|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 7:42AM
#111
|
|
|
Hmm, reads like the rest of the group was sucking out loud and you got blamed. Or the DM was a little tyoo enthusiastic in his encounter building.
If you were buffing you allies each turn, and/or using something like staggering note to allow your allies to deal damage, seems you were doing your job. Dealing damage is not a leaders first priority.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 12:38PM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2008
|
It's not the first priority, but he did say he had a small party. I can easily see a group with three perfectly acceptable characters ending up unable to succeed, and looking at the lowest damage of the bunch as the issue. If you've got an enchanter or illusionist, sword and board fighter, and lazyish bard, you're going to have some long, slow combats. All characters that work, but rely on a solid striker to come in and finish off the things they've crippled/locked up/debuffed.
You're right that it wouldn't necessarily be the bard's fault, but it's easy to cast the blame at the guy who's supposed to be buffing the party offense if the party offense is lacking.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 12:45PM
#113
|
|
|
It's not the first priority, but he did say he had a small party. I can easily see a group with three perfectly acceptable characters ending up unable to succeed, and looking at the lowest damage of the bunch as the issue. If you've got an enchanter or illusionist, sword and board fighter, and lazyish bard, you're going to have some long, slow combats. All characters that work, but rely on a solid striker to come in and finish off the things they've crippled/locked up/debuffed.
You're right that it wouldn't necessarily be the bard's fault, but it's easy to cast the blame at the guy who's supposed to be buffing the party offense if the party offense is lacking.
Pretty sure XLadyFayre is not a guy, or at least is attempting to not be identified as such.
Regarding your explanation though, Wishful, no matter how you cut it, seems to me the DM did not adjust the encounters properly.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 1:43PM
#114
|
|
|
Reach a compromize. you cant force people to be competant. Some people actually have fun with gimped pc's. It helps make sure every encounter isn't an auto success.
You can either work with them to make them a bit better but still allowing their gimped gameply fun, optimize better (Cause 3 people optimizing shouldn't die even if alone and thats assuming low op). Or tone your optimizing down and get the dm to run encounters NOT based around optimization.
If you refuse to do that jump ship start a group of your own and dont invite the non op people. Not everyone plays the same way.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 4:57AM
#115
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2010
|
We play a dungeon crawl, 3rd level, 5 players, 3 of them optimize. The other 2 and the DM thinks this is bad roleplaying.
Rereading the OP, I feel it bears saying that it seems the group needs to get its goals straight. 2 players and the DM think the game should have roleplaying in it, but at the same time you're doing a dungeon crawl (not my idea of a great RP-opportunity).
Even if the dungeon is filled with RP possibilities (or you guys create them), it seems you're still saddled with the problem of fights only ending when one side is dead. If that's the case, then it's silly not to optimize a bit.
But if you can also end fights by just being clever (through roleplaying, skill checks or just great use of powers), then there's actually nothing wrong with the players using builds, powers and tactics that are generally thought of as bad. Let them look for that angle where they can roleplay their character (and help them do so), especially when it brings encounters to a swifter end.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 6:20AM
#116
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
It's not the first priority, but he did say he had a small party. I can easily see a group with three perfectly acceptable characters ending up unable to succeed, and looking at the lowest damage of the bunch as the issue. If you've got an enchanter or illusionist, sword and board fighter, and lazyish bard, you're going to have some long, slow combats. All characters that work, but rely on a solid striker to come in and finish off the things they've crippled/locked up/debuffed.
You're right that it wouldn't necessarily be the bard's fault, but it's easy to cast the blame at the guy who's supposed to be buffing the party offense if the party offense is lacking.
Pretty sure XLadyFayre is not a guy, or at least is attempting to not be identified as such.
Regarding your explanation though, Wishful, no matter how you cut it, seems to me the DM did not adjust the encounters properly.
Most of my turns consisted of me doing nothing except upkeeping my buff. I barely rolled anything which was why I felt useless to begin with. It was my first time playing such a class in PF. Now, I excelled at distracting the guards while my team took on other guards so they wouldn't be swamped but not every encounter was set up that way. When it came time to actually do anything I just couldn't. For the first couple of sessions it was fun but then it just wasn't. Its just not that effective in our small group.
