superfriends. the one that had to have his own episodes dedicated to making him shine.
And I wanted an example of a load that wasn't another hobbit and that I hadn't already used as an example of annoying and wasn't a walking macguffin (eg. Thomas Covenant or Frodo). I guess now that I think about it I could have said C3-P0 instead of Aquaman.
C3-PO could have been useful, but then, star wars was a war campaign rather than a social political campaign, which watered down his usefulness.
I don't know which Flash you're mentioning here Umby, but not my Flash from the ninties/early 2k. Speed that duplicates strength, allows one to run on any surface including air in some cases, force/inertia blasts, blowing stuff up by touching or moving through it? My Flash had nearly all the powers as stunts off lightning speed so, yeah, I'll take that.
To the thread though I think what's owed to the party has more to do with the participants than with the characters/gameworld. All of us who sit down to play with one another owe each other a good time and a good game. How our group does that is up to us and we form social contracts once we hit the table to play - these help define what fun will be for us. C'mon, we call it "playing" Pathfinder, not "Working."
Besides, I've never heard anything good about 'in combat healing' anyway...
Well, many of us use it very well to good effect. James Jacobs for example, my groups for another. Yes, there's a small vocal minority who play one of two styles:
Rocket tag with encounters over in 2-3 rounds (fairly common when the PC's are optimized by the monsters are not)
Toons with everyone having a stack of newer better PC's piled up ready to play so they don't care if their PC dies.
In either case, in combat healing is not very useful.
But even if you play Rocket tag, most agree it's great to heal your buddy so that he doesn't die.
most people whom make negative comparisons to Aquaman aren't comparing to the effective modern Aquaman of the modern Justice League, but to the useless Aquaman of the Superfriends. the one that had to have his own episodes dedicated to making him shine.
Guys, can we get back on track? Maybe you can take this "super" hijack to another thread?
My most recent cleric was built to be an undead slayer and haunt nullifier - while I do manage to heal other characters after extremely damaging encounters, for the most part, I'm not a healbot, reserving most of my positive energy channeling to deactivate haunts and kill undead. Also spending the efforts to research ghosts and haunts as a special kind of investigator is where most of my efforts are placed.
I did encourage the other players at the table to consider other means of healing than my PC, as I didn't design him to be a healbot, so not to expect my PC to fix them after or during a battle, as that is not my schtick. Some of the other players didn't care for my choice, but 'tough' I say, I did warn them, that they'd need someone else to play that role if they wanted to - I did not. And not feel guilt to the party for not filling that hole, despite the character class choice.
I'd say, having never played an MMO, nor had to deal with an overly killer GM (at least not recently) that force synergy between team members to survive encounters. The 4 roles of a typical adventuring party are never a consideration. All our players make class builds to fit concept ideas, and not necessarily as a preconceived team or component of a team.
We try to work together as a team in play, but don't necessarily customize our class builds to fit that purpose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, I've never heard anything good about 'in combat healing' anyway...
Well, many of us use it very well to good effect. James Jacobs for example, my groups for another. Yes, there's a small vocal minority who play one of two styles:
Rocket tag with encounters over in 2-3 rounds (fairly common when the PC's are optimized by the monsters are not)
Toons with everyone having a stack of newer better PC's piled up ready to play so they don't care if their PC dies.In either case, in combat healing is not very useful.
But even if you play Rocket tag, most agree it's great to heal your buddy so that he doesn't die.
I'll just second Dr. Deth here. My life oracle has personally, demonstrably prevented two TPKs by being a Selective Channeling fiend. And she has no offensive powers. She's "stand in the back, heal, and buff".
So in-combat healing has saved many a PC in the campaigns I run. Just my experience.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've also seen in combat healing save the party. During the early portion of the Jade Regent, there's an encounter with some undead that definitely would not have been won if the cleric had been trying to damage channel instead of healing her allies.
In combat healing not being effective is often only true if whatever else you could have done with that action was equivalent to having your teammate(s) in the fight for another round.
In-combat healing is great, if you're < 8th level or so.
After that, I've found that the amount of damage that well-played enemies are dealing in 1 round rapidly outstrips your 4d6 or even 4d8+8. At that point, you're using one of your actions to undo part of one of the enemy's actions, and that's a lousy tradeoff unless you're fighting 4-on-1. Against more enemies or especially mixed groups of enemies, the cleric's actions are often better spent trying to eliminate that damage altogether by eliminating an enemy.
(The heal spell is exempted, of course, but how many of those can you drop in a day, even at high level?)
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In-combat healing is great, if you're < 8th level or so.
After that, I've found that the amount of damage that well-played enemies are dealing in 1 round rapidly outstrips your 4d6 or even 4d8+8. At that point, you're using one of your actions to undo part of one of the enemy's actions, and that's a lousy tradeoff unless you're fighting 4-on-1. Against more enemies or especially mixed groups of enemies, the cleric's actions are often better spent trying to eliminate that damage altogether by eliminating an enemy.
(The heal spell is exempted, of course, but how many of those can you drop in a day, even at high level?)
