| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all,
I find often times that the problems or arguments people make on the forums don't occur in actual game play at my table. While this is of course anecdotal and doesn't mean these things aren't valid or actual problems, I'm curious if others find this to also be the case.
So, post those things that you hear on the forums/elsewhere that don't actually end up being problems at your table.
Please note - I'm sure for every one of these items listed, someone can come along and say that someone must be doing something wrong. Let's try to avoid telling other people that they're doing it wrong at their tables.
1.) Fighters are worthless. Players in my group often argue over being able to be the fighter (as we generally don't like class duplication.)
2.) Wizards are overpowered. Wizards and sorcerers seem to have an above average mortality rate in the games I've run or been in.
3.) In-combat healing is a bad idea. I've found that this is rarely the case - in-combat healing is virtually a necessity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.) In-combat healing is a bad idea. I've found that this is rarely the case - in-combat healing is virtually a necessity.
Something can be a necessity and still a bad idea.
If you need in-combat healing, it's because someone either screwed up, or got very unlucky. If you can pull it off, try to arrange it so that you don't need luck, and then,.... well, don't screw up. (Astronaut buffs might want to remember the Shepard's Prayer here.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Letting players get the gear they want doesn't cause my game to fall apart.
Letting players play the race they want doesn't cause my precious snowscape to become blighted.
Letting players get the gear they want doesn't cause my game to fall apart.
Letting players play the race they want doesn't cause my precious snowscape to become blighted.
I'm not fully understanding the negative.
Are you saying that (at your table), letting people get their gear is a good or a bad thing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen the (probably mythical) "character so optimized, he/she can solo the adventure."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Letting players get the gear they want doesn't cause my game to fall apart.
Letting players play the race they want doesn't cause my precious snowscape to become blighted.
I'm not fully understanding the negative.
Are you saying that (at your table), letting people get their gear is a good or a bad thing?
I'm saying it is indifferent. Which is opposed to the common concern among forumites that players getting the exact gear they want exactly when they want it is harmful to the game.
In my home game experience it is not harmful. I would then go one step further and say that because my players like it, it is probably good for the game.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Rogues are so under-powered as to be unplayable."
Nope. Our Rogue holds his own and often dishes out astonishing damage with his sneak attack. He doesn't steal the show, but neither does anyone else. He also contributes in a lot of meaningful ways outside of combat.
I'm saying it is indifferent. Which is opposed to the common concern among forumites that players getting the exact gear they want exactly when they want it is harmful to the game.
That's interesting. I don't think I've ever seen someone suggest that it is harmful, just that it is not their cup of tea.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, spells have never made skills irrelevant. People like skills, invest in them, and use them. Spells can supplement that...but replace it? Not so much.
In my games, martial/caster disparity, while a real thing in terms of absolute power level, has never been a particularly bad problem in terms of 'screen time' or actual play. Of course, some of that is due to House Rules, but those are for a few specific Classes (Fighter, most notably) with things like Paladin and Barbarian left basically unchanged. This is likely partially due to the aforementioned thing with skills retaining their usefulness.
Allowing Item Creation Feats and Leadership, while certainly something that occurs, has never caused any meaningful problems. There were a few adjustments needed occasionally, but that's it.
I've never seen people get cavalier about losing characters or bring a new one in rather than have their current one raised. People get invested in their characters.
Sometimes I hear about one PC abusing the others in some fashion (ie: stealing from them) and getting away with it due to being a PC. That doesn't happen in my games. The other PCs will put up with personality issues and the like...but actively screwing other PCs? They react to that from PCs the same way they do to that sort of treatment from NPCs...which is to say with either severing ties or extreme violence.
I, too, haven't noted any correlation of any sort between a player's system skills and their ability to roleplay. People who are good at one may be good, bad, or indifferent at the other. Though, personally, I try to keep it to only people who are pretty good roleplayers in groups I actually play with.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying it is indifferent. Which is opposed to the common concern among forumites that players getting the exact gear they want exactly when they want it is harmful to the game.That's interesting. I don't think I've ever seen someone suggest that it is harmful, just that it is not their cup of tea.
