Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Some_call_me_Tim 06-29-07, 08:32 PM	I want to get some discussion going and maybe generate some ideas to promote teamwork with Living Greyhawk parties. It seems to me that I often sit at tables where instead of a team mentality, we are just six people who happened to sit at the same table at the inn. I often see frustration from players because another PC cut off the fighter's lane to charge. No one bothers to try to help the rogue flank. Melee characters charging into the middle of a group of mooks so the mage can't cast fireball. Everyone scattering before the cleric can bless them. I've been at tables where everyone is trying to help one another and those are great tables, but lately (yeah I know it was always better in the old days) it seems that everyone is playing for themselves. I don't mean that PCs are letting other PCs die because of an "every man for himself" philosophy, but rather instead of trying to figure out what is the most effective way for the party to fight the monster, they concentrate on what is the most effective way for them, individually, to fight the monster. I don't want to harp on it because I mention it in another thread, but self-buffers for example. Instead of boosting the fighter's ability to do his job they try to do it themselves. No one it seems is willing to delay their turn to let another do his best. An example I see all too often is the mage trying to haste everyone only to have the party scatter before he can cast. Another classic example of the me-first, is the second-row archer you wins initiative and moves in front of the fighter to shoot. If he delays until after the fighter goes or better yet moves to a clear firing position out of the fighter's way, they can both do better. I know sneak attack needs to catch them flat-footed but often there is way to do both. I had one of those everyone-for-himself moments at a recent con where I said in-character, "Stay away from them (death scarab swarms) and I will nuke them." Only to have the character that preceded me in the initiative order run right between them. All he had to do was delay until I flame striked them then go. Instead he moves in and says "Go ahead, hit me, I can take it." So I did, partly because I was miffed that he didn't bother to listen. Yeah, but I then had to burn extra spells to heal him, including a 375 gp scroll (out of my pocket) to save him after I rolled well for damage and he failed the save. I've been known to do stupid things myself, but I usually try and think what the others will be doing so I don't mess up their plans. Especially if they announce what they are going to be doing. I'll stop ranting and ask the question: What do you do at a table to make the party work as a team?
ShinAkuma2 06-29-07, 08:47 PM	My main character is a Monk. As such, my entire MO is helping others out. I Stunning Fist, Weakening Touch, Grapple, and Trip what I can to make it easier for the superior melee mashers to do what they do. At the very least, I use my speed and tumbling ability to provide flank. Just yesterday, I had a situation where I went first, using a double move to get behind an enemy to provide a flank for the party's BDF. Then the Druid goes, Rapid Summoning an air elemental to pick up the monster, and deposit it right next to the BDF so he could get his full attack. Now, this is certainly a sound combat tactic, and we won the fight quite handily because of it. However, I'd have appreciated a warning of the druid's plans...I essentially wasted my turn because he didn't bother to say, "Hey, I'm going to be moving him on my turn." Not that I could have really done anything anyway, but I would've appreciated an attack roll. :( [edit] Of course, I provide nothing but frustration for archers...My grappling and tripping tactics usually makes it harder for them to hit...but I say screw 'em, they hit way too often anyway.
control freak 06-29-07, 10:08 PM	the number one problem with this is greyhawk doesnt promote team work alot of the time, its a "im the BDF i need help from the walking bandaid come here" and the cleric would normaly help him, nuke or summon but the BDF will complain if he doesnt get healing and just gets delay deathed even if the best tactic was straight damage (because there would be one opponent and he took like 100+ already) or the party that refuses to let the rogue go 60+ feet ahead and scout (now our partys tipicaly allow this becuase we have a shadow dancer thats always hiding in the shadow of another shadow dancer so they got high 30s to low 40s all the time on both) because it will eat up time, well so will getting the level back after raise dead as for things to make it more conductive, you really cant do that at conventions because it comes from a prolonged respect for some one which can only be established by repeated play (we have upward of 40 gamers that play there but i dont even know all of them but still the store generaly is great players(even though theres some CN PCs that are ANNOYING but would never do anything that would hurt the party, they just might leave your body till later on then come back because they dont want to die)) but my cleric has gone from level 1 to almost level 6 with one other person who i dont even know outside of DnD and we always get along well because i know he is drop sheild power attack charge (which he delays so i can bull strength him) because we have played together before so we know simple tactics that we apply when we can and we KNOW the difference in damage because of a random crit that slew a shadow dragon dealing almost 80 when bull strengthed and enlarged damage maxing and 2 handed with his trusty dwarven war ax, those 6d8 and full power attack and 1 1/2 str was really strong but the + 6 strength was only reason he confermed so he was really greatfull for all those buffs
Cyber_Arch 06-29-07, 10:37 PM	The situation of a party working against itself that I most remember occurred when we had a table of 4 (and I was playing up just to make the table). We had an arcane, a cleric, a rogue and my druid. We entered one combat in a dungeon where a construct shuffles towards us in a large room and closes for melee. Note, we were in a hallway in great defensive position. The cleric rushes in and proceeds to spend the next 3 rounds power attacking for full on the construct (which after the first swing we determined had a very high AC). All 3 attacks missed due to PA. The mage is nuking the thing each round so the constuct ignores the cleric and rogue (who ran in behind it, spoiling the fireballs and other range spells that to that point had caused 100+ hp of damage to it.) So now the poor mage is getting beat up and my low level druid is emptying a cure wand on him to keep him alive. Meanwhile the cleric continues his power attacking and missing and rogue is yelling to the mage and me to move up to a flanking position and "start doing something!". The DM had a good laugh and could have probably TPK'ed us. Lesson learned: If you are thrown into a table with strangers...discuss tactics while mustering well before the first combat. As stated by others, I rarely see these issues when playing at tables with people I know (and we have tactics well planned before hand...rather, we have metaorg/groups dedicated to team fighting & tactics).
solbergb 06-30-07, 12:25 AM	While I have seen some poor teamwork, as a general rule, the average LG player in my experience has a keen sense of team tactics and tries to work with other players. You just have to accept that 1-2 people in a given party will be kind of oblivious and work around them. There does seem to be a kind of critical mass thing, where if enough people work as a team, the rest come into line. I do find that when working with strangers, we need one "shakedown" fight to really know how to behave around each other. Sometimes it isn't bad teamwork but different expectations (eg, that monk, air elemental and BDF story) and in the heat of the moment or in the fatigue of the convention, you don't communicate the tactics. I think this shakedown period is part of what keeps LG fresh for me. Part of the challenge is in fact learning how to work as a team with the results of the random muster. It also makes you appreciate old friends when your character runs into them - you both know to some extent what to expect out of the others, and it forms the nucleus of the team. One of the interesting aspects of convention dynamics when traveling is you start out knowing nothing (local playstyle, local judge style, local module style and none of the local characters) but you're doing that while you are fresh and rested - and later on when you're fatigued from many rounds of gaming, you have the benefit of all of those things - and likely knowing several other people at the table and their characters from repeated games with them. Some of the best teamwork is in the late sessions, even though everyone is acting jet-lagged. Some of the better roleplay too. as a side note - people who self-buff in combat are one of my pet peeves. It's cool to buff when you're trying to encourage the enemy to close, or if the combatants have trouble getting to grips with each other, or before kicking in the door, but in general an action spent self-buffing is an action where your seat is empty. You're not hurting the enemy. You're not helping other party members contribute more. You're not usually even drawing fire. (healing or self buffing when you are the center of attention of the enemy is not in this category - you're being a lightning rod, so staying alive is important. Likewise casting one buff and moving up to the enemy is fairly ok, since you're likely to soak some attacks at least). The early rounds often determine whether the party is "on top" of an encounter or getting reamed. It's often a tempo thing, and actions are precious - somebody doing a noncontribution hurts the whole party.
Potato Weasel 06-30-07, 08:14 AM	Well, for the past few months, in any game with someone I dont play with regularly I always ask what the person does in combat, if there's anything I should know, or do to help, etc. The response has been an invariable 'no, just do what you do' And just about every first combat, I've won initiative, and had immediate complaints of 'I always start with a party buff, why didnt you stay around' or 'why did you go in first, I have special ability -x-' And so, i've been somewhat frustrated.
copper_wyrmling 06-30-07, 09:46 AM	I usually ask "Does anyone have any special requests for cleric spells?" when playing my L15 cleric, and rarely get an answer (beyond something like, "Um, delay death is nice"). A lot of the issue is that until you've played together for a bit, people just don't know what your character can do, so often it's best just to briefly describe your own character's strengths and weaknesses and hope the party adapts - it's hard for a stranger to suggest tactics they like when they have no idea what sort of character you have, especially at high levels (and unless they play a character just like that themselves, they won't know what you can do purely from a description of your build). That said, I've had another player berate me because my dervish attacked the monster they were planning to charge. My dervish wasn't blocking the other PC's charge line, he even ended his turn positioned so the other PC could get a flanking bonus when he charged, and that was the ONLY monster my dervish could possibly have attacked (others were all too far away) - but the other fighter, apparently, felt that I was depriving him of his right to kill the monsters on his own. I've also had a fighter move to block a demon's charge line to my cleric, leaving the grey elf wizard exposed in order to do so, even after I informed him that my cleric had AC 40 and wanted the demon to charge her so she could full attack it with her holy weapon (it was several rounds into the fight and there were a lot of party buffs up). Either there are some really poor team players out there or I've severely misunderstood some situations - either is possible ;) Mostly, like solbergb, I see pretty good teamwork. I've seen teamwork that really pleasantly surprised me - in my first online game ever, with a bunch of people I'd never met before from the other side of the world, in the final combat my sorcerer cast Evards (she was L8, it was her only L4 spell, and the rest of the party had seen her do that earlier in the mod) and suddenly half the party pulled out effects that reduced movement. The poor bad guy was down to 5ft move even though he made all his saves... making him rather easy to kill for our ranged-damage-heavy party. (I didn't contribute much to the teamwork, as I was trying to learn how to play online and just using my usual tactics, but everyone else noticed what my sorcerer could do and took maximum advantage of it.) Online games can be very nice for tactical coordination, as you can whisper to other players without disrupting the flow of the game.
Mommy was an Orc 06-30-07, 09:58 AM	I've found one of the best way to promote teamwork is to have a character who can't use Pearls offer them up to the Divine caster and request that they memorize Lesser Vigor - my Bard crafted several before he could use them. It really sets the tone at a table when a character offers up 90 hp of out of combat healing/day at APL 6-8.
Mattastrophic 06-30-07, 11:55 AM	I've actually noticed the opposite: more teamwork is shown the longer I'm in the campaign. I've also noticed that teamwork tends to happen more often at higher APLs. But then again, I've also made a point to get to know fellow con-goers and their PCs, even if it's as simple as "He's a pretty strong player, runs a summoner," as well as find a crew to run with when possible. I've also gotten a lot better at sensing those disturbances in the Force that come up when you're sitting with a weak player. Premustered tables also really really help. A buddy of mine and I, we like to email our table-mates before a con to get a feel of what we're going to expect. And even a little bit of sit-down chatting before a slot helps a ton. I can recall my last BI table, the Pale BI Snowfall at APL 6. Due to a bit of preplanning and trusting my Bard/Marshal to play tactician, we mopped up the whole thing in 90 minutes. They ran out of encounters to throw at us. And our teamwork was as simple as "He'll provide the flanks with his Enlarged chain, the rogue can Spring Attack in, we'll put Flame Arrow on the archer, the wizard will keep us Hasted and lay down random AoE and disabling spells, the heavy tank will wade in and go for spike damage, and I'll sing and provide assistance as well as call the targets." Also, if you play flexibly and anticipate the actions of others, sometimes that's all you need. Instead of letting each player's turn come as a surprise, anticipate and adapt. Lesson here: There's a lot you can do to promote teamwork, even if you're by yourself. -Matt
Munchausen 06-30-07, 12:20 PM	Teamwork is something that goes great here in Vegas.. we always, ALWAYS do the 'group intro' bit.. aka introduction of our characters.. descrpitions, what we have for armor/weapons and what we specailize in doing. Of course sometimes you might not have the 'dream 6' characters, you know the fighter,caster,healer,range,naturist,sne aky. It is hard to get a good combo to make sure all the bases are covered but if you cant and most mods that are written think 'this is made for a dream 6 party' and the party is not even close.. then yes problems will arise. Also the situation.. it is nice to have at least 1 person having a higher initative than the baddies... but if eveyone has to wait for that 1 person to do their buff or whatever.. and they go dead last.. well then everyones initative is down in the gutter. My main is a archer (scout/ranger) and i know my role.. yes there has been time where my line of fire is tougher than other times cause someone moved.. but o well odds are they had a good reason to move (and I HATE 5' wide corridors in battles). Now my Knight/Favored Soul, (You do know that Pholtus is the One true God), I am working up is a tank.. 1st thing I always do in battle is cast Shield of Faith on myself and move my 20'.. which is still easy in range for if we have a cleric or bard to do a buff that round too. Only once did I have to break far ahead of the group so that i could take magic hits while the rest was getting out of being entangled (which the tactic worked). So maybe it comes down to the player themself.. not the character. Maybe the player is the 'me 1st' type of thinker, not the 1 of 6 thinker. It take times for a 'me 1st' thinker to realize they are part of a team and will come around.. and then there are a few that cannot get out of the 'me 1st' mold.
