There's lots of ways to optimize your PCs these days. While you can't ever MASTER all the ways with a single PC there are a few key choices that mean that, by about 6th level you can solo many fights and lucky hits and bad initiative rolls are all that stand between you and glory.
So do you consider the party when making your character? Do you consider the rest of the PCs when determining your strategy or the development of your character?
I was in an email discussion with a fellow player today and one of their comments amounted to: we shouldn't have to huddle before every fight or buff ourselves outside every door.
I thought: why not? I'm not saying so extreme that we're buffing for EVERY fight, but why not huddle, plan, and make decisions on spells to take, strategies to employ etc based on the whole group? When we're actually in play this gamer tends to act independently from the rest of the party but that's fine since they're decent at optimizing and can usually survive each battle unless luck is against them which is something out of their control anyway.
I don't know, it just got me thinking: is the prevailing thought now about the individual characters instead of the group now? And please don't ONLY answer with "it depends on the GM/campaign" because EVERYTHING depends on those things. Independent of the GM or the particular game they're running, is party unity a thing of the past?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I can tell, PFS is exactly that: Every man for himself. At least when it comes to character builds. As long as it's possible to arrive at a PFS table and find all the other players brought sub-par crappy characters and now everybody is going to die because the entire group is too weak to handle the adventure, then the only insurance you have to survive that is if YOUR character is stand-alone self-sufficient.
As for non-PFS gaming groups, I have almost always seen the players WANT to talk to each other before the campaign and figure out who's playing what, how to optimize, how to synergize, and how to build a good party. Then during play, they usually play that way too. Mostly.
Sure, there are, no doubt, outliers. It sounds like the OP has one outlier in a group of otherwise party-oriented players.
I always consider the rest of the party or plan with them. My characters always end up playing second fiddle at to every specialist in the party and pehaps also being Half completet in his/her own field.
And with that in mind it is important not to make someone that out shine the others or is completely useless.
Was party unity, in the sense of mechanical character design ever really a thing?
I agree that the idea of party roles has been a long accepted concept. I don't think I've ever seen people building characters to function as precise interlocking pieces except maybe once. Some classes (like Rogue) are designed with built-in dependency on other party members, but in those cases the burden of teamwork generally falls on them.
In my experiences, party unity means people agreeing to work together, not mechanically so much as personally.
Two things make groups necessary in Pathfinder.
One: Action Economy. While a Wizard can cast Fireball, in any situation that doesn't involve a swarm (either the general or game definition) the force multiplier of casting Haste on the group is a far more useful action to be taking. Until the highest levels you have to choose between the two, and even then you probably have better things to be quickening than Fireball.
Two: Pathfinder rewards specialization. While options exist to do many things, for most classes trying to be a generalist in terms of your combat role only means that you are going to suck at a lot of things. Combat maneuvers are a good example of this: they can be very effective if specialized in, but it's really not an option to "dip" into a combat maneuver build. You simply will not have the ability to make the CMD checks of the larger, non-humanoid monsters of the mid-to-high levels if you aren't putting all of your resources into doing so. Arcane casters have the same issue with the enchantment school: a strong school if specialized in, but if you don't sacrifice in other areas to pick up the immunity negation abilities you're going to find your enchantment is pretty useless much of the time.
In my longest running group, we always consider party synergy to at least some degree. Usually not teamwork feats, but making sure we can enable the rogue to SA via greater invis or easy flanks, or maybe playing with stuff like Butterfly's Sting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
conforming to the meta
though there is no meta
because there is the idea of meta
|
Was party unity, in the sense of mechanical character design ever really a thing?
Yup. At least, it always has been for our group.
Character creation always involves a sit-down division of duties, down to the skill level, and evolves as characters change and levels are gained.
...by about 6th level you can solo many fights and lucky hits and bad initiative rolls are all that stand between you and glory.
This hasn't been my experience at all. If it were, my group probably wouldn't bother with teamwork either.
Cheers!
Landon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was party unity, in the sense of mechanical character design ever really a thing?Yup. At least, it always has been for our group.
Character creation always involves a sit-down division of duties, down to the skill level, and evolves as characters change and levels are gained.
About the extent of it among my players is that they make sure there isn't overlap in class (usually not race either). They don't even pay much attention to the idea of roles, so much as what they think sounds fun to play.
I wouldn't have it any other way. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am mostly a dm and am involved in 2-3 campaigns at the same time.
Most groups used to have a character design session, partly to make sure all the desired roles were filled, partly to find synergies, and partly to help the weaker players design their characters.
