|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are all aware of the various theorycraft that goes on, but what actually happens at a real game table?
I can tell you from my table that all these shenanigans you see on these boards don't go on. Our PC's don't run around with endless sums of wealth while the party Wizard tries to defeat every encounter and the others just sit back and watch. None of our players are selfish and all work together. We also see a vast array of characters that include everything from fighters and rogues to Witches and Monks. Any time there is a combo that someone tries and it takes about 30 minutes of arguing whether or not it actually works then it's kicked to the curb.
We aren't on a time limit to see how quickly everything can be defeated, we like to actually sit back and enjoy every aspect of the game.
Most importantly, nobody in our group judges another person's character, they are not defined by a certain criteria such as subjective "usefulness", which varies from person to person.
What actually happens in your games? Does your table contain the types of things we see on these boards?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My rogue is level 12. Hasn't died on screen once (petrified once). Has flanked maybe 5 times. Retrained from TWF rogue to feint rogue. TWF rogue doesn't work, the theorycraft of this being better than feinting is just wrong.
My rogue has the highest kill count in the party (not that kills mean anything :P), but it is still nice. Bleed is WAY more than extra DPR, it's extra actions. No one bothers chopping off heads when the creature is bleeding to death.
EDIT: The theorycraft of me in a party with a druid, inquisitor, wizard, synthesist, predicts that my actions in the party should be limited to cutting myself.
I've played a lot of fighters and they've all done well. Hell, even my unarmed fighter (which most certainly is frowned about in theorycraft) punched his way out of the stomach of a giant crocodilian monster. I've played with many rogues and they've all done well.
Theorycraft always seem to operate under the false assumption that the classes have to compete or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing a Paladin in Wrath of the Righteous. Since you actually have to ration your smites given the sheer number of evil foes to fight, I don't dominate play the way you'd think, compared to characters whose bonuses last for either scenes or aren't as resource dependent.
What no Oath of Vengeance? Pfshhhhh.
=P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group sticks to pretty normal stuff. I have one player who has reached out to a few non-core classes (Life Oracle, Ninja and Inquisitor). We try a few arch-types here and there. But mostly the fighter is a fighter, the cleric is a cleric, the wizard is a specialist.
No one uses metamagic.
Guns are allowed, no one uses them.
Outlflank (Teamwork) is a pretty standard feat.
Treasure is missed constantly. Heck it is donated and given back half the time. A lot of times it is spent on "life" stuff. One character owns a horse ranch, another a printing press, another a pineapple farm in Sargava.
Some have elaborate stories for their characters, most don't. Some stick to the same religion between characters. Same races. Almost everyone plays the same alignment from game to game. We wright different ones down, but in play it is the same as all our other characters.
We die to the same monsters every game (%*$# YOU WATER GHOULS!)
We work great together, have OK teamwork, but sorely lack advanced tactics. A hard GM would likely eat us alive.
We get kicked pretty hard in printed modules and APs. Someone dies about a quarter of the time. They get raised. We move on.
We have a blast!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, the best theorycrafters massively outperform everyone else if we choose. We usually save it for the really dangerous situations, because always stealing the show is boring/rude.
Having to constantly hold back is annoying at times, but having the freedom to play something that's a weirder or more difficult to achieve concept can be nice, though, since you don't have to worry about keeping pace with everyone else.
The bad part is when people complain that a character that is intentionally 'detuned' or is designed to be a group player is 'too powerful'.
Greatly depends on the GM.
One GM I play with likes extremely powerful monsters, but only 1-2 fights a day with a lot of warning beforehand. I felt rather weak as a martial here, combat is basically an arena deathmatch (though the campaign doesn't lack for story and such).
Another GM loves ambushing us with surprise attacks or disguised villains. I feel stronger as a martial in this campaign, since casters only have long duration buffs running prior to the fight starting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal favorite is the wild shape focused Druid
Human 20PB (though a race that dumps cha for wis/str/con can work too)
15 str
14 dex
14 con
10 int
17 wis
7 cha
Grab power attack and a few feats for wild shaping effectively such as powerful shape, narrow frame, that feat that lets you cast while shaped, Planar Wild shape, possibly weapon focus claw.
Use wild shape and the spell Barkskin so you won't need an amulet of nat armor and buy up an amulet of mighty fists+some MWK lamellar armor of your common wild shapes (or if a good set of Bracers of armor drop use those) for your party to apply to you when you shape change (significantly before combat of course).
First stat increase into str, rest into wisdom.
Loose guide, but creates a pretty powerful character who makes most martial characters blush and still has considerable casting ability.
Uses feats from core, APG, Ult magic, and ult combat. Nothing from campaign setting books.
can grab either a domain or a pet, though with a domain I guess he'd be kinda lame until wildshaping.
Maybe use Lion or Dino druid archetypes if you wanna specialize.
Not saying this is the most OP thing ever, but it's an example of a class doing really dumb things that break role barriers without any above average expenditure of wealth.
We are all aware of the various theorycraft that goes on, but what actually happens at a real game table?
I can tell you from my table that all these shenanigans you see on these boards don't go on. Our PC's don't run around with endless sums of wealth while the party Wizard tries to defeat every encounter and the others just sit back and watch. None of our players are selfish and all work together. We also see a vast array of characters that include everything from fighters and rogues to Witches and Monks. Any time there is a combo that someone tries and it takes about 30 minutes of arguing whether or not it actually works then it's kicked to the curb.
