I'm playing a bard as one of my characters right now.
I do my level best to keep Inspire Courage up during a fight, and keep my flag out and waving. Folks tend to appreciate that.
Yet, there was a circumstance in a scenario where the enemy was trying to escape with vital information and my character was the only one that could get in their way to stop their escape in time.
Is it suddenly sub-optimal for me to take my music and flag to stop the escaping opponent, even though it is the difference between mission success and failure?
Does that mean I'm not sharing because I made that tactical decision?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Wei
That sounds great honestly. If you've read any of my earlier posts, I've made it clear that the point is if someone asks for something, it is within your capabilities, and its significantly beneficial to the party, then you should probably do it.
It's mostly in regard to things like ''hey, can you prepare a haste,'' or ''Mind buffing me cleric?''
So what you did [though irrelevant]] sounds great.
However, the relevance comes in from this perspective:
When does the implied obligation/request to buff folks end?
When should a character infer that it's time for them to do something other than buff another character?
In a well-set party where everyone is aware both in and out of character about the capabilities of each other, the wizard of a previous example might prepare haste(if he has it available), but if the party knows he doesn't do that sort of thing, then they'll have devised tactics around that, to work as a team (hopefully).
It shouldn't be mandatory to learn buff spells if the character is all about damage, and it shouldn't be mandatory to learn damage spells if the character is all about buff.
But there should be a few fall-backs and tricks if said 'normal' mode of operation goes out the window, too. Just. In. Case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only skimmed a lot of this thread, but as with most play style debates, I think all of these issues could just be resolved before game by communicating with other players.
If Player A is going to focus on being a battle cleric and not a healer, than knowing it before hand might mean that the other players take that in account when designing a character or its tactics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a fighter recently who liked knives. He fought with a big knife in one hand (a shortsword) and regular knives in the other (daggers) which he tended to throw.
Do you think that's "being selfish"? He obviously would have done much more damage with a different choice of weapon, but he grew up dirt poor in the gutter and was comfortable with knives (he didnt like metal armor either, although by the time he died he was getting over that).
To address the spell vs. weapon. Asking for 1 spell/action is a small fraction of a capability and is renewable. To compare something to asking a fighter to use X weapon would be to ask the wizard to take X school or Spell Focus X. It is a much greater asking of their resources.
"Gee, fighter. This battle looks tough. How about leaving the daggers out of this one and using a sword?" seems as reasonable to me as asking the fireball-y wizard to cast haste.
The difference that your example here does not take into effect, is what Redjack_rose has been saying all along... To ask the fighter to stop using his favored weapon, means he stops using it for the ENTIRE FIGHT, while asking the wizard to use one, single, solitary spell is asking the wizard to stop using his fireballs for a single one-minute round, a whole 60 seconds of the melee...
So, unless the fight lasts for just one single round, then the two are completely different requests...
I could continue this argument with, "One entire fight out of four for the day," but I think that counting the percentage of rounds sacrificed for the team misses the point.
The implicit message in telling the wizard to cast just one Haste spell or telling the fighter to use a longsword for just one fight is that it also says that the original character concept, blaster wizard or dagger fighter, does not work well enough for the team. "Sorry, wizard, but your fireballs alone are stupid. But if you cast Haste just once, then you can cast fireballs as much as you want, because the rest of us will win the day."
Some of us want to play different concepts. My current character is a gnome barbarian. That might seem like a mismatch of race and profession, but the goal was to investigate a barbarian designed for maximum survival rather than maximum combat. In the same game, my wife plays a melee sorceress, which is like a magus without Spell Combat and Spellstrike but with a stronger spell selection. We have a new player in our Wednesday game, a high school student, who created a blaster wizard. He took a school ability that gives him +6 damage to fire spells, so they are strong fireballs.
