| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As usual the answer is "it depends". For the most part the purpose of the lesser mini-onions from Leadership is to supply the skilled labor for running whatever nefarious enterprise the character is up to whilst the cohort serves as major domo/chief of staff.
So long as none of the mini-onions or cohort are selecting Leadership feats themselves, it should't be too troublesome. Oh, and that they're not all item crafters...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mini-onions? Now I've got this vision in which you gain Leadership by broadcasting propaganda on television to turn your Followers into vegetables . . . .
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP part of Leadership isn't really taking all followers into dungeon(...who the heck would allow that in first place?), its usually when GM lets player customize the cohort completely so they end up making really optimized support for their main character. (and of course when GM let's them all be magic item crafters who work for free somehow <_<)
Like, I haven't noticed much problem in APs when cohort is one of npcs they met, but custom cohorts are really "lel too stronk" at their job :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership in our campaigns does not generate cohorts or followers. It merely allows you to have them. The campaign may or may not provide them and you may or may not pursue them.
I have had several characters with leadership who never had a cohort. Sometimes I get a narrative edge. Like my medium needs to lead the army for his Marshal ability to work. The feat helped the NPCs give me a shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The general problem with leadership is getting a second character and an additional pool of actions.
The followers never really mattered. They were never high enough level to matter really. The cohort has always been the problem. Even optimized cohorts are usually too much of a bonus, in my opinion.
This is why Leadership is just generally banned in my group.
The only way we've allowed it is to have characters doing things off-screen for the PCs, they were not ever allowed to directly participate in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The followers are too weak to go with the leader into the adventure. OK as support off screen. The cohort, is required to go with the leader due to the mechanics of cohort advancement requiring them getting experience. If you leave them off screen, they never advance, and quickly loose relevance. If they are with you, you get extra action economy.
That action economy is what throws off the adventure. Also, the extra time needed to deal with the extra on-screen characters takes away from the other players.
Solve this, and suddenly, the problem is much less.
As to crafting, yes, it can derail things. But so does a PC crafter. I don't think this is as derailing as the action economy.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I've had GM's who handle leadership pretty well, it tends to be an "everyone in the group takes the feat" kind of thing. Cohorts and followers are usually left in charge of running whatever scheme/scam/country/business the party has going on at the moment.
The way this works out is that taking the feat lets the party adventure with insurance against disruption for whatever non-dungeon crawling plans they have. They also act as a sub-party most of the time for various one offs or adventures related to whatever they're managing and only really become an extra character if there's an attack on whatever the PC's are using as an HQ while the pc's are there, in which case they join the fight.
High follower level gets accounted for as a bonus in whatever plan the pc has going on as well. Businesses make more money, the gm adjusts research DC's or applies a bonus, your merc company trains recruits better or gets better contracts, etc etc.
Check out the Recruits feat. I like it a lot better than Leadership.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could try running it to the letter of the feat. It provides access to a cohort and or followers. It doesn't say you get to design them or build their stats etc.
Those are purely the domain of the DM. There are resources out there for DMs to just use as defaults if they want to (NPC codex). Your followers and cohorts have their own ambitions and agendas, they just happen to co incident with the players. They are not automatons. In fact, it's possible they will separate from the players goals if things aren't done right ( you can lose followers and cohorts)
So really, this feat is only as powerful as a DM lets it be. I always found it useful for plot advancement and rumour milling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't overpowered. But most uses of Leadership aren't. Leadership is strong, but it comes with both baggage and risk--baggage in that you're outfitting your cohort with your own funds, and risk in that poor management leaves you with a permanently-tanked Leadership score. Plus, cohorts and followers are plot hooks waiting to happen, especially if the party tends to leave them minding the horses or keeping the hearth warm one too many times.
That said, it's a bit dated, but at one point at least one dev's intent was clearly that you do get to design your cohort. The argument is solid--you get to design your animal companion and improved familiar, so what makes this any different? But it's also a solid way for a party who really likes a particular NPC to convince her/him/it to come along for the ride.