We aren't on a time limit to see how quickly everything can be defeated, we like to actually sit back and enjoy every aspect of the game.
Most importantly, nobody in our group judges another person's character, they are not defined by a certain criteria such as subjective "usefulness", which varies from person to person.
What actually happens in your games? Does your table contain the types of things we see on these boards?
I have never anyone claim endless wealth, but my players do tend to get the magic items they want, just by following the rules for getting them. My players normally work as a team.
Monks tend to suffer in my games. I have not seen a rogue in so long I can't say how they would do.I know the rules pretty well so I can handle disputes quickly and if the player is not convinced they tend to let it go so things move on. Then after the game I look it up and get back to him.
I also tend to attract optimizers so everybody ends up doing something. There have been 1 or 2 times we had someone make bad decisions, and yeah it was complained about because IC they would have allowed him to die, but OOC they knew it would cause real life friction, but that was a very rare occurrence.
I love hearing about other peoples games, good thread Shallowsoul!
I play in 2 different groups:
Our games are relaxed and fun, we eat kebabs from across the street, drink too much soda, sometimes we share some fancy beers or wine as we play.
Getting the whole group together is the biggest pain:
between work, girlfriends/wives, band gigs, newborn babies, family dinners, vacations and other real world commitments it's hard getting 5 grown men and women to sit down around a table for 7 hours.
we also have a rule not to play unless we're a full group.
I GM one game and play in another, both are Rp heavy.
as a GM I am slightly less forgiving than the other one and I add more "real-world"-repercussions in my games.
Most of our players are not optimizers, feats gets picked on recommendation, whim or because it fits the idea somebody wants to play.
(ex: sword-and-board paladin with catch off guard, why? because he's from the slums! he grew up rough.)
example:
last session we spent the whole time in a small mining town, uncovering some clues to a conspiracy.
2 of the players fought 2 mercenaries, while 2 others robbed and killed a trader that was secretly a cultist (or something).
we also freed a bounf air elemental.
one of the mercaneries was killed , other sent on her way (with some gold to start a new life ...)
also got a new scabbard for a large bastard sword ...
my paladin also got one lvl of sorcerer to become a dragon disciple, and I've relized how little spells I get, seriously it's ridiculous.
not the most dramatic and epic part of the story, but exciting and fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I've seen put down: defense is sub-optimal to offense. I had a paladin in my game recently who was optimized for defense; combat expertise, shield focus, and he fought defensively often. The player made GREAT use of tactics though and often soaked up AoOs on purpose striding across threatened space to get to specific points on the map. Suddenly EVERYONE was hitting and flanking and the paladin was earning back a little attack bonus too. Then, at the perfect moment, smite would come on...
Oh sure, the paladin went into negatives a lot too, and has finally died, but he was a great character and everyone loved him.
I guess my point is my games never seem to run like the theorycrafting on these boards. For a long time I thought I was just doing it wrong. I'm slowly realizing that not everything on the forums is da bomb.
My table has a similar experience with paladins as @Mark Hoover's.
This one guy pretty much did no damage up til lv3, his sword may have hit once during levels 1 and 2, and he had more luck using wooden tables against skeletons than swinging his sword (he forgot to use shield bash).
But he was always in front of the group, taking attacks and healing himself with lay on hands, fighting defensively or moving forward in total defense. He soaked a lot of attacks and allowed the rest of the group to better position themselves and flank enemies.
Now, at lv5, they managed to get a few enchanted weapons and they are all starting to deal more damage.
We dont get a lot of 'god wizards' at my table, since only one player really likes the concept. The players with the better rules mastery generally help players with less get their concepts up to snuff. We also use alot of 3rd party material to fill in gabs when something is difficult to manage.
Everyone wants to feel like they are contributing, but for the most part we define that individually. One player mostly likes just doing something 'flashy' but doesnt particularly care about optimization. (His characters tend to die alot when his 'flashy' thing leaves him alone, in front of a 8 headed hydra with his allies 200 ft away inside a building). But hey, thats why there are low wisdom scores right? We usually all create characters towards a certain role in the party and a certain concept. If we are acheiving that role and concept, then generally no one minds what happens otherwise.
But mostly, we have fun. We are friends thats what we are there to do. And if someone's struggling, generally the gm works with them to make sure they have fun. We are usually ok with rebuilding characters, or replacing them when someone isnt having fun.
My thoughts on theory crafting, is that the 'ideal' or the 'extreme' doesnt represent what will actually happen at the table. It just represents what CAN happen at the table. The more the game is 'proof against theorycraft' the easier and more consistently we will see the kind of game we want at actual tables.
For instance, in one game the party rogue was getting very frustrated as we leveled up. My dm has since worked with him to improve the character somewhat, given him some magic items to help him out, and taken greater effort to make sure he feels involved and useful.
But idealy that shouldnt be necessary. Rules should do what they say on the box without a lot of work. Theory craft tends to expose where the label is a bit off. And sure you can get around it, or it might not even show up at your table. But understanding it both allows the game as a whole to improve (as new rules are created/updated) and for gms/players at their own tables.
