| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...is somebody dissing my favorite stretchy superhero? I think we might have to throw down :p
Nobody said a thing about Mr. Fantastic.
Plastic Man is totally cooler than Mr. Fantastic. he could totally beat him up. And he has a better name than Elongated Man. Just saying ;)
Also, why are we talking about the Justice League again?
Mister Fantastic was fine for the lower power level of the Fantastic Four and was of a reasonable tier compared to others in the same universe. he was on par with say Spider Man and Nightcrawler. not amazing, but reasonable due to Marvel's Tier system
Plastic Man, would have worked if he were in a hero group with a similar tier on the power scale, he is merely a burden on a team balanced around a core of Batman, Superman, Martian Manhunter, and Green Lantern. Flash and Aquaman were brought up to par without dynamically changing their general theme in recent years. but Plastic Man was definitely not the right power level for the core Justice League, he would be fine with a group of others of his tier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When possible, I try to shy away from emphasizing concepts like "owe", "should", and "must" as I find they can lend themselves more to assigning blame and guilt more than finding solutions. Rather, I try to come at it from a perspective of what can I contribute and what can I receive from contributing. A sort of altruism partially motivated by an enlightened self-interest. Basically if I expect my wishes and desires to be respected, it's often helpful if I reciprocate and try to include what others want into my plans.
Since D&D's a group activity, building a certain level of synergy can help everybody be awesome. I don't mean choreographing your every move to be in step in each other. Instead, it's more like, aligning our interests together. Like, if we do what I want to do, what do I think Bob might likely get from it. Conversely, when we go with what Bob wants, what can I think of that might benefit me? And relating to characters, if Bob makes X and I make Y, how can we make them work together in an efficient and fun manner?
So basically, coming at the issue of cooperation vs. autonomy/independence, I'm gonna go with a perspective of what I think is helpful (and thus what I want to do) rather than what is owed. Finding common ground by aligning interests (and finding party synergy the best one can given the circumstances) is among the best ways I can think of not only helping the group but ultimately of getting what I want done. It certainly helps me escape the "self vs. other" dilemma" I sometimes have seen in the past.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one should be forced to owe the party anything imo. But it is up to the player to make sure he builds a character that is good at a variety of things at the table. If a player shows up with a character that is strong and can take a lot of damage yet dumber than a bag full of hammers and so fugly that even a Medusa refuses to look at him. Then complains he is not so good with social encounters the fault his. While I am not a slave to the rules I refuse to allow players to cheat the system with low attributes. I don't care if your roleplaying is worthy of a golden globe. Your not going to be as good as the character with a high charisma in social situations. As I said want to cheat the system go play with a DM that will allow to do that.
Same thing with characters with high int and cha. Want to be both effective in and out of combat make sure to put a few points into str and con. Or a player that multiclasses too much and is the jack of all trades yet not really good at anything. At least until the character reaches higher level. So people who say that the owe nothing to the party well I can respect that. Remember though that at the end of the day your poor chocies in character development are your fault and nothing but your own.
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.Language.
Is "primary healer" someone who focuses all effort on curing HP damage or is it someone who provides all the healing the group actually needs?
Is someone saying they're bringing a primary healer telling the party they don't need to contribute to the healer role, or are they saying the party is free to build reckless under-armored kamikazes because he's a walking bandaid dispenser?
They're not the same thing. HP can come out of a wand. What a party really needs is condition removal and possibly a little bit of post-crit mitigation.
A very battle focused cleric with diminished channeling can provide all the healing a party needs and does so better than a life oracle due to the many remove spells, open slot rules, and earlier spell access.
This. If you're expecting a player to build a certain way... you owe it to YOURSELF to VERIFY.
A healer in a group is quite simply someone who can heal. Cleric, oracle, paladin, bard... Lots of paths lead to 'healer' All it REALLY means is that when your down in the dungeon for the 3rd day, there is someone who CAN heal... as opposed to someone who can NOT...
Making a grand assumption that when Player A says 'healer' that he means super optimized mega-healer who can do nothing else and all feats are focused on healing... Could be a MAJOR mistake ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to say it, but think it really depends on the campaign, to be honest.
If we're playing a casual beer & pretzels game, you can probably get away with playing a gimped one-armed basket weaver, and if the game is exceptionally casual, you can get away with a whole party full of them.
Contrast that with the Age of Worms AP played at the recommended levels. Barring massive DM fudging, many installments of that require a fully-optimized hunter-killer team working in perfect synchronicity. If you bring a one-armed basket weaver, you kill the whole team.
