| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been noticing a disturbing trend in games lately: a lack of teamwork.
In one group, I play a rogue, but I can never get sneak attack, because all the warriors in the party have adopted the "never end your turn next to an enemy" mentality, and all the casters and other non-martials tend to stay in the back row.
In another group, I play a sorcerer who almost never gets to blast large groups of enemies (even though I have some great spells for it) because the martials typically win initiative and then charge into the fray (even when delaying first would mean none of the enemies get to go first). When I then ask if it's okay to use fireball, I get reprimanded for even considering hurting allies just for a little more damage.
In yet another group, I play a dwarf fighter who oftentimes misses WHOLE FIGHTS because the party monk and elven ranger like to run ahead and trigger the encounters. By the time I arrive into melee, the fight's pretty much done.
Again and again I see this in games, both with my characters and with other players.
What gives?
Why can't the beefy tanks stay in place long enough to allow the rogue to sneak attack, or the spellcaster summon a flanking buddy? What do the party martials lose by delaying a moment and allowing the casters to napalm the enemies before charging in? For what reason would half the party try to take on an encounter without the other half of the party, or risk dragging the whole party into a multi-encounter battle without at least having the tanks nearby to assist?
I totally understand not wanting to tell other people how to play their characters, and am generally hesitant to do so myself, but I mean, COME ON! Surely people can meet their fellow players half way?
In one group, I play a rogue, but I can never get sneak attack, because all the warriors in the party have adopted the "never end your turn next to an enemy" mentality, and all the casters and other non-martials tend to stay in the back row.
Flank isn't the only way to get flatfooted.
In another group, I play a sorcerer who almost never gets to blast large groups of enemies (even though I have some great spells for it) because the martials typically win initiative and then charge into the fray (even when delaying first would mean none of the enemies get to go first). When I then ask if it's okay to use fireball, I get reprimanded for even considering hurting allies just for a little more damage.
*nods* I'd agree no fireball. Maybe switch up spells to either not hit friends or opt for spells that don't damage.
In yet another group, I play a dwarf fighter who oftentimes misses WHOLE FIGHTS because the party monk and elven ranger like to run ahead and trigger the encounters. By the time I arrive into melee, the fight's pretty much done.
Just how slow are you and how far ahead to encounters trigger. If every fight happens a football field away, it's not the monk/elf's problem.
Why can't the beefy tanks stay in place long enough to allow the rogue to sneak attack, or the spellcaster summon a flanking buddy?
Well for the same reason your caster doesn't want to cast anything but an area attack: the same reason you're miffed you can't fireball would be the same reason they'd be miffed to cast something other than what they'd planned. As to the tank, I'm guessing that's the playstyle they like: they might be asking 'why doesn't that rogue Feint instead of bugging me to flank?
What do the party martials lose by delaying a moment and allowing the casters to napalm the enemies before charging in?
A lot actually: positioning, possible targeting by spells/special abilities, foes moving into a better position, maybe killing a target right off the bat...
For what reason would half the party try to take on an encounter without the other half of the party, or risk dragging the whole party into a multi-encounter battle without at least having the tanks nearby to assist?
They could be asking, why does someone make a character with 1/2 the speed of their characters that clearly isn't ranged: it shouldn't come as a shock that someone that makes a character with a LARGE movement rate wants to move a lot. If they limit their movement to 20' or less, they are wasting their bigger rate.
I totally understand not wanting to tell other people how to play their characters, and am generally hesitant to do so myself, but I mean, COME ON! Surely people can meet their fellow players half way?
This isn't 1/2 way though: it's their way or yours. Flanking is a binary option. Charging is so too. Fireballing or summoning isn't any different. It's not that the group dynamic is bad but you don't fit well into it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that RD's PCs do have options, in most cases, to do what the other characters are doing: ignoring the rest of the group. I don't agree that this is the way the game should be played.
Also, let me understand: everyone is free to build and play the character as they like, and to cast the spells they wish, except for RD's sorcerer who should instead stop using area spells?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that working together better as a team shouldn't happen, but I also don't think it should be expected.
Unfortunately, PF2 is set up with the expectation that you will work as a team (a major flaw IMO).
In PF1 teamwork was basically unheard of. Everyone was out for themselves and most builds contained enough power within themselves with no reliance on outside characters to be effective (although fireballing your party was always a faux pas).