We dont get a lot of 'god wizards' at my table, since only one player really likes the concept. The players with the better rules mastery generally help players with less get their concepts up to snuff. We also use alot of 3rd party material to fill in gabs when something is difficult to manage.
Everyone wants to feel like they are contributing, but for the most part we define that individually. One player mostly likes just doing something 'flashy' but doesnt particularly care about optimization. (His characters tend to die alot when his 'flashy' thing leaves him alone, in front of a 8 headed hydra with his allies 200 ft away inside a building). But hey, thats why there are low wisdom scores right? We usually all create characters towards a certain role in the party and a certain concept. If we are acheiving that role and concept, then generally no one minds what happens otherwise.
But mostly, we have fun. We are friends thats what we are there to do. And if someone's struggling, generally the gm works with them to make sure they have fun. We are usually ok with rebuilding characters, or replacing them when someone isnt having fun.
My thoughts on theory crafting, is that the 'ideal' or the 'extreme' doesnt represent what will actually happen at the table. It just represents what CAN happen at the table. The more the game is 'proof against theorycraft' the easier and more consistently we will see the kind of game we want at actual tables.
For instance, in one game the party rogue was getting very frustrated as we leveled up. My dm has since worked with him to improve the character somewhat, given him some magic items to help him out, and taken greater effort to make sure he feels involved and useful.
But idealy that shouldnt be necessary. Rules should do what they say on the box without a lot of work. Theory craft tends to expose where the label is a bit off. And sure you can get around it, or it might not even show up at your table. But understanding it both allows the game...
God Wizards are literally the gods of making everyone feel like they are contributing. It's really mostly the Wizard, but boy does that Enlarged, Hasted, True Seeing, Mind Blanked, Flying Fighter feel like he's a hero.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the theorycraft problems you see people pitch back and forth on the boards go away when you site down at a table with a bunch of people that want to play cooperatively and fun fun together.
-Skeld
No they don't. They just get hidden by houserules and gentleman's agreements. Fighter being a weak class with very little to contribute out of combat doesn't go away just because the GM makes an effort to give Fighter something to do out of combat. That merely covers the issue.
|
My rogue is level 12. Hasn't died on screen once (petrified once). Has flanked maybe 5 times. Retrained from TWF rogue to feint rogue. TWF rogue doesn't work, the theorycraft of this being better than feinting is just wrong.
Contrariwise, I've played a couple of TWF Rogues and managed to flank regularly. And be effective, too. That in no way means the rogue is balanced, it means I'm good at making characters, good enough to overcome a certain degree of inherent disadvantages.
My rogue has the highest kill count in the party (not that kills mean anything :P), but it is still nice. Bleed is WAY more than extra DPR, it's extra actions. No one bothers chopping off heads when the creature is bleeding to death.
At 4 HP a turn (or whatever...Bleed's pretty low as a rule), critters take a long time to die. Long enough that it's a problem, and not as useful as you're implying, IME.
EDIT: The theorycraft of me in a party with a druid, inquisitor, wizard, synthesist, predicts that my actions in the party should be limited to cutting myself.
That's...not how theorycraft works. Theorycraft says your build would be better and more effective as, say, a Vivisectionist Alchemist, not that a Rogue's useless per se.
..
.
Now, as for my experiences in game, people don't tend to ever ditch Int, always put Favored Class bonuses into racial options or skills (almost never HP) and generally really love skills, use them bunches, and want to have plenty of them. For this reason, the only fighters I've ever seen played were Archetypes like Lore Warden that grant additional skills, and all the other low skill point classes had solid Int.
Almost nobody plays Rogues, or Monks either. The only person I've seen play a Rogue is me (for whatever reason) and the only one who played a Monk proved all the theorycraft about corebook Monks true (well built character, just trying to do damage in unarmed combat...horrible damage).
Summoners, too, almost never see play. Nor does summoning in general, not even from the Druids. The only summoning spell I've seen used in actual play is Mad Monkeys (which is amazing as well as hilarious, BTW), unless you count Black Tentacles, anyway
I've yet to see a Cavalier, but I think that's more coincidence than anything, as several people keep talking about playing them, and just haven't gotten around to it yet.
What I have seen are several builds the forums tend to deem 'broken' (a Heavens Oracle abusing charisma enhancers plus save DC enhancers, plus Color Spray; a crit-farming duo of a Lore Warden with Butterfly's Sting TWFing with Kukris and a Dex-Magus with a Light Pick, a God Wizard, a Slumber Witch, etc.) and I've never had (or seen) what I consider problems with any of them. They're certainly effective, but they don't seem to be the balance-wreckers or make the other PCs feel jealous like people on the forums often claim they will.
Classes I see a lot of include Bard, Inquisitor, Barbarian, Oracle, and Sorcerer. Prepared casters are definitely rarer than spontaneous ones. Half-casters are very common, with non-spellcasters and full casters about equally common.
Most of my players take Drawbacks for an extra Trait, now that that's an option. Making skills Class Skills is by far the most common use of Traits (though save enhancers, Armor Expert, and Reactionary are all also common...I don't think I've ever seen Magical Lineage used, though. Fate's Favored is also basically universal among Half Orcs and Inquisitors...though not other people, mostly).
I don't use a map when running the game (though I almost always have when playing) and this has never been a problem, or required me to adjust the rules in a meaningful fashion.