Then along came HeroLab. And a lot of players started designing characters at home, because it was easy. However, groups became more like PFS groups, you never knew what was coming to the table. Party cohesion went out the window. And for some reason, these same players, after designing their characters in a vacuum, play as if they were in a vacuum.
Add in the fact that all of the players I game with who play PFS use HeroLab and I'm not sure which is mostly responsible or if they both play a strong hand in less party cohesion.
What boggles my mind is that these same players were great teammates for years *before* these two things came long.
Add in the fact that all of the players I game with who play PFS use HeroLab and I'm not sure which is mostly responsible or if they both play a strong hand in less party cohesion.
What boggles my mind is that these same players were great teammates for years *before* these two things came long.
Well, then I consider it a good thing that I don't use Herolabs, and I don't participate in PFS, because I still consider the party a major consideration when building every character.
Generally, while I like to make something that fits my interest (generally a melee guy of some sort), I usually try to find some niche to remain useful in other situations.
One of my favorite builds I wrote up (before the retraction of SLAs as spell casting FAQ) was a reach fighter that used riving strike and intimidation to make enemies saves plumet with a single hit. It would make the wizard love you, and you could just act as straight forward melee guy.
Alchemists can be a good bet if you are making builds without input from your party. Lots of ways to make them, and you can usually handle 2-3 roles so you can find SOMETHING to do most of the time (melee, buffing, debuffing with bombs, a bit of blasting with bombs vs big things like dragons, etc.)
Neither Herolab, nor PFS as I've stated before has meant the death of the party. What I do see, are a generation of players whose culture has taught them a more self-absorbed "me-first" attitude. It has nothing to do with the technology, save where it acts as an enabler of a pre-existing mindset.Well, then I consider it a good thing that I don't use Herolabs, and I don't participate in PFS, because I still consider the party a major consideration when building every character.Add in the fact that all of the players I game with who play PFS use HeroLab and I'm not sure which is mostly responsible or if they both play a strong hand in less party cohesion.
What boggles my mind is that these same players were great teammates for years *before* these two things came long.
I never stated they did that. I was merely intimating the coincidence that I don't use Herolabs nor play PFS, whether those affect the "me-first" attitude or not. I still belong to the first generation of RPG gamers, since I started playing in 1977, as is half my table. The other half are almost half my age, and they don't seem to have a "me-first" attitude - so within my limited experience, I haven't seen these other generations with different attitudes (not that they are not out there, just not around here...)
I don't think me-first-ism is new. Munchkins, attention seeking "real roleplayers" and thieves that connive for more than their fair share of loot show up in first generation gaming anecdotes.
It is not hard to find 30 year old horror stories about terrible parties...
I might acknowledge that PFS might give a community with more of a lean in this direction, but I am unsure whether it is entirely a universal problem. If you and your friends like to play, and have no experienced GM, then going to PFS together doesn't seem out of the question. So it is not like PFS completely exclude the idea of a semi-consistent party and being able to make dependent builds.
Unless I am misunderstanding PFS and it has some Orwellian systems that break apart friendships and forcing you never to see the person you drove there with again. Otherwise, you can probably get enough people together that you can at least do a butterfly sting-TWF-kukri/scythe pair.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All my characters for PFS are built around their own individual concepts. I don't take into consideration another character because I won't always be in the same party, other people don't always want to participate the same way, and you don't know what to expect from session to session.
It helps that I mostly enjoy strong solo concepts anyway.
|
Two: Pathfinder rewards specialization. While options exist to do many things, for most classes trying to be a generalist in terms of your combat role only means that you are going to suck at a lot of things. Combat maneuvers are a good example of this: they can be very effective if specialized in, but it's really not an option to "dip" into a combat maneuver build. You simply will not have the ability to make the CMD checks of the larger, non-humanoid monsters of the mid-to-high levels if you aren't putting all of your resources into doing so. Arcane casters have the same issue with the enchantment school: a strong school if specialized in, but if you don't sacrifice in other areas to pick up the immunity negation abilities you're going to find your enchantment is pretty useless much of the time.
And there in lies one issue with Pathfinder, that there exists ultimate builds so that it's basically pointless to take any other build. Pathfinder may as well gather those builds and make them the "classes" that you pick. None of this choice crap! lol
Because taking a build say focused on ROLE playing a character concept causes this
As long as it's possible to arrive at a PFS table and find all the other players brought sub-par crappy characters and now everybody is going to die because the entire group is too weak to handle the adventure, then the only insurance you have to survive that is if YOUR character is stand-alone self-sufficient.