In my group Leadership cohorts almost always have to be an NPC the party has already met and who would agree (for one reason or another) to hang around the person taking Leadership. Their base sheet may be modified to bring them a bit more up-to-par, and once they've joined the party the person with Leadership gets to handle leveling, but the GM decides who's a valid Cohort and what their base is. We also tend to cut the Followers altogether (with the exception of SnS once, where it was a matter of "Most of the crew is loyal to a paycheck, these crewmen are loyal to you") and generally only one person in the party is allowed to take Leadership (if multiple people want it then GM gets to decide which one gets it and which has to find something else to do with their feat.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a draconic bloodline sorcerer in a Rise of the Runelords campaign who looked at her cohort and minions as her 'people hoard' and would bling out even the minions with several years (by minion pay scale) worth of clothing and jewelry.
Her cohort was Orik Vancaskerkin (rescued by the gallows by her impassioned plea for 'work release') and she devoted most of her other loot to blinging *HIM* up to be the 'party tank'.
Queue near campaign derailment when said cohort ended up in Hell.
We got him back, beaten within inches of his life and a note taped to him by an archdevil we'd liberated by accident earlier in the campaign saying "We're square on one account, and you owe me on another. I want *redacted*'s head on a pike and we're even."
Our GM's rule was if we wanted any of the key NPCs we encountered to remain viable and connected to the party, we had to take the Leadership feat to reflect that, or the GM wouldn't do anything with the NPC.
Our rogue took it to get Shalelu as a love interest, our fighter took it to get a base commander as the leader of her fortress, and the only one who didn't take it was our crafter, who was too busy making stuff to take care of people on top of it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't overpowered. But most uses of Leadership aren't. Leadership is strong, but it comes with both baggage and risk--baggage in that you're outfitting your cohort with your own funds, and risk in that poor management leaves you with a permanently-tanked Leadership score. Plus, cohorts and followers are plot hooks waiting to happen, especially if the party tends to leave them minding the horses or keeping the hearth warm one too many times.
That said, it's a bit dated, but at one point at least one dev's intent was clearly that you do get to design your cohort. The argument is solid--you get to design your animal companion and improved familiar, so what makes this any different? But it's also a solid way for a party who really likes a particular NPC to convince her/him/it to come along for the ride.
Sean K Reynolds also said if you wanted to keep the follower and have it level appropriately, it had to actually adventure with you. Not sit around crafting your gear.
He was big on intent, if not always RAW.
That adds some serious balance to the feat too. If you do build him/her yourself as a character, you better make sure they're survivabilty is up there. They are a few levels below yours and need to be equipped by you out of your wealth allotment.
And remember, animal companions and familiars can always be resummoned or reaquired whn they're lost. As such, they make great targets for DMs to kill off. This is true of co horts too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't overpowered. But most uses of Leadership aren't. Leadership is strong, but it comes with both baggage and risk--baggage in that you're outfitting your cohort with your own funds, and risk in that poor management leaves you with a permanently-tanked Leadership score. Plus, cohorts and followers are plot hooks waiting to happen, especially if the party tends to leave them minding the horses or keeping the hearth warm one too many times.
That said, it's a bit dated, but at one point at least one dev's intent was clearly that you do get to design your cohort. The argument is solid--you get to design your animal companion and improved familiar, so what makes this any different? But it's also a solid way for a party who really likes a particular NPC to convince her/him/it to come along for the ride.
Sean K Reynolds also said if you wanted to keep the follower and have it level appropriately, it had to actually adventure with you. Not sit around crafting your gear.
He was big on intent, if not always RAW.
That adds some serious balance to the feat too. If you do build him/her yourself as a character, you better make sure they're survivabilty is up there. They are a few levels below yours and need to be equipped by you out of your wealth allotment.
And remember, animal companions and familiars can always be resummoned or reaquired whn they're lost. As such, they make great targets for DMs to kill off. This is true of co horts too.
All good stuff. Though I'm okay with followers (not cohorts!) leveling so long as you maintain regular contact with them. I tend to run followers as a somewhat rotating crew of loyal NPCs with a couple of steadfast faces to prevent them from being treated as mere stat blocks. I don't actually mind cohorts not being in the party 100% of the time, but they do need to be challenged appropriately to get XP, same as anybody else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In our Runelords game, the Oracle has leadership. The cohort is the her healing b*%#h. The group relies on this NPC cleric a lot. The rest of the minions stay in Sandpoint. So far the Cleric has Aided in fights but that is all. He has been attacked and killed once. I have heard all the horror stories of Leadership but it has been played out just fine.