The better optimizers (myself especially) also usually help people with less system mastery make their character concepts in the most effective way available for that concept, which is a very good idea to get the whole group on the same level of optimization.
The only non-core Races I've seen more than one person play are Sylphs and Tieflings. I've also seen a single Kitsune, a Drow and a Hobgoblin in an Evil game and probably one or two other one-offs...but the vast majority of people I play with stick to core races for the most part. All the core Races except Halflings seem to come up a fair bit, and I'm the only one I've seen play a Halfling (and only one of them at that).
I use a lot of House Rules when running the game that have resulted in other changes to those games specifically (ie: I allow either Charisma or Wisdom to be used for Will Saves resulting in more high Charisma characters and more Wis dumping), but that example aside, I'm not listing those changes, as they seem off-topic for this thread.
Now, as for my experiences in game, people don't tend to ever ditch Int, always put Favored Class bonuses into racial options or skills (almost never HP) and generally really love skills, use them bunches, and want to have plenty of them. For this reason, the only fighters I've ever seen played were Archetypes like Lore Warden that grant additional skills, and all the other low skill point classes had solid Int.Almost nobody plays Rogues, or Monks either. The only person I've seen play a Rogue is me (for whatever reason) and the only one who played a Monk proved all the theorycraft about corebook Monks true (well built character, just trying to do damage in unarmed combat...horrible damage).
Summoners, too,...
This is consistent with my experience as well, particularly on the Favored Class bonuses. We don't use drawbacks though. And prepared casters are more common then spontaneous. I have yet to see a gnome PC... and no CHA/WIS houserule. (though man would my oracle love that).
Fighter being a weak class with very little to contribute out of combat doesn't go away just because the GM makes an effort to give Fighter something to do out of combat.
Up to a point. I would agree that the fighter has the least power to contribute out of combat, but the player can contribute with ideas and role-playing as much as anyone else.
Fighter being a weak class with very little to contribute out of combat doesn't go away just because the GM makes an effort to give Fighter something to do out of combat.Up to a point. I would agree that the fighter has the least power to contribute out of combat, but the player can contribute with ideas and role-playing as much as anyone else.
While this is true, none of it is a function of the Fighter class, which is what I find lacking. Nor does the Fighter class help or increase the player's ability to do any of that. If a Wizard say wanted to make a Fort, he could use Stone Shape or Wall of Iron to assist him doing so. Any other class could rely on skills, but the Fighter's are notoriously limited on that front as well.
Hence the problem.
Sure, but this thread is about how it works out in practice, so only actual experiences count here.
My first character was a straight fighter. We were trying to figure out how to rescue a guy we had visited in a prison. I was the one who pointed out that the casters could just teleport in, grab him, and teleport out - an idea that simply hadn't occurred to them. As long as the group as a whole has magic and skills covered, what does it matter who actually rolls the dice or casts the spells?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but this thread is about how it works out in practice, so only actual experiences count here.
My first character was a straight fighter. We were trying to figure out how to rescue a guy we had visited in a prison. I was the one who pointed out that the casters could just teleport in, grab him, and teleport out - an idea that simply hadn't occurred to them. As long as the group as a whole has magic and skills covered, what does it matter who actually rolls the dice or casts the spells?
Ok, but in your actual experience the Fighter class contributed nothing to those things you suggested. The mere fact that person playing the Fighter did says nothing about the Fighter class. And your prison example kind of highlights why we always talk about casters being OP. It's because even in actual play, they are OP and can reduce entire plots to "I have an ap... er Spell for that." So... your actual experience seems to suggest Fighters are as weak as is suggested on these boards and casters are as strong as suggested on these boards, which is consistent with my actual experience as well.
At 4 HP a turn (or whatever...Bleed's pretty low as a rule), critters take a long time to die. Long enough that it's a problem, and not as useful as you're implying, IME.
1 point per sneak attack die.
In practice that kills a lot of our foes, and has downed more than a handful.
Ok, but in your actual experience the Fighter class contributed nothing to those things you suggested. The mere fact that person playing the Fighter did says nothing about the Fighter class. And your prison example kind of highlights why we always talk about casters being OP. It's because even in actual play, they are OP and can reduce entire plots to "I have an ap... er Spell for that." So... your actual experience seems to suggest Fighters are as weak as is suggested on these boards and casters are as strong as suggested on these boards, which is consistent with my actual experience as well.Sure, but this thread is about how it works out in practice, so only actual experiences count here.
My first character was a straight fighter. We were trying to figure out how to rescue a guy we had visited in a prison. I was the one who pointed out that the casters could just teleport in, grab him, and teleport out - an idea that simply hadn't occurred to them. As long as the group as a whole has magic and skills covered, what does it matter who actually rolls the dice or casts the spells?
I think most people only care about what their character contributed, not what their class contributed.
Hence, actual experience vs theorycraft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok... but then you might as well ask what "Jim contributed." and that's kind of difficult to discuss on forums, because I don't know Jim. And that's a completely different topic from what people discussing when they say Figthers are weak and Wizards are strong. So this topic is kind of meaningless. Might as well say "Frank's OP in our games, but Tim is UP. Dammit Tim."
Ok... but then you might as well ask what "Jim contributed." and that's kind of difficult to discuss on forums, because I don't know Jim. And that's a completely different topic from what people discussing when they say Figthers are weak and Wizards are strong. So this topic is kind of meaningless. Might as well say "Frank's OP in our games, but Tim is UP. Dammit Tim."
