I'm not sure how much info anyone will want so I'll give a bit of a preamble in case it helps any. Bear with me, I swear there's an actual problem I could use advice on.
So I'm running in a homebrew world (if that helps anyone find answers to my issue) but it's nothing drastically different from the main setting. I've run a few campaigns in it and I'm about to start up a new one with a party of three, possibly four if we find another player. This campaign is going to be mythic, and I'm looking forward to playing around with the wild adventures such power allows in a campaign.
The first player (I'll call him the warrior) has a very standard view of what a party needs and, as a result, tends to build tanks because none of my other players build characters with an AC higher than, say 25 at a high level. Personally, I don't like it when my players decide to ditch an interesting character idea to just fill in a check box, but I understand that that's my preference; I'm not upset by it. In addition to building tanks, he has a tendency to only play fighters or cavaliers and build characters putting out as much damage as possible (Power Attack, only 2h weapons, the standard stuff). As a result, he can, and often does, just wade right on up to big bad enemies and wail on them until they die. Not a problem really, I just need to provide encounters that offer some challenge or require creative approaches. Except....
The other two players in this campaign don't build powerful characters. They're not building weaklings by any stretch, they're just not nearly on the statistical level that the warrior is on. Let's call these other two the story players. The story players build characters with backstory and concept at the forefront. This typically results in characters that are decent at what they do, and won't set any records but won't be left behind. Except by the warrior when it comes to AC and sheer damage output. This playstyle is also fine, and I am not complaining about them either.
The issue is that the warrior has a tendency to remark (not infrequently) on how he has to carry the party a lot. He very seriously believes this and I can see why. He has a very dominant personality and tend to have the party deal with problems in a way that plays to his own strengths, even if the rest of the party wants to try another route (shooting a bandit captain in the head because he felt the story players weren't making any headway in their diplomacy). Not that he doesn't do social stuff, but if he is lacking a skill that he needs in a social situation, he'll just go with what he's good at and, to quote him "make things go my way." The end result is that when the party looks back on what they've done in the past session, it really does look like he carried the party, and he remarks about how he was right about what to do, though this is frequently because his intuitions are self-fulfilling prophecies.
This hasn't become a problem for the other players yet (so far as I know). No one has complained and there has been no conflict. He is fairly good about staying in character though sometimes it's hard to tell what is in character and what is him personally. However, it's beginning to wear on me a bit and I'm worried that his actions might make the other players feel bad about their playstyle (one player in particular has been playing for a little bit now but is still shy about asking for help). I'd like to give the story players the ability to go down a path without the warrior deciding that they have to do it in a way that he personally excels at. Maybe this is all in my head but I've been GMing for 8 or 9 years now with a few different groups and I don't think I'm imagining the issues this could cause down the line.
Does anyone have advice on how I can:
1) Help show the warrior that, no, he is not carrying the party and that characters don't have to be amazing in combat to be considered good;
2) Help ensure that the other characters have moments to shine?
Thanks for your help guys!
Oy! You have my sympathies. Sounds like everyone is okay now, but I to have been stuck on the tracks and seen this train coming.
Nobody may be noticeably upset yet, but I'm annoyed with the warrior just from your description. Even if he's not as bad as some, he sounds like a total spotlight hog, and the worst type of hack and slasher.
You need to have several minimally ( hopefully non ) confrontational conversations. Talk to the story players without the warrior, and see if they have any issues. Once you have that info you need to have a conversation with the warrior 1 on 1. I'd approach it not from a place of blame or accusation, but instead concern. If he feels he's carrying the party, is he having less fun? ( Or subtext, is he just negatively bragging)
Once you have your players' input, bring the group together to work on solutions. If everyone can make an effort to improve where they are "lacking", then maybe the warrior can help with mechanics, and the story players can help him with concept. Some pre-planning of both combat tactics and non-com is a good idea. If he's the tank and DPS fine, but he needs to acknowledge their contributions as control, buffers, rebuffs, or what have you.
For combats don't forget to through in fodder, hard to reach opponents, or skill/puzzle/challenge elements/enemies, so the warrior can't do it all alone.
Out of combat, there needs to be some acknowledgement of each characters strength and skills. Each character should be the default "leader" in certain circumstances. If the game is good and organic, there will be a certain fluidity to these "roles". However, having a preset guideline should help all of your players work together and share the spotlight.
Right now, it seems like most of the effort needs to be made on the warrior's part to share better. However, if they are feeling sidelined, and aren't naturally observer type players, then the story guys need to assert themselves more. Refuse to go with the warriors declarations a few times when it won't get them killed. Split the party few times if necessary. It'll be a fine line to walk, to not pick on the warrior; but, if he always chooses the blunt, aggressive, straight forward, and destructive path, there should be consequences. Hopefully the warrior will learn, and you can all move forward in a fun game.
In the worst case scenario though, don't be afraid to bail out. I've been in the games where one bad player is allowed to stick around too long. It sucks for everyone. Try diplomacy, sharing, and compromise first. If it gets ugly though, invite him to walk away. If that should occur, good luck trying to find new recruits/players.