For quite a few forumites (especially of a particular demographic), that's basically the same thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seldom if ever see the wizard player cackling that they can do everyone's job. Usually they have things they'd rather do than replicate the rogue's abilities for example.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen the (probably mythical) "character so optimized, he/she can solo the adventure."
Same here.
Somewhat related: Of all the characters I've seen that were more powerful than my own, not once did the player seem to have "forgotten that this is a GAME played for FUN", or seem to be "trying to win Pathfinder", or "trying to outshine everyone else at the table". Not once. Every time I've been at a table with someone who had a stronger character than I did, they've just wanted to play the damn game.
|
It all may partially be the "team sports jock" mentality infiltrating gaming. There's this agenda in that arena of discouraging individual excellence out of some fear that something bad will come of it, and it's primarily this exact fearful belief (via the "forcing people to believe in false Yin and Yang" principle) that makes it true at all - and it makes people not only feel like they ought to resent other players "outshining" them, but it makes them look for it. Talk about your toxic wastes of brainpower.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen the problems people have with Gunslingers in games, nor the problems with Summoners (My bad experience involving a Summoner was the player being a prick, not the class being broken).
I've never seen a class' high damage output "break" encounters either. Usually they end up mulching one guy while the other 4 roll out.
On the flipside, perhaps semi-ironically, in the games I run that are playing APs, the main issue is not damage, but player DEFENSES. Most of the APs I've played or run involve a good 70% of enemies needing a 15+ to hit a player. So I end up tweaking a bunch of encounters.
I've never seen a problem with CN or CE characters in my games. In the ones I run, alignment is largely ignored, but even in ones where people really try to play to their alignments, haven't seen any issues.
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
The forums might as well not exist, in regards to my games.
I've brought up the stuff I see here, and everyone at my table generally thinks the forums are full of crazy people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now you know why my 5 star spouse has a total of 5 posts in this venue. :)The forums might as well not exist, in regards to my games.
I've brought up the stuff I see here, and everyone at my table generally thinks the forums are full of crazy people.
And why you have 33,000? What exactly are you trying to say?
Are you tilting against windmills?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because we are not 5-star GMs, and therefore do not know better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, issues that don't arise:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been said here multiple times that the GM shouldn't have a character of their own.
In several years of Pathfinder and several more years of 3.5, the GM has had his own character and there has not been an issue. It seems to be how well the GM knows what he is doing.
The Synthesist Summoner was called over powered. In our current game ....played by the GM... he is just fine. He also doesn't play the Eidolon all the time. He fields some summoned monsters. But again, he isn't over doing it. As has been said, the summoner can be played very well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never encountered the caster-martial disparity in my Age of Worms game—the melee fighters do an insane amount of damage, and everyone else just makes sure they're able to reach things and covers the few things they can't kill. That said, we don't have a proper full arcane caster, the summoner holds back, and the melee fighters are arguably the most carefully-built PCs in the party. ;P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some more forum problems that don't occur at my table:
Spending a couple of minutes describing the scene, only to realize that the words ceased to exist after leaving my mouth, never heard by my players, so I have to repeat the whole thing.
Having conversations with a few different people at once, then accidentally speaking to one of them while voicing a reply to another's idea.
Having strangers from overseas suddenly burst into the room and start offering me authentic-looking passports and marriage-saving love potions, yammering so loud I can't hear my players.
Explaining an idea to someone and then hearing a reply that shows they heard the first two words and then stopped listening and guessed where I was going with my idea (and guessed wrongly, possibly to the point of being a completely different topic).
People turning blue if they say the word "smurf".
;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players never turn up with characters not suited to the planned campaign.
DMs never turn up with a campaign unsuited to the desired characters.
Nobody has ever felt so strongly about anything that they've announced (politely) that they'll stop playing in the campaign if it doesn't go their way.
Rolling for stats doesn't lead to some players with superheroes having fun and those playing sidekicks having a miserable time.
"Standard fantasy" hasn't become boring after thirty-something years.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been said here multiple times that the GM shouldn't have a character of their own.
In several years of Pathfinder and several more years of 3.5, the GM has had his own character and there has not been an issue. It seems to be how well the GM knows what he is doing.The Synthesist Summoner was called over powered. In our current game ....played by the GM... he is just fine. He also doesn't play the Eidolon all the time. He fields some summoned monsters. But again, he isn't over doing it. As has been said, the summoner can be played very well.
Well, I think that's it, Jiggy. You've won the thread.
I've never encountered the caster-martial disparity in my Age of Worms game—the melee fighters do an insane amount of damage, and everyone else just makes sure they're able to reach things and covers the few things they can't kill. That said, we don't have a proper full arcane caster, the summoner holds back, and the melee fighters are arguably the most carefully-built PCs in the party. ;P
Remember how we recently had that discussion about how buffs are incredibly game changingly powerful?
Not really a sign of the disparity in the classic sense but Eben and Astraden are definitely the most powerful members of our party. =)
The rogue is usually the only one sneaky enough to scout ahead. Sometimes all he finds is a room with treasure. We do not threaten to lynch either the character or the player for not sharing the loot.
The rogue is usually the only one sneaky enough to scout ahead. Sometimes all he finds is a room with treasure. We do not threaten to lynch either the character or the player for not sharing the loot.
I've never had this problem, mostly because nobody I play with is enough of a dick to screw over the party.
I've never encountered the caster-martial disparity in my Age of Worms game—the melee fighters do an insane amount of damage, and everyone else just makes sure they're able to reach things and covers the few things they can't kill. That said, we don't have a proper full arcane caster, the summoner holds back, and the melee fighters are arguably the most carefully-built PCs in the party. ;PRemember how we recently had that discussion about how buffs are incredibly game changingly powerful?
Not really a sign of the disparity in the classic sense but Eben and Astraden are definitely the most powerful members of our party. =)
True, but those buffs are worthless without fighters to take them on. Even fully buffed, Astraden can't come close to Farrukh's output, and Eben can't even approach Tanith's tanithity tenacity. And isn't that—everyone relying on one another—the game ideal? :P
True, but those buffs are worthless without fighters to take them on. Even fully buffed, Astraden can't come close to Farrukh's output, and Eben can't even approach Tanith'sI've never encountered the caster-martial disparity in my Age of Worms game—the melee fighters do an insane amount of damage, and everyone else just makes sure they're able to reach things and covers the few things they can't kill. That said, we don't have a proper full arcane caster, the summoner holds back, and the melee fighters are arguably the most carefully-built PCs in the party. ;PRemember how we recently had that discussion about how buffs are incredibly game changingly powerful?
Not really a sign of the disparity in the classic sense but Eben and Astraden are definitely the most powerful members of our party. =)
tanithitytenacity. And isn't that—everyone relying on one another—the game ideal? :P
That's more build than class, though. Eben actually does pretty darn well for himself, and Astraden with a higher Str and less Feats in Channeling would make a great beatstick.
That's more build than class, though.
Is that not the point of this whole thread? :P
Oh, and I may as well mention that the only 9-levels arcane caster this group had died in the second encounter. ;D
This group does not have a druid, and the summoner invested in a stealthy eidolon. There was an animal companion earlier (Mad Dog barbarian), but his master got killed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But his name lives on.
Spiny's Six 4 lyfe.
That's more build than class, though.Is that not the point of this whole thread? :P
Oh, and I may as well mention that the only 9-levels arcane caster this group had died in the second encounter. ;D
I chalk that up to poor life choices. A sickly dwarf who constantly stumbles over his own feet (dumped Dex AND Con) should not be going "Yeah, I'll just take the AoO for not casting defensively". =p
Bad GMs.
I personally get rid of them by replacing them.
Thought of another one. We're not in the habit of calling people dicks when they do things in character that we might not agree with.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues kick all kinds of butt in my games.
Casters don't always have the perfect spell prepared.
Often times healing during combat is a wise choice, because one more turn the fighter stands or the wizard casts could turn the tides of battle.
Everyone participates in social, skill and investigation challenges.
Failure is fun. That's right my players have fun, even when they fail attack rolls or skill checks or saves. Because they know something interesting will still happen, and setbacks set the stage for great moments of heroism.
Most of the issues people talk about here have not occurred in my tables.
The two exceptions I can think of are Martial vs Caster disparity, and having a jerk DM.
We didn't let the former ruin the fun of the game, and the latter got fixed as I took the DM seat.