Rogues have plenty of methods to get sneak attack besides flanking.
If the party always go ahead of you in a fight and gets into melee, then consider retraining your spell selection to not rely on AoE. Or do it anyways and see how it works out. Probably not good, but if you do it once they may get the idea. Alternatively, you could also work on getting a higher init score by increasing wisdom, perception, or taking improved init.
Ultimately, I guess the point I'm driving at is, don't expect other players to cooperate with you and build in such a way to avoid stepping on each others toes.
Does it suck? Kinda. can you do much about it? No, unless you want to confront other people about it.
Also, let me understand: everyone is free to build and play the character as they like, and to cast the spells they wish, except for RD's sorcerer who should instead stop using area spells?
Everyone should do whatever they like, so long as it doesn't actively harm other PCs. Fireball is one of those things that easily breaks that part.
It takes teamwork and coordination to use, if your group doesn't like to do those things then your simply SOL.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you asking us, shouldn't you be asking the other players in these games?
That's funny because as a GM I expected teamwork and coordination in PF1 (& 3.X for that matter), and was disappointed in PFS where it was (mostly) lacking. I gravitated toward playing with those locals who understood tactics (often people with Warhammer experience!), so my groups (pre-covid) tended to have good teamwork except for some outliers.
Whether PF2 requires it depends on if there's enough payoff for the effort which then depends on the difficulty which is set by the GM, not the system. PF2 certainly rewards it, and I love that, but if teamwork's unnecessary for (assured) victory, then why bother?
Ex. If the Monk & Ranger can win w/o the dwarf's aid, maybe the combat's too easy? Or w/o the Sorcerer's Fireball, etc.
RD, as for your situations, I'd need more data to suggest fixes beyond what Graystone mentioned. Ex. If playing a lower AC martial like a Barbarian or Ranger (w/o a shield), I'd skirmish too and it's refreshing to see a group that understands that some martial builds shouldn't go toe-to-toe (w/ party in-combat healing a factor too). Or if I run a Fighter w/ a Reach weapon, I'll want to skirmish to trigger, etc.
It seems if you Delay to go after the enemy closes on the martials, you should be able to get in, sneak attack, and get out. It depends on reach, size, etc., but should work for most Medium creatures (unless they skirmish too, which would be funny).
Oddly enough, if your Sorcerer were in that party, they might be ecstatic that the martials keep giving space for blasting. :)
And your Rogue might love being in the group that can't help closing.
As Graystone's post touches on, maybe they'd be giving up their fun if they had to repurpose their tactics, i.e. the players likely chose Monk & Elf for the speed. Or maybe your parties are working as best they can already. Maybe nothing needs fixing because there are no party-sized problems in combat. If two players have the alternatives between finishing a combat or waiting several rounds for another PC to catch up, then finishing the combat, naturally they'll go with the former if combats are that basic.
Ultimately I think the answer to your question, "What gives?" is that the combats are so easy the other players don't need your PC, nor teamwork. I mean, running ahead and triggering encounters is an indicator of that. I have players who'd have conniptions if a new player brought such death and destruction down upon the party!
Lastly, I do not allow OOC table tactics (except w/ a rookie by an appointed person), instead encouraging them to speak in character. They'd often discuss and devise tactics before or after. I'm not sure if they HAD to, but it certainly helped the parties thrive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, even in PF1 I very often change my tactics depending on what the other characters are doing; the other players do the same.
Maybe I'm just lucky to play with such people, but just like my Witch goes in to heal or to teleport out her wounded friends, they are ready to intervene if some enemies go around and catch her, and when they can, they move in a way that offers their buddy a chance of flanking.
A lot of times I had to change my tactics because some other PC had gotten in the way of a planned aoe or control spell; in other cases my character just zapped them because she assessed that it would had increased the group's chances of victory.
Also, characters can talk to each other. "Wait for a second, I'm going to blast them!" is a perfectly fine thing to say in-character. In one of the last combats she knew the abilities of the monster we were fighting, so she actually gave precise orders: to protect themselves from cold and to stay in melee, but not near each other (as to avoid being cleaved).
Each group's dynamics are different, and the other players may well decide not do as you (or your character) are asking. That doesn't mean that you can't at least propose the tactics you wish to see employed.
Also, characters can talk to each other. "Wait for a second, I'm going to blast them!" is a perfectly fine thing to say in-character.