AOSOL 06-30-07, 05:45 PM	We promote team party efforts by off table bragging actually. Promotion about how great your home table squad in role play really gets around quickly at conventions. Lets take for instance when I played at The Summoning, a convention that took place this past winter in Miami. I went on about how powerful the soon to be named Arcana duchess of the Ironhelm Providence Merlinus Gandolfinia is during the role play portion of the interactive. When the tables of split up the battle interactive part of the module, I could hear the other table realizing who they were playing with and were excited about the time. The outcome was Merlinus and her crew completed their portion early and Merlinus went around table assisting them and collecting praise and building on her legend. The player of Merlinus is normally a self interested player, but sense he realized that fame and notoriety could be gain, the player now goes out of his way to promote teamwork. The result shows that something has to be gained out of teamwork in order to promote it in Living Greyhawk. I personally make sets of destroyed enemy miniatures for tables how showed great teamwork. They seem to be a "hoot" for players, especially experienced ones. :lightbulb
Cardinal Teplin 06-30-07, 07:49 PM	I've had very mixed experiences with team tactics. Sometimes it works really really well. Sometimes the people seem to be using their actions on the table to carry on an arguement with the other players about how best to play. Successes are where people are making the most of eachother's capabilities, as well as their own, and devising tactics together that they couldn't acheive seperately. This can involve spending your actions doing some strange things - my primary spent entire tables attacking walls rather than creatures, or weilding wands despite being the toughest cork in the party. But it worked for the table we had and the situation at the time. Failures are generally when one or more people have what they think is a good tactic, and follow it without the rest of the party joining in. Particularly when two people have incompatabile tactics. People are often very much attached to their favourite tactics, and take the success and surivival of their own character as proof that it is a better tactics than others. There are plenty of characters out there who aren't very good, but to really really mess up a module, or a fight, you need someone who thinks they know better than the rest of the table. I get very very suspicious of people who extol the virtues of their character without telling me anything about them - they're the ones who are going to be assuming I'll follow their lead. I spend as much time as possible at the start of a mod discussing possible tactics, even to the point of asking the judge to get us some drinks because he won't be needed for the first half hour of the slot. Usually, however, we don't have that much time to spare, or the con is too noisy to get much more than basic concepts across. I too find that it usually takes a shake-down fight to get the real dynamics across. I always try to get a few minutes after the first fight to discuss whether everyone felt the fight went well. Just because we won quickly, doesn't mean we were wroking well together, and it's often the quick and easy victories that store up misapprehensions for later.
Sieylianna 06-30-07, 11:11 PM	I've actually noticed the opposite: more teamwork is shown the longer I'm in the campaign. I've also noticed that teamwork tends to happen more often at higher APLs. I would agree that teamwork is better at high APL's. I suspect that part of the reason is a lot more variation at lower levels. LG allows for close to 20 base classes and at low levels, especially with mutts, their abilites (and effectiveness) is all over the map. I think that once you hit APL 10, mutts are into their prestige classes and roles are much more clearly defined. High APL's also tend to be tougher and require greater teamwork. Finally, people have (hopefully) paid attention to what worked while they got there and use better tactics. Ed
MatteBlack 07-01-07, 11:27 AM	Two big factors are that alot of what it would take to coordinate is considered "table talk" and many characters are tweaked out that they have a limited range of tactics. More discussion and debriefing before and after encounters could help the coordiantion but, there is usually such a time crunch. If characters were better-rounded they'd be fulfilling other roles more and better understand their points of view in a fight. On top of those two reasons, alot of players just want to be the rockstar.
solbergb 07-01-07, 01:08 PM	The character "spiel" at the beginning can go a long way. I'm not sure if my stuff is helpful but this is kinda what I do with strangers: Burke: "am I the main tank? Normally I use my mobility to go after weaker caster types or support the main tank. I deal fairly good damage but do not have a high AC. If we've got a sneak attacker I can support with flanks/grapples. If we've got an archer I'll use judgement on whether to trip or grapple. I have good saves and mobility and usually don't need rescuing. I'll speak up fi I'm in trouble. Olivia: "I'm a telekenetic sorceress. I'm good at moving things remotely. I can usaully spring any trap that either I or the rogue detects. I have good spells to block enemy attacks. If I say "don't worry, I've got you covered" in combat, you can full attack even if you are at one hitpoint. I have servants that can sometimes do things without interfering with my ability to attack. Everyone is issued a tindertwig and a smokestick. Don't put it in an extradimensional space. Do you have a holy/sacred weapon? no? put an oil of bless wepapon where my servants can get them. Here's an oil if you don't have it. Put your best cure potion where my servants can get at it. Here's a clw potion if you don't have a cure potion. Orofin: I notice things and I shoot things. If I'm not full attacking I've been seriously taken out of my game. I'm a fair but not excellent scout. I have a few low level arcane tricks. Anyone who can activate an arcane scroll, here's 1-2 scrolls of benign transpositino. Use them if you need to. I can activate arcane stuff out of combat but wont' normally do it in combat unless the enemy is immune to my arrows. There is very little out there that I can't do meaningful damage to somehow. Mogoom: I have very high AC but my damage output is medeocre. I have weak bardic support magic, but will generally always have it running because I'm even noisier than a bardsong and have lots of bardsongs (move silent is like -13). I'm more mobile than I look on level ground, but I don't swim, balance or climb. My true favored weapon is my sister Saka, but if forced by circumstances to be the damage dealer, I can burn consumables and rage 1/day to be moderately effective. Katryn: I'm a mobile infantry type that can also scout and notice things. My companion has decent AC, I don't, but I'm able to take more damage. My only ranged attack is to summon things. My druidic spellcasting is mostly tied up in infantry buffs and scouting buffs - think of me as a barbarian, not a druid except out of combat. Mugwort: I'm a durable, high AC healbot but I sometimes win melee fights by just outlasting the opposition and nickle-diming them with damage if I'm the only "melee". Usually I'll try to keep the bigger hitter on his feet and I generally succeed. Ret Mitimah: I'm a divine caster - I do buffs, offensive spells, healing and turning. I don't do melee unless I'm out of other options or we've won and just mopping up, I'm very bad at it, both offensively and defensively. Bela: I'm an "intrusion expert". Don't let the heavy armor and tower shield fool you, I'm actually the party rogue. Also, when fights start, I tend to get angry and hit things hard. I'm pretty durable. I don't scout very well yet but I do notice things. If we have a lot of heavy armor guys, I'll switch to very mobile light infantry. I like prisoners, because they become my best friend after I cast enough charm person spells to stick one before they wake up. Bertrand: Think of me as an archer that uses spells instead of a bow. If I'm out of spells you might see me trying to punch people with an enchanted fist.
frupton 07-01-07, 02:22 PM	Most "anti-teamwork" that I have seen in LG is the result of ignorance or miscommunication. Let's face it. We're not generally master tacticians. Most of us are accountants or students or attorneys or sales reps or whatnot. We don't always understand battle dynamics very well. There are also many options available in combat: Charge, Flank, Grapple, Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, Aid Another, Turn Undead, etc. Adjudications for cover, concealment, firing into melee, being prone, etc. That's quite a lot for an accountant to keep track of. :) Personally I like to try to do a bit of planning. Maybe after character introductions, have a short discussion of "what does everyone do in the first round of combat if we don't have any prebuffing?" Some folks aren't up for this much planning, but would rather kick down the door. Many combat miscues I've seen are also the result of a misunderstanding. The fighter charged ahead and didn't foresee that the Cleric would later need to take a bunch of AoOs in order to heal him. Somebody didn't know a charge lane was being left open. (Look at all the confusion on charging movement in the "charging" thread.) The mage didn't think to drop prone. Etc. DM's seem to frown upon it for some reason when I attempt to have detailed strategic/tactical discussions in the middle of melee. :D Which is fine. Give everyone their six seconds and move the pace along. People will make various errors under these conditions with incomplete rules knowledge and imperfect party communication. There are a few folks that are actually "not team players" and seek to do "what my character would do" even though it is not in the party's best interest in combat. My solution for this is to avoid sitting at their tables in the future.
Drezden 07-01-07, 05:42 PM	This is highly variable. Many LG players - myself included - enjoy the tactical challenges of combat more than any other aspect of the game. Generally people like this, especially with experience, can become quite adept at tactical fighting. Even players who are not "tactical gamers," generally get much better at tactical planning and execution after playing for awhile. Also, people who play together a lot get to know each others strategies and adapt accordingly. Daren [snip] Let's face it. We're not generally master tacticians. Most of us are accountants or students or attorneys or sales reps or whatnot. We don't always understand battle dynamics very well. There are also many options available in combat: Charge, Flank, Grapple, Trip, Disarm, Bull Rush, Aid Another, Turn Undead, etc. Adjudications for cover, concealment, firing into melee, being prone, etc. That's quite a lot for an accountant to keep track of. :) [snip]
Cardinal Teplin 07-01-07, 07:04 PM	This is highly variable. Many LG players - myself included - enjoy the tactical challenges of combat more than any other aspect of the game. Generally people like this, especially with experience, can become quite adept at tactical fighting. Oh very much so. Some people treat LG as basically a tactical wargame, and know a fair bit about tactics. I'd count myself there. However, I've found that, as a group. they're not particularly better or worse than anyone else when it comes to teamwork. I'd say that all the worst team disasters I've seen come from the more tactically able end of the spectrum, if only because it's only people who know what they are talking about who feel they don't need to learn anything by listening to the rest of their team. Certainly it's a trap I can fall into when I'm tired, distracted, or whatever. Going back to the OP, the best recomendation I can make is to talk about what went right or wrong at the end of each fight. That's when I learn the most about what other people think I should have been doing, and I think most people are more confident talking about eachother's characters when they've seen them in action.