The class facilitates the character. Basically all actions of the character and all that they do can be associated with the class. It doesn't really matter if the theorycraft of the action doesn't associate that accomplishment with the class in a discussion about actual experiences.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter being a weak class with very little to contribute out of combat doesn't go away just because the GM makes an effort to give Fighter something to do out of combat.Up to a point. I would agree that the fighter has the least power to contribute out of combat, but the player can contribute with ideas and role-playing as much as anyone else.While this is true, none of it is a function of the Fighter class, which is what I find lacking. Nor does the Fighter class help or increase the player's ability to do any of that. If a Wizard say wanted to make a Fort, he could use Stone Shape or Wall of Iron to assist him doing so. Any other class could rely on skills, but the Fighter's are notoriously limited on that front as well.
Hence the problem.
I don't see it as a problem. It's right there in the name: "Fighter"
They fight; that means combat. Out of combat they fight...boredom? If you want to do something that doesn't involve fighting, why be a guy named after the thing you don't want?
That being said I agree that the fighter has LESS options out of combat than other PCs. None? No, but less. They get intimidate, so they can get people to do stuff for them (its not JUST used to demoralize); they also get Knowledge: Dungeoneering, so they COULD just be really strong bookworms who love studying spores, molds and fungus.
Bottom line: the numbers of the game are set and based on the laws of averages certain builds should do certain things. Sometimes luck isn't with you for the first thousand swings and you end up with a dead god wizard or superstitious barbarian or whatever the uber-classes are now. Then the NEXT thousand rolls all come up 20s and your 2wf halfling rogue with a slingstaff goes down in history as the savior of Golarion.
Theorycrafting is good. It is based on math, which is solid. But this is a game which also involves chance, and sometimes fate is a fickle B who just wanted to cuddle and talk and didn't like the way you were looking at that OTHER d20...
|
|
At 4 HP a turn (or whatever...Bleed's pretty low as a rule), critters take a long time to die. Long enough that it's a problem, and not as useful as you're implying, IME.1 point per sneak attack die.
In practice that kills a lot of our foes, and has downed more than a handful.
Yeah...but it doesn't stack, for the most part. That makes it only, what, 5 or 6 points of damage a turn? How long do combats last in your group? Because at 5-8 rounds (a long fight IME) that's 25-48 damage...and kinda a drop in the bucket on the things you fight at 9th-11th level when you get the bleed damage that high.
I'm not saying bleed isn't nice, I'm saying 'leaving creatures to bled out' takes too long to be viable in most combats I've seen.
I have FOUR groups that I play with, so here are my experiences from best to worst, spoilered because it's really long and I think the OP would rather see the conclusions than the details:
BEST TABLE: I GM with three players plus a GMNPC
- This is a "heavy roleplay" table, where we spend entire 8-hour sessions with no combats. In fact, the level 18/mythic 2 PCs haven't had a CR-appropriate encounter in at least 6 sessions, but they're still loving cleaning up Sandpoint, negotiating peace treaties with the giants, and otherwise doing things on an epic scale that don't involve killing monsters.
- The players are heavily invested in choosing "in context" feats, spells, and skills. At each level, they spend hours deciding what would be appropriate based on what their PCs have experienced, and what they are planning on doing next.
- This does mean that they try to choose feats, skills, spells, and equipment that will make them most effective at what they will be doing next, which means that they are definitely not "intentionally unoptimized". Just not optimized according to some build chart they came up with at level 1.
- Additionally, they are an extremely tactically-minded group. They can spend an hour planning exactly how they're going to execute a combat. If their plan works flawlessly and they win in 2 rounds, they're ecstatic.
- Finally, they have a strong leader, so there is no sitting around asking, "What should we do next?"
SECOND-BEST TABLE: I GM with 3-5 kids (two 10-year-olds and three 13-year-olds)
- ONE of them is definitely an, "I've scoured the boards for an optimal build and now I'm going to play that, no matter whether or not it makes sense in context," player, but he's not very good at it. The rest are clueless, playing the classes they want to play the way they want to play them.
- There is a sheer joy in their lack of leadership, chaos, and finally, "OK, we need to accomplish something," and then single-minded pursuit of a goal.
- Their tactics and spell choices are sub-optimal, but get the job done.
THIRD-BEST TABLE: I started as one of 6 players (down to 4) with a friend GM'ing
- Problem Player #1: A theorycrafter who was determined to do something that the boards insisted wouldn't work. Of course his PC wasn't just ineffectual, but made little sense as a character concept as well. He was fun to game with and I liked the guy, but we kind of had to look the other way at the weird choices he made for his PC. He finally quit in disgust when he was killed by a trap (if you've played Carrion Crown, you know how many, "Oh, you didn't notice that? You're dead!" moments there are).
- Problem Player #2: The worst kind of theorycrafter: Really bad at building his own PCs, but willing to tell you exactly what you are doing wrong. After yet another of his interminable arguments with the GM, he was asked to leave the table and not return. The game went FAR more smoothly once he was gone.