That was the first thing I tried. They ran in anyway. Ended up relying on buffs, battlefield control, and cantrips. It was total win/win--for the martials.
The fight ended up taking twice as long as it would have if I had been able to aqueeze off even one fireball before the rush.
I'm not going to get into group specifics, as this has occurred in several different groups with a wide range of personality types over a fair length of time (enough time to start seeing the trends).
Needless to say, talking to them hasn't helped much, and I almost always end up having to rely on inferior tactical choices (such as using ranged attacks on a slow strength build, making single sneak attacks with agile weapons, or utilizing cantrips or single target spells when faced with a room full of tightly packed weak enemies).
It's frustrating sometimes.
While I'm not going to say "player X is a bad team player and is in the wrong" on a bunch of these individual examples without having been there and having the full picture, the idea that teamwork shouldn't be expected is pretty much incoherent to me. From an out of character perspective, a party with teamwork is far stronger than people running off to do their own thing. From an in character perspective, working with your allies is the best way to survive these nasty situations you keep getting into.
From a player side, I dont think there's really anything that can be called a solution, here, that isn't talking to the other players or playing with people that are on the same page. From the GM side, I see two ways to go, depending on your group. You can see that your group of players has fun being totally uncoordinated, and throttle back the challenges you hit them with a bit, because a rough encounter for a coordinated wargamer-mindset group is begging for a TPK, there. Or, for a group that would enjoy more tactical play but doesn't really know how to do it, you can hit them with coordinated enemies, and show them some ways to work together and how hard they are to go up against, even if the enemies are individually weaker than the PCs.
I play with a bunch of kids.
Literally, my nephew is the oldest and he just had his senior prom.
Because if this, I don't expect good individual tactics, much less good group tactics.
I play support tanks from the back line and try to keep PvP from happening.
You can rebuild to fit these groups, or find a new group and talk tactics at character creation.
I recommend doing both, then eliminating any game that still sucks.
|
In one group, I play a rogue, but I can never get sneak attack, because all the warriors in the party have adopted the "never end your turn next to an enemy" mentality, and all the casters and other non-martials tend to stay in the back row.Flank isn't the only way to get flatfooted.
No, but most of the other methods require extra actions, which means you'll probably be the only target in easy reach when the monsters go (Close, Feint, and Strike doesn't leave you an action to withdraw). This is a very bad place for a rogue to be as they are squishy and taste good with ketchup...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but most of the other methods require extra actions, which means you'll probably be the only target in easy reach when the monsters go (Close, Feint, and Strike doesn't leave you an action to withdraw). This is a very bad place for a rogue to be as they are squishy and taste good with ketchup...In one group, I play a rogue, but I can never get sneak attack, because all the warriors in the party have adopted the "never end your turn next to an enemy" mentality, and all the casters and other non-martials tend to stay in the back row.Flank isn't the only way to get flatfooted.
He was making a point that he couldn't sneak attack: it was more that he didn't WANT to. Is the rogue in any better position if he flanks with that beefy fighter and the foe attacks his "squishy" rogue? Or that caster casts a summons that doesn't impress so the foe attacks the creature that deals damage [like sneak attacks]: They are still in melee. Ranged hide, sniping, hide, for instance, is a way to get it with less chance of retaliation. Or Demoralize [Dread Striker] and ranged attacks. It just takes a bit more work than 'I move to flank Fred...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am flabbergasted. In reading the forums about Pathfinder 2nd Edition, I saw that fighting a Moderate-threat battle (80 xp of opponents) without tactics leads to a heavily damaged party, possibly with some PCs unconscious. And teamwork is the best and simplest tactic. How well are these unteamed parties surviving in combat?
And as a GM, I think that teamwork makes the gameplay more exciting. Two or more players working on the same tactic makes all of them feel active. They all share in the glory of success or commiserate in failure.
However, the title of this thread, "Meeting your fellow player half way," starts from the wrong place. Meeting halfway is about compromise between people who disagree. Teammates ought to agree.
Ravingdork's examples are about his character asking other characters for teamwork. I used to work on high-performance teams before I retired, so teamwork became automatic for me from long practice. I start in the other direction: donating teamwork. For example, in PF1 my gnome barbarian Muffin had the Mobility feat (+4 to AC while moving) and she would deliberately move behind an enemy with reach while in squares they threatened. The enemy would waste their attack of opportunity on her, and then the rogue would close in for a sneak attack. My wife's gunslinger Boffin in a PF1 Iron Gods campaign had a grappling gun but not the strength to hold the grapple, so my bloodrager Val Baine would grab the line and hold the grapple for her.