I plan to play a Dawnflower Bard sometime soon and take the Leadership feat just so the group can have the Inspire Courage like they do now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love Leadership. I also disagree with 99.9% of the gaming world in that I don't actually think it's overpowered, given the following:
1. Planar binding, simulacrum, create undead, et al. already give casters armies that are better than the ones you get from Leadership, and animal companions, eidolons, etc. already give casters free cohorts (and again, the latter especially is way better than the one granted by the feat). So why begrudge the fighter and rogue something similar?
2. The cohort is 2 levels below yours, and generally has NPC gear (unless your DM is super-generous in handing out loot), which means CR 3 lower than yours. Remember that CR is a log scale, not a linear one: +2 CR means a doubling of relative power. That means you are literally three times more powerful than your cohort. If you bring a cohort along when facing level-appropriate challenges, they die. (We saw a lot of this playing through Savage Tide, in which everyone took Leadership, and all the cohorts kept getting killed.) Also remember that, when you kill off your cohort, your Leadership score gets docked, so the feat keeps getting weaker and weaker.
3. Crafting cohorts also have never been a problem for me. Casters can already turn money into gear. So unless your entire campaign from levels 1-20 is on some sort of ridiculous railroaded timer, money turns into gear, one way or the other. A crafting cohort just spares the fighter having to take one more skill he can't afford and a couple of feats he can. Having a magic item factory guarded by weaker characters, while you're off-plane somewhere, also makes a tempting target for baddies.
I love Leadership. I also disagree with 99.9% of the gaming world in that I don't actually think it's overpowered, given the following:
1. Planar binding, simulacrum, create undead, et al. already give casters armies that are better than the ones you get from Leadership, and animal companions, eidolons, etc. already give casters free cohorts (and again, the latter especially is way better than the one granted by the feat). So why begrudge the fighter and rogue something similar?
I would just like to mention, as a GM I generally don't allow these options either. They are as much or even more of a problem than Leadership.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if you want to just arbitrarily ban CRB spells, that's fine too. Magic missile? Not in my house! ; )
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Missile and Simulacrum/Planar Binding are on totally different levels.
Someone was already bringing up what spell casters can do and why it's a problem and saying "Why not let everyone get in on the fun by letting everyone have access to Leadership?"
My response is "Why don't we just take those sort of broken abilities away from everyone."
We all know simulacrum creates a plethora of problems for GMs and inter-party balance. Necromancers creating undead hordes create problems for GMs and inter-party balance. Wizards with bound armies of bound outsiders create problems for GMs and inter-party balance.
I wouldn't call those arbitrary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like the CRB is perfectly balanced, and it's hardly "arbitrary" when at least some of the spells are considered by much of the community to be overpowered.
In Pathfinder action economy is king, and it doesn't matter if you're 50x stronger than a level 1 if you can bring 100 level 1s with you. Bring Elves or Martial Proficient classes, equip them with longbows, and even if that's a 5% chance to hit that's statistically going to be 20 hits a round for 1d8 damage, dealing on average 90 damage. And even if you're a raging dual-wielding Barbarian that can kill each in 1 hit and can land every possible hit a dual-wielding barbarian can get in a round, that's going to be at most what, 7 kills? They're probably going to bring you down before you bring them all down. And that's with archers, change those 100 level 1s to wizards or sorcerers and give them all Magic Missile, you are now taking a guaranteed 1d4+1 damage per surviving caster in the first round, which even if you win initiative *and* get a full attack off that's going to be 93d4+93. An average of 325.5 damage. A level 20 Barbarian with average HP, 20 Con and Raging isn't going to survive that, and even with 22 Con (16 base and a +6 belt, for instance) is going to die the second round easy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen great use of leadership. A lv 5 evangelist halfling cleric of milani can inspire for +2 and good hope for +2 and then total defend to share AC using Blundering Defense. Used full plate and a tower shield, no not proficient so a huge penalty to init and to attacks, but they weren't caring about those, they just wanted the AC to live.
Like, even 2 levels low and no gear a specific crafted cohort can do a lot of support. That was +4 to attack and damage and +2 to saves for the party and +4AC to anyone near the cleric.
That's quite a lot for 1 feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic Missile and Simulacrum/Planar Binding are on totally different levels.
Someone was already bringing up what spell casters can do and why it's a problem and saying "Why not let everyone get in on the fun by letting everyone have access to Leadership?"