And right now, my barbarian is thankful for that. We stopped the last session with my barbarian facing a colossal spider one-on-one. The slayer archer had sneaked up on it to try his Assassinate talent. That would have made this combat easy; alas, the assassinate failed. The slayer could not run away fast enough and learned that the spider's poison has DC 25. Only my barbarian with Con 20, Raging Vitality, and a Cloak of Resistance has a good chance against that poison, so best teamwork is for my barbarian to hold off the spider in melee combat so that the others can make ranged attacks. Maximum survival is exactly what the barbarian needs and a blaster wizard is good support.
The common wisdom that Haste is better than Fireball applies in a typical combat for a typical party. We created a party that is not typical, and we have found our own form of teamwork. Truthfully, our party is only 70% as effective as a typical party, but applying typical tactics in our atypcial party would be worse. And we have a lot more fun with discovering new tactics.
Give the wizard a chance to use his fireballs. Give the fighter a chance to use his daggers. Let them prove themselves doing it their way. Then, if it becomes clear to everyone that their concept is too weak, the player can fix it him- or herself by adding Haste or a longsword. "I have an idea. I have been trying to keep out of reach to throw my daggers, but the enemy always closes in on me. I mastered quick drawing to throw my daggers. Next time they close in, I am going to quick draw a longsword for a full attack. That will surprise them."
|
I could continue this argument with, "One entire fight out of four for the day," but I think that counting the percentage of rounds sacrificed for the team misses the point.
Such an argument misses the point Redjack_rose has been trying to make.
The point is, that it should not be an unreasonable request to honor when made solely when it is an option that would be of the utmost benefit to the entire party; then and only then... Most of the time, a given party's typical tactics should be sufficient and thus, such a request would at that time, be an unreasonable one to make because it's not needed, as the party's normal way of dealing with threats is more than enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The claim being made is stronger. Nobody has denied that it's a reasonable request - the dispute is over whether one is obligated to comply.
|
|
the dispute is over whether one is obligated to comply.
And I really have a hard time understanding why It seems such a bad thing to feel even a little bit obligated to help a friend out in a time of need, even if the "friends" involved are nothing more than imaginary characters represented by a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper.
Do people dislike feeling obligated to others so much that they can't even consider it within an imaginary context?
I ask, because I honestly don't know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The following is opinion, and much like life itself, is subject to change over time. No offense is intended to folks who 'buy in', nor to folks who contribute to a party's well-being...
Do people dislike feeling obligated to others so much that they can't even consider it within an imaginary context?
When I go to my RL job to get my RL pay there are obligations the employer has put upon me to earn said pay. Not everyone has to do this, but it is a part of RL.
When I go home to my RL family and my RL home and my RL living conditions, there are obligations that life has put on me to maintain that standard of living.
When one has friends, one can offer to cover a check at a restaurant every so often, or pay for gas, etc, it's part of the two-way street of having friends.
Where the grinding of teeth comes in is this apparent expectation to drop resources on someone else (that you may have just met five minutes earlier at a mission briefing) that could have just as easily or easier afforded on their own.
Truth in Advertising: That bard from before? Picked up a scroll with some Haste on it as an insurance policy. Does he advertise it? No. Because every fight would be "OH, CAST that HASTE ON US!" ('please' optional) when the party is easily handling the encounter, when it should be the 'In Case of OMGWTF O/P Opponent Owning Party, cast scroll'.
There are 'mooches' in games I've played. I've had the displeasure of sitting with a couple of them that want you to burn up all your expendables on them because they were too cheap to get any of their own. We're not talking about brand-new folks just starting out, we're talking about the characters at 4th-5th level that don't have level-appropriate armor and weapons, expendables like CL wands or potions, etc.
Having to expend a limited resource to benefit the 'mooches' who haven't 'bought in' is irritating at least, frustrating more often, especially when it happens consistently.
From a non-RobotVulcanGamer perspective, the insistence that certain classes should *always* have party buffing spells grates. There have been scenarios where I was glad the caster had the means of massive AoE Right NOW vs. the benefits of Haste...