Ravingdork's rogue for whom no-one could flank could Delay until an enemy moved adjacent to a martial PC and them move to flanking position. That would give the other PC a flank for their attack-and-retreat policy. The rogue would have the problem of being the sole target next to the enemy on the enemy's turn, so the rogue would need excellent defenses, such as Raising a Shield.
Ravingdork's sorcerer could learn some battlefield control and buff spells, such as Grease and Haste.
Ravingdork's dwarf fighter could invest in tactics that let an ally retreat after rushing recklessly into combat, such as Aggressive Block. Fighters start with Attack of Opportunity. During my Rise of the Runelords campaign, the party had two rogues who would rush ahead to catch their enemy flat-footed but they could endure only two rounds of combat. They would retreat just as the battle oracle finished her self-buffing and advanced as an unstoppable warrior. If the monk and ranger who rushed ahead don't need to retreat, then perhaps the dwarf should invest in Boots of Speed and the Sudden Charge feat.
No, but most of the other methods require extra actions, which means you'll probably be the only target in easy reach when the monsters go (Close, Feint, and Strike doesn't leave you an action to withdraw). This is a very bad place for a rogue to be as they are squishy and taste good with ketchup...In one group, I play a rogue, but I can never get sneak attack, because all the warriors in the party have adopted the "never end your turn next to an enemy" mentality, and all the casters and other non-martials tend to stay in the back row.Flank isn't the only way to get flatfooted.
I fondly remember the time my 3rd-level PF2 party surrounded a 4th-level enemy barbarian and the two rogues discovered that he had Deny Advantage, which prevented flat-footedness from being flanked. So the ranger tripped him, which made him flat-footed despite Deny Advantage. That was teamwork.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork's examples are about his character asking other characters for teamwork. I used to work on high-performance teams before I retired, so teamwork became automatic for me from long practice. I start in the other direction: donating teamwork. For example, in PF1 my gnome barbarian Muffin had the Mobility feat (+4 to AC while moving) and she would deliberately move behind an enemy with reach while in squares they threatened. The enemy would waste their attack of opportunity on her, and then the rogue would close in for a sneak attack. My wife's gunslinger Boffin in a PF1 Iron Gods campaign had a grappling gun but not the strength to hold the grapple, so my bloodrager Val Baine would grab the line and hold the grapple for her.
I didn't want to suggest it, but this is the real answer.
If you're looking for teamwork to happen, instead of looking how others can help you in teamwork you should be looking how you can help them.
Ravingdork's examples are about his character asking other characters for teamwork. I used to work on high-performance teams before I retired, so teamwork became automatic for me from long practice. I start in the other direction: donating teamwork. For example, in PF1 my gnome barbarian Muffin had the Mobility feat (+4 to AC while moving) and she would deliberately move behind an enemy with reach while in squares they threatened. The enemy would waste their attack of opportunity on her, and then the rogue would close in for a sneak attack. My wife's gunslinger Boffin in a PF1 Iron Gods campaign had a grappling gun but not the strength to hold the grapple, so my bloodrager Val Baine would grab the line and hold the grapple for her.I didn't want to suggest it, but this is the real answer.
If you're looking for teamwork to happen, instead of looking how others can help you in teamwork you should be looking how you can help them.
Except that's what I've been doing. It is rarely reciprocated, which is the issue. It's very one-sided.
It'd be nice if I had other options every once in a while, but due to lack of cooperation, I find myself shoehorned into very specific, often less than efficient roles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What have you done to provide teamwork to the other players? If you lay that out we might have a better understanding.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been noticing a disturbing trend in games lately: a lack of teamwork.
From the sounds of it, one of the primary issues is likely that you don't NEED teamwork to win. I'm not sure if this is PF1 (where it is trivial to build uberpowerful characters) or PF2 (where it is much harder).
But if two characters are charging ahead and triggering encounters and not being destroyed by the encounters then things are just too easy.
If the GM(s) threw hard encounters at you, ones you can only overcome with good tactics, I suspect your fellow players would pay more attention.
That said, not letting your fellow players have their fun is a kind of selfish dick move on their part.