My response is "Why don't we just take those sort of broken abilities away from everyone."
We all know simulacrum creates a plethora of problems for GMs and inter-party balance. Necromancers creating undead hordes create problems for GMs and inter-party balance. Wizards with bound armies of bound outsiders create problems for GMs and inter-party balance.
I wouldn't call those arbitrary.
Not sure how PC wizards can afford bound armies of planar outsiders, nor how they avoid the repercussions from the bound creatures and/or their allies if ridiculous bribes aren't involved. Planar binding is freaking dangerous if you don't make an amicable deal with the target--and sometimes even if you do. Paizo left plenty of methods to balance such spells, so don't blame them.
Simulacrum's fault isn't necessarily its power level but it's vagueness. Fortunately, the GM can interpret that vagueness as appropriate to their campaign setting. Don't want snow-cone wish machines? Rule that outsider X only gets its wish-granting ability at its last hit die. Don't want the PCs to know the BBEG's plans? Bam, the spell doesn't say the duplicate has the original's memories, so decide as a GM whether it does or not.
Or, you know, you can just ban things.
...Wait, you ban creating undead for non-alignment-related reasons? I'm wasting my fingerbreath.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game balance is overrated.
So long as everyone walks away from the game session satisfied, it's a good game.
Most games in the last 20 years have been unbalanced, yet fun for all.
Those games which sucked, we not because of game imbalance.
There are good things to spend one's time focusing on, which actually make a game more enjoyable. Game balance is none of them.
This is not a PVP MMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game balance is overrated.
So long as everyone walks away from the game session satisfied, it's a good game.
Most games in the last 20 years have been unbalanced, yet fun for all.
Those games which sucked, we not because of game imbalance.There are good things to spend one's time focusing on, which actually make a game more enjoyable. Game balance is none of them.
This is not a PVP MMO.
Right, because the enemies that players face are never class leveled people. Meaning a fighter or wizard is never an enemy that players will face.
Since they never need to fight a cr 10 wizard or cr 10 fighter it doesn't matter that one of those fights would be significantly harder than the other even though they are rated at the same challenge.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically using it in its most base form, having the cohort as a personal body guard and the followers being a sort of...information network across the region. is that still too strong?
Nope, that is perfectly reasonable. However, I as GM build cohorts to the general description of what he PC is looking for or the build as specified in the AP if they decide they want to keep an interesting NPC. I usually use 5 points lower on the ability buy and I don't optimize the build all that much. I don't want to take a chance that any cohort will ever hog the spotlight from the PC's.
I've usually insisted the PC pay and equip the PC out of his own personal wealth. Though some groups have just mostly equipped the cohort out of the minor magic that is bagged to be sold later. Most especially if it is an NPC found along the way.
I generally don't track the experience of the follower. As long as they are doing their job I will just occasionally level them up as PC's leadership score goes up.
Followers are almost always just NPC classes. I would not let the 'information network' gather as much info as a I would give to the PC's really working on it. But it would get them initial info and a place to start looking for more detailed info.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, because the enemies that players face are never class leveled people. Meaning a fighter or wizard is never an enemy that players will face.
Since they never need to fight a cr 10 wizard or cr 10 fighter it doesn't matter that one of those fights would be significantly harder than the other even though they are rated at the same challenge.
Your sarcasm isn't helping your case.
The measure of a GM's success is defined by how much the players want to keep playing. Tailoring encounters to be "just right" is part of that success. Too hard, and TPK ends the game (and likely the playrs' enthusiasm). Too easy, and the group gets bored, or insulted for being pandered to. The GM has complete control of how the encounter is designed, and can optimize or equip the NPC however necessary to make the encounter a good one. Ironically, giving a CR10 fighter access the the fruits of leadership ("make me potions!" *drinks top quality potions just before fight* ... *brings cohort along*) can easily make the encounter more in line with the wizard.
Things which prevent PC contribution (and thus making them sit out or feel useless) is something to consider as well. Everyone needs to feel useful, and most of that is the responsibility of the player, but the GM has a strong influence in that department as well. Shoe-horning equality-of-outcome is going too far, letting people slip through the cracks into bitter obscurity is too little. Again things have to be "just right". Game balance isn't really a part of this, but many people mistakenly think it does.