I don't recall 1st edition D&D having these "issues" each class was as weak or strong as the next class. Too many options has led Pathfinder to basically have no options because it "rewards specialization", unless you're lucky to find a DM who bans these uber builds and asks players to create characters based on their personality rather than how well they Trip.
And there in lies one issue with Pathfinder, that there exists ultimate builds so that it's basically pointless to take any other build. Pathfinder may as well gather those builds and make them the "classes" that you pick. None of this choice crap! lol
Two: Pathfinder rewards specialization. While options exist to do many things, for most classes trying to be a generalist in terms of your combat role only means that you are going to suck at a lot of things. Combat maneuvers are a good example of this: they can be very effective if specialized in, but it's really not an option to "dip" into a combat maneuver build. You simply will not have the ability to make the CMD checks of the larger, non-humanoid monsters of the mid-to-high levels if you aren't putting all of your resources into doing so. Arcane casters have the same issue with the enchantment school: a strong school if specialized in, but if you don't sacrifice in other areas to pick up the immunity negation abilities you're going to find your enchantment is pretty useless much of the time.
...How did you even get this out of my post? Pathfinder has a multitude of viable builds; the "optimal" one is the one that is going to be the most useful in the most situations, but I don't think there's any singular build in this game that is the most effective in every situation.
All I was saying is that you have to pick a role and be GOOD at it. It's just that if you try to instead by adequate at all roles, you're going to end up sucking at them instead.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder rewards versatility, not specialization.
It rewards specializing in something versatile.
Dirty trick, for instance, is one of the bette maneuvers since you can apply a wide number of debuffs. And since it is so varied, it is hard to invalidate it with extra legs, or not having eyes. You just decide to deafen instead (or something along those lines).
Wizards are dumb and operate on different rules than literally every class that isn't the Cleric, Druid, or Arcanist, news at 11
|
I have a tale of two gaming groups. One group is very much every man for himself. The PCs only work as a team when they absolutely have to. Its super annoying for me as a player and I wish I was in the GM chair again.
The other group loves working together as a team. They asked for a character creation session. They petitioned info from the GM (myself) It is refreshing the difference group 2 is compared to group 1. I wish I was playing in this group instead of being the GM.
So no party unity is not a thing of the past for everyone.
My experience has been a combination of both dynamics. There's a few players that have a distinct character in mind, with no care as to group synergy. Then there's those that like building characters that complement others in the group. And finally people who just play to be around their friends and will roll/role whatever the party is missing or whatever they're told is needed. Classic tribal behavior really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience has been a combination of both dynamics. There's a few players that have a distinct character in mind, with no care as to group synergy. Then there's those that like building characters that complement others in the group. And finally people who just play to be around their friends and will roll/role whatever the party is missing or whatever they're told is needed.
Yeah, it's pretty standard for everyone to have their own ideas on how to build a character. I don't think people even consistently fall into one of those groups; sometimes I have a really solid idea of what I want to play, and sometimes I'll just wait to see what the group wants/needs.
So I guess what I've been seeing in my games can be summed up as individualism. I wouldn't call it selfishness; if I implied it I'm sorry. For example the player I'm referencing in the OP is usually a divine caster and is more than willing to share their healing magic, sometimes even in combat.
But like a lot of posters in this thread when I was growing up there was no HeroLab or even a point buy system so all of our campaigns started with a character gen session. More than that though there was this overriding thought of the group first. We'd have ideas like "wouldn't it be cool if we were all brothers/cousins" or "What if we were all fighters" and such.
In starting this latest game it just so happened that I made a grippli, another guy was thinking about a lizardman and a third guy was tinkering with a tengu so we suggested "what if we were all monstrous types?" The GM poo-pooed it and the player in the OP said they didn't want to get tied into a pre-set plan for their character.
What ended up happening was that the guy with the tengu got shot down on two different characters and dropped out altogether. I switched to a human and now that we're playing together our characters are kind of tripping over each other.
with a lot of games now I've seen this thing where like one PC is on a personal vendetta, another is questing for spells, a third is looking to loot a bandit lord that screwed him over, etc. I try to weave these background elements into one another but all the while the PCs are played like a group of individuals, independent instead of interdependent.
I don't know, maybe its just me. I miss making big plans with the other characters, chatting with my fellow players about what their characters can do and figuring out how to maximize not only strategy in fights but just how our guys fit together.
