So, an interesting thing happened at my most recent PFS game, and I wanted to see what other people think about it.
I was running a 3-7 scenario with several people from my local lodge, including two of my more mechanically-minded players. I also had a player (let's call him Bob) who's relatively new to the game, and perhaps not the most socially skilled of fellows. He's running a psychic sorcerer of some kind; a few minutes of research tells me that he's a psychic bloodline sorcerer from Occult Adventures, and is 4th level or so. I haven't audited his character or anything, but my understanding is that his spell selection is mostly mind-affecting stuff. Certainly most of the things he does at the table are mental attacks from the psychic sorcerer spell list - he uses mind thrust and psychic strike as his main attacks, and honestly isn't too creative in what he does - 90% of the time it's one of those two things. If his target is immune to mind-affecting attacks, like an undead or something, he'll either use that ability anyway or do nothing.
At the beginning of the scenario, one of my players told Bob that he'd gotten some complaints about his character, and basically said something to the effect of "You should change your spell selection so it doesn't suck so much. Stick around at the end of the game and we'll talk about it."
Understandably, Bob reacted to this rather defensively. I stuck up for him, generally of the opinion that it's nobody's business how their character is set up, and tending far more toward the roleplaying side of the hobby than the mechanical. I attempted to defuse the situation, basically saying that it's Bob's character and he can play it as he likes.
That said, I can understand where they're annoyed. Bob's character DOES kind of suck at his job, but I feel like if he's not asking for help, criticizing his PC isn't helping anything. It's one thing to have a semi-useless character at low levels; most low-tier scenarios aren't really very threatening, even if PCs do dumb stuff or make almost entirely sub-optimal choices. Hell, I've seen low-level scenarios where one PC who's built well as a generalist can basically solo the whole scenario if they want. Difficulty ramps up considerably around 5th level or so, to the point where having to carry a character through who isn't contributing to the party much can put everyone's PCs in real danger of death.
So, what do people think is the right answer here? How "optimized" are characters in PFS supposed to be, and how much does that change as they level up? I realize a lot of this will be determined by scenario choice and the specifics of the region's players, but honestly the idea that someone's character isn't "up to snuff" rubs me the wrong way. I'm not sure there's a good way to advise a player on this without coming off as insulting, and I don't want to be a lodge where there's a feeling that "You have to be this competent to play with us." That way lies a level of elitism and rudeness that I'm not too comfortable with.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is very much not about power level and more about versatility.
The basic sentiment of "There are a lot of mind effect immune things and you really should prepare for that, I can help you" is spot on. Delivery might need work, and/or Bob may need to chill a bit, but the basic idea is right. The other player isn't saying bobs character sucks, that bob sucks, is completely unworkable, needs to be started over etc, he's saying "here, snag a page of spell knowledge and you don't need to sit out every undead ooze swarm and undeadoozeswarm fight."
It's very much within the tenants of cooperation
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There isn't any. The situation you have is more of an issue of group dynamics and person to person interaction.
There was a time when PFS was assuming everyone was super munchkin min-max on their characters and designed scenarios appropriately. That is no longer quite the case.
Also keep in mind that sorcerers aren't wizards... they can't just change their spell selection... they either have to retrain or wait until level up to gain new spells or swap out at particular levels. So if the players want to "help" they should concentrate on helping him use the character as it is... not as they want it to be.
|
Social answer:
Whoever has the best relationship (or social skills) can chat with Bob to smooth things over. And then do the nice thing of saying, hey, if you need any help, I'm here.
Everyone else probably knows the mechanical answers:
Short term answer: have him buy a wand of magic missile so he can contribute when his psychic spells are low or not effective. Alchemical weapons, Aid Another with reach weapons, other basic tactical things.
Long term answer: make sure he understands he needs a range of spells in case his go to spells aren't needed and should look into metamagic rods at higher levels (like threnodic) for his mind affecting spells vs undead.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not an easy question to answer with incomplete information. It doesn't sound like he's hurting the party, just that he's "not contributing as much in combat as others want him to." But maybe that's because I'm projecting onto what you wrote.
I truly the idea of a player being told that his character isn't good because it is suboptimal.
I've got hundreds of tables played and nearly 200 GMed. And I firmly believe that the idea that you have to be optimized to succeed in PFS is a complete myth. All optimization does is end battles quickly and undramatically. The battles I remember the best, the most fondly, are the ones where no one was optimized.
Good tactics (and a fair GM) will win almost every battle even with just "OK" characters. And the way you learn good tactics is by playing.