Thank you very much for your time and patience...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
the dispute is over whether one is obligated to comply.And I really have a hard time understanding why It seems such a bad thing to feel even a little bit obligated to help a friend out in a time of need, even if the "friends" involved are nothing more than imaginary characters represented by a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper.
Do people dislike feeling obligated to others so much that they can't even consider it within an imaginary context?
I ask, because I honestly don't know.
It doesn't seem a bad thing. My objection is not that one shouldn't feel obligated - it's that the obligation or otherwise depends on the group.
I always object to implicit "my way is the right way to play the game" assumptions. It's why I've been focussing on language - "I don't like playing in a game where people's idiosyncratic preferences and control of their own characters trumps teamwork" is fine, in my view. "People who won't compromise their concept in the name of teamwork are selfish, immature jerks" is not.
I understand the view that the group as a whole is trying to succeed at the campaign's goals and that those group goals should carry comparable weight to the individual's personal goals. It makes perfect sense, I just don't happen to share that perspective and I'd like to not be labelled an immature jerk for playing differently.
For my part, I'm much more interested in the journey than the destination. I enjoy watching a bunch of disparate characters, full of quirks, oddities and conflicting priorities, struggling to save the world against all the odds. Strange as it may sound, it is unimportant to me whether we actually succeed or not - every one of our 3.5/PF campaigns has ended with a TPK before getting to the climax. That hasn't lessened my enjoyment of those campaigns at all (in fact, games which have been contrived to make sure we get to the end really take all the fun out of it for me).
I'm quite confident I'm in the minority there when it comes to preferred playstyle, but that isn't terribly relevant. The way we play suits my group and I and I think it's worth bearing in mind that someone who doesn't feel any obligation to comply with a request from another player may not be operating under the same assumptions as you do. (In this thread, we haven't even really touched on the instance where you're playing a selfish character - that would be another case where I could imagine it being preferable to ignore another player's reasonable request).
^ BAM.
Some of us want to play different concepts. My current character is a gnome barbarian. That might seem like a mismatch of race and profession, but the goal was to investigate a barbarian designed for maximum survival rather than maximum combat. In the same game, my wife plays a melee sorceress, which is like a magus without Spell Combat and Spellstrike but with a stronger spell selection. We have a new player in our Wednesday game, a high school student, who created a blaster wizard. He took a school ability that gives him +6 damage to fire spells, so they are strong fireballs.
And right now, my barbarian is thankful for that. We stopped the last session with my barbarian facing a colossal spider one-on-one. The slayer archer had sneaked up on it to try his Assassinate talent. That would have made this combat easy; alas, the assassinate failed. The slayer could not run away fast enough and learned that the spider's poison has DC 25. Only my barbarian with Con 20, Raging Vitality, and a Cloak of Resistance has a good chance against that poison, so best teamwork is for my barbarian to hold off the spider in melee combat so that the others can make ranged attacks. Maximum survival is exactly what the barbarian needs and a blaster wizard is good support.
In case anyone is curious, the wizard's player leveled up his wizard at home, so the rest of us had no input. We were too busy running the battle against the spider for my barbarian, in character, to ask what spells the wizard had learned, and I forgot to ask directly, player to player. He probably still cannot cast Haste. Instead, his first spell was Mass Cat's Grace to give the archers bonuses to shoot. After the spider battle, the wizard cast Invisibility on the slayer so that he could scout ahead safely. So, despite being a blaster mage who loves to blast, he is happy to buff the other party members.
As for the colossal spider, my barbarian distracted it for a few rounds, taking several poisoned bites. And on her first two Fortitude saves she rolled natural 1s and took 5 strength damage. She succeeded at all following saves. Then the spider decided that the ranger, who had critted a shot for 30 damage, was a bigger problem, and stepped over the small gnome barbarian without any penalty. My barbarian ought to learn the Stand Still feat, but against a colossal spider she most likely would have failed the combat maneuver check. The ranger made her save against poison and the spider died before it could attack again.