What have you done to provide teamwork to the other players? If you lay that out we might have a better understanding.
In one of the more recent encounters, against a mob of enemies, my sorcerer cast haste on the party's paladin, ranger, and warpriest allowing them to further buff themselves with spells while moving and striking in the same round; dispelled an enemy's darkness spell so that our ranger could fight effectively AT ALL; cast invisibility (4th) on the monk so that he became a critting powerhouse; used gust of wind to prevent much of the mob from getting through a doorway to swarm the party and the two NPC noncombattants they were protecting; and used freedom of movement to free said NPCs from their shackles, allowing them to escape.
And that was just one encounter. Now, had the martials delayed, which would have been fine since I went before the enemies too, I could have decimated more than half the enemy force in the opening round. I also asked the martials to hold the chokepoints as long as they could so that the enemy would bunch up, better allowing me to thin their number. Did they though? No. That job was left up to me after they ran into the open areas, preventing me from using area spells at all.
It was pretty much the above plus cantrips after that. Now, as we go into the next encounter against the BBEG, try and guess who lacks spells and who now lacks buffs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They may not see your spells as teamwork. They may see them just as the sorcerer casting spells. it's possible.
I noticed you didn't say how the Rogue or Fighter have done to provide team work.
They may not see your spells as teamwork. They may see them just as the sorcerer casting spells. it's possible.
I noticed you didn't say how the Rogue or Fighter have done to provide team work.
What can they do? The party insists on fighting without them it would seem. I might be able to plink away with some ranged attacks, but they are so far below the melee attacks in accuracy (the fighter) or in damage (the rogue) that some fights just aren't really impacted by the presence of the characters.
If the party wouldn't leave the fighter behind, or would flank more with the rogue, then the party's ability to deal with encounters would be MUCH higher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that's what I've been doing. It [my teamwork] is rarely reciprocated, which is the issue. It's very one-sided.
It'd be nice if I had other options every once in a while, but due to lack of cooperation, I find myself shoehorned into very specific, often less than efficient roles.
I had hoped that was not the case, but I have heard of such cluelessness before. I have read the versions of Treantmonk’s Guide to Wizards, Being a god since D&D 3.5 but the D&D 5th Edition version has an introductory story in which he created a god wizard, the ultimate teamwork build, and the other players thought the wizard was useless.
... What he neglected to mention was that this group did not optimize their characters, so when I arrived with my Goliath charge-build, I overshadowed the rest of the fighter-types in the group entirely. Nevertheless, the party sorcerer died in one of the fights. I felt really bad and retired the character at the end of the session and promised to build something less dominating.
I had an idea how I could help the group without dominating the action, and I came back with a Wizard character. In the first combat, I was encouraged to use my fireball, and the group was quite confused when I told them that I didn’t have Fireball, lightning bolt or even magic missile. I still remember the DM asking me, “So what DO you do then?” When I explained I would be putting up walls, fogs, buffing, debuffing, etc. My character was declared “useless”
A couple months of playing and my character did not directly cause a single HP of damage to an enemy, nor did he use a single “save or die”. The campaign completed, and since my wizard was introduced, not a single character had died.
What I found really surprising is that everyone in the group still considered my character “useless”. Not a single player seemed to notice that my character had been introduced at the same time that the party death-toll had stopped. They had thought the campaign had become “easier” during the second half.
Treantmonk tells the story and the tactics in more detail in his YouTube video, Origin of the God Wizard.
Since the other players, like Treantmonk's fellow players, don't notice Ravingdork's teamwork contributions, he ought to make the teamwork more explicit. Go to another player and say, "I was thinking of my dwarf fighter taking Brutish Shove which Shoves an opponent and leaves them flat-footed. Could your character take advantage of that? Or should I pick another feat?" Or maybe the fighter is shopping for magic boots and you ask the other players for advice. If they are part of inventing the teamwork, then they are more likely to notice it.
They may not see your spells as teamwork. They may see them just as the sorcerer casting spells. it's possible.
I noticed you didn't say how the Rogue or Fighter have done to provide team work.
What can they do? The party insists on fighting without them it would seem. I might be able to plink away with some ranged attacks, but they are so far below the melee attacks in accuracy (the fighter) or in damage (the rogue) that some fights just aren't really impacted by the presence of the characters.