- Problem Player #3: The classic, "I don't want to learn the rules or try to understand anything about the game, I just want to hit things," player. But she played a paladin. Badly. The GM tried to be nice to her, and only had her fall once, but she couldn't be bothered to understand how any of her abilities worked, didn't want to understand her paladin code, and didn't want to bother with gear or equipment. I think at 16th level she was still using some non-magical equipment and had a whopping AC of 24 even with plate mail and shield, but over 50,000 gold pieces lying around. To top it all off, her tactics were abysmal. "No one else exists. I'm going to run off and hit whatever enemy looks coolest." Immensely frustrating, to say the least. And after over a year of playing, STILL having to explain how Smite Evil worked ONE MORE TIME made me think less of the player as well.
On the other hand, the other two players were utterly awesome, making it a fun experience for me nonetheless.
WORST TABLE: 9(!!) players with a friend GM'ing
- No strong leader, so HOURS of sitting around arguing about what to do next. Even more frustrating is listing the available choices, saying, "This is what I think we should do next," FINALLY getting the table to agree, and then having someone start the argument all over again.
- Five of the players are totally uninvested in spending any time out-of-session to buy gear, think about level-ups, adjust spell lists, or what-have-you. If having one player who didn't upgrade her gear was frustrating, being the only healer in a party of 9 where over half the party (including both frontline fighters) refuses to buy gear at all is maddening. There's no theorycraft; there's no roleplaying; there's just, "Oh, is it time to level up? Let me spend 2 hours looking at the list of feats/rage powers/rogue talents and choose one that's both ineffectual and nonsensical for what we've done so far."
- Gross tactical incompetence, even when the incompetence is pointed out. This is the table with the infamous, "I shoot the least-wounded enemy," line. We had one PC dedicate himself to killing downed enemies because my oracle can only exclude four people from her channel and the group was distributing damage so evenly that we had EIGHT wounded enemies without a single AoE spell. So what happened? Two sessions later, a DIFFERENT player ran across a room to attack an unwounded enemy. We said, "What are you doing? Don't split up the group! Focus your damage!" and his response was, "It's OK. I get two attacks." Huh?
So overall I find that what really hurts tables is not theorycraft nor a lack of theorycraft, but rather:
- Lack of a strong party leader
- Indifference to building your PC in terms of not buying gear when you have the money or not thinking about what might be useful or contextual
- Obviously-bad tactics that cause the party to take far more losses than they should, such as spreading out the party and distributing the damage to all the enemies at once when there are no AoE spells forthcoming.
EDIT: Honestly, our "unbalancing" classes have been two-handed weapon melee characters, paladins, and bards. Our arcane casters focus on blasting instead of battlefield control and most enemies would rather eat a 10d6 fireball (with save) than three attacks from a 2d6+21 greatsword. Bards excel at making the melee characters even more dangerous while providing excellent battlefield control. Our least-effective class has been the cleric, surprisingly enough, but I think that's because our groups tend to do 5-6 fights in a day, all spread out, and the cleric's low-level buffs are all only minute-per-level spells.
In our groups (live groups - I bet there's a big difference between playing live and playing virtually), no class has ever become far more powerful than any other. I believe this is mainly due to our group's belief that the GM is the final balance tool in the game.
Not every PC gets the same amount of treasure, nor can they pick exactly what magic items they want. If one character seems to be lagging behind, better magic items specifically suited to them tend to pop up in treasure hoards.
Most people in my group hate playing arcane casters, and specifically hate playing battlefield control casters. Martials are definitely favored and every group always has a rogue (though the next group looks like its going to have a ninja.) Fighter is very popular - we recently had a few players arguing about who gets to be the fighter in the next campaign.
We introduced non-core material earlier in the current campaign, and so far it has been going pretty good. We restrict certain things from the PRD that seem overpowered or just encourage mix-maxing.
Overall, my experience is nothing at all like what I read on the forums.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my longest running, highest level campaign, almost all the RP comes from the Fighter and Barbarian. The Wizard and Cleric are almost faceless automaton 2nd characters for my two players. Any time they get into town and get involved in social situations the focus goes right to the two gronks. The players are just more engaged with those characters, despite the fact that the casters have better skills, better social stats, and more options available. RP doesn't have to hinge on skill modifiers like some people on the boards seem to think it does.
In my longest running, highest level campaign, almost all the RP comes from the Fighter and Barbarian. The Wizard and Cleric are almost faceless automaton 2nd characters for my two players. Any time they get into town and get involved in social situations the focus goes right to the two gronks. The players are just more engaged with those characters, despite the fact that the casters have better skills, better social stats, and more options available. RP doesn't have to hinge on skill modifiers like some people on the boards seem to think it does.
On the one hand, I agree with you, and I played a fighter who managed a lot of the diplomacy by just wandering up, being friendly, and handing out free beer.
But on the other hand, I agree with the posters in other threads who point out how unfair it is to have a barbarian who dump-statted CHA down to 7 or 8 miraculously become the "face" of the party through good roleplay, without spending a point on Diplomacy. (My fighter was CHA 14.)
I think the complaints arise when someone builds their INT 8 WIS 8 CHA 8 bone-crusher, then roleplays him as a witty, urbane ladies' man and the GM goes along with it.
|
|
On the one hand, I agree with you, and I played a fighter who managed a lot of the diplomacy by just wandering up, being friendly, and handing out free beer.But on the other hand, I agree with the posters in other threads who point out how unfair it is to have a barbarian who dump-statted CHA down to 7 or 8 miraculously become the "face" of the party through good roleplay, without spending a point on Diplomacy. (My fighter was CHA 14.)