. . . . . . Last thought, if you can get one more player, the introduction of that new member would make an excellent pretext to have that group building, modifying, and defining session.
Good luck.
There's a lot of situations where a fighter(ish) is just not the MVP. Characters made to a concept are likely to have better Dex, Cha and skills for one thing, and anything's more likely to have a bit of magic (which tends to be very useful in PF to say the least).
If the aim of a given scene is to rescue someone (shooting a panicking rescuee in the face is frowned upon), or to apply skills and magic to get past an obstacle of some kind (exact details will depend on their levels and capabilities a bit), or to deal with a social situation which isn't out in the wilds (shooting suspects at a ball is, again, frowned upon) then the other two are likely to shine more. Anything with stealth obviously - but actually excluding the fighter with a stealth mission that only the others can participate in is a sometimes thing at most.
Even in combat situations which don't favour most fighters may come up. A fight on a rickety bridge (not with a fatal fall, but an inconvenient one sure), or maybe the BBEG is leaping thru a ships rigging and isn't really accessible via melee from the main deck, or underwater (swim, use magic or flail about at a serious disadvantage), or chasing/being chased in a crowded market. Think of movies and how to translate their fight scenes into games.
I think a lot of people here will have met someone a bit like your fighter-player. My version was a seriously irritating person.
Part of the answer is encounter variety. Another part is party level and composition. The final part is player personality.
I'm guessing the party is low level and the fighter character shines whilst the others' haven't really come online. Most of the encounters are on featureless terrain and become straight melee battles. The social encounters don't have lasting repercussions when they turn into battles.
As others have already said design a variety of encounters using multiple different types of creature, in their favoured terrain. Try using creatures that don't enter melee and can fly, swim or climb away. Use battlefield control techniques to limit movement. The fighter player character will find that his heavy armour and focus on melee leave him poorly equipped to face the enemy and that the other characters' strengths are required.
If a social encounter turns violent, say there is a bar brawl, then the city watch will be called or village militia will arrive. If the party attack them then the authorities will respond and their could well be a bounty on their head. Following through with the consequences of social actions encourages roleplay (eventually).
As for the player's personality, if he starts getting annoyed that he's no longer the dominant character then he's not really going to be great at your table.
Hugo Rune wrote: Part of the answer is encounter variety. Another part is party level and composition. The final part is player personality.
I'm guessing the party is low level and the fighter character shines whilst the others' haven't really come online. Most of the encounters are on featureless terrain and become straight melee battles. The social encounters don't have lasting repercussions when they turn into battles.
Actually they're around 13th at the moment. The warrior (cavalier) is simply designed around pumping out maximum damage and tanking everything while the rest of the party is built around an image and character concept, and they aren't nearly as strong because some of their abilities don't synergize, with anything come to think of it. In a certain sense I'd call that bad character design but they really love their characters so I don't really think I can fault them for it.
I'll try to change up more encounter types though, thanks!
This is the opposite of the problem I have. I feel like I'm bending over backward to keep the martial types relevant. At least with ranged attackers they don't have to worry about gap closing, terrain and flying enemies as much. Melee martials though, sheesh.
The last time I had a pure martial type like this in the party, he always attacked before assessing the threat and eventually got tired of dying accusing me of picking on him.
"Why would an X even be there?"
"Well the rest of the party will probably figure that out here in a minute if they convince it they aren't with you."
He alternated bragging and complaining, either he was the best, or too many things flew, or had fear auras, or the ground was too bumpy, and so on and so on.
Here's a question about the two story characters? You said they design them around a concept does that include any sort of combat abilities? Here's why I ask. Had a player who would get this high chr social situation god character. The problem was his theme never included even the most basic combat abilities. Combat would begin and he's pretty much not doing anything. He's not even firing a crossbow. He'd play skill focused classes ignoring they have combat abilities his theme or whatever not allowing him to utilize those combat skills. Example take a Rogue but either trade away sneak and stealth abilites to get more skills Or his theme wouldn't allow him to help in combat.
Something I also noticed is this. Martial classes do massive damage and can get unreal ac. But they suck at will saves. I have seen some fights end with the party getting killed or beaten badly because a caster type monster dropping the biggest threat. Charm Person before combat or Dominate person suddenly mr fighter is the party's worst enemy. Any create pit spell works wonder for removing an enemy combatant. In three seperate encounters my summoner used spiked pit ended p killing the monster simply because he couldn't climb out.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Why not try doing a small 'split the party' adventure where the players have to go against the grain for their characters.
Have the warrior do something where has to talk his way out or through a situation, while the story players have to fight their way out. Hopefully this would give them all a better appreciation for what the others do.
When I have players make characters I tell them all to do their best job of making a character. I tell them that I might be enhancing their characters to some degree.
I tell them that I understand some of them are better at building a character than others and if I don't do much to enhance their characters they should consider that a compliment.
The weaker built characters may get a little bump in an attribute or perhaps an extra feat.
I urge them to run what they want and to consider running classes or races or combinations that are less than optimized knowing that they get a boost if it is needed to make the character work.