If the party wouldn't leave the fighter behind, or would flank more with the rogue, then the party's ability to deal with encounters would be MUCH higher.
My PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign has an effective gnome criminal rogue with thief racket who Hides for her sneak attacks rather than flanking. She finds a crate, pillar, tree, or undergrowth for concealment or cover, takes a Hide action, and then shoots her shortbow. Some forms of cover give the target partial cover, but the -2 to AC for flat-footed overwhelms the +1 for partial cover. And she gets her full sneak attack damage. This isn't teamwork (except that the team gives her time to sneak to her hiding spot) but it deals good damage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been noticing a disturbing trend in games lately: a lack of teamwork.
In one group, I play a rogue, but I can never get sneak attack, because all the warriors in the party have adopted the "never end your turn next to an enemy" mentality, and all the casters and other non-martials tend to stay in the back row.
In another group, I play a sorcerer who almost never gets to blast large groups of enemies (even though I have some great spells for it) because the martials typically win initiative and then charge into the fray (even when delaying first would mean none of the enemies get to go first). When I then ask if it's okay to use fireball, I get reprimanded for even considering hurting allies just for a little more damage.
The funny thing is that if you just switched your PCs between those two groups it sounds like everything would be copacetic. The rogue would have flanking buddies and the sorcerer would have clearer lines of fire. I dunno what the table policy on rerolling/rebuilding/replacing PCs is, but maybe that is the answer? Sometimes you are excited to play a specific character and it then turns out this was the wrong game for it, often due to other PCs. In my experience these conflicts are usually alignment based-- someone makes a Paladin and the rest of the group is CN to CE murder hobos, or vice versa.
But I'm also experiencing that in a Dungeon World game right now. I built my character to defend and tank hits for my teammates, but I'm finding the other players aren't engaged enough to actively attack things (in part because they are used to only needing to engage during their turn, and dungeon world has no turns) which means I'm kind of just doing nothing.
Having to replace a character you were excited about really does suck. On the other hand, you're exceptionally well equipped to pull out another character what with your emporiums and all.
I'm not saying that working together better as a team shouldn't happen, but I also don't think it should be expected.
Unfortunately, PF2 is set up with the expectation that you will work as a team (a major flaw IMO).
In PF1 teamwork was basically unheard of. Everyone was out for themselves and most builds contained enough power within themselves with no reliance on outside characters to be effective (although fireballing your party was always a faux pas).
Rogues have plenty of methods to get sneak attack besides flanking.
If the party always go ahead of you in a fight and gets into melee, then consider retraining your spell selection to not rely on AoE. Or do it anyways and see how it works out. Probably not good, but if you do it once they may get the idea. Alternatively, you could also work on getting a higher init score by increasing wisdom, perception, or taking improved init.
Ultimately, I guess the point I'm driving at is, don't expect other players to cooperate with you and build in such a way to avoid stepping on each others toes.
Does it suck? Kinda. can you do much about it? No, unless you want to confront other people about it.
Also, let me understand: everyone is free to build and play the character as they like, and to cast the spells they wish, except for RD's sorcerer who should instead stop using area spells?Everyone should do whatever they like, so long as it doesn't actively harm other PCs. Fireball is one of those things that easily breaks that part.
It takes teamwork and coordination to use, if your group doesn't like to do those things then your simply SOL.
What are you even talking about? Do you actually play PF2 and know how it works? It doesn't require anymore teamwork than PF1. I play a rogue and it's far easier to get flat-footed in PF2 than it ever was in PF1 for a rogue. Nothing has changed in regards to the degree of teamwork you want to use, so stop making it seem like it has. Teamwork was helpful in PF1 and it's helpful in PF2, not required.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teamwork has always been group dependent.
Only things you can do is ask your group to use some teamwork or keep looking for a group that is willing to do so if that is what you like.
Not sure why you're having trouble getting flat-footed with the rogue. Lots of ways to do it now using skills and feats. You don't have to run in and swing three times while some martial is in range.
As far as your dwarf, they run slow. If they built a group to move fast and stealthy, you made the wrong type of character for that group. Maybe you should rethink your character rather than trying to force them to slow down and wait for you.
How you make your group is also part of teamwork. If you make a dwarf fighter in plate armor in a group with a monk and an elf ranger that both move fast and quiet, then who is the non-team player in that group? I would say the dwarf wandering in full plate slowing things down.