I think the complaints arise when someone builds their INT 8 WIS 8 CHA 8 bone-crusher, then roleplays him as a witty, urbane ladies' man and the GM goes along with it.
Oh I agree with you there. If those characters had dumped CHA then it likely wouldn't work so well for them, but we used dice rolls for that campaign and they both have modest bonuses on CHA. They tend not to do so well when initially meeting NPCs (not as well as the 18 CHA cleric couold do) but over time both of the Gronks have a way winning over a lot of acquaintances.
Rolling well on diplomacy does good things for you out of combat, but nothing makes friends like doing things to improve someones life.
On the one hand, I agree with you, and I played a fighter who managed a lot of the diplomacy by just wandering up, being friendly, and handing out free beer.But on the other hand, I agree with the posters in other threads who point out how unfair it is to have a barbarian who dump-statted CHA down to 7 or 8 miraculously become the "face" of the party through good roleplay, without spending a point on Diplomacy. (My fighter was CHA 14.)
I think the complaints arise when someone builds their INT 8 WIS 8 CHA 8 bone-crusher, then roleplays him as a witty, urbane ladies' man and the GM goes along with it.Oh I agree with you there. If those characters had dumped CHA then it likely wouldn't work so well for them, but we used dice rolls for that campaign and they both have modest bonuses on CHA. They tend not to do so well when initially meeting NPCs (not as well as the 18 CHA cleric couold do) but over time both of the Gronks have a way winning over a lot of acquaintances.
Rolling well on diplomacy does good things for you out of combat, but nothing makes friends like doing things to improve someones life.
LOL. Our RotRL bard has "modest" CHA for an 18th-level bard (I think low 20's), but he insists on paying for everything in platinum and making vendors keep any change. "A room costs a gold? Well, here's 5 platinum. Is that enough for a bath, too?"
Needless to say, he's *very* popular wherever he goes...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my longest running, highest level campaign, almost all the RP comes from the Fighter and Barbarian. The Wizard and Cleric are almost faceless automaton 2nd characters for my two players. Any time they get into town and get involved in social situations the focus goes right to the two gronks. The players are just more engaged with those characters, despite the fact that the casters have better skills, better social stats, and more options available. RP doesn't have to hinge on skill modifiers like some people on the boards seem to think it does.On the one hand, I agree with you, and I played a fighter who managed a lot of the diplomacy by just wandering up, being friendly, and handing out free beer.
But on the other hand, I agree with the posters in other threads who point out how unfair it is to have a barbarian who dump-statted CHA down to 7 or 8 miraculously become the "face" of the party through good roleplay, without spending a point on Diplomacy. (My fighter was CHA 14.)
I think the complaints arise when someone builds their INT 8 WIS 8 CHA 8 bone-crusher, then roleplays him as a witty, urbane ladies' man and the GM goes along with it.
Never underestimate the power of free beer. It won a fight in my games once.
Ranger runs back to the party, relays info, turns to wizard and says "Follow my lead!" the player hands the wizard player a quick note, prompting a grin. Ranger turns, yells in goblin "FREE BEER!!!" and turns to gesture...
To a silent image of a goblin bartender and a tapped keg. I just rolled my eyes and some dice, one for each of 5 small warbands I had in the scene. Not a one made their save. So dozens of goblins sprint right past the party to the free beer and go flailing to their deaths in an endless chasm.
I just shook my head. My players laughed and cheered. The phrase has become canon in my games now, even among players who've never even met the original guy.
Take THAT theorycrafters! Oh, but wait; the wizard technically won it with the accompanying spell, so I guess theory takes it again...
|
|
No they don't. They just get hidden by houserules and gentleman's agreements. Fighter being a weak class with very little to contribute out of combat doesn't go away just because the GM makes an effort to give Fighter something to do out of combat. That merely covers the issue.A lot of the theorycraft problems you see people pitch back and forth on the boards go away when you site down at a table with a bunch of people that want to play cooperatively and fun fun together.
-Skeld
Meh. I think you're wrong. Theorycraft doesn't account for things like player experience, group dynamics, or playstyle, and it often relies heavily on a narrow interpretation of some rules to support exploiting certain combos. I've been playing 3e and it's derivatives since release and I can count on one hand the number the system-breaking theorycraft problems I've actually encountered and still have fingers left over. That isn't to say that these problems don't exist or that others haven't wrestled with them. It simply means that in my (substantial) experience, the problems aren't as prevalent as the boards would indicate. YMMV.
-Skeld
Monks tend to suffer in my games.
But Zixes, they do pretty well.
At 4 HP a turn (or whatever...Bleed's pretty low as a rule), critters take a long time to die. Long enough that it's a problem, and not as useful as you're implying, IME.1 point per sneak attack die.
In practice that kills a lot of our foes, and has downed more than a handful.
How? Not saying an extra 5 or so damage a round isn't nice, but I don't see how it's so worrying to a big monster with 150+ HP that the Bleed itself would be worrying enough for him to stop it, or significant enough in damage to make it a significant factor in his death.