Drezden 07-01-07, 07:56 PM	Having played the BDF at this table, let me just say I think the "problem" was two-fold: 1) Poor communication on both sides. Shin was sitting at one end of the table chatting with the Cleric, while the Druid and I were chatting at the other end. Neither side told the other side what they were going to do.; and 2) Table dynamics. We played at APL12 and the table was: My bdf 13; druid 13; Cleric 13; spellsword 12; shin's monk 10; arcane archer mutt 10. Now the spellsword is an under-apl offensive character and the Cleric is a great buffer/healer, but doesn't do a lot of direct damage. So the Druid and my BDF saw ourselves as the main offense for the table; thus we coordinated. The funny thing is that the table was very good at coordinating buffs and stuff out of combat - I gave the casters some pearls; the druid handed out barkskins to everyone; Shin got a mage armor; the arcane archer cast heroics twice; the Cleric took care of a few Magic vestments, GMW, Hero's Feast etc. Daren [snip] Just yesterday, I had a situation where I went first, using a double move to get behind an enemy to provide a flank for the party's BDF. Then the Druid goes, Rapid Summoning an air elemental to pick up the monster, and deposit it right next to the BDF so he could get his full attack. Now, this is certainly a sound combat tactic, and we won the fight quite handily because of it. However, I'd have appreciated a warning of the druid's plans...I essentially wasted my turn because he didn't bother to say, "Hey, I'm going to be moving him on my turn." Not that I could have really done anything anyway, but I would've appreciated an attack roll. :( [snip]
Hariman 07-02-07, 12:15 AM	Some of us learn the hard way that our character can't match up to other characters (Like my rogue2/wizard3 compared to a Power attacking BDF.) and that we'd be better off supporting those characters when we can. Even a 3d6 or 3d8 lesser orb doesn't really match up to a power attacking BDF with Bull's Strength and Enlarge Person. So I'd be better off enlarging him than casting one of my own spells. as a side note - people who self-buff in combat are one of my pet peeves. It's cool to buff when you're trying to encourage the enemy to close, or if the combatants have trouble getting to grips with each other, or before kicking in the door, but in general an action spent self-buffing is an action where your seat is empty. You're not hurting the enemy. You're not helping other party members contribute more. You're not usually even drawing fire. (healing or self buffing when you are the center of attention of the enemy is not in this category - you're being a lightning rod, so staying alive is important. Likewise casting one buff and moving up to the enemy is fairly ok, since you're likely to soak some attacks at least). The early rounds often determine whether the party is "on top" of an encounter or getting reamed. It's often a tempo thing, and actions are precious - somebody doing a noncontribution hurts the whole party. Y'know what? There's a player in my area who fits this description exactly. In some mods months ago, his character saved the party from TPK land. HOWEVER, this was after spending his first three rounds of combat buffing with mage armor, shield, and prot evil. Sure, he saved the party, but we might have never been in such danger had he been either attacking or healing instead of buffing. In a more recent mod, the party was clearing out a complex via a "Silenced Blitzkrieg" (Silence plus party coordination = flat footed enemies and an easier time had by all.) and his character is the one lagging behind, casting spells like Deathwatch and being the last into the room. While my character, the only caster with a cleric and three BDFs, is left carrying the Silence Token and playing doorman. (Literally, I would ready actions to open doors as other characters were moving into the rooms.) Which made me, when I KNEW we were confronting the last baddie in the dungeon (a Cleric) drop the silence token and jump in with ranged touch attacks. Now, my first spell against this enemy cleric killed it, but still the response I got from the party cleric was getting berated (His actual words were "If you do something like that again I'll Kill Your Character" On the justification that "I'm not very attached to this character." Can you believe the nerve of this guy?) for dropping the silence and using a tactic that is effecting against an armored cleric. Granted, I COULD have brought the silence in, but my guess was that the cleric was hosed with three of four party members already there and that we would be better off just doing more damage. It all worked out. Later in the mod, I try to move in against a buffed caster and use the same tactics to attack, and end up taking a couple rounds to buff (Two standard actions, actually) before I can use my own spells. It works out, but I'm left with irritation at one of my party members for being rather, pushy, about buffing one of the party when I could be disrupting casting, or at least pumping damage into the enemy. And the knowledge that I should have double moved up, drawn the wand, and cast enlarge person much faster so that both the rest of the party and my character could do our thing. I'm learning how to be a team player, but it's not always easy when some other players are hostile or pushy. But I'm trying. I've added some support spells to my rogue wizard's spellbook. Grease is especially helpful. And I've started asking which spells my other players might like. It's a hit or miss kind of thing. And, unfortunately, I have to wait until next year to play this character again. I lost at least 25 TUs to two deaths, TU draining penalties, and other such stuff. As for teamwork getting better at higher levels?: That's partly because inexperienced characters/players learn what their characters can do and what their characters can do for the other party members that makes the other party members better at what they do.Which increases their own chance for survival.
Amurayi 07-04-07, 08:22 AM	... and his character is the one lagging behind, casting spells like Deathwatch and being the last into the room. Tell this guy is is now a NPC. "Deathwatch" is an evil spell and thus he did an evil act. :P Btw: What is BDF?
Eric Anondson 07-04-07, 12:28 PM	Btw: What is BDF?Big Dumb Fighter.
bitznarf 07-04-07, 12:37 PM	Tell this guy is is now a NPC. "Deathwatch" is an evil spell and thus he did an evil act. :P Once again, one evil act (or even many small evil acts) does not make a character a NPC. Becoming evil (something ones triad decides) makes a character a NPC.
ithardin 07-04-07, 01:36 PM	My 4th level Elven Wizard (who is conservative with his casting and has actually killed more with his longbow/longsword on three different occasions then the barbarians at the table-he he he) has a wonderful response to demanding, pushy PC who do things like hand him wands/scrolls/etc of enlarge, etc. without taking the time to discuss tactics... PC: Here, use this wand/scroll/etc on me when we go into combat. Uthavelion: I hardly even know you. Why should my 200 years of arcane study be put aside so that I can waste all my skill on activating this wand on you? Where did you get this? Are you sure it is what it is...I mean it could've been made by one of those morons in the Dyvers Dweomercrafter's Guild or something... It usually gets a laugh and a discussion about party tactics.
bitznarf 07-04-07, 01:37 PM	Should've started off with an easier class, like bard or something, 200 years is a real bummer.
ithardin 07-04-07, 01:42 PM	Well the back story is that since his projected lifespan is 600-700 years he would take his time with his arcane studies. With the rise of Blackthorn in the Gnarley (Verbobonc & Dyvers) he has decided that his plans on taking his time is no longer viable and he is needed to combat the Gnarley Threat. To get back to the topic, I have found that the best teamwork tables for me have also been the best roleplay tables I've been on.
Genghis Cohen 07-04-07, 01:47 PM	Should've started off with an easier class, like bard or something, 200 years is a real bummer.Don't let V hear you say that. S/he'll flip out.
Cardinal Teplin 07-05-07, 08:55 AM	To get back to the topic, I have found that the best teamwork tables for me have also been the best roleplay tables I've been on. I wonder if trust has something to do with it. I've found that team tactics need a great deal of trust - that the other PCs will act in a way that justifies you ignoring your usual tactics in favour of something else, and trusting that the other player will help you out. Roleplaying needs trust too. You have to trust that they will make the scene enjoyable for you, rather than turning it into a haegiography of their character, or a using the opportunity for petty insult. It's thus entirely possible that good roleplaying leads to good team tactics, and vice versa.
copper_wyrmling 07-05-07, 09:33 AM	I wonder if trust has something to do with it. I've found that team tactics need a great deal of trust - that the other PCs will act in a way that justifies you ignoring your usual tactics in favour of something else, and trusting that the other player will help you out. Roleplaying needs trust too. You have to trust that they will make the scene enjoyable for you, rather than turning it into a haegiography of their character, or a using the opportunity for petty insult. It's thus entirely possible that good roleplaying leads to good team tactics, and vice versa. I partly agree with this, but I think it's about more than just trust - I suspect that having people who are reasonably talkative and try to find out about the other characters at the table, and playing with people you know well, tends to contribute to both RP and tactical teamwork. Teamwork also depends on the specific character much more than RP does, in my experience - my sorcerer's "team tactics" almost never place her in unusual danger (with one notable exception, the time when she ran into a room full of demons to stop the fighter from being flanked and full-attack-sneak-attacked, but my entire party thought that was crazy even though it worked), because they just consist of using spells or abilities that support the powerful abilities of other people in the party (for example, casting split ray empowered ray of enfeeblement on the grapple-monk's target, playing the lyre of the restful soul in undead encounters when there are two turning-specialized clerics in the party*). All she needs to trust in for that to work is that other PCs will go ahead with their preferred tactics, so I'm happy to play like that even when I don't know anyone on the table and none of them seem to want to speak a word - although it does rely on me having some knowledge of the other PCs' abilities. With my dervish, on the other hand, the most common request from other players seems to be to provide flanking, which is a very dangerous thing for my high-damage low-defences skirmisher to attempt, especially when playing up. My investment in Con and AC on that character is based on the assumption that he can dance out of full attack range, and electing to stay next to the monster so the other fighter can get a flank puts a big hole in that assumption. It may sometimes be worth it, say if the other PC is a TWF rogue who multiplies their damage output by x10 if they can just get a flank, but I'd want to trust the rest of the table to (a) go through with the plan and (b) provide rescue if needed. *The lyre + greater turning combo ended every fight it was used in by halfway through the first round, and the monk followed up the sorcerer's ray of enfeeblement (-16 to strength) by tripping, grappling and pinning the Large, originally-Str-39, BAB-18 target. The PC in question would have pretty good options for these encounters on her own, but the synergistic tactics are stronger.
TWG_Prometheus 07-05-07, 10:37 AM	...and the monk followed up the sorcerer's ray of enfeeblement (-16 to strength) by tripping, grappling and pinning the Large, originally-Str-39, BAB-18 target. Follow-up question since I love Ray of Enfeeblement. The biggest possible result I'm getting in my head for Ray of Enfeeblement is a penalty of -14, and I'm curious how yours got higher. Empowered (1d6 + 1d3) for 9 plus the caster level segment maximum of 5 for -14 Strength. I see the split ray part of your spell, but Ray of Enfeeblement can't stack with itself, so merely hitting it twice wouldn't help increase the maximum possible penalty at all. Does Split Ray circumvent that restriction somehow or am I getting my math wrong? Sorry, no books with me or I'd look up Split Ray myself.
Mattastrophic 07-05-07, 10:44 AM	[6] + 5 = 11; 11 x 1.5 = 16. If you look at Empower Spell, particularly the example spell used (Magic Missile), you'll see that Empower Spell multiplies both the "dice" and the +X portions. -Matt
copper_wyrmling 07-05-07, 10:50 AM	Follow-up question since I love Ray of Enfeeblement. The biggest possible result I'm getting in my head for Ray of Enfeeblement is a penalty of -14, and I'm curious how yours got higher. Empowered (1d6 + 1d3) for 9 plus the caster level segment maximum of 5 for -14 Strength. I see the split ray part of your spell, but Ray of Enfeeblement can't stack with itself, so merely hitting it twice wouldn't help increase the maximum possible penalty at all. Does Split Ray circumvent that restriction somehow or am I getting my math wrong? Sorry, no books with me or I'd look up Split Ray myself. Empower multiplies the +5 part of the penalty as well as the diceroll: "Strength penalty" is the "variable numeric" aspect of the spell (i.e. 6-11 before metamagic), not the 1d6 roll. See the example of Empower applied to Magic Missile in the PHB, it states you multiply each (1d4+1) by 1.5. Thus rolling 6 gives you a strength penalty of 11, multiplied by 1.5 is 16 (rounding down). The Split Ray doesn't stack, of course, just gives you a better chance of getting a higher roll (since the penalties overlap and the bigger one applies) - I would normally split it between two targets, but only had line of sight to one in that case, and I suspected that the target had high touch AC so having two chances to hit also seemed worthwhile. Then of course the first ray was a nat 20 on the touch attack followed by a max roll on the d6, so the second ray was entirely irrelevant, but eh, I had plenty of L5 slots. EDIT: Matt beat me to it.