The problem with 'party' thinking is that it usually involves pushing people into roles they might not want to play.
"OK, we need one person who can disarm traps, a healer, an arcane caster with area-effect and utility spells, and someone with high DPR. I'll be the wizard."
"I claim Barbarian. So, who wants to play a cleric and follow me around healing? No-one? Come on! If you don't, you'll be stuck playing a rogue..."
"I was cleric for the whole campaign last time. I died and you made me play another cleric."
"Fine, I'll do it. Ugh. I hate playing religious characters."
Pathfinder has done a fairly good job of reducing the need for strict roles, and providing a variety of ways of filling those same roles, but there's still an appeal to a campaign where you can play exactly what you want to play.
Pathfinder rewards versatility, not specialization.
In PF if you want to be a archer you better focus your energy on that, if you want to be a melee type you better focus on that. Some classes Can do it all but they also must make choices. A group need versatility but individuals Can be better if they specialize. If a friend of mine have made a character that is all about melee i dont bring out a character that Can out figth him and cast spells and dominate social situations. Then i tone Down the melee aspect just a bit, so i am only just behind his numbers.
But i love making characters and always bring like 10 when we start a new game.
I've seen the exact opposite happen. When I first got into playing (about 20 years ago), my friends, brothers, and I typically made whatever we wanted to, then figured out how we were a group, and then went adventuring. Today? Its the exact opposite. We spend much more time talking and planning our characters out ahead of time than we ever did in the past. Some of that I think is an age thing (some of us are less impulsive today than when we were younger) and some of it is experience (we've played more games, more systems, and more classes so we generally know what we like and don't like).
One thing I have noticed is that with some players who are new to the game, the desire to play and try all of the different classes and options leads to them just making a character and then seeing what everyone else is doing.
EDIT: I should also mention that the number of people I've gamed with throughout my life is probably no more than 15 people total and we are roughly the same age.
|
|
Hey Mark considering your last post, imma go back to group 2 from mine. I am running Mummy's Mask for them right now. While they are very team oriented when it comes to adventuring, all the PCS are very individualized as well. For instance only one PC is not from Osirion and she is part of secret order spying on things in the city of Wati. There is a cleric that worships an old God of Osirion and is looking to expand his knowledge on his God as well as Osirion history in general. There is a thrill seeking half-orc who goes where the adventure and glory is.
Point is every PC has their own interests and agendas. Despite that they know its in their best interest to work together because adventuring is serious business. On top of that you might as well team up with somebody you can at least get along with. So its still quite possible to be individuals but also members of a group/team without having to worship the same God or be related or any other binding point. Though, not being dicks to each other and working together occasionally goes a long ways and I recommend it.
Mark your posting history has been a series of Goldilocks exploration. Every game element you pick apart and examine carefully. It spurs excellent conversation and you definitely think outside the topic of the week paradigm that reigns supreme here. Sadly, it seems you are never quite satisfied with your gaming groups choices or playstyles. I can understand this I spent a few years screening players and picking particularly to find a great gaming group. You might be a little pickier than I am but I hope you find the group and game that is just right one of these days.
Oh and we really need to get together for a one shot one of these days. Maybe get IronTruth and Jiggy over as well. Have a good one.
Sounds like your email conversation will make for a nice epitath on your player's tombstone. "We don't have to buff. Durr."
No the party is not outdated, but with the addition of classes beyond the core set not to mention a multiplicity of archetypes, there are ways to adjust characters to fill non-traditional roles.
Try tackling an undead filled dungeon without a cleric or paladin and see how you feel about it afterward.
How many locked doors and boxes have to turn you away before you realize someone has to not min-max and actually play a skill based character that can open locks.
Not having a mage becomes an evident weakness when encountering swarms or something swooping overhead out of reach.
Try putting the wizard or rogue up front to great the onrushing throng of orcs while the fighter in plate mail brings up the rear. It just doesn't make sense.
All of the classes have their role and a party does best when balanced between classes.
And of course someone will gainsay every example any uses because - that's the internet for you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Try tackling an undead filled dungeon without a cleric or paladin and see how you feel about it afterward.
Undead have no special resistance to Wizards, etc.
How many locked doors and boxes have to turn you away before you realize someone has to not min-max and actually play a skill based character that can open locks.
I have never seen this be a serious problem. Most locks can be dealt with by bashing or magic.
Not having a mage becomes an evident weakness when encountering swarms or something swooping overhead out of reach.
The latter can be dealt with by missile weapons.