If the barbarian really wants that Bull's strength, it only takes a few levels of dip to get it. Alternatively, the barbarian is entirely free to invest in potions for it. Then he can use it as much as he likes.
Also, there is a different way of looking at this. The barbarian may well have two attacks to the cleric's one. However, the barbarian is pretty likely to hit either way, making the difference a +4 damage for him. The cleric, if built right, is far more likely to have it affect his chance to hit, meaning you're quite likely to get an extra 1d8+Str bonus+2 or something for the cleric's bull's strength. In general, a cleric taking a round of actions should be giving FAR more than +4 damage. Expecting someone to spend their round buffing you is selfish, useless and stupid. There are exceptions, of course.
I'm going to try running the numbers on that, because I'm pretty sure it affects the Barbarian's chance to hit just as much (+10%) unless he's hitting only on a 2.
Let's say the cleric has one Bull's Strength and is deciding whether to cast it on himself or the Barbarian before an imminent battle.
To make up some vaguely plausible numbers: the barbarian, when raging, attacks with +15/+10 2d6+12. The cleric attacks with +10 2d6+8.
Neither has an active enhancement bonus to strength.
Their next opponent has an AC of 21 and is immune to crits because that makes it easier to calculate.
The barbarian has a DPR of 23.75 and the cleric has a DPR of 7.5. Their combined DPR is 31.25.
If the cleric casts Bull's Strength on himself, his attack rises to +12 2d6+11 and his DPR rises to 10.8. Their combined DPR is now 34.55.
If the cleric casts Bull's Strength on the barbarian, his attack rises to +17/+12 2d6+15 and his DPR rises to 31.9. Their combined DPR is now 39.4. This is 14% higher than if the cleric had cast it on himself.
This difference increases if the cleric ever casts spells or channels energy in battle since his Bull's Strength goes to waste that round (and decreases somewhat when the barbarian can't full attack).
Clearly, it's better for the group for the cleric to buff the barbarian instead of himself. If he doesn't understand that, it's stupid. If he does understand that, but cares more about his own glory than winning the battle, that's selfish.
Nevertheless, I agree with the general sentiment that expecting other party members to use good teamwork tactics is a recipe for disappointment. Some people just don't do that, whether for reasons of showboating, incompetence, or role-playing. Trying to get them to change is more likely to annoy everyone than succeed.
Which level would these guys be? Bull's strength needs to be a relevant choice for the issue to be interesting. Your increased DPS needs to be compared to what else the cleric could be doing. It would also change seriously if the cleric was, say, a reach weapon/AoO build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which level would these guys be? Bull's strength needs to be a relevant choice for the issue to be interesting. Your increased DPS needs to be compared to what else the cleric could be doing. It would also change seriously if the cleric was, say, a reach weapon/AoO build.
Matthew Downie covered a typical case as an example, but if you want to discuss other cases, we can reduce the calculations to a general principle: The character who hits most will benefit most from Bull's Strength.
Bull's Strength gives a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength. This usually results in +2 to hit and +2 to damage, but in some cases, such as an archer shooting via Dexterity bonus or someone already with an enhancement bonus to Strength, the benefit is less. Let us assume that all characters would get the full benefit from Bull's Strength.
The +2 to hit would affect everyone's attack roll equally, regardless of what their chance of hitting already is. However, characters who make attack rolls more often, such as people with an extra attack from high BAB or an AoO specialist with a reach weapon, would get to use the +2 bonus proportionally more.
The +2 to damage would affect everyone's damage roll equally, regardless of what damage dice and bonuses to damage are. However, characters who make damage rolls more often would get to use the +2 bonus proportionally more. Also combatants using a weapon in both hands would get a +3 bonus instead.
In general, a barbarian makes more attacks and hits with more attacks than a cleric of the same level. Therefore, in general, the Bull's Strength benefits the barbarian more. This would be reversed for a cleric built with a high emphasis on melee combat versus a barbarian built with a low emphasis on melee combat. However, I play a gnome barbarian with an emphasis on survival rather than combat, and she still has more emphasis on combat than the typical cleric. I cannot imagine a well-constructed barbarian with a low emphasis on combat.