Make sure that you have some encounters that can't be solved by brute force. There should be some situations were brute force makes things worse.
During the combat encounters, it shouldn't be easy for the cavalier to be full-attacking all the time. Enemies should spread out and make full use of the terrain. There should be a fair amount of flying enemies at this level.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
One particularly nasty thing I did once back in AD&D 1e was to have a creature polymorph into a fly and then fly inside the fighter's armour and cast Heat Metal. For the life of me I can't remember what creature that was, I think it was some form of demon but I can't find anything that matches.
ErichAD wrote: This is the opposite of the problem I have. I feel like I'm bending over backward to keep the martial types relevant. At least with ranged attackers they don't have to worry about gap closing, terrain and flying enemies as much. Melee martials though, sheesh. Preventing the 15 minute adventure day and increasing encounter variety keeps the martials relevant and also boosts the need for the skill monkeys.
Pathfinder is a game of resource management, if the players know they can expend their resources and retreat to the safe base anytime they want then they don't need to conserve and manage them. But if you vary the number and variety of encounters, then the spellcasters will find choosing the correct spells more difficult and may be more cautious about using them in case they are really needed later. This will mean their is a greater reliance on the martial characters and the skill monkeys whose abilities are ever-present, you never know they might even try and use dialogue to avoid a fight or perform reconnaissance and stealth to bypass unnecessary encounters. This can be enhanced by occasionally disturbing the characters overnight so the spells can't be recovered. Adding a time element to the gameplay, so the BBEG progresses his plans and becomes harder to stop will push the party to continue even if not fully ready.
Lord Julius I disagree. Some players are better at designing characters. But those not good at it depending on the group can get better if they ask the forum or their group. It's unfair for one player who designs a character well not to get that extra feat because another player doesn't do it as well or worse doesn't bother to for whatever reason. The fighter in this discussion has designed a pretty good character. Now he's designed a character and the others haven't and as a balance you are suggesting the weaker characters get a boost as a reward. Me as the fighter would feel a bit upset. I've taken the time to design a focused character who does what he's designed to do and two other players decided not to.
silver_diamond wrote: He has a very dominant personality IMO that's the core of the problem, combined with his dismissive attitude towards the efforts of others. He desperately wants to stay in control, so he...
a) sticks with a character concept he is familiar with and which has proven to work for him
b) disrupts the efforts of others because they could lead to situations he doesn't feel comfortable with
c) feels the need to further comment on them negatively, (subconsciously) hoping they will stop these threats to his little well-controlled world
Dominating behavior is fear-driven. If you really trust in your skills to get along (or trust in your fellow people, or in fate, or whatever), you do not need to dominate your environment. You can just relax and leave other people room for their ideas. Few people are completely this way, it's a gradual thing.
Don't focus too much on him, either. The other two players deserve as much attention as him. I am pretty sure they are not happy with the situation, but they might feel like they can do little about it and it's the price to pay for RPG sessions.
That's some psychological backup for you as the GM. Because IMO it's up to you to offer the two other players some protected space where they can try their ideas. When he tries to shoot the pirate captain, you as the GM can totally demand an initiative check. And if some pirates act before him, they will simply restrain him. Then they will carry him into the prison cell and the bad*** captain will comment something like "nice try" and continue to negotiate. The point is to negate his disruptive behavior, minimizing its impact. Don't make him suffer, just stop him.
He will dislike it. He will fight it. He will accuse you things. Don't fall for it - you protect two other people, he just wants his comfy hideout back. He might even quit (since such a move puts him back into control), but IMO that's not that much of a loss. There are other players out there, with less problematic personalities...
The challenge is that, unfortunately, a well-built martial character really can brute force through a lot of scenes.
Scene 1: the PCs need to negotiate for hostages - if the martial character is good at DPR and a decent enough level, so long as it beats the initiative of the hostage takers AND can get to said hostage takers based on terrain and movement speed, there are a lot of combat feats that can hit multiple opponents.
Scene 2: a physical skill challenge - most "brute force" types have strong enough physical attributes that, after about level 3, a Climb or Swim check can usually be matched or beaten despite the character only having 1 or 2 ranks in the skill
Scene 3: infiltration - remember the actual mechanics of the game; Perception checks, even those of guards hearing a door being forced open, are modified by distance. Then again, if the tanking martial character has a fast enough land speed and is willing to risk taking a Run action on straightaways, this character may just beat surprise with speed and murder-hobo their way through instead of using stealth
I see this OFTEN in one of my campaigns. The PCs are now 10th level and their answer to just about every scene is "roll initiative." They do so with tactical skill, and they DO use scouting and recon to know what fights they're throwing themselves into, but there have been several instances where they literally attack first and ask questions later.
My players once had to capture an enemy alchemist alive. I gave them a few consumable items to help them deal non-lethal damage or deliver a Condition to said alchemist throughout the adventure. Once they finally found her, the PCs straight up nova'd on the enemy alchemist, dropped her to below 0 HP, picked up her body and ran back a ways through the dungeon for a round. They then used rope to bind her and, after she was secured, they then hit her with enough healing to get her back to positive HP.