Try putting the wizard or rogue up front to great the onrushing throng of orcs while the fighter in plate mail brings up the rear. It just doesn't make sense.
You put the wizard up front because he's got Mirror Image and other protection spells. You put the rogue up front either because he's got super high dexterity-based AC or because he's a disappointing character and you want him to die. You put the fighter at the back because he's an optimized archer.
And of course someone will gainsay every example anyone uses because - that's the internet for you.
Glad I could help.
Glad I could help you. ;)
I would put you up front - for rogue reasons.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like 'the party' to be an outdated thing. I want the players to be able to play whatever they want (within setting boundaries, etc.) I always hated, HA-TED, someone being forced to play the cleric or the rogue or whatever when they didn't want to play one.
To me, instead of adjusting the PCs to the game, you adjust the game to the PCs. If they don't have a trapfinder, simply don't use so many traps, and don't make them as lethal ... or put in ways to bypass or defeat them that don't require Disable Device. If they're short on healing, give them fewer encounters before they can go full rest. If they're short on ranged attacks, don't do the 'archer ambush behind fortification' thing. Etc. Etc.
Part of the job as a GM is to provide appropriate challenges for your PCs. If they're notably deficient somewhere, picking on it at full strength isn't a challenge. At no point, IMNSHO, should the GM say 'Too bad, you should have brought a (class).'
Undead have no special resistance to Wizards, etc.
Wizard's don't have heals or X channels per day.
I have never seen this be a serious problem. Most locks can be dealt with by bashing or magic.
It explodes when you hit it.
The latter can be dealt with by missile weapons.
They fly out of the range of your weapons.
You put the wizard up front because he's got Mirror Image and other protection spells. You put the rogue up front either because he's got super high dexterity-based AC or because he's a disappointing character and you want him to die. You put the fighter at the back because he's an optimized archer.
Anti-magic field. Your rogue and wizard are swarmed by orcs while the fighter laughs in the back.
Glad I could help.
Blank you.
Wizard's don't have heals or X channels per day.
Wizards do have Infernal Healing, and there are plenty of ways to get CLW without needing to play a Cleric. Also, channeling for damage? That's bad. Baaaaad.
It explodes when you hit it.
I wasn't aware Dispel Magic counted as "hitting" something.
They fly out of the range of your weapons.
This is like, the iconic scenario for a combat that absolutely requires a Wizard.
Anti-magic field. Your rogue and wizard are swarmed by orcs while the fighter laughs in the back.
At the level in which AMF comes online, it hurts the Fighter more than any other class.
As much as party roles still exist, I really wish we could get away from this Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric standard. Pathfinder has too much variety to be restricted to 1st edition's terrible niche protection.
Even if remaining with Core only, nobody has played a fighter or wizard at our table for many years. Its usually barbarian or ranger, and a sorcerer. We do see rogues in play every now and again, as well as clerics every now and again, but the total Core 4, never - not since 2nd edition anyway.
I always try to make sure that parties I run or play in are coordinated. First off, is making sure that the major combat roles are filled and since you can do any of the three in a huge variety of ways it is rare that someone can't find something they really want to play.
Beyond that though, I like to make sure that key skills are covered (disable device, knowledges, survival) and that some, particularly knowledge, aren't doubled up. It isn't cool to have spent a bunch of ranks in a knowledge skill only to have another character show up with a much higher modifier for the same skill. Everyone should have some ways in which their character can shine without being overshadowed by someone else.
Tactically, in game, how much coordination varies a bit from campaign to campaign. Usually it is assumed that they are a tactical team and will coordinate at least on the basics in combat, but some campaign themes are more selfish and wouldn't get teamwork feats or invest in group consumables and similar things while others are based on a close group beyond just adventuring together and focus much more on what would benefit each individual.
I strongly disagree with the concept that if a party doesn't prepare the GM should not challenge them in a way they aren't prepared for. For one thing, it actively penalizes players who want to do something. For example if my GM plays the 'easy mode if you don't have a trapfinder there won't be traps' style, and I play someone who specializes at disabling traps then I am weakening the group and making traps more dangerous by choosing that option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the party is meeting up in a tavern, it breaks things for me if they all just so happen to work wonderfully together.
Even in that situation, I would expect that either they decide to form a team because they all have complimentary skills or they were hired because they all have the skills necessary to form a team. In character they didn't 'design themselves to be complimentary' but the Players each make characters who, when they meet, naturally decide that they have what is needed to make a successful group. Otherwise, they would find others to join up with where the needed abilities would be covered and they could contribute.