I agree that pre-8th level is probably the time when in combat healing is most effective. After that though, there are certainly builds capable of keeping in combat healing a worthwhile endeavor, though those are often builds like the Life Oracle who can crank a lot of healing into a single round. Against large groups of enemies or spellcasters, mass healing abilities can also prove useful, as instead of trading one of your actions for part of a single enemy's (and thus losing effectiveness) you can trade one of your actions for part of several enemies, which can actually be a worthwhile deal. Other times, it really is worth it to spend that action to negate part of an enemy's action, because you aren't trading your action for part of the enemy's, you're trading it for an additional action from your ally. If the situation dictates that it's going to be more useful to the party for Jake the Barbarian or Joey the Cavalier to get in one more big hit than it is for Sammy the Cleric to try and get off one more attack or debuff spell (either because Sammy's spells don't hit as hard, the enemy has high SR making it a risky proposition, etc.) then you've got another instance where the in-combat heal is the right choice.
Basically, in-combat healing absolutely does have a purpose in the game, particularly in a well-balanced party. The more your party builds towards every character being a dpr monster who aims to get things done quick and dirty, the less useful it gets; if Sammy the Cleric is actually a fully buffed Crusader of Gorum with a Greatsword getting ready to do a Channeled Smite smash, it probably isn't worth her time to heal Jake or Joey because they aren't going to bring any more to the table than she's already bringing.
In-combat healing is great, if you're < 8th level or so.
After that, I've found that the amount of damage that well-played enemies are dealing in 1 round rapidly outstrips your 4d6 or even 4d8+8. At that point, you're using one of your actions to undo part of one of the enemy's actions, and that's a lousy tradeoff unless you're fighting 4-on-1. Against more enemies or especially mixed groups of enemies, the cleric's actions are often better spent trying to eliminate that damage altogether by eliminating an enemy.
(The heal spell is exempted, of course, but how many of those can you drop in a day, even at high level?)
If you optimize for healing as much as they optimize for damage it works at all levels. Even at 13th level, our Life Oracle can out do the foes. Cure as Std, Channel as Move, plus Life Link, etc.
Remember, altho damage potential is higher, damage has to get past AC, Saves, ER, DR, MR, Miss chances, and what not. Generally, when you heal your party member, it works 100%. Superstition, etc aside.
After that though, there are certainly builds capable of keeping in combat healing a worthwhile endeavor, though those are often builds like the Life Oracle who can crank a lot of healing into a single round.
Admittedly, I haven't seen a life oracle in play at all, much less > 8th level, so I'm happy take your word for that.
I was going to say, this is a great example of OP's point: Kirth states the absolute, out-of-the-box cleric at 4d6 channeling per round at 8th level.
But that's a player who has chosen to play a cleric who isn't focused on healing.
An 8th-level human cleric who has agreed to be the healbot for the group will have taken Quick Channel, upping that to 8d6/round, MUCH more significant. Change that to an aasimar and you're at 12d6/round. And if you think 12d6/round at 8th level is insignificant healing, you're playing in a different game than I am.
So, how is this related to the OP?
Well, if you've simply declared that you're going to play a cleric, and you'd like to focus on being a buffer/debuffer/front-line combatant, then you don't owe the party anything more than 4d6. Your spell and feat choices are your own, and you've made it clear to the party that you're not burning feats just to heal their sorry butts.
If you've told the party you're going to be their primary healer, they can reasonably expect you to have taken that Quick Channel, so if you don't, you're doing the party a disservice.
What you need to bring to the table is what you've told the party you're bringing to the table. And it's up to your group to decide whether or not it's critical for someone to fill every role.
(Had a wonderful argument with my friend about an all-halfing-rogue party trying to make it through an AP. I argued that there was absolutely nothing wrong with them trying, but as soon as they started dying in droves because they couldn't fulfill certain roles, the players would have to either specialize or roll up new PCs. And I don't have a problem with starting an AP that way. Might be fun...)
EDIT: And don't get me started on aasimar clerics with the Healing domain. I've watched some obscene healing come from them...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing you owe you party is to play your character the way you want to.
Try to find a good niche in the party dynamic and help compensate for the weak points of the other characters.
Too many players get lost in the CRPG mentality and try to build a party like they are preparing for a raid on an MMORPG.
There are hundreds of roles to play beyond "Tank, Healer, DPR and Device Disarmer".
It's not your job as a player to limit your character options to fit the adventure, It's the GM's job to make the adventure fit the existing party, even if that means working in a chance to for that guy who took Craft: painting to shine once in a while, then so be it.
Only think owed to a party is common courtesy and fun.
And snacks, of course. :D
you don't play plastic man in a justice league party. while Aquaman and Flash, have been upgraded in modern versions, the originals from the superfriends were pretty weak. but 90s and 21st century Flash and Aquaman were pretty powerful, still, their solution to the useless plastic man, was to remove him.
see, as the rest of the justice league got better towards the 21st century, Plastic man got removed because he was outright useless.