Now obviously not EVERY encounter type can be solved with brute force, I get that. However, folks that MAKE brute force characters will work to find ways to USE that force to end conflicts. Y'know the old saying, "when you're a hammer, all the world looks like nails" or whatever? Well, that applies to the warrior player in this scenario.
Think, specifically, about what this person is venting about though. He's venting that he has to "carry" the other players. He also interrupts their attempts to use their specialized builds because their method of conflict resolution takes too long. These actions suggest to me that, even if you had niche encounters that only their skillsets solved, this player would STILL feel that he was burdened with having to do the lion's share of the work.
This player NEEDS to be reassured that he's the best, the strongest, the greatest build and that the party would fall apart without him. Only, they wouldn't.
The mechanics of combat in this game are built around characters built with modest amount of optimization and a 15 point buy. So long as Wealth by Level is observed and certain key, combat-related items (read: the Big 6) are maintained on most characters, combat will continue getting weighted more and more in favor of the PCs over time after level 1.
This means that there's no... actual... NEED for DPR monster/tank characters to dominate any party of PF characters, just the same as there's no mechanical NEED for an optimized GOD wizard, or some zen archer craziness or the gunslinger ranged DPR king or whatever. There's no NEED for them because optimization is optional.
So this player is providing a service that he deems necessary to a group that both didn't ask for it or require it in the first place. He's then bragging that, because of the results he's getting that justifies how necessary his contribution is.
Unless this player is willing to undergo some kind of major personality change, it is unlikely his perception of the necessity of his contribution will be altered.
When you talk to the warrior player, you might want to simply highlight the mechanics of the game and show them that there's no real NEED for his character to put out that much damage, have that high of an AC, and so on. If that's what he enjoys though, he needs to respect that no one else in the group asked him for it or mechanically needs it in order to overcome conflicts in this game.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's really entertaining to see everyone jump onto the only side of the argument presented... I would want to see actual sessions, and what both player A the other 'socially focused' players are actually doing and capable of doing, before I trash player A. He may very well have a point.
There's a lot of armchair psychology going on here about "fear" and safe spaces... From people who don't have enough information to reasonably make such a "diagnosis".
pad300 wrote: It's really entertaining to see everyone jump onto the only side of the argument presented... I would want to see actual sessions, and what both player A the other 'socially focused' players are actually doing and capable of doing, before I trash player A. He may very well have a point.
There's a lot of armchair psychology going on here about "fear" and safe spaces... From people who don't have enough information to reasonably make such a "diagnosis".
Very much agree.
It's one thing to want a group where everyone is treated equally, but that's also predicated on everyone being equal.
Do the other players actually contribute during combat? Do they have any meaningful damage output or combat assistance?
pad300 wrote: It's really entertaining to see everyone jump onto the only side of the argument presented... I would want to see actual sessions, and what both player A the other 'socially focused' players are actually doing and capable of doing, before I trash player A. He may very well have a point.
There's a lot of armchair psychology going on here about "fear" and safe spaces... From people who don't have enough information to reasonably make such a "diagnosis".
This is true. But what we have been presented with is a GM who has an issue with a dominant player. My own, and others, suggestions related to vary the encounters to provide more opportunities for the other characters to shine by having some focus on the martial's weak points. If at that stage the GM still has a problem with the player then he likely has a problem player, or at least one that doesn't fit harmoniously at his table.
Opuk0 wrote: pad300 wrote: It's really entertaining to see everyone jump onto the only side of the argument presented... I would want to see actual sessions, and what both player A the other 'socially focused' players are actually doing and capable of doing, before I trash player A. He may very well have a point.
There's a lot of armchair psychology going on here about "fear" and safe spaces... From people who don't have enough information to reasonably make such a "diagnosis".
Very much agree.
It's one thing to want a group where everyone is treated equally, but that's also predicated on everyone being equal.
Do the other players actually contribute during combat? Do they have any meaningful damage output or combat assistance? Well, presumably they contribute a bit, but not that much, because they're not optimized.
But there are different kinds of game.
In one sort of game, the GM runs a published adventure as written, or build encounters using the CR guidelines, and it's up to the players to survive.
In this situation, if two players make weak PCs, and you only have three PCs, then the third player HAS to make a really optimised PC in order for the group to survive. That player is carrying the party.
Another type of game, and it sounds like the type of game we have here, is one where the GM builds encounters around the party. In this case, the one optimised PC appears to be carrying the party, but what's really happening is the PC is causing all the encounters to be harder. The tricky thing is, if the GM points this out, it damages the idea that the players are overcoming challenges by their own efforts; the better they do, the harder the challenges will be, and vice versa.
Hugo Rune wrote: ErichAD wrote: This is the opposite of the problem I have. I feel like I'm bending over backward to keep the martial types relevant. At least with ranged attackers they don't have to worry about gap closing, terrain and flying enemies as much. Melee martials though, sheesh. Preventing the 15 minute adventure day and increasing encounter variety keeps the martials relevant and also boosts the need for the skill monkeys.