It helps, sure, but I think you're overstating what it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
We have found that the theory-crafted builds tend to not do as well as expected in actual game play.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the suck, shouldn’t be used, or whatever. But usually when someone follows whatever build exactly as presented in the forums it is only good at combat. Yes, it is a combat machine if the player has enough system mastery to use it properly (often if he is following a build by rote he does not). But since charisma and skills didn’t count toward DPR both are probably dumped and the only skill is probably perception.
Many of the builds are so exclusively offense focused that they are constantly getting charmed/confused/dominated or the rest of the party has to spend a huge amount of resources constantly healing them.
The PC can’t assist much when not in combat and gets bored. The PC has no skills to try and avoid combat, so there are more fights that could have been avoided. Yes the PC mows through the fights (but maybe the rest of the party doesn’t fair as well). Almost every player has said they wished they’d dropped their combat stat a few points to increase some mental stat for some skills and bonuses to use out of combat.
Another much more subjective issue we have noticed is tactical unconcern. Not always, but often. As soon as a player has a build that is a combat monster, they seem to stop giving consideration to any tactics that might give an edge. They are so exclusively focused on “My build lets me do XYZ damage every full attack.” that they can’t seem to even consider not closing in to use a full attack. Even if it is the worst of all possible choices, that is probably what they are going to do.
A few weeks ago I was at a table with I guy whose PC is built for charging on his riding gecko lizard. Yes, it was a kool trick. But he wanted every encounter to be a fight (wouldn’t cooperate very well with attempts to get past something diplomatically). Also, he would get upset with the rest of the party for not telepathically knowing what he wanted us to do to maximize his chance to charge into combat. One fight he actually held his action for 3 rounds in a row waiting for a charge lane to open. If he had just closed to threaten, it probably would have ended the fight 2 rounds sooner and we would not have had to eat as many spells. But he just couldn’t conceive of his charger not charging. I’ve been with the exact same player using a pregen. He played it much more intelligently and effectively. I really don’t think it was role playing the PC’s personality. He seemed to be completely unaware of it.
A lot of space on these forums talk about how the prepared casters are so incredibly powerful because they have the right spell for the job or can just leave slots open and prepare it when needed.
I have rarely been in a campaign, group, or PFS event that actually allowed them to do that very often. Usually they don’t have enough info to tailor the spell list ahead of time, about half of the prepared spells are the wrong ones, rarely get a chance to fill the slots left open, even the good prepared spells were just good not perfect (and they were the general spells that everyone always takes). Almost always the PC would have had more applicable spells available if playing a spontaneous caster.
I am aware there are some campaign, GM’s, and groups where they can really use that capability to advantage. But I don’t see them often.
For us, theory-crafted builds are good place to get ideas. But we have only rarely found them to be ideal.
... and sometimes fate is a fickle B who just wanted to cuddle and talk and didn't like the way you were looking at that OTHER d20...
Everyone in the office is looking at me because I couldn't help laughing when I got to this part.
Oh, one other thing. I'm not sure if you would count this as 'theory-crafting' or not.
But you read a lot on these boards about the paladin's oath causing problems at the table. I have to say that is spot on. Every time there is a paladin in the group about every other game session grinds to a screeching halt while they argue about a paladin can't, should, must, would never, etc...
Usually by somewhere around level 5-8 they finally all agree on what this particular paladin believes and drop the argument. But it really makes me wish the class had never been created in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, one other thing. I'm not sure if you would count this as 'theory-crafting' or not.
But you read a lot on these boards about the paladin's oath causing problems at the table. I have to say that is spot on. Every time there is a paladin in the group about every other game session grinds to a screeching halt while they argue about a paladin can't, should, must, would never, etc...Usually by somewhere around level 5-8 they finally all agree on what this particular paladin believes and drop the argument. But it really makes me wish the class had never been created in the first place.
I say this on just about every Paladin thread that I can't resist posting on, but I'll say it again...
I've been playing D&D and its derivative for 30+ years, and I have never found the paladin class to be problematic. The only times I've seen it be a problem is when there's a disruptive player (often, but not always, the player of the paladin), or a power-tripping GM. (Or, worse, both.) These types tend to be unpleasant to play with anyway, but paladins really seem to attract their attention (and ire) unduly.
Oh, one other thing. I'm not sure if you would count this as 'theory-crafting' or not.
But you read a lot on these boards about the paladin's oath causing problems at the table. I have to say that is spot on. Every time there is a paladin in the group about every other game session grinds to a screeching halt while they argue about a paladin can't, should, must, would never, etc...Usually by somewhere around level 5-8 they finally all agree on what this particular paladin believes and drop the argument. But it really makes me wish the class had never been created in the first place.
I say this on just about every Paladin thread that I can't resist posting on, but I'll say it again...
I've been playing D&D and its derivative for 30+ years, and I have never found the paladin class to be problematic. The only times I've seen it be a problem is when there's a disruptive player (often, but not always, the player of the paladin), or a power-tripping GM. (Or, worse, both.) These types tend to be unpleasant to play with anyway, but paladins really seem to attract their attention (and ire) unduly.
The last several times, in attempt to head things off, the paladin's player and the GM (sometimes me) made an effort to work things out ahead of time by discussing what X meant to this Paladin and how Y would be interpreted. Still had all the other players at the table arguing over it even when the GM and player agreed.
Rarely have any similar issues/discussions/arguments with those same players on anything else. But it always comes out with the paladin present.