Timlagor 07-05-07, 06:29 PM	There are a few folks that are actually "not team players" and seek to do "what my character would do" even though it is not in the party's best interest in combat. My solution for this is to avoid sitting at their tables in the future. It's possible to 'do what my character would do' when that is not optimal without being 'anti-teamplay'. I wouldn't judge anyone on that basis alone -if you've worked on it *in character* and out of character and they really won't work with you then you have a point but I find it hard to object to a BDF not doing something particularly intelligent and I've certainly passed up on or delayed inspiration playing an Int 8 cleric. There are plenty of people out there who object to the Int 6 barbarian being a tactical genius.
ithardin 07-05-07, 06:48 PM	"...There are plenty of people out there who object to the Int 6 barbarian being a tactical genius." ---- I think its because we don't see the impact of experience on a PC. While I personally might have a problem with a tactical "genius" 6 Int barbarian, I would hopefully balance that with the fact that this PC has survived many previous battles, etc. and knows some tricks other then "hit it really hard." Although to get a 6 means half-orc...making it an even greater stretch for me personally. Ian p.s. my brother plays a low int/high wisdom PC. He is not bright (he calls all animals "doggies") but he is VERY hard to bluff or lie to.
bitznarf 07-05-07, 06:58 PM	Eh, the 'barbarian' or 'half-orc' bit don't make a difference at all in my opinion, its the Int 6 that matters. How you got to Int 6 doesn't make a whiff of difference, be it from being a half-orc, or from being cursed.
solbergb 07-05-07, 07:20 PM	I'm not concerned when somebody with a dumb character (or low wisdom character) makes a rash move in combat. I'm concerned about the guy who runs away and climbs down the cliff out of the combat rather than participates cause "it is what his character would do". The high AC/hitpoint tanks who run behind the squishies and beg for buffs also kinda bug me. I'd rather deal with rescuing an overconfident person than coddling a total coward, even if the former has possibly caused more deadly situations in my (limited) experience with both undesireable types of player behavior.
draxynnic 07-05-07, 09:07 PM	Teamwork also depends on the specific character much more than RP does, in my experience - my sorcerer's "team tactics" almost never place her in unusual danger (with one notable exception, the time when she ran into a room full of demons to stop the fighter from being flanked and full-attack-sneak-attacked, but my entire party thought that was crazy even though it worked), You know, that sounds vaguely familiar... It happens when the fighter is two levels below the APL... :eek:
Cardinal Teplin 07-06-07, 08:48 AM	You know, that sounds vaguely familiar... It happens when the fighter is two levels below the APL... :eek: Why are you still negotiating whether or not to buff a fighter DURING the combat?
copper_wyrmling 07-06-07, 09:28 AM	EDIT: Never mind, Teplin answered my question.
Cardinal Teplin 07-06-07, 09:37 AM	nevermind - was replying to something that was actually on another thread:embarrass
Frumpkis 07-07-07, 02:34 AM	"...There are plenty of people out there who object to the Int 6 barbarian being a tactical genius." ---- I think its because we don't see the impact of experience on a PC. While I personally might have a problem with a tactical "genius" 6 Int barbarian, I would hopefully balance that with the fact that this PC has survived many previous battles, etc. and knows some tricks other then "hit it really hard." Although to get a 6 means half-orc...making it an even greater stretch for me personally. Ian p.s. my brother plays a low int/high wisdom PC. He is not bright (he calls all animals "doggies") but he is VERY hard to bluff or lie to. That's one (among many) of my pet peeves about D&D. I mean, technically speaking, if a player wanted to simulate the impact of life experience/learning on a PC's combat tactics, he/she would put all his stat bumps into Wisdom. But how many melee types (battle clerics aside) do you ever see doing that?
solbergb 07-07-07, 10:19 AM	I think that's kind of a narrow view. There is more to a character than attributes and skills Battle experience for tactical melee combat and "attack-roll" ranged combat is reflected in your BAB. Experience with non-physical threats is reflected in your base saving throws. (eg, learning to duck when you see a bead of red light heading your way, learning to empty your mind when some outside force attempts to manipulate it, learning to concentrate on breathing when hit with a finger of death....) Knowledge ranks do NOT reflect memory of past experiences. They only reflect training sufficient to know things you have not experienced. A fighter isn't going to "forget" that silver works on the guys who teleport in and then rage who have with writhing beards, guisarmes whose wounds won't heal and who are hard to hurt even though they don't seem to wear armor. He may not know what a bearded devil is, he may not know anything much about their SR or spell resistance, but he'll for darn sure not forget the fight where he went through his golfbag of weapons util he found one that didn't feel like attacking a tree instead of attacking a creature. Only a change to his overall perceptions, his awareness of the world around him is going to cause his wisdom attribute to change. For most people, that is a much longer process than the 3-5 years or so you're an active adventurer. (see aging rules) A melee type, however, is quite likely to be concerned with physical fitness. He'll want to hit harder, move faster or be tougher, and he'll spend his spare time improving whichever of those aspects he needs most. Therefore the statbumps...doing otherwise would be bad roleplay. Unless you get a mystic benefit from neglecting physical improvement for spiritual (as some monks, rangers and paladins might, or templars...) you won't see many melee types choosing wisdom over a physical attribute. People get ranks in "profession adventurer-of-my-type" for free. Skill ranks are for what you do that isn't directly tied to winning 3 life-or-death battles every couple of weeks.
Sieylianna 07-08-07, 05:08 PM	To get back to the topic, I have found that the best teamwork tables for me have also been the best roleplay tables I've been on. I noticed that this past week at Origins. Probably the best role-playing table was also the one which exhibited the best teamwork. We were playing up and the party worked together so no one died and we were successful, but it was difficult fight at times. And when it came time for negotiations, everyone looked for the team diplomat to handle things, a refreshing change from the CHA 6 half-orc barbarian, trying to negotiate with people. Ed
Demoyn 07-10-07, 06:10 PM	I'm pretty sure that the REAL reason higher level tables exhibit better teamwork is because the people with horrible teamwork die and stay in the low-level APLs. Even with good luck, if you have horrible teamwork you're either going to run out on mods (because it's what your character would do) or die once every 10 or 12 games, making it nearly impossible to get higher than level 6 or so.
UMiskatonic 07-10-07, 07:34 PM	I agree with that completely. That 'learning curve' is made even steeper by the trust issue mentioned above. If your idiot of a character risks or incapacitates mine, then I'm not going to call you about the next game. I'm not going to muster at your table if I've got a choice, either. If you get a reputation for tactically poor play, its harder to find tables. Example: My neutral rogue was surrounded by enemies, and quite a distance away from the party. Turns out Kuo-Toa can see invisible and have crazy good spot checks, and we had no idea what was in the cave. Our cleric decides to help out my holy smiting everyone, which does a little damage to them, and a lot of damage to me. Instead of being conscious and surrounded by enemies, now I'm dying and surrounded by enemies. Her reasoning "Oh, I thought you were good."
solbergb 07-10-07, 10:00 PM	Heh. My wife's cleric prepares "detect good" so she can see who is safe to be in holy smite/word range at the beginning of the mod.
Banor 07-11-07, 07:17 AM	Heh. My wife's cleric prepares "detect good" so she can see who is safe to be in holy smite/word range at the beginning of the mod. I'm pretty sure that was not the entended effect of the spell :-P Good idea for a neutral cleric tho :P
solbergb 07-11-07, 11:46 AM	I'm pretty sure that was not the entended effect of the spell :-P Good idea for a neutral cleric tho :P I don't see why not. It seems like something a good cleric would want to know - when he won't be catching somebody in the blast he might hurt.
Frumpkis 07-11-07, 08:04 PM	I think that's kind of a narrow view. There is more to a character than attributes and skills Battle experience for tactical melee combat and "attack-roll" ranged combat is reflected in your BAB. Experience with non-physical threats is reflected in your base saving throws. (eg, learning to duck when you see a bead of red light heading your way, learning to empty your mind when some outside force attempts to manipulate it, learning to concentrate on breathing when hit with a finger of death....) I'm not talking about "attacking" ability or "resisting" ability: yes, those things are represented by BAB and saving throws, respectively, which go up as one increases in level. The original point I was responding to was how a low Int/Wis melee-type can become a tactical "genius" through the influence of life/combat experience. Tactics aren't a thing that is really reflected in attributes or BAB or skill points; it's much more abstract than that. For example, the player of a low-level, low Int/Wis barbarian may decide to charge the bad guy that's 80' away; he gets critted and needs healing badly, but the full-plate-wearing cleric with 20' movement is too far away to get to the barbarian in time. After this scenario happens a few times, the barbarian/player will hopefully learn that it's generally a bad idea to get too far away from the party cleric. Developping an understanding of tactics is not something that is concretely represented in game mechanics or character statistics. Tactical "knowledge" like the scenario I described isn't covered by BAB, saves, or even knowledge skills (at least not the standard PHB ones; some other campaigns may have "Knowledge: combat tactics" as a skill that one can take). The closest game mechanic we have for representing this kind of knowledge is the Wisdom attribute: ie. an increase in one's general understanding of what works and what doesn't to be successful in the world. Only a change to his overall perceptions, his awareness of the world around him is going to cause his wisdom attribute to change. For most people, that is a much longer process than the 3-5 years or so you're an active adventurer. (see aging rules) A melee type, however, is quite likely to be concerned with physical fitness. He'll want to hit harder, move faster or be tougher, and he'll spend his spare time improving whichever of those aspects he needs most. Therefore the statbumps...doing otherwise would be bad roleplay. Unless you get a mystic benefit from neglecting physical improvement for spiritual (as some monks, rangers and paladins might, or templars...) you won't see many melee types choosing wisdom over a physical attribute. What you are talking about is character build optimization; that isn't the issue under discussion here. I completely agree that, in terms of build effectiveness, melee-types should be putting their statbumps into their physical attributes. What I'm saying is that this doesn't realistically model the growing tactical competence that characters/players develop through play. Now, I realize that it's futile to completely try to simulate realism with D&D game mechanics. In an ideal world, a PC's Wis score would increase along with levels, not age. Obviously, that's never going to happen, as it would unbalance the game too much.
solbergb 07-11-07, 09:00 PM	Now, I realize that it's futile to completely try to simulate realism with D&D game mechanics. In an ideal world, a PC's Wis score would increase along with levels, not age. Obviously, that's never going to happen, as it would unbalance the game too much. Well that was my point. The experience the PLAYER gets while leveling up his character is in fact a reflection of the character learning to do things and not to do things. This has no effect on attributes, but is every bit as abstracted as the BAB and saving throw boosts. A high level fighter, no matter how dumb, no matter how few skill ranks he has should thoroughly understand flanking, when to use the various non-attack tactical maneuvers such as bull rush, know how to set his power attack and adjust it after a few swings, which weapons work best vs stuff he fought (if he discovered that in prior encountres) etc. Low int/wis/cha has nothing to do with this. Even animals can learn from pain, reward and repetition. The attributes reflect reasoning ability BEYOND the experience of the character.
Iswald 07-11-07, 11:22 PM	The original point I was responding to was how a low Int/Wis melee-type can become a tactical "genius" through the influence of life/combat experience. I thought that's what experience and levels were all about. If the PC does something stupid, they die and have to learn their lesson over until they get it right.
wangka 07-12-07, 06:56 PM	How about a "beginner's guide to teamwork"? I wonder if many new players are not so much selfish, but are just in-experienced in building team-oriented characters or aware of the cooperative options in combat and spells. I certainly could use more lessons... There are scattered play tips in many of the books, but a short LG oriented primer might be nice. My guess is that a new player's instincts with a L2 wizard will be something like buffing with mage armor round 1 and casting magic missile round 2 rather than the potentially more optimal course of grease or magic weapon/enlarge the fighter or obscuring mist for anti-archer cover, etc.