Pathfinder is a game of resource management, if the players know they can expend their resources and retreat to the safe base anytime they want then they don't need to conserve and manage them. But if you vary the number and variety of encounters, then the spellcasters will find choosing the correct spells more difficult and may be more cautious about using them in case they are really needed later. This will mean their is a greater reliance on the martial characters and the skill monkeys whose abilities are ever-present, you never know they might even try and use dialogue to avoid a fight or perform reconnaissance and stealth to bypass unnecessary encounters. This can be enhanced by occasionally disturbing the characters overnight so the spells can't be recovered. Adding a time element to the gameplay, so the BBEG progresses his plans and becomes harder to stop will push the party to continue even if not fully ready. That doesn't solve the situational reliability of martials at all. I do all these things, have a calendar for tracking progress on various plans in the world, make sure the players understand that many things are time sensitive, and so on. All that means is that, when planning encounters, I need to make sure that the martials can handle those encounters without support spells. If the casters are all out of spells or are reserving their spells for something more important, that doesn't mean a melee martial can suddenly charge in waist deep bog, or fly through the air. I find I need to drastically decrease encounter variety at the end of the adventuring day, actively accommodating that weakness.
"The dragon seems to have sprained his wings and decided to land on a golf course, go get 'em!"
Skill monkeys are great though, I've never had problems with them staying useful. As a group, all the DMs at our table tend to run overlong adventuring days, so the replacement of skills with spells thing never appears in our games the way it appears online. Most guides are also sort of useless to us as well as they tend to over value small per day abilities and alpha strikes.
@ErichAD. Despite your opening line, it sounds rather like you agree with me and GM a similar style.
You keep a calendar and progress it regardless of pc actions.
You run adventuring days that rely on martials and skill monkeys rather than when the spellcasters run dry.
Where you seem to fall down and thus disagree is that the party don't seem to perform reconnaissance or research. Using your examples, how did they get caught in a bog without mobility options and how did they not know there was a dragon in the vicinity? The answer to both is the characters did not ask around or buy a map. The mobility option maybe a result of the wizard casting the spell earlier in the day rather than holding it.
I made the diagnoses I did based on the following from the OP:
Silver_Diamond wrote: The issue is that the warrior has a tendency to remark (not infrequently) on how he has to carry the party a lot. He very seriously believes this and I can see why. He has a very dominant personality and tend to have the party deal with problems in a way that plays to his own strengths, even if the rest of the party wants to try another route (shooting a bandit captain in the head because he felt the story players weren't making any headway in their diplomacy). Not that he doesn't do social stuff, but if he is lacking a skill that he needs in a social situation, he'll just go with what he's good at and, to quote him "make things go my way." The end result is that when the party looks back on what they've done in the past session, it really does look like he carried the party, and he remarks about how he was right about what to do, though this is frequently because his intuitions are self-fulfilling prophecies. Note in this paragraph the "warrior" player is noted as sitting in a session where non-combat resolutions were already underway, but the warrior became frustrated that the other players weren't "making headway" so he executed a bandit captain. Also there's comment that he makes things go HIS way in relation to combat, then USES that to justify how he HAS to carry the other PCs.
So... we have a player who is willing to and has the system mastery to manipulate circumstances into becoming combats, despite the other players NOT WANTING them to be combats and the GM possibly not intending these scenes to be combats. Since his character is the most optimized for combat, he naturally outshines the other niche characters who MAY HAVE shone brighter, had they had the chance to use their own unique way of conflict resolution.
This character forces combats, builds his character to be the best in combats, outshines the other characters in combats he forced that they didn't want/expect, and then complain/brags to them that he HAS to be there to bail them out of the combats they may not have even had without his forcing them in the first place.
That is all the input I've gotten from the OP. I based my assessment on that. If I'm incorrect, I hope the OP will report in and clarify.
@MarkHoover. I'd read the same and suggested actions have consequences. It might not be the martials fault. If being a murder hobo consistently gets results and is implicitly endorsed by their being no blow back then why wouldn't it continue. However, if they suddenly have a bounty on their head, and at 13th level that is likely to involve land and a title or a major magic item, then they might think twice about being muder hobos with their next character.
Hugo Rune wrote: @ErichAD. Despite your opening line, it sounds rather like you agree with me and GM a similar style.
You keep a calendar and progress it regardless of pc actions.
You run adventuring days that rely on martials and skill monkeys rather than when the spellcasters run dry.
Where you seem to fall down and thus disagree is that the party don't seem to perform reconnaissance or research. Using your examples, how did they get caught in a bog without mobility options and how did they not know there was a dragon in the vicinity? The answer to both is the characters did not ask around or buy a map. The mobility option maybe a result of the wizard casting the spell earlier in the day rather than holding it.
I don't think it's a disagreement, it's more that my experience with the dedicated melee martial is probably different. The skilled characters are good at getting info to prepare properly, the casters tend to be configurable and strongly benefit from preparation, the dedicated melee martial isn't typically configurable, and isn't acquiring information either.