Next, we need to consider the case where the cleric does not cast Bull's Strength on anyone. Perhaps the cleric is designed as a front-line combatant alongside the barbarian, protecting the bard and wizard in the party, and attacks instead of casting spells. That is a valid choice. Perhaps the cleric is at risk from archers and ranged spellcasters and casts Shield of Faith to protect himself. That, too, is a valid choice. The barbarian is the best target for offensive buff spells, but offensive buff spells are not always the best tactic.
Assume a PC who hits on 18+ and one who hits on 11+. The first has 15% chance of hitting. The second has 50% of hitting.
Both get a +2 bonus to hit, putting them at 16+ and 9+ instead. The new chance of hitting is 25% and 60%.
For the first, the chance of hitting went up by 10/15 = 2/3, i.e. 67%. The second's chance went up by 10/50 = 1/5, i.e. 20%.
If both characters' chances to hit went up by 10%, the first would now have a 16.5% chance to hit, and the second would have a 55% chance to hit.
This is the difference between % and % units.
Assume a PC who hits on 18+ and one who hits on 11+. The first has 15% chance of hitting. The second has 50% of hitting.
Both get a +2 bonus to hit, putting them at 16+ and 9+ instead. The new chance of hitting is 25% and 60%.
For the first, the chance of hitting went up by 10/15 = 2/3, i.e. 67%. The second's chance went up by 10/50 = 1/5, i.e. 20%.
If both characters' chances to hit went up by 10%, the first would now have a 16.5% chance to hit, and the second would have a 55% chance to hit.
This is the difference between % and % units.
Percent improvement is the wrong unit to use for this comparison.
I like to refer to hit rate as chances out of 20, to avoid confusing the two different kinds of percentages, but percent improvement will remain %.
Suppose both those PC are attacking the same opponent. The 18+ PC hits 3 chances out of 20, the 11+ PC hits 10 chances out of 20. Combined, they hit 13 chances out of 20.
Suppose the 18+ PC gained Bull's Strength. Then he hits 5/20 instead of 3/20. His friend did not gain Bull's Strength, so together they hit 5/20 + 10/20 = 15/20. 15/20 is a 15.4% improvement over 13/20.
Suppose the 11+ PC gained Bull's Strength instead. Then he hits 12/20 instead of 10/20. This time his friend did not gain Bull's Strength, so together they hit 3/20 + 12/20 = 15/20. 15/20 is a 15.4% improvement over 13/20.
In this example, for the information given, it does not matter which PC gains Bull's Strength. Either one gives a 15.4% improvement overall.
However, why does one PC hit at 18+ and the other hit at 11+? How about the 18+ PC is a 5th-level monk with BAB +3 and Strength 14, and the 11+ PC is a raging 5th-level barbarian with BAB +5 and raging Strength 24. Assume each wields a medium quarterstaff two handed, so the monk's hits deal 1d6+3 damage and the barbarian's hits deal 1d6 + 10 damage. The average of 1d6 is 3.5.
The monk deals (3/20)(3.5 +3) = 0.975 damage per attack on average. With Bull's Strength, he would deal (5/20)(3.5 + 6) = 2.375 damage per attack on average, a 144% improvement! The barbarian deals (10/20)(3.5 + 10) = 6.75 damage per round on average. With Bull's Strength, he would deal (12/20)(3.5 + 13) = 9.9 damage per attack on average, a 47% improvement. The monk's improvement is three times as much as the barbarian's improvement, so if the party's goal is to reduce frustration from being ineffective, then the monk should get the Bull's Strength.
However, look at their combined damage. A Bull's Strength monk and an unbuffed barbarian deal 2.375 + 6.75 = 9.125 damage per round, An unbuffed monk and a Bull's Strength barbarian deal 0.975 + 9.9 = 10.875 damage per round. The extra damage from enhancing the barbarian is more than the extra damage from enhancing the monk, so if the party's goal is to damage the opponent, then the barbarian should get the Bull's Strength.