That said: Leadership, Simulacrum, Create Undead, Planar Binding, and crafting intelligent magic gear are indeed "threats to game balance" ... but so what? Such imbalance won't ruin a well-run game. Don't obsess over it, just take it into consideration, keep up the collaboration with the players, and move forward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tailoring encounters to be "just right" is part of that success. Too hard, and TPK ends the game (and likely the playrs' enthusiasm). Too easy, and the group gets bored, or insulted for being pandered to.
Totally disagree. Having every encounter "just right" is boring as HELL. "Yawn... gee we "just barely" won AGAIN... what is that, the 7,556th time in a row?"
As a DM and especially as a player, I like a mix of difficulties. I want a bunch of fights where the PCs stomp all over the opposition. I want an encounter every now and then when they have to retreat or hold back entirely until they can tip the scales in their favor. Every so often, an encounter where we barely win is fun -- but only if it's clear that we were close to an actual TPK, and not "barely" winning because that was the pre-determined outcome.
I should also note that one of my favorite adventures ever ("Spire of Long Shadows") was one that ended in not one, but two successive TPKs for us. The third party made it through by casting speak with dead on the bodies of our predecessors to get more intel. That kind of adventure doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's something you don't soon forget.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree that game balance isn't the end-all-be-all of Pathfinder type games.
However, most people do not want to play the side kick or tag along character either.
I once played with a GM (back in the 3.5 days) that gave the most liberal of all possible interpretations to anything involving magic. Especially PC casting of spells. (Because, of course, it was a fantasy game.) Consequently the rest of us mostly got to watch the wizard or cleric handle everything. We were just there keep the stars from getting ganked. The game balance was so out of wack that nobody except a full caster really felt very useful.
When we started to switch to Pathfinder and the guy (who would only play wizards) decided to play a true summoner with a SoD wizard cohort the group basically fell apart. We started to find reasons we couldn't make it to the game and watch him play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that, using the core rules, you don't even have to try to be that guy. I had a cleric once who ended up nearly soloing an adventure by accident, just because the class, at mid- to upper levels, is that much more powerful and versatile than many of the others (there was also a cavalier and a scout of some kind, for that game). I wasn't trying to be a dick or hog the spotlight. I had no undead minions and didn't use any planar allies, and didn't try to out-tank anyone with spells. But still, any time something came up... everyone would look at their abilities, and I'd be either the only one who could do it, or the one who could do it the most easily. It made me embarrassed, the other two players annoyed, and the DM exasperated.
(Yes, when we ended up in a shark tank I could totally have lied and said, "no, I don't have access to control water -- what are you talking about?!" and let us get eaten, but I don't think anyone would have thanked me for that outcome, either.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM "Okay you need someone to sneak into the building and find something, hey rogue you hear that?"
Rogue "It's okay, the wizard's rat familiar has better stealth than I do, is as smart as me, and can start off invisible, plus if caught it's just another rat, and worse case if it dies it's just a few hundred GP rather than an entire character. I've accepted that my roles aren't best done by me"
GM "Well okay, here's a trap, hear that rogue?"
Rogue "It's okay, the wizard will summon a mount to trigger the trap and then we'll go across safely. No need for me to get into danger."
GM "GAH! I'm trying to let the rogue have the spotlight for once so that he's not feeling useless, but there's nothing I can throw that the rogue can do that someone isn't doing better."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Triggering a trap is not always the best solution.
Like if the group is trying to be, I dunno, sneaky, or something. Or they don't want to obliterate the chest full of choice bits of loot.
Smart rogues let other critters die for 'em. My rogues would see the rat familiar (who is "better at Stealth" solely by virtue of being Tiny and magically invisible) as a perfectly valid scouting method that does not break the cardinal rule of "never split the party".
Letting mounts trigger pit traps is one thing. Having them trigger a host of alarms and other much nastier traps is a whole different thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Triggering a trap is not always the best solution.
Like if the group is trying to be, I dunno, sneaky, or something. Or they don't want to obliterate the chest full of choice bits of loot.
Smart rogues let other critters die for 'em. My rogues would see the rat familiar (who is "better at Stealth" solely by virtue of being Tiny and magically invisible) as a perfectly valid scouting method that does not break the cardinal rule of "never split the party".
Letting mounts trigger pit traps is one thing. Having them trigger a host of alarms and other much nastier traps is a whole different thing.