UMiskatonic 07-13-07, 02:08 PM	First, I -really- don't buy the argument that since your character has a low intelligence, you have to play like a retard. Here's a few reasons. 1) For you, a demon is a monster, possibly some Xp and gold. For your character, it is life or death. If my life was on the line, you can be SURE that I would remember if I needed cold iron or silver, even if I had to write it on my hand. 2) Let's say you are a fighter. Think about that. You fight things, professionally. It's your job, and it's the one thing you should be good at. This includes all aspects of the job, including when to take 5ft steps. 3) To give a real-world example, a professional football player might be caught offsides. However, no matter how dumb he is, he will never ask 'what's offsides mean?'. It's his job to know that, and he's been working at this his whole life. 4) An army recruit with a bad high school education can assemble an M-16 in 60 seconds or less, a task that many doctors, lawyers, and supposedly smart people would have more trouble with.
thorinXXX 07-14-07, 12:31 PM	First, I -really- don't buy the argument that since your character has a low intelligence, you have to play like a retard. Here's a few reasons. 1) For you, a demon is a monster, possibly some Xp and gold. For your character, it is life or death. If my life was on the line, you can be SURE that I would remember if I needed cold iron or silver, even if I had to write it on my hand. 2) Let's say you are a fighter. Think about that. You fight things, professionally. It's your job, and it's the one thing you should be good at. This includes all aspects of the job, including when to take 5ft steps. 3) To give a real-world example, a professional football player might be caught offsides. However, no matter how dumb he is, he will never ask 'what's offsides mean?'. It's his job to know that, and he's been working at this his whole life. 4) An army recruit with a bad high school education can assemble an M-16 in 60 seconds or less, a task that many doctors, lawyers, and supposedly smart people would have more trouble with. 1) If your life was on the line you would be more likely to forget. Just look at gameshow contestants choke. Most of them are not as dumb as they appear. 2) I can tell you from experiance, that is simply not true. Some people are just that dumb. They can employ their weapons effectively as long as they are given proper direction. Taking that 5' step simply does not occure to them without being told. 3) But he still might continue to be offside, even though he knows what being offside is and that he should not do it. 4) That is the difference between being proficient and non-proficient, nothing more. There is a huge difference between muscle memory and thought. BAB, saves, and many feats are muscle memory. Sizing up a tactical situation and exploiting weaknesses; like stepping into a flank, concentrating on the same foe as your buddies, setting up for Cleave, recognizing a demon, all take conscious thought. The guy with the 6 Int has the mental faculties of a 6 year old, no matter how much experience he has.
awroe 07-14-07, 12:35 PM	1) If your life was on the line you would be more likely to forget. Just look at gameshow contestants choke. Most of them are not as dumb as they appear. If your life was on the line *every day* you'd be less likely to choke. Gameshow contestants are your 1st level actor. How often do you see professional actors (3rd-4th level actors) choke on stage?
_metz_ 07-14-07, 10:27 PM	1) If your life was on the line you would be more likely to forget. Just look at gameshow contestants choke. Most of them are not as dumb as they appear. 2) I can tell you from experiance, that is simply not true. Some people are just that dumb. They can employ their weapons effectively as long as they are given proper direction. Taking that 5' step simply does not occure to them without being told. 3) But he still might continue to be offside, even though he knows what being offside is and that he should not do it. 4) That is the difference between being proficient and non-proficient, nothing more. There is a huge difference between muscle memory and thought. BAB, saves, and many feats are muscle memory. Sizing up a tactical situation and exploiting weaknesses; like stepping into a flank, concentrating on the same foe as your buddies, setting up for Cleave, recognizing a demon, all take conscious thought. The guy with the 6 Int has the mental faculties of a 6 year old, no matter how much experience he has. You claim he has the mental faculties of a 6 year old. Does that mean 10 int = 10 year old? what is the actual scale? A six int Half Orc knows TWO languages. Thats reasonably intelligent... The problem is we don't have a scale, Was Einstein 20 int? 16 int? 28 int? we CANNOT determine the maths alone. You should not arbitrarily draw the line this way. By all means they may be UNABLE to grasp many aspects of philosophy, science, etc but who says they aren't good at what they do? a child can construct surprisingly advanced things and may have complex social skills. I know 6 year old kids from Japan that are expected to do maths exams in kindergarten. A fighter that doesn't learn form its mistakes and KNOW HOW TO LEARN FROM THEM DOESN'T GET SMARTER. That means It DOESN'T get experience and learn. So a fighter that doesn't figure out that flanking is good, etc won't go up in levels. Arguing a fighter can't be tactical is quite ridiculous in many aspects: if you are int 6 you can never get past level 1 by your completely flawed logic. Also less intelligent people choke? Thats a laugh, everyone chokes, and experience and confidence stops that. I have seen brilliant people (the kind who travel overseas for maths Olympiads) choke, thats not an intelligence issue so its a completely irrelevant point. Gameshow contestants = A professional soldier, thats outrageous, like comparing a soldier from world war two to 'who wants to be a millionaire', and arguing that its a factor of their intelligence!!! if you think that is the same, then I don't think you get what Intelligence is.
Demoyn 07-15-07, 01:21 AM	According to Dragon magazine, it's reasonable to assume that each point of intelligence is 10 IQ. As such (and realize that many IQ tests grade differently), according to the American government, Einstein would have had a 13 intelligence (of course Einstein also had trouble learning in school, so he wasn't exactly a well-rounded genius).
Eric Anondson 07-15-07, 01:32 AM	Care to cite . . . any of that? Oh why bother.
_metz_ 07-15-07, 04:54 AM	According to Dragon magazine, it's reasonable to assume that each point of intelligence is 10 IQ. As such (and realize that many IQ tests grade differently), according to the American government, Einstein would have had a 13 intelligence (of course Einstein also had trouble learning in school, so he wasn't exactly a well-rounded genius). That means any fighter who can use his combat skill to fight defensively and balance his offensive and defensive capabilities (Combat Expertise) is as smart as Einstein. Anyone else agree with this? I don't think I will apply such a laughable scale to characters I play or DM. Stating a fighter cannot flank or execute CUNNING is downright ridiculous. Such things are demonstrated by instinct and experience. Care to cite . . . any of that? Oh why bother. A good point.
thorinXXX 07-15-07, 12:40 PM	You claim he has the mental faculties of a 6 year old. Does that mean 10 int = 10 year old? what is the actual scale? A six int Half Orc knows TWO languages. Thats reasonably intelligent... The problem is we don't have a scale, Was Einstein 20 int? 16 int? 28 int? we CANNOT determine the maths alone. You should not arbitrarily draw the line this way. By all means they may be UNABLE to grasp many aspects of philosophy, science, etc but who says they aren't good at what they do? a child can construct surprisingly advanced things and may have complex social skills. I know 6 year old kids from Japan that are expected to do maths exams in kindergarten. A fighter that doesn't learn form its mistakes and KNOW HOW TO LEARN FROM THEM DOESN'T GET SMARTER. That means It DOESN'T get experience and learn. So a fighter that doesn't figure out that flanking is good, etc won't go up in levels. Arguing a fighter can't be tactical is quite ridiculous in many aspects: if you are int 6 you can never get past level 1 by your completely flawed logic. Also less intelligent people choke? Thats a laugh, everyone chokes, and experience and confidence stops that. I have seen brilliant people (the kind who travel overseas for maths Olympiads) choke, thats not an intelligence issue so its a completely irrelevant point. Gameshow contestants = A professional soldier, thats outrageous, like comparing a soldier from world war two to 'who wants to be a millionaire', and arguing that its a factor of their intelligence!!! if you think that is the same, then I don't think you get what Intelligence is. The scale was the old 1 Int = 10 IQ. 60 IQ is about the mental faculties of a 6 year-old. Yes, there are exceptional 6 year-olds, but the example is an exceptionally stupid person being compared to an AVERAGE 6 year-old. By your logic a fighter with an 18 Int should start at 10th level. As I said before, there is a difference between muscle memory and reasoning ability. Stepping into a flank, for example, is a matter of training. If the BDF normally fights as a member of a team, and that team emphasizes flanking, then he will go for a flank reflexively; even when stepping to flank is a bad idea. It is not that less intelligent people choke, it is that people choke when hit with something outside what they are used to doing. The dumb fighter will not figure out that he is fighting a demon unless someone tells him, but if someone does he may well know to use the 4-iron from his golfbag. He also may not; memory is one of the things controlled by Int, so a lousy memory is appropriate. All on his own he should notice that his weapon is less effective and may cycle through his golfbag until he gets one that works. Again the example was simply to illustrate that people choke when confronted by the unfamiliar. If a gunman opens up on Jeopardy the 6 Int combat vet will seek cover while everyone else stand around with slack jaws. Ask him how many squads are in a company and he will be the one with the slack jaw. A 6 Int fighter is going to have lousy grammar, is not going to know how to spell, is going to have trouble with abstract concepts, and is going to be lousy at math. He should also have difficulty thinking about more than one thing at a time. I don't think there is too much arguement there. He should also have a terrible memory, but as this interferes with him being a tactical genius there will be some arguement. As long as it is muscle memory and not cognative memory the 6 Int fighter is no worse off than the 18 Int fighter. His ability to employ a weapon (BAB) is unimpaired, his ability to duck (ref saves and HP) is unimpaired, he gets just as many feats as the 18 Int guy. Where he falls behind is the ability to size up the whole situation, not just the guy in front of him.
Cardinal Teplin 07-15-07, 07:20 PM	According to Dragon magazine, it's reasonable to assume that each point of intelligence is 10 IQ. Dragon is wrong. IQ simply doesn't scale in the same way as INT. Int varies a lot, at least for PCs. IQ has a standard deviation of 15 points.
_metz_ 07-15-07, 08:10 PM	The scale was the old 1 Int = 10 IQ. 60 IQ is about the mental faculties of a 6 year-old. Yes, there are exceptional 6 year-olds, but the example is an exceptionally stupid person being compared to an AVERAGE 6 year-old. By your logic a fighter with an 18 Int should start at 10th level. As I said before, there is a difference between muscle memory and reasoning ability. Stepping into a flank, for example, is a matter of training. If the BDF normally fights as a member of a team, and that team emphasizes flanking, then he will go for a flank reflexively; even when stepping to flank is a bad idea. It is not that less intelligent people choke, it is that people choke when hit with something outside what they are used to doing. The dumb fighter will not figure out that he is fighting a demon unless someone tells him, but if someone does he may well know to use the 4-iron from his golfbag. He also may not; memory is one of the things controlled by Int, so a lousy memory is appropriate. All on his own he should notice that his weapon is less effective and may cycle through his golfbag until he gets one that works. Again the example was simply to illustrate that people choke when confronted by the unfamiliar. If a gunman opens up on Jeopardy the 6 Int combat vet will seek cover while everyone else stand around with slack jaws. Ask him how many squads are in a company and he will be the one with the slack jaw. A 6 Int fighter is going to have lousy grammar, is not going to know how to spell, is going to have trouble with abstract concepts, and is going to be lousy at math. He should also have difficulty thinking about more than one thing at a time. I don't think there is too much arguement there. He should also have a terrible memory, but as this interferes with him being a tactical genius there will be some arguement. As long as it is muscle memory and not cognative memory the 6 Int fighter is no worse off than the 18 Int fighter. His ability to employ a weapon (BAB) is unimpaired, his ability to duck (ref saves and HP) is unimpaired, he gets just as many feats as the 18 Int guy. Where he falls behind is the ability to size up the whole situation, not just the guy in front of him. I think you need to go meet some more soldiers and talk to them about their job, sure they will all be trained well, but on information PERTAINING to their task, they will know it spot on. Probably couldn't tell you exactly where they were going, or why, or the social ramifications of this, but ask them if they know their enemies strengths, weaknesses, and how to deal with them, and they will be able to answer. When you refer to the faculties of a 6 year old, the brain is reasonably developed, you are referring to social learning not inherent intelligence, and as such there is no arguement. You cannot equate someone who is immature and only existed for 6 years to someone who has existed for say 20. Ask about the brain development of a six year old, and then talk to me. And don't refer to the IQ test, that is a social construct that tracks modes of thinking and societal behavioural conditions. I know many people who are smarter than me not get as much as I have in IQ tests because of its construct. hence I don't put faith in an antiquated scale, but rather in common sense. If you argue the fighter capable of killing a dragon is as intelligent as a 6 year old and the associated social learnings that dictate the child's actions, then so be it, but it would be wrong. You place too much importance on IQ and not enough on social learning. The Tacit knowledge and the explicit knowledge are two very different concepts, and the indicators cannot be quantified so easily. If int 6 is PLAYABLE by an adventurer, then ergo it must be enough int for the adventurer to be able to adventure WITHOUT someone holding their hand the whole way. Experience and social learnings form the basis the majority of human knowledge, raw intelligence is what allows us to figure such things out, and know about them BEFORE the bad thing happens. IF an Int 6 fighter fought a Demon before, and knows this Axe hurts it, thats good enough for me. Arguing he should choke like a game show host seems irrelevant and laughable. I know many geniuses that choke, especially in difficult situations, as they are used to calm controlled environments. Your example is meaningless. The only thing that prevents choking is experience and confidence. two things that have nothing to do with how much IQ you have.