Yes, baldhermit I'm not a guy. :D
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 7:08AM
#117
|
|
|
Rereading the OP, I feel it bears saying that it seems the group needs to get its goals straight. 2 players and the DM think the game should have roleplaying in it, but at the same time you're doing a dungeon crawl (not my idea of a great RP-opportunity).
Combat is roleplaying. I think what you mean is in-character interaction. Dungeons are rife with in-character interaction, if the DM gives enemies motivations, impulses, instincts, and goals other than "kill all PCs" and sticks to them. You should play in one of my dungeons (hint: all of my adventures are dungeons even if doesn't look like a dungeon). It's loaded with in-character interaction both between the PCs and with the NPCs and monsters.
Even if the dungeon is filled with RP possibilities (or you guys create them), it seems you're still saddled with the problem of fights only ending when one side is dead. If that's the case, then it's silly not to optimize a bit.
Yes, CharOp does seem to assume that you're building toward encounters that are based around one side killing the other. So if that's how the group (or more regularly the DM) approachs the game, then some level of optimization is necessary.
But if you can also end fights by just being clever (through roleplaying, skill checks or just great use of powers), then there's actually nothing wrong with the players using builds, powers and tactics that are generally thought of as bad. Let them look for that angle where they can roleplay their character (and help them do so), especially when it brings encounters to a swifter end.
Yes, the beauty of an RPG like D&D in my opinion is that you are not required to solve every problem by smashing it with a hammer. You can, and it sure is fun to do so, but you don't have to. Of course, the DM has to be willing to say "Yes, and..." to reasonable solutions, however, and then call for rolls at the appropriate times and frequency to see if it works. In my experience, many DMs are scared to do this because it might mean short-circuiting whatever hard work and prep they put into setting up the encounter. So instead, they frequently block player ideas, making combat required (and thus optimization is a good idea).
If every scene seems to end in bloodshed, ask yourself and the other players how you might have solved that problem a different way. And if you can think of something cool, ask the DM if it might have worked to see what he or she thinks about that solution. The DM might be eager for you to try other approaches. Or he or she might not be. At least you'll know what to do going forward.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 3:06PM
#118
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Rereading the OP, I feel it bears saying that it seems the group needs to get its goals straight. 2 players and the DM think the game should have roleplaying in it, but at the same time you're doing a dungeon crawl (not my idea of a great RP-opportunity).
Combat is roleplaying. I think what you mean is in-character interaction. Dungeons are rife with in-character interaction, if the DM gives enemies motivations, impulses, instincts, and goals other than "kill all PCs" and sticks to them. You should play in one of my dungeons (hint: all of my adventures are dungeons even if doesn't look like a dungeon). It's loaded with in-character interaction both between the PCs and with the NPCs and monsters.
Another thing that's been touched on here is that some people prefer to roleplay a party that has ups and downs. They consider it more interesting because it more closely emulates what they see in stories and movies. It's "interesting" for a group to be routed, or even lose a member now and then, but the game doesn't offer good guidance on how to bring that about, especially on the player side. So, players de-optimize slightly to open up the possibility to roleplay in tougher situations.
Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, but optimization and interesting failure do tend to be - but interesting failure generally isn't to be had in D&D anyway.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 9:43PM
#119
|
|
|
Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, but high levels of optimization and interesting frequent failure do tend to be.
Fixed it for you.
Optimization in no way makes failure less interesting. Interesting failure requires a DM (or dm/player collaboration) that is able to create a situation in which failure is interesting, and this is true at all levels of optimization.
If anything high-op parties fail less frequently, so failure becomes MORE interesting since it is more of a rarity.
FWIW [4e designer] baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline.
-Alcestis
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 5:00AM
#120
|
|
|
Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive, but high levels of optimization and interesting frequent failure do tend to be.
Fixed it for you.
Optimization in no way makes failure less interesting. Interesting failure requires a DM (or dm/player collaboration) that is able to create a situation in which failure is interesting, and this is true at all levels of optimization.
If anything high-op parties fail less frequently, so failure becomes MORE interesting since it is more of a rarity.
Well said.
|
|
|