So I would actually have a conversation with the "non-Bob" players. If Bob isn't actively hurting the party don't worry about it. Rather than telling him to change his build, use questions to guide his improvement. If his spells are ineffective one round say "can you maneuver over here and Aid Another on my attack next round?" "Do you happen to have a wand of useful first level spell on his class list?" Let Bob ask you for spell advice as he learns what works and doesn't work. The best teacher is experience.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people should be excited to play with sub optimal party members. Not only do you get to shine, but honestly not everyone is going to be as effective as the next person in real life. (People can get jobs they are horribly under qualified for hell even president without deserving it) And you might have to make up for that short coming..or maybe even die because it.
|
|
I will make suggestions to characters all the time, but I do not care if they listen or not. It is usually a one line quip like, you thought of buying your character a X. Then if they ask me questions about it I will then carry the conversation on. This is me fishing for people to talk about their characters and a game we both enjoy. If they answered no, my cleric believes X are bad. I get excited and discus that with them as well.
I will also happily play with someone that wants to play a weaker character. I played with a scenario where a level 11 grapple white haired witch got killed by 2 cr 2 crocodiles int he first round of the first combat(she even pulled us up to the next tier).
If they are enjoying being their character(no matter how strong/weak they are), then they are winning at Pathfinder.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
It's useful to get feedback, but it has to be constructive.
In any case, being prepared is very important and it can help to explain to a new player what kind of challenges he might meet in scenarios.
For example, sometimes things will just be immune against your primary offensive option, so it's a really good idea to have a plan B (and C and D) ahead of time.
Sometimes, that scroll you bought 2 scenarios ago, is just the right thing to help the group in a sticky situation.
Of course, good suggestions usually don't work if you start with "your character sucks", it just goes downhill from there.
|
|
Let's pull some numbers from the shadow plane.
Assuming combat is NOT your primary role I would hope you can do one of the following at level 11:
-75 damage a round
-Save or suck at DC20 across all three saves
-cast haste 3 times a day
-have high saves and the ability to negate crippling conditions (fear/charm & compulsion/nausea/
These numbers are completely arbitrary. They are not required, but each make a good fall back role if you can't do anything else.
Perhaps a better guide would be: if your character is the 5th character at the table do you make up for losing the 4-player adjustment? If you literally make the party's chances of survival worse though your presence then it may be time to improve your capabilities.
Ultimately everyone's character is their own and it is up to the individual to balance what they want from their character with what they perceive the social contract of an organized play environment to be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other side of the coin, not mentioned above, and merits consideration:
If an individual *only* gets a chance to play at local conventions, and is not playing all that much -- Occult Adventures has been out for a while -- then they may *not* have the play experience to have a 'truly versatile character'.
Using terms like 'sucks' doesn't help the situation, nor the 'heard bad things about character'. In fact, starting with that sort of descriptor almost immediately would put MOST people on guard, even if they have a decently rounded character that just 'doesn't hit all the right power chords'.
I recently had the experience of playing a series of scenarios where nearly the entire table WAS mostly optimized... for combat.
Now imagine the flailing about (albeit fun in this case) that occurred when said 'combat-ready' party encountered puzzles... social situations... and even role-play.
Doing 'nothing' (not even 'powering up the lazor', positioning, just sitting back in a corner while answering texts or such) is the kind of thing that is corrosive to a party play dynamic. It should be avoided if possible, but sometimes due to 'bottleneck' or tactical situations it needs be done.
No one knows what play experience the character cited in OP's example has.
Perhaps they only look for the scenarios where they can be effective with that character and have managed to come to a very limited series of ways of dealing with the situation. This goes out the window if the scenario they want to play either doesn't fire OR the scenario is 'not exactly as advertised'.
Why does this keep coming up every so often?
|
Why does this keep coming up every so often?
Because people have legitimately different play styles, that sometimes conflict. Some folks approach Pathfinder as a wargame, where the goal is to win combats. Roleplaying is secondary, or, in the most extreme cases, lame. If a player brings a character suboptimal for combat, it's like playing touch football and getting stuck with the one 9-year old present on your team.
Others are interested in story, characterization, and roleplaying. When taken to the extreme, these folks might even like losing if it makes for a good story. Character competence is secondary to character interestingness.
Most of us are somewhere in between, and like some of each. That's why PFS generally works. But if some really are on one end of the spectrum (or at another end I haven't identified), it can be annoying to them when the game isn't what they see it to be, and they can be annoying to others who aren't in the same camp. Ideally, home games can allow like-minded folks to find games that work. PFS mixes people ask the time.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Truth be told I'm curious as what the scenario selection is. It's something that does come up but not often enough for it to be an active hindrence. Also, I am legimately curious as to what spells he has because my reaction would not be you suck but what in are your other 10 spells.
If an individual *only* gets a chance to play at local conventions, and is not playing all that much -- Occult Adventures has been out for a while -- then they may *not* have the play experience to have a 'truly versatile character'.
Its a sorcerer. Its very hard not to end up with at least one non mind affecting offensive spell.
|
|
So lets get off specific players.
The General question being asked is, is it ok to give unsolicited advice to a Player about a PC that is not really providing help to the group as a whole, or even worse deterring the group to the point of endangering other PCs.
IMO I think it is fine to give such advice, and make it be aware it is just advice. What I would have issue is in forcing a player to change the PC.