Samwise 07-15-07, 09:18 PM	I think a big problem is how IQ has been referenced so far. I don't think anyone has described it accurately, and all the examples or counters to the examples of it are simply wrong. I also think intelligence, experience, education, training, and performance (especially under stress) have been significantly confused and misapplied in several places. So even when examples start out being right they turn to being wrong. What do I think is the right answer? "The D&D game system is not a simulation." For every thing that the Intelligence score represents, starting with the PHB definition: "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." there is an aspect of that definition that the Intelligence score does not represent, most especially when it differentiates between player knowledge of the game system rules and the PC interaction with said rules. Just as there is no required roll to use tactics, there is no required roll to select your area spell target point correctly, and "knowing" about monsters requires not merely taking ranks in a knowledge skill, but remembering it on an ad hoc and random basis. In such a game, I don't think there is any need to put such an excessive emphais on things. As such, a 6 Int means: 1. You don't know any additional languages at the start of the game. 2. You get less skill points per level. 3. You take a -2 penalty to a bunch of skills. 4. You can't cast spells from a class that require Intelligence to use their spells. And that's all it means. Everything else is too subjective to be reasonably defined within the structure of the rules.
clannagh 07-15-07, 10:11 PM	Dragon is wrong. IQ simply doesn't scale in the same way as INT. Int varies a lot, at least for PCs. IQ has a standard deviation of 15 points. This is an interesting question. Firstly, its important to bear in mind that Stanford-Binet IQ's test have been discredited and basically only really measure the individuals ability to pass IQ tests and similiar academic pursuits. In particular there is minimal correlation between IQ test results and sucess in life. The highest correlation with "real life" success occurs with people who score high on test of social skills and the ability to get on well with others. Nevertheless, for fun, lets assume a party of 6 PCs of mid level. Bear in mind analysing a PC party is a little like taking a sampel from grad school students from a prestige university (where the average IQ will likely be 140 and the minimum 120). - INT is rarely a dump stat so the lowest INT is probably 10. - An iconic party will have a wizard who at mid levels will likely have an INT around 19 (bumping to 20 at level 8). - One character with INT 13 minimum for expertise is probable. - Lets make two characters INT 12 - and add an INT 16 rogue as the last character Using this party sample (10,12,12,13,16,19) gives a sample (n-1) standard deviation of 3.25 and a sample mean of 13.7. Clearly this sample is skewed above the population mean and contains individual data members that may well be removed as outliers from a study of the general population. Assuming our sample is typical, these figures would indicate statistically 60% or so of PC's have an INT between 10 and 17 and about 5% have INT greater than 20 ... which seems about right. NOW .. we have no data about the non PC population of Greyhawk aside from the population mean is INT 10. Let us assume that the variance in intelligence between members of the general population is about half the variation that occurs with PCs. That would give us population mean of 10 and population standard deviation of roughly 1.5 which conveniently matches the IQ points which are 15 per standard deviation or 10 IQ points per INT point. If our (fairly wild and unfounded) assumption about standard deviation is correct with the following IQ-INT scale for the general population: INT 8 - IQ 80 INT 9 - IQ 90 INT 10 - IQ 100 INT 11 - IQ 110 INT 12 - IQ 120 In terms of Role Play .... Generally speaking IQ's below 60 (INT 6) cannot read or write and IQ's above 130 (INT 13) are loosely termed "gifted". Roughly 65% of the non-pc population will lie between IQ 85 (INT 8) and IQ 115. Its also important to always remember that an IQ of 100 (INT 10) is still "smarter" than half the population. An individual with an IQ of 100 is by no means "dumb".
clannagh 07-15-07, 10:11 PM	XXX
thorinXXX 07-16-07, 02:29 PM	I think you need to go meet some more soldiers and talk to them about their job, sure they will all be trained well, but on information PERTAINING to their task, they will know it spot on. Probably couldn't tell you exactly where they were going, or why, or the social ramifications of this, but ask them if they know their enemies strengths, weaknesses, and how to deal with them, and they will be able to answer. Funny you should say that; I am an active duty Marine posting from Iraq. The dumb guys really are a menace unless closely supervised. They can employ their weapons effectively, but have no grasp of tactics. Most of the specifics do not apply as modern infantry is so radically different from the primarily melee ifantry of D&D, but one thing is the same; the dumb guys do not improvise. They also rarely thin through the consequences of their actions. They have one or two tactics and they try to apply them to all situations. While they are perfetly capable of taking other actions, it just never occurs to them. If someone else does the thinking for them they can be very dangerous.
wangka 07-16-07, 03:21 PM	I'd be leery of overinterpreting / overplaying the role of your character's IQ (as well as all mental stats) in the game. It can be rather irksome, when someone uses a low Int/Wis as an "excuse" for stupid actions, but have somehow cleverly planned out their training plan and gear purchases (they should have a lot more extended warranties. Additionally, how many of us have the equivalent 16+ stats in Int, Wis, or Cha in "real life"? How do Int 10-12 players convincingly play grey elf supergenius? Or charming / suave / magnetic? Or sagaciously wise? There's specific game effects (as was mentioned before) that those stats affect. And certainly playing a little for flavor adds a lot to the game. But I think it'd be courteous to other RPGAers that you inform/warn them of your playing choice and to what extent you plan to gimp the party.
Demoyn 07-16-07, 03:40 PM	Additionally, how many of us have the equivalent 16+ stats in Int, Wis, or Cha in "real life"? How do Int 10-12 players convincingly play grey elf supergenius? Or charming / suave / magnetic? Or sagaciously wise? There's specific game effects (as was mentioned before) that those stats affect. And certainly playing a little for flavor adds a lot to the game. This is a serious problem in some games. I had a DM once that wouldn't allow us to roll diplomacy checks except in rare situations. I was playing a cleric/rogue with a 16 cha. I had no idea what to say or how my character would really react to certain social situations, and it really hampered my character that my rolls meant nothing unless I could be socially gifted in roleplay first. I'm not socially inept by any means (most would give me about a 12 cha IRL), but 16 is quite a bit more suave, and I have no way of acting that out in game (if I could, I'd have a higher cha IRL)! Luckily for me, I can play a 16 int rogue without too much of a stretch. :)
Tiberien 07-16-07, 04:05 PM	Additionally, how many of us have the equivalent 16+ stats in Int, Wis, or Cha in "real life"? Well, I do. :D :P How do Int 10-12 players convincingly play grey elf supergenius? Or charming / suave / magnetic? Or sagaciously wise? There's specific game effects (as was mentioned before) that those stats affect. And certainly playing a little for flavor adds a lot to the game. Seriously, this is a good point. As a DM if the party isn't "getting" an important puzzle or something I will give them an Int roll to see if their characters get it... then explain it in that character's terms. That means any fighter who can use his combat skill to fight defensively and balance his offensive and defensive capabilities (Combat Expertise) is as smart as Einstein. Anyone else agree with this? Actually, I don't think Einstein's gift was Int, more like Wis. which measures perception and intuition. He was awesome at putting things together that others didn't see, but was awful at the memorize/regurgitate that most schooling involves. Plenty of Fighters could pass basic math, but not Einstein :eek: That's true today also, plenty of actual "rocket scientists" need a calculator to do the basic stuff but whiz at the more theoretical aspects of their work. On Topic: I have played some pretty nutty characters, but usually in home campaigns for short periods. I wouldn't bring any of them to an LG table, though my LG and MoH characters do often have certain unique characteristics that defy stereotype. As a guide I would say that if somebody has a character that makes people laugh and have fun but not become useless (like fleeing all combat) then it's quirks are ok. :cool: If you sit down and the whole group says "Pelor help us" then you should grab a fastplay and reconsider ever playing that one again, lol. :eek:
control freak 07-16-07, 04:11 PM	Pelor help us my cleric of pelor makes partys do that so its all good :D (but without him we would have died in dominion)
Mommy was an Orc 07-16-07, 05:01 PM	Plenty of Fighters could pass basic math, but not Einstein :eek: Way, way off topic - Einstein wasn't bad at basic math. He apparently got in trouble for not passing a "Physical Experiments for Beginners" course in college. But he was "solving complicated problems in applied arithmetic" by the age of 12 and taught himself geometry and algebra during summer vacation... Time Magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/3.html)
_metz_ 07-16-07, 08:58 PM	Funny you should say that; I am an active duty Marine posting from Iraq. The dumb guys really are a menace unless closely supervised. They can employ their weapons effectively, but have no grasp of tactics. Most of the specifics do not apply as modern infantry is so radically different from the primarily melee ifantry of D&D, but one thing is the same; the dumb guys do not improvise. They also rarely thin through the consequences of their actions. They have one or two tactics and they try to apply them to all situations. While they are perfetly capable of taking other actions, it just never occurs to them. If someone else does the thinking for them they can be very dangerous. Ok, I will cede that point, however: AN adventurer is an independent soldier and would be the equivalent of an elite soldier, not just a low level grunt. I know that Australian troops can't be expected to just 'point and shoot' and need to be able to show initiative if they are to ever reach that status. You have to keep in mind the grunts are the level one warriors, the level 2-3s are the elite forces, such as the SAS. Again, Fighters aren't 1st level warriors. And Tiberian, Einstein was wise, but it was definitely Int that allowed him to do what he did. Wisdom would be the Dalai Lama, or Mahatma Gandhi, Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc used their intelligence. Having done Physics and being really good mates with a Physics GENIUS (traveled the world at 15 competing in Physics Olympiads, and can go anywhere in the world to do his PHD for free) I can vouch that this guys is as wise as a block of wood. But exceedingly brilliant. I would say its not a measure of wisdom, The Greeks used wisdom to explain physics, and so did the Catholic church. Real Physics is not based on common sense and experience.
Tiberien 07-17-07, 04:24 AM	my cleric of pelor makes partys do that so its all good :D (but without him we would have died in dominion) LOL, nice rp-ing :cool: Whether Einstein's team developed an arcane bomb or a divine bomb, they still needed ranged attackers (pilots) to drop it. ;) (I don't claim to be an expert on the guy, I'll take the word of the people that looked him up and apologize for any mis-statements regarding his bio) As far as fighters being elite compared to the warrior grunts I totally agree. Higher level fighters, imo, should exhibit at least some tactical knowledge of things like defensive fighting, grapples, etc. regardless of how low their Int or Wis are. :)
solbergb 07-17-07, 10:45 AM	I think you're confusing Einstein with Oppenheimer. Einstein was never involved in atomic bomb research. But it's irrelevant. D&D stats have specific mechanical advantages and penalties in the game. Adding a little flavor for roleplay is one thing. Making up arbitrary restrictions on other people's characters because of their attributes is another. A low wisdom could represent somebody reckless, or it could be somebody that is just oblivious to his environment. Low intelligence might just represent a poor memory (crappy at kn skills and harder to learn things, so less skill ranks) or one of those guys who has trouble learning anything new but once he "gets" it, never forgets. The lowest you can go in LG is only a -2 to various checks, the big hit is in skill ranks. That's likely enough of a penalty without stripping the character of class features and combat maneuvers because "he's dumb". If somebody has a low constitution, the DM doesn't get to inflict random diseases on them or rule that they can't march for 8 hours like everybody else, or must sleep more. The frail nature is already reflected in his low hitpoint total and fort save and reduced concentration check. That's enough. No need to say whether he has asthma, high blood pressure, usually has a cold or whatever. The exact reason doesn't matter. The mechancial effect is covered already by what a low attribute does to you. Intelligence isn't and shouldn't be treated differently.