As far as caster AOE, that's been a problem in every edition. It only really matters if the AOE spell is necessary. Otherwise, just save your spell for a better opportunity. Use your cantrips. Maybe Paizo will come out with feats to allow you to exclude targets from AoE affects or reshape them.
None of this is anything new across editions of D&D. I would have to see evidence of the changing nature of players unwilling to use teamwork. Anecdotal, small sample size evidence doesn't mean much.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, I guess the point I'm driving at is, don't expect other players to cooperate with you and build in such a way to avoid stepping on each others toes.
Maybe, but “screw you, I’m gonna do whatever’s best for me” is a pretty terrible baseline for what is supposed to be a social game.
What gives?
As many have said, why ask us? This is a discussion to have with the group. Either you will all cooperate for the betterment of everyone, or you won’t. In the latter case, the best choice might be to find a new group. Life is too short to be pissed off at your group all the time and your groups seem to have an incredibly high frequency of this sort of stuff. I don’t want to point fingers when we don’t have anywhere near all the details, but there is one common factor in the laundry list of problems you keep expressing and maybe it isn’t that the OTHER players are the problem, YMMV
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not pissed off. Disappointed would be a better word for it.
I posted this for a variety of reasons: to see if this is a common trend at other tables, to see if anyone knows a good solution that I've not yet attempted, and to warn other gamers of the potential pitfalls of poor party planning.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, I guess the point I'm driving at is, don't expect other players to cooperate with you and build in such a way to avoid stepping on each others toes.Maybe, but “screw you, I’m gonna do whatever’s best for me” is a pretty terrible baseline for what is supposed to be a social game.
More like "I'm not listening to you, I'm going to do what I want". But yes it's not ideal to take that attitude.
But people are gonna people.
I don't think there is the malice intended within the phrase "Screw you" and I also don't think the players are thinking "this is what's best for me" because if they were thinking about it they would probably realize the teamwork that RD is asking for would be better.
But they sound like they're short sighted people who just want to do what they want to do. Same as most people honestly.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity narcissism"
|
|
In vague fairness, there is very, very often a tension between "team player" and "playing your character" and there is very often also a tension between "what person A thinks the best thing for Character A to do" and "what person B thinks the best thing for Character A to do". And sometimes a player just isn't paying attention and is about to do something that really IS quite stupid. Or is a less experienced player who really could benefit from some advice
The ideal, in my mind, is that everybody gets to play their own character but does so while considering the input from others (both in actions taken and in roleplaying), is fundamentally a team player and tries hard to not step on others toes.
And personalities really, really come into it. There can be a massive difference between players in how willing they are to accept advice, how people phrase their advice, etc.
I'm running one campaign where the players do far too much mutual planning, advising, etc. Can slow the game down to a crawl and sometimes gets close to one player telling another how to play their character (I shut it down if it gets TOO close to that, obviously). And it tends to mean that the characters don't actually do much roleplaying in combat. Group think taken to close to an extreme. So, the opposite problem to the OP.
I'm playing in another campaign (Extinction Curse) where by and large we seem to be very close to my ideal. Suggestions are generally voiced as observations "A is really down on hit points right now" or "We know that he is immune to electricity" or "You might want to delay until after me". The other players go along with my characters rather foolish attempts to not kill the dinosaurs whenever going along with it is reasonable. And when the situation requires it I chain lightning the dinosaurs to death while bemoaning the necessity. We all roleplay our characters in combat while keeping an eye firmly on our group goals. The more easy an encounter the more likely we are to do fundamentally silly but in character things. We're not as efficient as we could be but we're efficient enough and I find it a much more enjoyable game as a result
The ideal, in my mind, is that everybody gets to play their own character but does so while considering the input from others (both in actions taken and in roleplaying), is fundamentally a team player and tries hard to not step on others toes.
This, I feel, is where I'm at. As the sorcerer, the other players made it quite clear that they didn't want me using fireball, so I switched tactics and started buffing the heck out of everyone. I'm just glad that I had a versatile enough spell repertoire (not every sorcerer does) to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TTRPGs always seem to be a crapshoot when it comes to expectations. No two players and/or groups play the same. Some folks think the game is played together, and others think its just a game every one plays individually together. Rulebooks seldom give insight to the design process on how the game plays best. Folks are often left out to sea with no compass.