Then the wizard can cast a spell and be better at disabling traps than the rogue.
That's the issue with OoC stuff and the lowest tiers of classes, that nothing they can do other can't do too or better and thus they never have a "chance to shine"| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership, within some limits, isn't literally broken. I.e. it will not cause your game to come to a grinding halt.
Leadership, without question, is overpowered. Weapon Specialization gives +2 to damage, a cohort gives you a whole other character. It is absolutely the most powerful feat in the game.
All feats are not alike. Nor should they be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Triggering a trap is not always the best solution.
Like if the group is trying to be, I dunno, sneaky, or something. Or they don't want to obliterate the chest full of choice bits of loot.
Smart rogues let other critters die for 'em. My rogues would see the rat familiar (who is "better at Stealth" solely by virtue of being Tiny and magically invisible) as a perfectly valid scouting method that does not break the cardinal rule of "never split the party".
Letting mounts trigger pit traps is one thing. Having them trigger a host of alarms and other much nastier traps is a whole different thing.
Then the wizard can cast a spell and be better at disabling traps than the rogue.
That's the issue with OoC stuff and the lowest tiers of classes, that nothing they can do other can't do too or better and thus they never have a "chance to shine"
If the wizard happened to memorize it, or shelled out money for a consumable.
Wait, wasn't this the Leadership thread? The "rogues suck" thread is down the hall and to the right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically using it in its most base form, having the cohort as a personal body guard and the followers being a sort of...information network across the region. is that still too strong?
I wouldn't consider it too powerful but then I've run games with multiple characters with adventuring cohorts and even a crafting cohort and not been fazed by it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM "GAH! I'm trying to let the rogue have the spotlight for once so that he's not feeling useless, but there's nothing I can throw that the rogue can do that someone isn't doing better."
Can Schrodenger's Wizard be in multiple places at the same time? How many spells is Schrodenger's Wizard willing to burn in order to fill a role that's already being covered by someone else? What kind of person is playing Schrodenger's Wizard who enjoys trying to be "better than everyone at everything"?
I'm sorry for anyone whose game table if full of rivals trying to make each other redundant. GMing them must be like babysitting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM "GAH! I'm trying to let the rogue have the spotlight for once so that he's not feeling useless, but there's nothing I can throw that the rogue can do that someone isn't doing better."Can Schrodenger's Wizard be in multiple places at the same time? How many spells is Schrodenger's Wizard willing to burn in order to fill a role that's already being covered by someone else? What kind of person is playing Schrodenger's Wizard who enjoys trying to be "better than everyone at everything"?
I'm sorry for anyone whose game table if full of rivals trying to make each other redundant. GMing them must be like babysitting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM "GAH! I'm trying to let the rogue have the spotlight for once so that he's not feeling useless, but there's nothing I can throw that the rogue can do that someone isn't doing better."Can Schrodenger's Wizard be in multiple places at the same time? How many spells is Schrodenger's Wizard willing to burn in order to fill a role that's already being covered by someone else? What kind of person is playing Schrodenger's Wizard who enjoys trying to be "better than everyone at everything"?
I'm sorry for anyone whose game table if full of rivals trying to make each other redundant. GMing them must be like babysitting.
It's not competition for a group of people who are putting their lives on the line to go with the best chance for success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tailoring encounters to be "just right" is part of that success. Too hard, and TPK ends the game (and likely the playrs' enthusiasm). Too easy, and the group gets bored, or insulted for being pandered to.Totally disagree. Having every encounter "just right" is boring as HELL. "Yawn... gee we "just barely" won AGAIN... what is that, the 7,556th time in a row?"
As a DM and especially as a player, I like a mix of difficulties. I want a bunch of fights where the PCs stomp all over the opposition. I want an encounter every now and then when they have to retreat or hold back entirely until they can tip the scales in their favor. Every so often, an encounter where we barely win is fun -- but only if it's clear that we were close to an actual TPK, and not "barely" winning because that was the pre-determined outcome.
I should also note that one of my favorite adventures ever ("Spire of Long Shadows") was one that ended in not one, but two successive TPKs for us. The third party made it through by casting speak with dead on the bodies of our predecessors to get more intel. That kind of adventure doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's something you don't soon forget.
Well said.
I missed that as well - the most engaging games are ones where the GM finds that sweet spot I was talking about, but then also has some "OMG run away" encounters and some "Yea we totally crushed em! Did you see me? I was awesome!" encounters. To risk sounding cliche, Moderation in All Things... including moderation itself; By having a range of difficulties and a variety of encounter flavors you get a better game.
So yeah... I sit here corrected; you're right.
But I still stand by my views on game balance being a false virtue that people pursue far too zealously.
GM "GAH! I'm trying to let the rogue have the spotlight for once so that he's not feeling useless, but there's nothing I can throw that the rogue can do that someone isn't doing better."Can Schrodenger's Wizard be in multiple places at the same time? How many spells is Schrodenger's Wizard willing to burn in order to fill a role that's already being covered by someone else? What kind of person is playing Schrodenger's Wizard who enjoys trying to be "better than everyone at everything"?
I'm sorry for anyone whose game table if full of rivals trying to make each other redundant. GMing them must be like babysitting.
Well the wizard via clones and whatnot can be in more than one place at at a time.
And it's just one spell to replace the rogue when you find traps, and the familiar to scout.
The point is, martial roles can easily be accidentally covered by others. Just picking a familiar wasn't trying to have a better scout than the rogue, but it is. leaving a slot open and learning lots of spells didn't mean to outshine the rogue, but it can.
Like Kirth said, just by having lots of spell access you can accidently hog the spotlight cause there's a spell for every problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM has complete control of how the encounter is designed, and can optimize or equip the NPC however necessary to make the encounter a good one.
Game balance is useful for anyone who wants to run a published adventure instead of spending their spare time balancing encounters around their group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy's list
It's not competition for a group of people who are putting their lives on the line to go with the best chance for success.
Not in real games, no. Only in hypothetical situations that are framed that way, usually by posters who are trying to win arguments on the interwebs.
In real games, a rogue and a stealthy wizard would both scout together, so there are 2 perception rolls, 2 sets of abilities, and additional backup in case things turn sour.
In my own group there is a Ranger, 2 Ninjas, a Barbarian with max ranks in stealth and the Highlander trait, a Gnome Sorcerer with some stealth ranks and Invisibility as a spell known, and a Life Oracle with a ring of Invisibility... a whole group of stealthies! We started being half-stealthies and half not, but the group tailored our builds as we leveled and now the entire group is a bunch of infiltration & ambush specialists, which is quite effective. So the "stealthy role" is irrelevant; whoever can sneak, sneaks.
In real games, the issue of one-upmanship only occurs among disruptive players. Otherwise, when both characters are good at something, they both do it. Nothing wrong with having 2 tanks, or 2 diplomats.
The GM has complete control of how the encounter is designed, and can optimize or equip the NPC however necessary to make the encounter a good one.Game balance is useful for anyone who wants to run a published adventure instead of spending their spare time balancing encounters around their group.
I was talking about CR10 NPC encounters in the context of elements like Simulacrum or Leadership (like comparing a CR fighter and a CR10 wizard). You're re-framing that exchange into something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy's listGM "GAH! I'm trying to let the rogue have the spotlight for once so that he's not feeling useless, but there's nothing I can throw that the rogue can do that someone isn't doing better."Can Schrodenger's Wizard be in multiple places at the same time? How many spells is Schrodenger's Wizard willing to burn in order to fill a role that's already being covered by someone else? What kind of person is playing Schrodenger's Wizard who enjoys trying to be "better than everyone at everything"?
I'm sorry for anyone whose game table if full of rivals trying to make each other redundant. GMing them must be like babysitting.
. . . has merit in some places and less in others. The "always worth preparing" list, for example, will always be longer than the wizard has appropriate slots, so Schrödinger's Wizard still applies.
I have literally never seen the rivals thing at the table, though. We generally meet so that players can play what they want to play, not to maximize success rates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Aaaaagh, again with the "wtf does this have to do with Leadership". My apologies for contributing to this hot mess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All feats are not alike. Nor should they be.
A pound of feathers and a pound of bricks are not alike. The fact that they're the same weight has little or nothing to do with a lot of their other qualities. Shoot, they might even cost the same amount, but they are still not "alike."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many spells is Schrodenger's Wizard willing to burn in order to fill a role that's already being covered by someone else? What kind of person is playing Schrodenger's Wizard who enjoys trying to be "better than everyone at everything"? I'm sorry for anyone whose game table if full of rivals trying to make each other redundant. GMing them must be like babysitting.
The thing is that, using the core rules, you don't even have to try to be that guy. I had a cleric once who ended up nearly soloing an adventure by accident, just because the class, at mid- to upper levels, is that much more powerful and versatile than many of the others (there was also a cavalier and a scout of some kind, for that game). I wasn't trying to be a dick or hog the spotlight. I had no undead minions and didn't use any planar allies, and didn't try to out-tank anyone with spells. But still, any time something came up... everyone would look at their abilities, and I'd be either the only one who could do it, or the one who could do it the most easily. It made me embarrassed, the other two players annoyed, and the DM exasperated.
(Yes, when we ended up in a shark tank I could totally have lied and said, "no, I don't have access to control water -- what are you talking about?!" and let us get eaten, but I don't think anyone would have thanked me for that outcome, either.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See my previous post, Kirth. I think I already kind of addressed the whole "being a dick" thing there in terms of real gaming tables. At least I hope I addressed it well enough...
Anyway...
The thing is that, using the core rules, you don't even have to try to be that guy. I had a cleric once who ended up nearly soloing an adventure by accident, just because the class, at mid- to upper levels, is that much more powerful and versatile than many of the others (there was also a cavalier and a scout of some kind, for that game).This is a mix of mechanics, playstyle, and campaign planning.
- Mechanics alone can't account for all of it if playstyle and campaign planning are done well.
- Playstyle can and has caused this in my personal experience, even for a well-designed campaign and the reverse of those mechanics; When the guy playing the Cleric keeps preparing irrelevant spells, and spends 20 minutes deciding what to do every turn and then gives up and say "I waddle up my 20' and hit em with my hammer", even the Rogue is more useful. This exact thing has happened in 2 campaigns I've played
- Campaign planning can cause this to some degree, but player resourcefulness has been known to mitigate this heavily.
So I wouldn't say that your experience is the norm. It happens, yes, but the fact that it stands out in your memory should say something. That said, declaring it so much the default that it's a de facto argument isn't very helpful IMO.
All that aside, if your Cavalier and Scout had Leadership, I bet they would have had the resources to be more useful... wouldn't they! :}
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In real games, the issue of one-upmanship only occurs among disruptive players. Otherwise, when both characters are good at something, they both do it. Nothing wrong with having 2 tanks, or 2 diplomats.
It was an issue of imbalances. The prepublished adventure had several encounters which were probably inaccurately CR'd, and as a result I, the tank who opened the doors, was usually greeted with a surprise round of save or lose effects, or amount of damage which could've killed most of the other PCs. In the meanwhile, I couldn't manage to full attack anything, and a 6d6 vital strike wasn't really that formidable to our opposition. The gunslinger's 3d8+30 was, the blaster's disintegrate, acidic spray, etc were. The witch's save or die/lose/run away effects were. Even the healer's blast spells were more effective, because they hit about 50% more often. Me, I was stuck with trying to make normal attacks against foes with AC and Attacks higher than I could handle, whose primary weakness that 'justified' their CR was lower saving throws and a vulnerability to some energy damage (that I couldn't reliably produce even with the appropriate enchantment).
Most fights were fairly predictable. I opened the door, the enemies got a surprise round and beat my initiative, and took me out of the fight, players would raise eyebrows, GM would say it was "only a CR X encounter, so it must be balanced around this happening," I would twiddle my thumbs and watch the party either heal me up (so I could get knocked out again before I got a full attack off) or else end the fight in a round before they needed their meat shield again.
The game was very much real (well, real as any other time we sit around and pretend to be murderous psychopaths for justice). My friends I trust were not trying to gimp for an entire year. I still felt one-upped in terms of damage and usefulness, even when it wasn't a complete case of "anything you can do I can do better." Some tables, groups, or areas have games where balance doesn't matter, some have games where balance does. Telling others "well, if you were playing it right balance wouldn't matter" or "game imbalance only exists as a theoretical topic to be discussed online" doesn't help. But understanding the role balance plays in your campaign and planning accordingly does help, or at least it did for me.
And as a side note, I would have a talk with your GM about how they want to run leadership, planar binding, simulacrum, whatever else. I restrict but allow them, some flat-out ban them on principle, some request you not use them for certain purposes, and some deal with them in other ways.