_metz_ 07-17-07, 11:02 AM	I think you're confusing Einstein with Oppenheimer. Einstein was never involved in atomic bomb research. NO, I wasn't I used him as a reference for someone people may know, I wanted to Say Max Planck, but unless you did physics you wouldn't know the fellow, despite his incredible contribution. (yet suspect allegiances.) Oppenheimer was someone I grouped with the wisdom He would have high Int AND wisdom. My grammar was a bit off.
thorinXXX 07-18-07, 12:09 PM	I think you're confusing Einstein with Oppenheimer. Einstein was never involved in atomic bomb research. But it's irrelevant. D&D stats have specific mechanical advantages and penalties in the game. Adding a little flavor for roleplay is one thing. Making up arbitrary restrictions on other people's characters because of their attributes is another. A low wisdom could represent somebody reckless, or it could be somebody that is just oblivious to his environment. Low intelligence might just represent a poor memory (crappy at kn skills and harder to learn things, so less skill ranks) or one of those guys who has trouble learning anything new but once he "gets" it, never forgets. The lowest you can go in LG is only a -2 to various checks, the big hit is in skill ranks. That's likely enough of a penalty without stripping the character of class features and combat maneuvers because "he's dumb". If somebody has a low constitution, the DM doesn't get to inflict random diseases on them or rule that they can't march for 8 hours like everybody else, or must sleep more. The frail nature is already reflected in his low hitpoint total and fort save and reduced concentration check. That's enough. No need to say whether he has asthma, high blood pressure, usually has a cold or whatever. The exact reason doesn't matter. The mechancial effect is covered already by what a low attribute does to you. Intelligence isn't and shouldn't be treated differently. The difference is that the physical stats have concrete rules attached to them, and the mental ones do not. There is no debate about how much a person with a specific strength can lift. Why should anyone be able to claim that an Int 6 guy can act as an intellectual heavyweight? Nobody claims that a 6 Cha character wins beauty pageants, so why should intelligence be treated differently? To be clear, I am not stating that low Int characters have to be so stupid as to be a menace to their allies. I am saying that a lot of more advanced tactics should be beyond them. EG Thog the 6 Int barbarian will not think to delay for his buff unless someone tells him to.
Mattastrophic 07-18-07, 12:21 PM	I am saying that a lot of more advanced tactics should be beyond them. EG Thog the 6 Int barbarian will not think to delay for his buff unless someone tells him to. And it is our duty to leave it to the players/judges to roleplay (wow, actually roleplay!) their characters appropriately. It is not anyone's place to legislate roleplaying. -Matt
LachlarlanIII 07-18-07, 12:45 PM	Nobody claims that a 6 Cha character wins beauty pageants, so why should intelligence be treated differently? I don't agree. I believe that Charisma is a measure of both physical attractiveness and personality. The 6 Cha fighter may be the prettiest person you've ever seen, but when they open their mouth and speak, they may sound like a braying donkey and have manners as if they were raised BY braying donkeys.
Mattastrophic 07-18-07, 01:01 PM	Here's a good way to put it: Charisma does not equal Attractiveness. If Charisma equaled Attractiveness, then supermodels would be politicians. -Matt
solbergb 07-18-07, 01:12 PM	The difference is that the physical stats have concrete rules attached to them, and the mental ones do not. There is no debate about how much a person with a specific strength can lift. Actually, the mental attributes have concrete rules too. Carrying capacity is an attribute of strength, just as what kind of wizard spell you can cast is an attribute of intelligence. Dex and con have no more "concrete rules" than wisdom and charisma. Attributes in D&D do this: 1. Contribute to skill checks 2. Are used when no skill check is appropriate and it falls in the domain 3. have a few other concrete effects that vary by attribute Strength: melee to-hit/damage, carrying capacity Dex: armor class, reflex save, missile to-hit, initiative Con: hit points, fort save Intelligence: Spells allowed and bonus spells, languages, skill ranks Wisdom: Spells allowed and bonus spells, will save Charisma: Spells allowed and bonus spells None of these have ANY impact on roleplay beyond their mechanical attributes and effects on skill checks. You can be 20 strength from big muscles and frame like a half orc, or you can be 4'8", 90 lb and 20 strength from whatever it is that makes wood-elves brutally strong (probably magic-enhanced and/or more efficient muscles/bones) You can have a high dex because you are actually coordinated and graceful or because you're insanely lucky. You can have a high con because you're an amazingly healthy and fit individual or because you have a touch of "heritage" bloodline or because you spent hours in the magical lab warding yourself against all physical threats you could imagine or because your god likes you. You can have a high int because you find spells/languages/skills easy to learn or because you're ordinary but get possessed by your kn domain god when such things are required. You can have high wisdom because you are preternaturally aware of your environment and very sensitive to social cues or because your connection to your god allows you to tap its insights (see Imps, except more subtle than their commune ability) You can have a high charisma because you are a social chameleon, or because you are an enchanter and even when not casting spells, a little "suggestion" and "Friendly face"-like-effects trickle out or because you carefully dress, act and speak in a way that commands attention. I can do similar things for low attributes. (eg, I have an 8 dex character who is clumsy because she's possessed by a tribal tiger-totem-deity and she keeps trying to move like a quadruped. When wildshaped, her dex is terrific. My wife plays a 6 int, 8 wisdom, 5 cha character who isn't so much stupid but oblivious - she's really only interested in rocks and sometimes protecting weak little people like her brother. Her "rage" is actually just paying attention to the fight, "focusing". Usually she's kinda casual and fearless because she's not all "there')
Lupo 07-18-07, 01:59 PM	Actually, the mental attributes have concrete rules too. Carrying capacity is an attribute of strength, just as what kind of wizard spell you can cast is an attribute of intelligence. Dex and con have no more "concrete rules" than wisdom and charisma. Attributes in D&D do this: 1. Contribute to skill checks 2. Are used when no skill check is appropriate and it falls in the domain 3. have a few other concrete effects that vary by attribute Strength: melee to-hit/damage, carrying capacity Dex: armor class, reflex save, missile to-hit, initiative Con: hit points, fort save Intelligence: Spells allowed and bonus spells, languages, skill ranks Wisdom: Spells allowed and bonus spells, will save Charisma: Spells allowed and bonus spells None of these have ANY impact on roleplay beyond their mechanical attributes and effects on skill checks. You can be 20 strength from big muscles and frame like a half orc, or you can be 4'8", 90 lb and 20 strength from whatever it is that makes wood-elves brutally strong (probably magic-enhanced and/or more efficient muscles/bones) You can have a high dex because you are actually coordinated and graceful or because you're insanely lucky. You can have a high con because you're an amazingly healthy and fit individual or because you have a touch of "heritage" bloodline or because you spent hours in the magical lab warding yourself against all physical threats you could imagine or because your god likes you. You can have a high int because you find spells/languages/skills easy to learn or because you're ordinary but get possessed by your kn domain god when such things are required. You can have high wisdom because you are preternaturally aware of your environment and very sensitive to social cues or because your connection to your god allows you to tap its insights (see Imps, except more subtle than their commune ability) You can have a high charisma because you are a social chameleon, or because you are an enchanter and even when not casting spells, a little "suggestion" and "Friendly face"-like-effects trickle out or because you carefully dress, act and speak in a way that commands attention. I can do similar things for low attributes. (eg, I have an 8 dex character who is clumsy because she's possessed by a tribal tiger-totem-deity and she keeps trying to move like a quadruped. When wildshaped, her dex is terrific. My wife plays a 6 int, 8 wisdom, 5 cha character who isn't so much stupid but oblivious - she's really only interested in rocks and sometimes protecting weak little people like her brother. Her "rage" is actually just paying attention to the fight, "focusing". Usually she's kinda casual and fearless because she's not all "there') the problem with low int, wis and cha scores, they cam be much easier be "compensated" by actual player metagaming . . . . . if a player does the talking, this character is the one who has to make the diplomacy/bluff check. a caster has to roll knowledge checks to get the resistances/immunities everyone can do a "sense motive" on a NPC, if written in the module - only the one "smelling" something more hidden is entitled to one in other situations. ciao martin m.
solbergb 07-18-07, 05:49 PM	All of those "metagaming" situations you describe require actual checks that the low attributes affect. And yes, the 6 charisma guy might be the best diplomat if he's got the right ranks, synergies and/or spells. If he isn't, the result will be too low to affect the outcome. The 6 int guy might in fact have the best knowledge dungeoneering in the party and be the only one able to roll higher than a ten. The 8 wisdom person may have the only craft/stonemasonry or profession/merchant in the party. Their ability score penalty will have the effect it has, the ranks will have their effects. Lacking ranks, the 6 and 8 "mental skill" people have a much harder time hitting the "dc10" expectation of most skills, and won't be able to take 10 to do ordinary things, such as have an animal do a trick it knowns. This is the same as the 8 dex guy being unable to do a DC10 balance check on a take 10, or the 8 str guy being unable to reliably jump 10' on a running start. So what's the problem? If a skill check is required, or atribute check (or saving throw) the attributes will come into play. If it isn't required then the task probably isn't that hard or is actually a metagame challenge (like most puzzles, which require players to figure something out, and character abilites are made irrelevant or at best a half-hearted "int check gives a clue" bone is thrown) A low int/wis/charisma person can talk. But he won't change attitudes unless he can make diplomacy (or intimidate) check, he won't fool anyone unless he makes a bluff check and he won't know he's being lied to unless he makes a sense motive check. There is a confusion between "information is provided or situation changes that changes NPC attitude" with the diplomacy check "I change his attitude even though nothing has changed". In the former case, it doesn't matter if the 6 charisma guy provides the information or the diplomonster does - it is the change in the perceived situation that causes the NPC to act favorably. In the latter case, you gotta make the roll per the PHB modifiers. Sometimes it's a mix (a bribe might move him a category more friendly, but not far enough by itself without an easier diplomacy check) The only real "metagame risk" is a dumb character remembering how to kill something he's fought before - and I don't even think that is metagaming because in my book, Kn skills are for things you have NOT seen in play. Stuff like flanking, how far to power attack, not taking an AOO, etc, anything with non-animal intelligence can do that stuff, and even animals can do it if it matches their usual attack patterns (wolves flank. Most creatures won't provoke AOO's if they recognize the threat. A creature with power attack feat will have some instinct-based ruleset for when to power attack, etc)
clannagh 07-18-07, 07:54 PM	This is a serious problem in some games. I had a DM once that wouldn't allow us to roll diplomacy checks except in rare situations. I was playing a cleric/rogue with a 16 cha. I had no idea what to say or how my character would really react to certain social situations, and it really hampered my character that my rolls meant nothing unless I could be socially gifted in roleplay first. I'm not socially inept by any means (most would give me about a 12 cha IRL), but 16 is quite a bit more suave, and I have no way of acting that out in game (if I could, I'd have a higher cha IRL)! Luckily for me, I can play a 16 int rogue without too much of a stretch. :) Diplomacy is a tricky one. The issue comes up because the DC of what you are trying to achieve can vary radically with what you actually say. The GM needs some idea what you are saying in order to judge the result of the roll. Some mods factor this in with penalties and bonuses depending on certian things being mentioned but often the GM is on his own. One possible work around if the player has nothing to say but the PC clearly would have had lots to say is for the GM allowing the roll but deeming it a "rushed" check with the -10 penalty for not sitting down and talking it through properly.
thorinXXX 07-19-07, 01:31 PM	If you do not have an issue with 6 Int super geniuses at least be cosistant and do not complain about other meta-gaming.