I'm not saying you couldn't play a configurable martial, or a skilled martial. But my experience with them has always been as a burden on the party. Thanks for your insight on the topic though, I'd like to play a martial that wasn't a burden on the party and am always looking for other perspectives.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. The melee martial is the cornerstone of the party, given so much of the game is about combat and ultimately melee combat. But it is probably better to look at the roles and challenges the party faces and see what roles they can fill. Having just written the below and returned to here, rather than focusing on their damage potential, think about how they can defend the party. Some examples:
In reconnaissance and exploration missions they are probably best at the back. They typically aren't great at spotting things and aren't the stealthiest. But they are good at taking a hit and a missed ambush is likely to strike the rear.
In combats with a strong opponent, they can often occupy the opponent, even if they fight defensively they can stop the opponent from attacking anyone else or loosing spells.
If the opponent's mobility prevents the fighter from engaging, then they can defend and cover the wizard.
They can aid another, in particular they can help the rogue deal with a trap. You could also position them (if the GM allows) to soak up the damage instead of the rogue if the disable device fails.
In some scenarios, and with a tower shield, they can act as battlefield control and hold up a choke point so the rest of the party can attack from a distance (and don't forget all those fallen bodies could be difficult terrain).
Even without any specialisation, the fighter should possess a composite longbow and would probably be about 1/3 of a classic 4 man party's non magical missile damage potential.
They can be involved in many social/roleplay scenarios. They can be the distraction and/or the muscle to help the rogue in all manner of capers.
pad300 wrote: It's really entertaining to see everyone jump onto the only side of the argument presented... I would want to see actual sessions, and what both player A the other 'socially focused' players are actually doing and capable of doing, before I trash player A. He may very well have a point.
There's a lot of armchair psychology going on here about "fear" and safe spaces... From people who don't have enough information to reasonably make such a "diagnosis".
Player A is a cavalier who dumped all his and time into obtaining strong weapons and armor. The "social players" are an alchemist (saboteur archetype) who is pretty good at field control though not so much with single target damage and a slayer who could have been optimized a bit better but is still putting out a respectable amount of damage with sneak attack and a magic sword.
Example of where cavalier shines: They had to fight a froghemoth and leng spider (they'd made enemies with the spider and the froghemoth was part of a random event). Alchemist kept distance and was pretty good at debuffing and splashing both enemies even when the two monsters pincered them. Slayer had a pretty low AC (21 iirc) and got hit a lot, went down in round 3 or 4, but took a did a decent amount of damage first (1/3 or 1/2 of leng spider's hp). Cavalier, on foot since his horse had been stolen, basically soloed the froghemoth and did about 1/3 of the total damage to the spider. He lost maybe half his health.
Example of where the other two tried to shine but things went weird: Party encountered a copper dragon that was interested in an evil artifact they had just recovered. It wanted to take the artifact and seal it away; party also wanted to take the artifact and seal it but didn't trust the dragon. Social players tried to reason with the dragon and explain their motives. The dragon didn't appear receptive at first and the cavalier told the other two they'd have to fight their way out so he went to attack. Copper dragon got the higher initiative and took them out with hideous laughter immediately. Luckily the slayer got a good Diplo roll so they bargained and got out safely, though without the artifact.
Not the greatest examples but I hope that they kinda get across what I mean. I really am not saying that I think anyone is wrong here. I just want to know how to make the two groups see eye-to-eye and both have fun. After a session yesterday the slayer mentioned how she was feeling shunted by the cavalier's playstyle.
I'd suggest to the Slayer maybe work on stealth more especially with low AC. Improving her AC wouldn't hurt either. Sounds like damage output is solid for her. Alchemists are pretty solid but sounds like he is not utilizing him as effectively as he could. The fact the Cavalier dropped a Frogmouth without a mount sounds a bit fishy. His damage output sounds a bit high without his mount. His AC sounds pretty high to only lose half his HP. Maybe he's gotten the lion's share of treasure. The Slayer has the same BAB as the cavalier so she should have done as much if not more with sneak attack then the cavalier.
The problem with a cavalier in the group is he charges all the time. So a Slayer or Rogue can't be utilized as best as she can. The Alchemist if he is redesigned a bit can tag team with the slayer and their mutual damage output would jump. The cavalier always doing things his way is him being a controlling jerk. He seems to prefer doing things by himself. With the Copper Dragon I'd have TPK the party because what he did was beyond stupid. Then new characters make his ass play a non martila class.
The dragon is a good example of what I was suggesting. The Cavalier suggested they'd have to fight their way out... then he went to attack. He decided, for the rest of the party, what their conflict resolution would be, overriding the agency of the players who were already engaged in conflict resolution.
The "consequence" was that they didn't have the artifact anymore. Had diplomacy been allowed to continue...
I can only speak mechanically here, since I don't know the nuances of the OP's GM style. Diplomacy works from spending a minute, making a skill check, and seeing if you can motivate a being to improve their attitude. Once you have them at least in the Indifferent attitude towards you, you can roll a separate Diplomacy check to make a request of the being you're using the skill on.
What COULD'VE happened, had the "social" players been given full autonomy to finish what they'd started, would be that first they get the dragon to improve it's mood. These are CG dragons so I'm guessing when they and the players first met, the Copper Dragon wasn't looking at them as an enemy, so let's START the dragon at Indifferent.
The players flatter and cajole the Mature Adult Copper Dragon (I'm going with that since the party is APL 13 and this dragon age is CR 13), take a minute and really try to get the dragon on their side. Taking 10 with a PC who is socially built (say, an 18 Charisma after a headband), a level 13 PC with Diplomacy maxed out over 13 levels should be able to manage a 27. Looking at the Diplomacy skill, the PC needs to hit a DC 19 to improve the dragon's attitude one step, to Friendly.
A 27 exceeds that by more than 5, so after a good round of Diplomacy the PC may have been able to get the dragon all the way to Helpful. Now we move on to step 2: making a request.
The PCs already have the artifact, so all they're "requesting" of the dragon is that THEY be the ones to seal it away, not the dragon. Let's say, for the sake of argument though, that if the dragon lets them seal it away it thinks this COULD lead to it being in real potential danger, and it may even be punished in some way. This, plus it's now Helpful attitude sets the DC for this request at least at 24. We've already shown however that the PC can hit a DC 27 by taking a 10.
In other words, resolving all of this mechanically, with a bit of in character acting, could've gotten everyone what they wanted, let the social PC shine, validated that player's choice to max out Diplomacy after all these levels, AND resolved all of this without ever having to be a fight at all.
Mechanically, unless there's something unique to this encounter or the OP's style of GMing that I'm not seeing, there was no reason for the Cavalier to suggest that the party was going to "have to" fight their way out of it. Instead the player running the Cavalier decided that on his own, for his own reasons, then enforced his decision, overriding the other players' decisions, by his character's ensuing actions.
If this was a one time incident, chalk it up to player boredom and move on. If, however, this is the pattern; this player routinely barrels over the other players with the idea that only combat, where their character just HAPPENS to excel, is the only conflict resolution method for every conflict, then talk to your players as suggested upthread.
Even if you RPed the situation without dice which my old group did I'm not seeing any reason for the Cavalier to say we need to fight. Here's something I just realized. He's what alignment? What order? One or both of them might have made a difference. Some orders won't let you attack without provacation. Don't see it with the dragon. Two he's attacking a Chaotic Good dragon. That would be considered an evil act. Now if I were GMing this encounter I as the dragon would take to the air and attempt to subdue the cavalier telling his party to stand down. He attacked me I'd defend myself.
This would also be a great encounter for showing the cavalier his weakness. Smart dragons are not going to stay on the ground to get beat on. Almost every dragon encounter the dragon has gone airborne. Now regarding alignment if the cavalier is evil dragon won't hesitate to put him down permanently. If he complains that you are being mean tell him there is the door and you are tired of his crap.
I prefer the combat part of the game myself, but I'd never just steamroll over the other players trying diplo or another RP/social way to resolve a situation. That's just rude. You need to point out to the player that others are there to enjoy the game too and that his way of doing things isn't the only way. And as others have said, you might want to put in consequences for his murder-hoboing. Especially if he's doing it at times like that one with the dragon.
Derek Dalton wrote: He's what alignment? What order? One or both of them might have made a difference. Some orders won't let you attack without provacation. CG, Order of the Land. He is the lord of a very small village area and his character concept is "hero of the people" type with a strong emphasis on "I'm going to do everything to protect my people and I don't trust anyone else to do so."
He hasn't really been THAT far out of alignment. Just pushy sometimes.
silver_diamond wrote: Derek Dalton wrote: He's what alignment? What order? One or both of them might have made a difference. Some orders won't let you attack without provacation. CG, Order of the Land. He is the lord of a very small village area and his character concept is "hero of the people" type with a strong emphasis on "I'm going to do everything to protect my people and I don't trust anyone else to do so."
He hasn't really been THAT far out of alignment. Just pushy sometimes. Emphasis mine. If that's ever been stated by the player in character or is implied by the way they play, this helps reinforce the narrative that they play this character as somehow superior to everyone else in the gameworld, including perhaps the other characters.
If that's the case, could that be an extension of how this player thinks? He's always right, regardless of other input? That might be reaching on my part and I'm not trying to put anyone down, just trying to understand why the Cavalier player seems to have this need to act over his party members despite them already being engaged in a social encounter with a dragon.
I'm not seeing a hero of the people. I'm not seeing Chaotic Good. I'm seeing chaotic neutral bully. He seems to refuse to let the other players do things differently. The dragon is the latest of preemptive strikes in situations where diplomacy would have solved things. Does he have a super high Sense Motive? Otherwise he's starting fights because he wants to. He claims we have to fight. No he is bored and wants to start a fight so he gets his way.
The fact he won against some tough monsters also makes me wonder how if he doesn't have his mount. A cavalier is lethal with a mount but one without while a solid martial class he's not a killing machine. You have said he's killed several monster with little or no help from the party. That alone makes me wonder about those fights. A CR fight is based on a party of four. You have three and the cavalier seems to do all the heavy lifting and killing. The fact he is barely hurt also makes me question his equipment magical or otherwise.
Against spellcasters he should be hurting more or getting stopped completely.
Derek Dalton wrote: The fact he won against some tough monsters also makes me wonder how if he doesn't have his mount. A cavalier is lethal with a mount but one without while a solid martial class he's not a killing machine. You have said he's killed several monster with little or no help from the party. That alone makes me wonder about those fights. A CR fight is based on a party of four. You have three and the cavalier seems to do all the heavy lifting and killing. The fact he is barely hurt also makes me question his equipment magical or otherwise.
Against spellcasters he should be hurting more or getting stopped completely.
As for damage output, several lucky crits with a +2 or +3 bec-de-corbin and a judicious use of challenges. Low damage because those same fights had monsters with unlucky low rolls. I think I gave a slightly off impression, there have been fights where it wasn't just him, but there have been enough that it's notable. He may have also built his character wrong and was giving higher numbers than he should have had, but I didn't want to double check a 13th level character.
You're totally right about him being bad against spells, and I started to use caster more often.
Either way, the campaign ended. I found a natural stopping point for the story and we've started again with a new campaign, a larger group, and lower levels. I've also made sure to check that the characters are built correctly and I've been very careful about double checking gear.
Unfortunately, even though he's now a wizard (and easy to kill), he feels he's carrying combat because of high damage spells. I think this is a player problem and I'll have to find some way to talk to him about it. At least it's simpler to deal with a cocky wizard than a cocky cavalier. I hope.
silver_diamond wrote:
Does anyone have advice on how I can:
1) Help show the warrior that, no, he is not carrying the party and that characters don't have to be amazing in combat to be considered good;
2) Help ensure that the other characters have moments to shine?
1) Characters don't have to be amazing at combat, but everyone should be competent.
2) Very simply, tell them what they miss out on by taking the brute force option. It's sort of metagaming but discussing past events post session and talking about how they could have went will do wonders.
Just a few sessions ago, my character wanted to spare a cultist but got outvoted. When I mentioned post session that he would have made a cool back up character, my other party members flipped. I remember one of them say "You can DO that?!" This is pretty much the beauty of TTRPGs.
Eventually a wizard may actually be carrying the party, even if they like to blast things. They can take over jobs from other characters if those characters are poorly made for their roles. But yeah, any time they're being reactive rather than proactive a wizard is at a disadvantage.
Wizards have their own problems. I'd suggest you fact check his character randomly as well. My old GM and I had to fact check a couple of players because they did get things wrong mostly intentionally. I understand if players makes a mistake even I do it. We had a player in another game system where he added his Dex three times to his AC then added a couple of plusses even he couldn't explain. Needless to say we called him on it.
Maybe to soothe his raging ego have him suggest ways to improve the other characters. It sounds like he knows the system better and could offer sound suggestions. The other players don't have to take it but they might depending on his advice and how he offers it.
silver_diamond wrote: Derek Dalton wrote: The fact he won against some tough monsters also makes me wonder how if he doesn't have his mount. A cavalier is lethal with a mount but one without while a solid martial class he's not a killing machine. You have said he's killed several monster with little or no help from the party. That alone makes me wonder about those fights. A CR fight is based on a party of four. You have three and the cavalier seems to do all the heavy lifting and killing. The fact he is barely hurt also makes me question his equipment magical or otherwise.
Against spellcasters he should be hurting more or getting stopped completely.
As for damage output, several lucky crits with a +2 or +3 bec-de-corbin and a judicious use of challenges. Low damage because those same fights had monsters with unlucky low rolls. I think I gave a slightly off impression, there have been fights where it wasn't just him, but there have been enough that it's notable. He may have also built his character wrong and was giving higher numbers than he should have had, but I didn't want to double check a 13th level character.
You're totally right about him being bad against spells, and I started to use caster more often.
Either way, the campaign ended. I found a natural stopping point for the story and we've started again with a new campaign, a larger group, and lower levels. I've also made sure to check that the characters are built correctly and I've been very careful about double checking gear.
Unfortunately, even though he's now a wizard (and easy to kill), he feels he's carrying combat because of high damage spells. I think this is a player problem and I'll have to find some way to talk to him about it. At least it's simpler to deal with a cocky wizard than a cocky cavalier. I hope. Most definitely sounds like a player problem. Hopefully your bigger group can mitigate this somewhat. If anyone, or you, is willing, I'd quietly track damage numbers and see if he's really out pacing everyone. Also, how is a lower level wizard out damaging all others? I get it's possible, but in most game play I've seen, rare.
I think you still need to have those various conversations with your players. But, if this guy is talking the same kind of crap with his wizard that he did with the cavalier, then I'm worried for the future of your group. Hopefully it's not as bad as all that, but frankly, if his numbers are that questionable, it also brings his system mastery into question. Is he a good builder, or just a bloviating cheat? The advice is only good if it's honest, fair, and useful.
I'm speaking from past bad experiences, so weigh this with the appropriate grains of salt, but if the behavior you're portraying for us continues, the best thing may be to tell this guy to find his bliss elsewhere.
|