Many groups enjoy, and sign up for, the former. Some prefer the latter. Others like to mix it up. It pays to make sure everyone is on the same page as to what kind of game to expect, because that in turn will dicatate the extent to which party composition narrows your options.
Mister Fantastic
Plastic Man,
Guy, can you take the hijack elsewhere, please?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to say it, but think it really depends on the campaign, to be honest.
If we're playing a casual beer & pretzels game, you can probably get away with playing a gimped one-armed basket weaver, and if the game is exceptionally casual, you can get away with a whole party full of them.
<winces visibly>
Playing a combat-gimped character doesn't necessarily entail "casual" play (that's getting dangerously close to an inverted Stormwind), it can still be a very serious and intense story-focused game (perhaps even intense at a combat level as long as the GM is balancing the encounters against reasonable opponents for the disabled basket-weaver's militia)I do know what you meant though, just wanted to point out these terms can pop out without someone meaning them to offend, as so often happens in the other direction in these things (more importantly, I wanted to get to it before someone with less manners than I decided to jump on it and turn this into yet another argument.)
However, yes, when you're taking things to that extreme you do need a campaign that's focused on that style of play.
Pathfinder for the most part (there's solo games, and that's fine) a team game, and as such, your character SHOULD be designed with the team in mind. You should work to play with your fellow party members to accomplish goals to the best of your combined abilities. This much is certain, and a large part of the fun of the game in my opinion.
But there's expectations of certain classes that aren't on others, certain things that are expected of them. I've been called selfish for not taking Infusion with Alchemist because it would help the party, even though it didn't fit what I wanted to do. Precise Bombs is almost in the same place. Divine casters also fit this mold, as they're expected to heal their non capable party members.
Most of these expectations are of resources, although some classes due to lack of resources are excused from this (mostly martial classes), since they can't really share something they don't have.
So I guess the question here would be what expectations of sharing do you have for your party, generally based on class, and what do you do when they're not met?
As much as I write about what a party needs and how to get it I don't expect anything out of my fellow players based on their characters.
That being said, I do expect the mutual understanding that the game is a team game, not an individual talent fest. The game itself comes with certain expectations of the group and the developers have repeated many times what some of those expectations are.
Now, you can ask for the GM to change the game so that the expectations favor the group. But, just as you cannot expect Buddy the Pacifist monk to maybe punch a thing or two, you cannot expect the GM to change the game to suit your group. If you can't be responsible enough to understand the expectations of the game and how they fit into your need to create and play a character capable of acting within those expectations than the GM doesn't have any responsibility to put more work into it to suit you.
And the thing is as much as SKR scratched me in all the wrong places on certain topics he is very right in saying that the game favors players. It's meant to, the story can't continue without you. But, it's also meant to challenge you. And challenges have consequences. If you want a game to not challenge you and to let you coast on with your nonsensical individualist concept than that needs to be made clear and explicit to the group before the game starts in order for the GM to either adjust the game if they desire or for the other players to make up for your choice of slack.
In terms of party needs pathfinder classes tend to be quite versatile and I've written about how any group can be successful so long as it can get certain basic roles out of the way.. In addition I've even talked about how how those roles function in combat.
You don't really need hyper optimized or even really fully optimized characters to succeed nor do you necessarily have to meet common expectations of party balance (eventhough it seriously helps). But you do have to go in expecting to meet certain needs of the group if you expect to do anything more than barely succeed at anything.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think t he GM owes the party a game that's right for them, and a willingness to adapt when it turns out the game you made is not the one they're equipped to play.
I've literally tossed entire books aside when I realized that what I had planned for a game was not what my party showed up to play, and that's cool. I've learned to better prepare everyone pre-game as a result, deciding before we sit down what we're looking to do, and that's worked pretty well. Normally if I say "Rappan Athuk, anyone?" Everybody knows it's time to start divvying up party tasks and coordinating character builds. If I go with something a little lighter, or more roleplay focused, everyone will kind of drift into the character that matches the really cool idea they had instead and won't focus on roles as much.
So, players owe it to the GM and each other to agree on the type of game that they're all playing, and what they want to do to match the expectations of that game, and they owe it to themselves and everyone else to understand if they brought the wrong character to the table and look at either finding a different game for that character to play in, or coming back with something appropriate for the game that everyone is playing. It seems like 90% of any arguments that come up in PF and D&D games are directly related to the fact that not everyone at the table is really playing the same game.
I think t he GM owes the party a game that's right for them, and a willingness to adapt when it turns out the game you made is not the one they're equipped to play.
I've literally tossed entire books aside when I realized that what I had planned for a game was not what my party showed up to play, and that's cool. I've learned to better prepare everyone pre-game as a result, deciding before we sit down what we're looking to do, and that's worked pretty well. Normally if I say "Rappan Athuk, anyone?" Everybody knows it's time to start divvying up party tasks and coordinating character builds. If I go with something a little lighter, or more roleplay focused, everyone will kind of drift into the character that matches the really cool idea they had instead and won't focus on roles as much.
So, players owe it to the GM and each other to agree on the type of game that they're all playing, and what they want to do to match the expectations of that game, and they owe it to themselves and everyone else to understand if they brought the wrong character to the table and look at either finding a different game for that character to play in, or coming back with something appropriate for the game that everyone is playing. It seems like 90% of any arguments that come up in PF and D&D games are directly related to the fact that not everyone at the table is really playing the same game.
Other than the opening line, I have to agree with everything here. Everyone needs to be on the same page before the game starts, and stick to what was agreed by everyone.
Only reason I'd argue with the opening part is that it's entirely possible (albeit rather unlikely) the group could turn around and want something the GM simply isn't interested in running, at which point it's varies by situation how that kind of thing gets handled. If it's a brand new group of random people, and they really hate the idea of the replacement game/style that much, the GM ought to feel free to simply walk away and let someone else take over. If it's a group of friends with a long-standing arrangement, things could well be different.
I hate to say it, but think it really depends on the campaign, to be honest.
If we're playing a casual beer & pretzels game, you can probably get away with playing a gimped one-armed basket weaver, and if the game is exceptionally casual, you can get away with a whole party full of them.
<winces visibly>
Playing a combat-gimped character doesn't necessarily entail "casual" play (that's getting dangerously close to an inverted Stormwind), it can still be a very serious and intense story-focused game (perhaps even intense at a combat level as long as the GM is balancing the encounters against reasonable opponents for the disabled basket-weaver's militia)
I do know what you meant though, just wanted to point out these terms can pop out without someone meaning them to offend, as so often happens in the other direction in these things (more importantly, I wanted to get to it before someone with less manners than I decided to jump on it and turn this into yet another argument.)However, yes, when you're taking things to that extreme you do need a campaign that's focused on that style of play.
Actually, one can play a combat gimped PC and still contribute. In one of my RotRL games, one of my PC's is a Politically oriented Bard, with super maxed out Diplomacy, etc.
She can do little directly in combat (altho of course Bardic boosts help the party). But in the political & Roleplaying arena she rules.
So, yeah, just about all her feats/traits etc are there to give her a huge Diplomacy, and in combat that's not very helpful. But we all know how useful Diplomacy can be outside of combat. So "combat" gimped- yes, but still very useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, one can play a combat gimped PC and still contribute.
I don't think anyone denies that; the power of a dedicated Diplomancer is off the charts. That character is also well-optimized for adventuring -- unless every adventure is a dungeon crawl full of traps, ToH-style, and that would get old really fast.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, one can play a combat gimped PC and still contribute.I don't think anyone denies that; the power of a dedicated Diplomancer is off the charts. That character is also well-optimized for adventuring -- unless every adventure is a dungeon crawl full of traps, ToH-style, and that would get old really fast.
Paticularly bards. If you've got your major bases covered a lot of parties would accept a drooling moron of a bard into the group for Inspire Courage and/or Inspire Competence alone.
Contrast that with the Age of Worms AP played at the recommended levels. Barring massive DM fudging, many installments of that require a fully-optimized hunter-killer team working in perfect synchronicity. If you bring a one-armed basket weaver, you kill the whole team.
Oh man! I knew I would regret that campaign petering out. And I had the perfect character for it and everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man! I knew I would regret that campaign petering out. And I had the perfect character for it and everything.
It was a bloodbath for us.
My "sissy elf cleric" ended up killing the rest of the party via flame strike in the 5th module to avoid the world coming to an end (don't ask!).
We had just hit our stride when TPK hit in Spire of Long Shadows. We rolled up new, better-optimized characters and made it through by casting speak with dead on the bodies of the last party to find out what they'd learned.
Contrast that with the Age of Worms AP played at the recommended levels. Barring massive DM fudging, many installments of that require a fully-optimized hunter-killer team working in perfect synchronicity. If you bring a one-armed basket weaver, you kill the whole team.
We played that, had a couple of near TPk's. But after about level 7 I played a healer. You know that class that is usually considered to be Tier 7 out of 6?;-)
Now, we had a large party, but my PC was optimized for two things- healing and buffing. He was a halfling, and could do nearly no damage by himself. He was consistently voted "MVP" by the table (this game you a 5% eps bonus for the nite). His Cure Minor could cure something like 14 points.
Outside the team- pretty well worthless. As part of the TEAM? Best PC evar.
So, Teamwork is where it is. Four super optimized cowboys won't do as well as 4 PC who are optimized to work as a team.
Contrast that with the Age of Worms AP played at the recommended levels. Barring massive DM fudging, many installments of that require a fully-optimized hunter-killer team working in perfect synchronicity. If you bring a one-armed basket weaver, you kill the whole team.We played that, had a couple of near TPk's. But after about level 7 I played a healer. You know that class that is usually considered to be Tier 7 out of 6?;-)
Now, we had a large party, but my PC was optimized for two things- healing and buffing. He was a halfling, and could do nearly no damage by himself. He was consistently voted "MVP" by the table (this game you a 5% eps bonus for the nite). His Cure Minor could cure something like 14 points.
Outside the team- pretty well worthless. As part of the TEAM? Best PC evar.
So, Teamwork is where it is. Four super optimized cowboys won't do as well as 4 PC who are optimized to work as a team.
See bolded above -- that's what I was saying.
But contrast that with a monk 5/sorcerer 3/druid 2, who contributes very little if anything to a party of 10th level PCs. He's not optimized for a team or as an individual. He'd probably be fun as hell to play in a different campaign, but in Age of Worms he, and the rest of the party, become the proverbial "worm food."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My brother still owns the issues of Dungeon with it. I'll have to convince him that we need to play it someday.
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.
Also, Aquaman is actually one of the most powerful of the superheroes in most canons, being super-strong and able to control armies of sea monsters. It was just in Super Friends that he got rather downgraded, and he's never been able to live it down.
Though that's kinda a different issue than what you're discussing, since it's more about how amazing superhero powers don't get used to advance society. Kinda the opposite of "Cut Lex Luthor A Check".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i usually cover something the party lacks or something the party can use an extra of. usually with a slight loss in their primary role so i can help beat things to death, or, if i am high enough level and the character doesn't hit things, i bring a cohort or pet that hits things instead. typically, i look for a way to cover a role the party asks me to, and still have fun hitting things, cohorts help with that.
an Example
Ilina Aniri, Half-Nymph Bard whom can't do much in melee combat, but buffs allies, and her personal slave, a male natural weretiger Hunter named Julian Nicholas.
my stock Martial Cohorts for Non-Martial Characters. any of the stock cohorts is my typical cohort choice.
Nekogami Shinkuro; Male or Female (either one) Onispawn Invulnerable Rager Superstitious Beast Totem Come and Get Me Pseudo Switch Hitter Barbarian with a Glaive, Adaptable Composite Longbow, Clawed Gauntlets, and a Zanbatou (Nodachi with Reach) reskinned as being a demonic nekomimi
Julian Nikolas; male natural Weretiger Urban Ranger with the archery style for ranged and natural attacks for melee. his hybrid form looks mostly human, but he has claws and fangs, his fur coat is a bluish hued silver color
Lumiere Dawnbringer; Female Angelkin Martially inclined Oracle of whatever Random Mystery. usually battle, metal or life. typically wields a 2handed weapon with a composite longbow, pseudo switch hitter, usually brings up the fact that at least half the angelkin women with stand up when you ask for "Lumi"
Nero/Nera Male Human Magus, typically a dervish dance build with the kensai and bladebound archetypes, crossdresses rather adorable and acts the part he dresses quite well. a Kabuki inspired actor at heart whom unlike most men, was raised as if he were female around a mother whom had many daughters.
Cherie, Male Drow Magus, the Chef and well, a dervish magus with okay social skills, he cooks with too much curry and cooks spiderlegs with curry and rice on every thursday as an insult to the spider queen. showing his pride in his escape. he isn't the only male Desert Raised Drow named Cherie, he is one of many
Sabrina Nicoletti; Female Dhampir Bard. usually a life dominant strength based longspear build whom is also fairly decent with a composite shortbow too. dances and recites speeches, hates her great grandfather, loves her mother. has lots of sisters and well, her sisters often use her name due to her excellence and modeled their spears after her Gae-Bolg