For true teamwork, the barbarian should get the Bull's Strength and the monk should use Aid Another to aid the barbarian. The monk would have 16/20 chance of successfully aiding, which would give the barbarian a +2 bonus to hit. Thus, the barbarian's average damage per round would be (4/20)(12/20)(3.5 + 13) + (16/20)(14/20)(3.5 + 13) = 11.22 damage per round. The monk would be successful 80% of the time, the barbarian would be successful 68% of the time, so everyone would feel like they contributed.
There appears to be one drawback to the equation and suggestion above.
They're predicated on a 'single target' paradigm.
If there are multiple targets that need to be engaged (separated by distance), loading up the one person that's almost guaranteed a hit isn't going to keep the *other* folks from attacking un-buffed party members.
While the philosophy fits well for MMO-style play, not every combat in play is going to be a nice 'set-piece' 'tank 'n' spank'. Attempting to buy in on that being the only operational paradigm in a combat envelope is folly at best.
If there are several opponents closing to melee and your melee beatstick cannot close to them, wouldn't it be better (given that concentrated fire is going to be ineffective in such a circumstance) to increase the chances of others hitting and keeping the enemy engaged?
Now that you mention it... it WOULD be a great thing to have a party entirely designed to make one character more effective. Say, a barbarian. The rest of the crowd does all they can to help rack up his kills, nothing else. I'll play the barbarian, you guys can be my extras, right? We ARE playing a game where the entire goal is teamwork, after all. It would also bring great advantages. You wouldn't need to spend money on anything that didn't contribute directly to the barbarian's battle prowess, all the extras would need is really defensive items and healing stuff...
Now that you mention it... it WOULD be a great thing to have a party entirely designed to make one character more effective. Say, a barbarian. The rest of the crowd does all they can to help rack up his kills, nothing else. I'll play the barbarian, you guys can be my extras, right? We ARE playing a game where the entire goal is teamwork, after all. It would also bring great advantages. You wouldn't need to spend money on anything that didn't contribute directly to the barbarian's battle prowess, all the extras would need is really defensive items and healing stuff...
...which is all wonderful until the opponent goes Oh, hey, that one looks like the weakest mental link... *YOINK* "Kill your friends"
With the resources saved on equipping the extras, there is plenty of money to buff up the barbarian's will save.
With the resources saved on equipping the extras, there is plenty of money to buff up the barbarian's will save.
And when a natural 1 happens the party wipes.
Brilliant.
|
My take on the issue is this. A player can choose to share or not too share. As long as he or she is also willing to accept the consequences of not sharing. Which most players don't imo. If one is playing a cleric and the difference between a character dying is either attacking a creature. Or casting a healing spell. The cleric attacks. The players loses any right to be offended of the player whose character dies gets angry at him.
You can't have it both ways. Do your own thing at the table. Yet also be absolved of any negative things happening at the table. It's one of the few times that no roleplaying in this case is not a good reason. If that happened to me and I get resurrected or make a new character. You can damn bet that I'm not going to help you out the table either. Fair is fair. If a player(s) refuses to share than no one else at the table should share anything with them either imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it's far more a question of being clear with what you do and don't do at the table. Make a cleric that doesn't heal, if you wish, but be certain the rest of the party understands that. Your responsibility is to contribute to the party, but just making a cleric doesn't mean that has to happen through buffing or healing.
|
|
My Winter Oracle is the closest thing to a dedicated healer our Reign of Winter party has. Thankfully, one of the main melee guys being an ice troll helps greatly with that. More often than not, I'm using my offensive spells rather than cure spells. We also have a Witch and Ranger in the party, so the responsibility is spread around a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One can still heal with converting spells or channel energy. So one can still heal to a certain extent without having to focus on buffing or healing. So IMO one can still play a non-standRd cleric and still heal IMO.
There is a massive difference between "can heal out of combat and drop a heal when a dire emergency warrants it, but if they are spending combat actions casting heal spells then something has gone seriously wrong" and "get over here b**** and Cure Critical Wounds my ***". If some of the players aren't competent enough with the mechanics to make that distinction, then they are in all likelihood going to get the two mixed up. You still need to have a talk even if the PC can heal, because quite a few players will take that as meaning the PC should be healing all the time.
|
|
That's what I meant. cast s healing spell when needed. Yet at the same time do their own thing. Beyond that at the table. Then again as a healer one needs to use common sense as well. If the fighter just took 50+ points of damage ask if he need healing. One needs to be both reactive and proactive st the table IMO. If the fighter thinks he does not need healing and charges headfirst into combat. Then he is being dumb.
There is a massive difference between "can heal out of combat and drop a heal when a dire emergency warrants it, but if they are spending combat actions casting heal spells then something has gone seriously wrong" and "get over here b**** and Cure Critical Wounds my ***". If some of the players aren't competent enough with the mechanics to make that distinction, then they are in all likelihood going to get the two mixed up. You still need to have a talk even if the PC can heal, because quite a few players will take that as meaning the PC should be healing all the time.
If someone called me that, in or out of character, I think I'd find *other* combat actions to do. Because that's really not the level of enjoyment I look for when I play games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, my problem here is still telling someone they are obligated to do something just because it's a better option and where you draw the line at "reasonable request".
Yes, it's most often going to be a better action on the part of the wizard to drop haste on the party rather than fireball.
It's also the most boring thing the wizard player can do from his perspective and he hates it. So he doesn't do it. That's valid. It's not optimal, but it's valid.
Telling the player he's a selfish jerk for not buffing you, is incredibly hilarious ironic.
|
|
It's also not fun to have a character die either. No one is saying always cast Haste instead of Fureball. But if the situation clearly calls for Haste but the Wizard still cast Fireball. Well don't act surprised or offended if you get called out on it. Again you can't have it both ways. Do your own thing good or bad at the table. Then cry foul when it causes something negative to happen at the table. In the case of the example above. If you know the enemy has SR and Fire resistance it's a bad tactic to cast Fireball. It might be more fun. It's still a dumb thing to do IMO.
If you know the enemy has SR and Fire resistance it's a bad tactic to cast Fireball. It might be more fun. It's still a dumb thing to do IMO.
If you *don't*, then you shouldn't be given dirty looks for not knowing that. And you shouldn't feel constrained to only cast the Haste prior to that discovery.
|
|
Of course if one does not know its one thing. irs quite different when one knows. If one fights a demon then fights a similar kind of demon. I'm assuming that your not going to auto cast a fireball. If the group is in a area heavily infested with demons. Common sense dictates not casting a fireball.
I'm the type of DM and player. That if your going to do your own thing at the table. Then your responsible for your actions both negative and positive as a player at the table. I just keep getting the sense in this thread and similar others that players want to do what. Consequences be damned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My concern is when the rules go "You don't know this without a Knoweldge: X check" yet half the table is going "Use the cold iron,BOO!" without making the roll.
If you're in a scenario where it's all demons, after the first one or two, yeah, that'd make sense. But if there were devils in there, or slaad, or who knows what all else...?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because something is mechanically a better idea does not mean that a character or player should feel beholden to do that thing, especially if the player establishes "Hey, I'm a blaster wizard not a buffing wizard". The player clearly wants to throw fireballs, not hastes. You don't get to tell him how to play his character anymore than you would want him to tell you how to play your character.
Oddly enough, the campaign my group just finished contained this guy. For a while.
We had a player who, by the third session, had proven to everyone's satisfaction that he had the best head for tactics at the table. Even the other guy who fancied himself a tactician admitted that this player (I'll call him 'Larry') always came up with the mechanically and mathematically optimal strategy for every single encounter we faced. He even knew our character sheets- often better than we did. Following his directions pretty much ensured the quickest possible victory with the minimal use of resources.
And to give credit to 'Larry', he didn't metagame his tactical skills. No, he made a PC who was... a tactician, cleverly blending player skills with PC skills.
For session after session, 'Larry' would tell the entire table what to do, round by round. Sometimes what he told us to do agreed with what we'd already decided to do (on a player by player basis), so we obeyed. Sometimes when a player's turn came up, the player hadn't decided on an action yet, and tended to accept 'Larry's' advice. (We had a couple of new-ish players who hadn't developed their own style and self-confidence yet.) Often, the players had their own ideas of what their PCs should do, and they ignored 'Larry's' instructions.
'Larry' would then browbeat the player, insulting their intelligence, pointing out everything they had done 'wrong', and generally insisting that everybody do things his way, because it was 'best'.
We even agreed that his way was 'best'- if 'best' is defined as 'the quickest possible victory with the minimal use of resources'. But no one else at the table defined 'best' that way. We defined 'best' as 'what brings the most enjoyment to the most people while advancing the story'.
This went on for more than a year, with 'Larry' becoming more and more insistent on everyone playing his way, even planning out how various PCs should be leveled up when the time came. Finally, (after many discussions with him and attempts to get him to adjust his behavior) we had enough. We kicked 'Larry' out of the game. The game went on two more years without him, and when it ended, we all agreed that it was the most enjoyable campaign we'd ever played.
While 'Larry' was with the group, we had one PC death (who was later Raised). After we kicked 'Larry' out, we had 5-6 PC deaths (all of whom were Raised.
From a purely numerical standpoint, 'Larry' was right: even though we often didn't obey him, we still did 'better' as a party when he was there. And every one of us had more fun after he was gone.
I'll take 'more fun' over 'better' any day. And it sounds like most of the people on this thread would too.
If someone called me that, in or out of character, I think I'd find *other* combat actions to do. Because that's really not the level of enjoyment I look for when I play games.
You still need to have a talk even if the PC can heal, because quite a few players will take that as meaning the PC should be healing all the time.
I was in a game where a friend of mine was playing a cleric. The party treated that cleric as though he was only there to heal them, at their convenience even after he made it clear that this was a problem and he wasn't enjoying how he was being treated. They took him for granted and were ungrateful so often that the cleric decided to teach the party a lesson. When the party went to town next time, the cleric's player passed the GM a note saying that the cleric was deliberately using up all of his spells and other healing options in tending to the city's poor. When the party got into a fight later that day, they expected (and demanded) that the cleric heal them.
But the cleric was out of spells. Instead, he waded into melee and helped the party that way. All the bad guys died (eventually). None of the party died (though several went into negative hp).
A dick move on the player's part? Some people might say so. I say it was a well-deserved object lesson. Some of the other players got mad at the cleric's player for 'not being a team player'. The party learned not to assume the cleric was only there for their convenience. And the game was better for it.
|
|
I agree if the party is unfair and takes advantage of a certain player then he is within his right to withhold his class abilities. That was never the issue for me at least. If I never ask for a healing. Only take what is offered. The player running the cleric sees about to die and decides to do nothing. Then in that case I think the player is being a dick. I'm sorry but just because I can be raised does not mean I like a character who dies at the table if it can be avoided. If I play a character stupidly rushing into battle all the time. Then I deserve to have my character die all the time.
One thing I'm noticing how too many in the thread threat character death. It's never fun at all for whatever reason. So it's all well and good to say your doing your own thing but if it causes player deaths well you can't be offended by players being unhappy. Or being called a dick. If a character death is avoidable it's on the player. If the DM is a killer DM it's on him. If they assume that your their only for their whims. Then they are asking for it. But at the same time assume the responsabilities of your playstyle.
Mind you we would also boot out "Larry" from our group as well. Though you kind of made the case that his way was somewhat better though his method of presenting it was still annoying. The guy leaves and 5-6 pc die. Sorry that's a table that has no concept of tactics imo. It maybe fun but I don't like pc death.