Edit: On the other question on if players in PFS are obligated to make helpful PCs. I think obligated is to strong a word, I would advice that a player do so though.
In a home game a GM could adjust the situation to work better with the PCs presented in the game, for PFS that is a lot more difficult. So when a player can't do anything for the game/group it just causes frustration towards either that player, the group or the GM. That is never a good situation to be in.
I have been in that position in not being as helpful as I am used to being and being a strain to the group, it was not something I enjoyed or something I would want to do again if avoidable.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... it is frequently possible to softball tactics a bit, even while staying within the written tactics for the NPCs. I know I've done it more than once, for instance in choice of which characters the NPCs are attacking.
I sort of always do it not on purpose, because I'm just not a great tactician. But if I see the party really getting pummeled, I'll try to figure out how I can avoid TPKing them while staying within the written tactics.
|
|
I agree, tactics are usually how you can adjust difficulty for different groups if you need to. Obviously you always follow the tactics described, but you can apply different levels of effort to finding creative and/or brutal ways to challenge players.
I usually run the same good but not great tactics against low- and intermediate-power groups. I don't often go out of my way to challenge those groups--they probably aren't playing that scenario with combat in mind in that case, and that's fine. Against groups who are really up for a challenge, especially in high tier with more wide-open (less defined) tactics, I'll put some extra prep into tactics and strategy and if I'm lucky I get to use them. We've had a couple of scenarios recently that are really good at allowing that sort of flexibility, and it makes things a lot of fun on the GM side of the screen.
I don't softball new players, but I do provide tactical advice. "You have a rogue who does extra damage when flanking, so instead of attacking now, when you're not flanking, why don't you use the ready action to attack when you get a flank?" "This monster looks like he's got a lot of reach, and it's not always the best idea to run right up to something big like that, and you're kind of squishy. What kind of alternatives to running up and attacking do you think you might have?"
I will alter tactics to avoid a TPK if I think that's something that might happen, though I'll try and make it reasonable within the stated tactics.
I would love to run a game for all advanced players that was intentionally more adversarial and up the challenge, but I don't think that's something I'd be comfortable doing with a mixed group. You'd have to make that kind of thing clear ahead of time as well, in my opinion.
|
|
None of these actions provoke AoO's with proper positioning
Aid Another - AC or attack bonus
Help Flank in Melee, go in an fight defensively
Ready a Counterspell
Throw a Flask of Alchemists Fire
Throw a Flask of Acid
Throw a Flask of Holy Water
Throw an Improvised Weapon
Throw a Javelin
Throw a Spear
Throw a TangleFoot Bag
Use a ranged weapon (crossbow)
Use a Knowledge check - shout out weaknesses to allies.Skills
Bluff - Feint
Intimidate - demoralize an opponent.Got a gunslinger in the party? Help reload his guns.
Cast a spell from a scrollMaybe your player doesn't realize that every combat doesn't have to be a kill-fest and dps from every person. Sometimes supporting allies helps end it quicker by just being in the proper position.
Aid Another: Problematic, could get one attacked.
Help Flank: EVEN WORSEReady Counterspell: If they have K: Arcana/Spellcraft to be able to identify one.
Flasks/Tanglefoot bag: If one was willing to part with cash if they are saving up for something...
Improvised Weapon: ...of what?
Throw Javelin/Spear and/or used ranged weapon: What is the STR of character?
Use K: Check: Does the character have any of the skills for a given target trained?
Bluff - And run the risk of becoming enemy target.
Intimidate - Likewise run risk of becoming enemy target, especially on failure.
Gunslingers tend to be faster at reloading their own weapons unless their assistant has the appropriate skills.
I can easily see all these things being 'just plain NO' for the above or other reasons -- what if they dump-stated everything to have a high DC on their spells, for example?
Now that we've shot down all these options, how do we reach out to the player and get them to realize that 'yes, contributing on more than one level in a fight is a GOOD thing'?
|
|
I don't think any of my characters meet tlotig's requirements.
Hence the last lines
"Perhaps a better guide would be: if your character is the 5th character at the table do you make up for losing the 4-player adjustment? If you literally make the party's chances of survival worse though your presence then it may be time to improve your capabilities.Ultimately everyone's character is their own and it is up to the individual to balance what they want from their character with what they perceive the social contract of an organized play environment to be."
|
Stick to your guns and tell them to leave Bob alone. A single optimized character is enough to steamroll most PFS scenarios. If someone wants to play something unoptimized because it's fun for them, let them be.
I disagree. PFS is about cooperation, with everyone at the table expecting their fellow players to put some effort into helping. Being unoptimal isn't the point; it's about making an effort to get through the scenario and not letting others carry your weight.
In my mind, there is a difference between Billy, who has the exact same character but who when confronted with things that are immune to his "schtick" goes up to the enemy and assists his companions with Aid Another, and Bob who just says "Pass turn" when his thing doesn't work.
That being said, if there's more to the story than is being told, this is pure abstract speculation on two theoretical players and how I would feel with either of them at the table.