The best way to manage, IMO, is to discuss this during session zero (or in the case of organized play briefly before a scenario). Tell folks you are not just a wizard, but a blasting wizard. You are not just a ranger, but a bow using ranger. Etc. Also, consider that just because you are a blaster who could end a fight in 2 rounds instead of 5, doesn't mean thats always better. The fighter types might enjoy getting a few hits in. Its a give and take, too much push in a certain direction can feel like everybody is your assistant instead of an equal team member.
If you really wanted to do blasting though that's less cooperation within the group and more capitulation on your part. They aren't acting with any consideration for you at all, or apparently considering your input.
The only real alternative I was left with was to blow my allies up.
I think I probably made the right call, though I fear nothing will change as a result.
And to be clear, this isn't a reoccurring problem with a given group (at least not yet), but something I've seen happen with several play groups, so it's not quite as bad as it might sound.
I'm just hoping to buck the apparent trend somehow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just do not relate to this with respect to home campaigns. Now, if we were talking about org play, that is an animal of different spots. You cannot pre-plan those parties so you are kinda stuck being as independent as you can be for pragmatic reasons and hoping that the other players are as team-work oriented as you are (or aren't).
For home campaigns, I have never been involved in one that didn't thoroughly discuss the characters beforehand. Everyone is versed on what they do, and how they will interact with the rest of the party. That way if they are a "selfish" Leeroy Jenkins fighter, it won't come as a surprise when they ignore buffs and AoE to Sudden Charge. And if yu expect certain things like buffs or flanking from the other characters, it is a known quantity. If they do not intend to supply said expectation, you can modify your build and expectations.
Therefore, I have never run into the problem of players not cooperating. Not only do our tactics do so, but we alter the development of our characters to support it. To do otherwise is so foreign to me as to be inconceivable in the most Vizzini sort of way. YMMV
I guess I just do not relate to this with respect to home campaigns. Now, if we were talking about org play, that is an animal of different spots. You cannot pre-plan those parties so you are kinda stuck being as independent as you can be for pragmatic reasons and hoping that the other players are as team-work oriented as you are (or aren't).
For home campaigns, I have never been involved in one that didn't thoroughly discuss the characters beforehand. Everyone is versed on what they do, and how they will interact with the rest of the party. That way if they are a "selfish" Leeroy Jenkins fighter, it won't come as a surprise when they ignore buffs and AoE to Sudden Charge. And if yu expect certain things like buffs or flanking from the other characters, it is a known quantity. If they do not intend to supply said expectation, you can modify your build and expectations.
Therefore, I have never run into the problem of players not cooperating. Not only do our tactics do so, but we alter the development of our characters to support it. To do otherwise is so foreign to me as to be inconceivable in the most Vizzini sort of way. YMMV
You know, discussing the Leeroy Jenkins effect is probably something that should happen at every session zero. That crap can REALLY warp the game experience. And some people are OK with it, but you should then consider if the difficulty needs to be ramped down to account for it. I'll add that to my list.
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson
The problem with trying to discuss everything at Session Zero is the assumption that everyone knows how things are going to go down. Not being willing to cooperate is a pretty fundamental problem, and even if you band-aid it over at Session Zero, it's just going to show up later when people start improvising.
Even more fundamentally wrong is the idea that you're going to meet your fellow players "halfway." The problem with "halfway" is that nobody agrees what halfway is. Player 1 builds a 15' overhang over what they consider to be a 30' chasm; Player 2 builds a 10' overhand over what they consider to be a 20' chasm. Then, as soon as Player 1 feels slighted, they do less and less, and Player 2 decides Player 1 is giving up and does less and less.
If you want your group to work, you've got to be willing to meet someone else more than halfway from your side. And they'll have to be willing to meet you more than halfway from their side. And there will still probably be a gap that you need to work out.
Teamwork is required because PF2 characters can't solo encounters, the system doesn't allow it. When I see failure in PF2, I more often than not see people underprepared to begin with, such that a few nat 1s in a row snaps their already-fragile plan. And then, as soon as a little bit seems to go wrong, everyone's first inclination is to suggest it was someone else's responsibility to plug that gap.
If a rogue can't get flanking with skirmishers and spellcasters, it's neither the rogue's sole responsibility to change nor everyone else's sole responsibility to aid the rogue. It's time to overkill the problem and fix both sides of the broken bridge, and overlap enough in the middle so that it's not fragile.