Banor 07-19-07, 10:50 PM	Diplomacy is a tricky one. The issue comes up because the DC of what you are trying to achieve can vary radically with what you actually say. The GM needs some idea what you are saying in order to judge the result of the roll. Some mods factor this in with penalties and bonuses depending on certian things being mentioned but often the GM is on his own. One possible work around if the player has nothing to say but the PC clearly would have had lots to say is for the GM allowing the roll but deeming it a "rushed" check with the -10 penalty for not sitting down and talking it through properly. The way i handle Diplo checks is, 1. Let the player talk a bit. Its a role playing game not a roll playing game. No talk, no roll. 2. Look up at the base DC for the action then apply a modifier from -5 to +5 depending on what you heard. No matter how bad your player was, don't do what i once did and autofail the roll (feel bad about it :s), role playing should be encouraged not laugh at for failing. 3. Resolve the action normally with the result of the Diplomacy check. If the player is really bad at sweet talking but got a good diplo score, it will not be significant. The player will notice that he can get a free +5 by improving his role play (for most people its all about being shy and all)
LGMoses 07-20-07, 01:07 AM	this thread was good when it was on topic....:(
Cardinal Teplin 07-20-07, 06:22 PM	Fair 'nough then. What are the most important things to agree within the party to ensure a good start to teamwork. The most fundamental one I've found is 'do we charge?' I've found very few people who don't have a fixed idea of whether it's better to one or the other.
solbergb 07-20-07, 08:24 PM	The answer to "do we charge" is "it depends". If the enemy's full attack is much nastier than the single attack, and the main threat is melee, charging is usually a bad idea unless the charger is able to take the entire threatened attack without need of support. If the enemy's main threat is ranged combat or spellcasting, charging is almost always the right thing to do. You want to get out of the kill zone, put pressure on the enemy and focus his attacks on the charger instead of the squishies. (people who charge are generally frontrankers) The main thing is, you need to know what other people in the party do. Pay attention during the introductions. "I'm an archer" "I'm an arcanist" "I'm a support caster" "I'm a blaster" He'll want to fight at range and be protected in the ideal situation. "I'm cavalry and like to charge". He'll want to charge but he'll likely be out of harms way at the end of the charge and also will likely NOT block for the party unless asked. "I'm a fullplate 20' move kinda guy". He'll likely want the enemy to come to him, or to charge into weak melee enemies just as a way to get at them faster. "I'm a shock trooper". He'll be looking for charge targets, but will need support unless they're isolated. "I'm a tiger" or "This is my dire lion animal companion" or "Say hello to my Rhino". See "Shock Trooper". Don't block charge lanes. Expect them to bleed a lot if the enemy survives. "I'm a dervish or spring attacker". He'll do damage at range but end up wherever he wants. These guys, like cavalry, often don't do blocking. "I'm a spiked chain improved trip guy" He'll usually prefer the enemy to close IF he has a reach advantage. He may need enlarge person to get that. If he charges, it's usually to trip somebody and draw melee to attack him through his reach, drawing aOO's. Could go either way. "I'm a full plate cleric". If he's the only healing and you need healing support to do your tactic, don't wander too far off. "I'm a light armor cleric with celerity domain" If he's the only healing he can probably run around the battlefield pretty well and keep up, but may have trouble healing anyone threatened by a lot of melee-based enemies, due to low AC and often minimal melee defenses. "I'm a melee rogue". Likely won't charge unless enemy is flatfooted, usually prefers enemy to close to make flnaks easier and to get more full attacks. More importantly, the "first round buffs" need to be worked out. If haste is happening, people who want haste have to stick around in "haste formation". If enlarge is happening, the guy being enlarged can't wander off too far, as the spell is close range and if from a device, as it often is, only has 25' range. Bless, prayer, recitation - these have big burst radius but that doesn't help if you go around a corner. People who lead with area boom and/or battlefield control need to either be careful placing it or encourage party members to "wait for it" - or be comfortable doing without the buff and inform the buffer so he doesn't go crazy trying to include you.
Samwise 07-20-07, 08:35 PM	If haste is happening, people who want haste have to stick around in "haste formation". Just to toss a rant in on this: After so many people kvetched at me until I went and got haste, nobody (well, about half) ever wants to stick around so I can actually haste the party. Granted, I tend to roll so poorly on initiative that the cleric routinely goes before me, but especially when the bad guy has already gone first, you would think people would maybe remember to stick around for a bit until I get up to speed (as it were) without me reminding them forcefully before they wander off all over the battlefield.
solbergb 07-23-07, 01:45 PM	Welcome to the joys of being a support caster. Part of your job is to remind everybody of the bonuses you've provided. Haste formation scattering is just another symptom of that overall downside of playing one. You have to be willing to act like everybody's mother, reminding them of stuff they should already know.
Samwise 07-23-07, 02:33 PM	That's the thing: I'm not a support caster. I'm a summoner with a minor in battlefield control. The only support I'm set up for is providing flanking and blocking badgers, plus pinning bad guys in place. If people keep forgetting to hang around for the buff they demanded, I may start "forgetting" to memorize it.
Mattastrophic 07-23-07, 03:32 PM	You have to be willing to act like everybody's mother, reminding them of stuff they should already know. Nahh, all you have to do is put an index card on the board and let everyone else remember the Haste. Also, to append Solbergb's analysis: Divine Ward changes your analysis of clerics by quite a bit. -Matt
Rerednaw 07-23-07, 04:19 PM	I want to get some discussion going and maybe generate some ideas to promote teamwork with Living Greyhawk parties. It seems to me that I often sit at tables where instead of a team mentality, we are just six people who happened to sit at the same table at the inn. I often see frustration...I'll stop ranting and ask the question: What do you do at a table to make the party work as a team? Sometimes it just doesn't happen. That being said: As a DM, I wallop them with teamwork. As a player if I am playing with the same group, I get a feel for 'team' players versus 'non-team' players. If it is a pick-up group (mustering at cons) then I usually say, "my character's basic strategy is X, Y, and Z." Or "I tend to charge better if I have a clear line to a foe," or "please leave me a clear line of fire," and so forth. If after the first fight, I can tell that they aren't team players, then I'll focus on having an escape plan (usually some variant of fly+invis) available first, then focus on helping the party survive. Here's another issue with regards to 'teamwork': The party gets very clear repeated warnings, that everyone should buy 'item x' if they wish to live. Half the party doesn't, I buy extras because I am being cautious. I end up using all of my spares keeping the rest of the party alive. Everyone else spends their cash on the one-time access they get for surviving. I can afford zip. The most recent time that happened was at my last con. After a year of playing (overly cooperative) LG like this, I refuse to do that again. Most of my characters end up at the 50% wealth by level line because they burn consumables like water keeping the party alive. And they learn nothing. I think after these 'problem' players lose a few characters, they will either adapt or leave LG.
solbergb 07-23-07, 05:10 PM	Also, to append Solbergb's analysis: Divine Ward changes your analysis of clerics by quite a bit. -Matt If a cleric announces that he has divine ward (or other significant ranged healing/recovery abilities) then you can count on his support until he runs out of that kind of boom. It's similar to getting a shield-other cast on you. You need to understand the leash and the limitations.
Cardinal Teplin 07-23-07, 05:23 PM	[/SIZE]Here's another issue with regards to 'teamwork': The party gets very clear repeated warnings, that everyone should buy 'item x' if they wish to live. Half the party doesn't, I buy extras because I am being cautious. I end up using all of my spares keeping the rest of the party alive. Everyone else spends their cash on the one-time access they get for surviving. I can afford zip. The most recent time that happened was at my last con. After a year of playing (overly cooperative) LG like this, I refuse to do that again. Don't do it. I also hate this situation. Someone, usually the DM rather than the author, gets the idea into their head that the adventure can _not_ be survived without everyone getting a particular item/spell/etc. It's almost always the DM trying to give the players 'a helping hand' and it's always always very very annoying. I don't want my tactics dictated by the DM, and I usually find they are much worse at deciding what consumables I need than the players, even with the advantage of having read the module. Every time I've bowed to peer pressure and bought the wretched scroll/horse/thingmabob I've ended up not using it. Someone else bowing to pressure and outfitting the rest of the party is probably not as appreciated as you might think. And it makes you poor. Just don't do it.
Demoyn 07-23-07, 05:40 PM	I remember a DM doing that to my group once. He assured us that we wouldn't survive without invisibility potions. Fortunately, I was more knowledgeable about my character than him and realized that, even with an invis potion, I couldn't hide (horrible check penalties). The group ended up not using any invis potions. In fact, the encounter he wanted us to skip ended up getting broken when, instead of fleeing, we decimated it. It was an easy mod after that. :)
Mommy was an Orc 07-23-07, 05:48 PM	That's the thing: I'm not a support caster. I'm a summoner with a minor in battlefield control. The only support I'm set up for is providing flanking and blocking badgers, plus pinning bad guys in place. If people keep forgetting to hang around for the buff they demanded, I may start "forgetting" to memorize it. You generally don't need to get the majority of the party for Haste to be effective. As long as you get at least two weapon users, that's all that is required. The weapon users will likely double their damage(or more) from the +1 to hit and extra attack per round on average. Not to mention, you can haste your summoned creatures a little, too.
Zanzibax 07-23-07, 06:47 PM	Well, for the past few months, in any game with someone I dont play with regularly I always ask what the person does in combat, if there's anything I should know, or do to help, etc. The response has been an invariable 'no, just do what you do' And just about every first combat, I've won initiative, and had immediate complaints of 'I always start with a party buff, why didnt you stay around' or 'why did you go in first, I have special ability -x-' And so, i've been somewhat frustrated. I usually take a different tactic, and offer a set of tactics on my turn (free action) that can be modified by the players but lets them know what I think will work best, on their turn they can suggest a set of tactics that I can follow in turn. Having a Party Leader helps team cooperation. I'll bet you didn't hear that in the PHB PSA's.
Timlagor 07-30-07, 08:27 PM	On the subect of haste it's worth noting that there are two times when the party is usually bunched enough: - before contact with the enemy - after contact with the enemy (once they're in melee) ...though Archers are likely to mess this one up. I find that if I choose to do something else in the first round people are usually binched for haste at the top of the third round. Depending on where I am in the initiative I may catch them at the top or bottom of the second round. Obviously getting it off early is good.. but laying out the Fog/tentacles/Fireball early is good too.
solbergb 07-30-07, 09:56 PM	That haste dynamic is one reason my archer is really trying to prioritize boots of speed. He HATES being bunched with the rest of the party. He either wants to be ahead (to use his scouting prowess) or significantly behind (because he can full attack from all the way over here thanks very much). But he likes his haste too. So for the last few levels he's been bunching up with the rest of the folks, against his better judgement.
Timlagor 07-30-07, 11:49 PM	I'm seriously contemplating crafting some Boots of Speed for my Wizard ..possibly even multiple pairs.
Zanzibax 07-31-07, 09:17 AM	They also rarely thin through the consequences of their actions. I believe that's an aspect of Wisdom. However, thank you for that assessment. I hope you're able to work with those people who used INT as a dump stat on the battlefield. ;)
Zanzibax 07-31-07, 09:19 AM	Ok, I will cede that point, however: AN adventurer is an independent soldier and would be the equivalent of an elite soldier, not just a low level grunt. Eh...more like a mercenary than an elite soldier...or the much de-famed contemporary militia-man.
Zanzibax 07-31-07, 09:21 AM	I don't agree. I believe that Charisma is a measure of both physical attractiveness and personality. The 6 Cha fighter may be the prettiest person you've ever seen, but when they open their mouth and speak, they may sound like a braying donkey and have manners as if they were raised BY braying donkeys. I thought you were going to say the mannerisms or habits of a Lindsey Lohan. I know...I know...don't insult the donkey.:rofl: