Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 elricofgrans Mar 08, 2010 16:05:20	My current character is a second-story man who prefers cunning over displays of physical strength (Halfling Rogue).  Besides, getting hurt hurts and he does not like that!  I keep trying to use my own wits and his Bluff skill to avoid, or get out of, sticky situations.  We have not yet gained a level since this guy joined the party (about 7 sessions, I think), but I am already getting the distinct impression this is not going to work.  The DM has been kind enough to already provide three houses we had to break into (perfect for this guy), but in every case I have wasted most of the session (90-105 minute sessions) trying to find a safe way to achieve our objective, and in every case we end up just having to kick the door in and fight man-to-man anyway (or more me on them all, as the Wizard and Ranger hover back to avoid getting hit). I will use our last session as an example.  We got an address where `something' was happening and we needed to find out what.  We headed to it and found there was a lane along the side.  Great!  Checking the lane, I found there was no access from the back or one side, but there was a window on the other side.  Peeking in, I found five guards.  No good.  I checked the front door.  There were guards (obviously).  Right, the rooftop!  We found a chimney, which my character could fit through.  Guards(!).  We then found a skylight on the roof, no guards, but only a small room.  I entered to scout out and found only a single door, with a guard behind it(!).  There was nothing in this room other than an apron.  With no other options, and having already wasted 45 minutes, I put on the apron and tried to pass off as a servant to scout the place.  I was immediately told to roll initiative (well, after the DM stopped laughing he asked for this).  After defeating the first guard, I scouted around for another 10 minutes, opened chests to find nothing, and found that we had to fight our way through all the guards before we could get anywhere. This has been the same pattern on the other sessions.  We would have had the same net effect just kicking the door down and fighting the guards, but we would make more progress in a session if we skipped my antics.  I am getting the impression the other players are getting sick of me wasting time, and the DM has spoken about nerfing Bluff, as he does not like that my character can convince anyone of anything with a few decent rolls.  Admittedly, the nerf was after I made a series of high rolls to bluff the party to avoid a cavern (my character smelt blood from it), claiming that Kord had sealed The Squid God in there centuries ago and entering would risk breaking the wards.  Every knowledge check a player used gave me new `evidence' to prove my claims.  Hey, the cavern had nothing to do with our quest, and was clearly dangerous! What should I do?  It seems the best course of action would be to play less MacGuyver (since the DM will not give me any duct tape) and more Chuck Norris (sans-50 in all attributes and Roundhouse Kick as an At Will), but it would not be too convincing for my character to have a personality change that dramatic.  Frankly, the character would interest me less like this too.  Is there any way I could retain his personality without wasting everyone's time so much?  The party composition is an Actor (me), an Explorer, a Power Gamer/Instigator, and a Slayer/Actor.  The Explorer's character also prefers to avoid confrontation, but the other two characters want to take names.  This split down the party on whether or not to fight is clearly a major cause of the issue.
#2 LordOfWeasels Mar 09, 2010 11:10:26	It mostly sounds like your GM has a bad case of including brick walls that are painted to look like doors, and my first step would be to tell your GM everything you just said here and ask him to help you find a solution that's a little more fun for you. That being said, you've got a very large problem with your description of how you're using Bluff.  "I roll Bluff, and the other PCs now have to believe me no matter what I said because I rolled a 20" is not how it works.
#3 chanter_hound Mar 09, 2010 12:04:20	Well here is my vindictive advice.. Switch characters. Change to a charcter who is only kick in the door style. Battlemind works pretty well for this, esspecially if you can use revenant. The moment you come to a door, attack it and bust in. Roll for inititive? HA! more like free movement for you. A group of people that are kinda hostile? Forget talking to them, charge them! Main villian going through his monologe? CHARGE!! Just utterly and totally destroy everything you come across.
#4 elricofgrans Mar 09, 2010 13:58:02	I have brought this up with the DM, but I have also not yet received a response.  I am not sure whether I am getting the brush off, or if he simply does not know what to say.  This is my second character.  I had my first one commit suicide after six months of being brick-walled on everything he did, rolled a character who was the opposite in many ways, and it is happening again.  He was quite apologetic after the first character, so I suspect he is surprised it is happening again. I abbreviated the Bluff description.  The way that scene went, I made a claim and the DM had me roll Bluff to see whether it came across as an obvious lie.  When it did not, the other players kept making knowledge checks to get information to prove I was wrong, which I kept using to make my evidence tighter and tighter (eg the Cleric rolled Religion to find that the people here had worshiped Kord for 1000 years, to which I responded that Kord had freed the people from slavery to The Squid God 1000 years ago, which brought them into his fold).  When no one could come up with anything else, they decided that they still did not believe me, but could not prove it was a lie or find any reason that they should enter the cavern, so they just went with me.  After that, the agreement was that anything my character says, true or not, will be immediately considered a lie by anyone and everyone and utterly ignored.  I intend to use that against them and cry wolf ;) chanter_hound, the other DM and I swap chairs.  When he plays, that is exactly what his character is like.  He has so far attempted to attack all but one *friendly* NPC he has met (only so long as that guy keeps coughing up loot).  Any NPC that so much as looks at the party sideways has been left bleeding on the floor.  If I started playing like that, he would welcome it.  Meanwhile, I would be the only one having no fun. EDIT: Sorry, I have no idea why the formatting has gone funny.  I fould fix it if I could.
#5 chanter_hound Mar 09, 2010 14:53:40	Well you could play his character but a thousand times worse. However, you could go exactly the same way he is going as well. Since you DM have an impossible situation unless they are stealthy. Kick open the door? KABOOM! It was trapped. Attack an NPC? Well suddenly there is thirty guards. and whoops.. a kid just ran by and stole something from him. Then again, Mind you, I only give vindictive advice..
#6 Krusk Mar 09, 2010 15:30:07	If I remember right, social skills don't work on other PCs. So basically you can say whatever you want and the other PCs can choose to believe you or not. It sounds like your sneaking off and going solo is bothering the other players, and the DM. Stop doing it. They don't want to play with a sneak, don't play one. Many groups get annoyed when one character goes off on his own, because it hogs the spotlight, and forces the DM to give them a mini-side adventure instead of focusing on what the group is doing.
#7 elricofgrans Mar 09, 2010 15:46:52	I realise I need to change my character.  That is why I am asking for advice on how to do that.
#8 chanter_hound Mar 09, 2010 15:53:04	I think you misunderstand.. or perhaps I do, but from the sounds of it, the other players don't mind that he is the sneak. What they do mind though is that they don't get any rewards because the DM belives that each player should only be his play style. He was never really going solo, but attempting to get the entire party into the best possible position by using Intelligence and creativity, instead of going totally "HULK SMASH!" on everything he runs into, which as he had said is the way the DM plays when the OP is the DM. Out of the entire group, 2/4 players prefer this method and the other 2 don't really seem to care except that current DM causes it to take much longer and gives less reward for it. Its also a rather bleh argument you use there with the whole spot light thing. Each player has thier moments that they are in the spot light. The fighter excells at combat. The Thief excells at sneaking. The Cleric excells at keeping the party alive, and the wizard excells at mass area control. It would be like having an entire adventure that had only combat. No social skills or the like. The Fighter would be on the top just slaughtering everything, while the rogue would be often lagging behind because anytime the fighter hits something it dies, and the rogue is despertly trying to get CA on something but can't because they are in a square brightly lit area and can never flank anything. Or the bard, who excels at skill challanges, but not so much in combat compaired to the cleric. IF there is never skill challanges, the bard never gets his spotlight of a chance. Examples in my games, would be my Assassin, who was the first for everyone to say "Hey! You go and sneak and get information." and so I did, sort of. I was only able to sneak, while the ranger with me was the only one who had thievery. Lucky I had a skill that allowed me to move back and forth between the ranger and the rest of the party so i preform liason. In 3.5 my skillful rogue had times like this as well, were I was able to climb walls and run faster than the rest of the party. My "spotlight" was whenever there was something someone needed a skill to do. Locks? No Problem.  Sneaking? No problem. I could do all of that. But what I couldn't do, was kill things very easy. Esspecially the undead. That is where the cleric shined through the black bottomless abyss. Now My character is the inventor and enchanter in the party. Still can't hit anything besides myself. But I make a handful of potions and the like. The Bard gets her spot light of hooking up with some chuck of man meat, The fighter keeps having various blights put on him. Our combat sorcerer has gotten beeten up a few times.. Unfortantly he tries to do everything, and thus fails at really taking in his spotlight scene. Our swashbuckler is a very quite player who unfortantly is very slow in the head so its like she is never there. (Too many medications for those last two players.) and our new Rogue has stolen a few of my potions and developed a new use for them. But my point is, that everyone gets thier turn in the spotlight, unless everyone is doing exactly the same thing, or thier character has no character. (Which is the case really with the Sorcerer and the swashbuckler) either because the player isn't really there or they are just everywhere.
#9 Phrennzy Mar 09, 2010 19:38:54	It sounds like you may be playing the wrong character type for his campaign.  If the campaign is a 'hack and slash bloodfest' and you make up a smooth talking rake, you aren't going to get much enjoyment.  This may not be the case, but you might consider it.
#10 elricofgrans Mar 10, 2010 13:58:22	It is definitely not supposed to be a hack-and-slash campaign.  Only one player would enjoy that; the rest of us enjoy the non-combat side of the game.  Two players would quit immediately, and another would not last long. My character joined the group as something of a SME.  They needed to undertake some investigations without drawing attention to themselves, and he was an expert at getting into places and avoiding trouble.  What has been happening is that my character leads them to the places they need to go (local knowledge), helps them find their way into and around each building, then leaves them to collect whatever they need (while he collects whatever he wants).  As the most role-play-centric player in the group, I have taken the situation to heart and have tried to help the party avoid any attention at all.  The DM, however, seems to consider getting into the building via a locked door and killing all witnesses sufficiently `not drawing attention'. Because I am effectively wasting a lot of time trying to dodge around combats, I need to stop this, but I am not sure how to change a character whose personality is to avoid combat into one who happily picks the lock and sets about killing everything in sight.  I am not sure how to make this enjoyable for myself, as I am not especially interested in a character whose first priority is kicking butt. The party is made of the following: * A Ranger, whose player has decided that his character knows nothing of cities, and as such he will be entirely passive until the party leaves civilisation.  The player is an Explorer, but stopped trying to interact when the DM kept dismissing his questions.  He prefers, and is always trying to promote, stealth in the party's operations and is often frustrated when this does not happen. * A Cleric, who is as loud as he is devoted.  The player was very much a Slayer when he started, but is steadily becoming more of an Actor.  He has even begun stepping away from fights he deemed his character would not want to start.  The character tends to be shouting or smoking, but will listen to others in the party if they want to sneak aroud. * A Wizard, whose only concern seems to be setting anything and everything (including the party) on fire.  The player is a Power-Gamer/Instigator who rarely interacts during role-play, and only joins in Skill Challenges if there is a reason to use one of their maxed-out skills (never tries to use high skills, only the maxed ones), but gets most engaged once the DM says to roll initiative.  Has been known to want to set fire to obviously suspicious buildings that the rest of the party was trying to avoid; has also been directly threatened by other players on more than one occation for this behaviour.
#11 Centauri Mar 11, 2010 19:02:23	It's easy for me to see where the DM's going with his brickwalling. I would imagine he spends a good amount of time between games working up interesting fights for the group and doesn't want them utterly avoided. He needs to learn some adaptability and the skill of saying "Yes, and..." to player plans. I would guess, though, that he really wants to see combat, and hasn't gotten it yet that most of his players aren't that into it. If I were in this DM's situation, I think I'd lean towards creating more skill challenges for the group, even though the wizard isn't that into them. A quick, abstract skill challenge in which victory means your PC has infiltrated a house, and defeat means your PC has alerted the guards, might make you happy, and be much faster than what you're doing now. The skill challenge could even be run concurrently with other goings on, such as combat. Also, I'd get you all out of the city or any semi-civilized areas. It doesn't sound like a good area for any of you.
#12 inarai Mar 12, 2010 15:22:29	Because I am effectively wasting a lot of time trying to dodge around combats, I need to stop this, but I am not sure how to change a character whose personality is to avoid combat into one who happily picks the lock and sets about killing everything in sight.  I am not sure how to make this enjoyable for myself, as I am not especially interested in a character whose first priority is kicking butt. So TELL YOUR DM.  Someone needs to tell him he's brickwalling, blocking off options, and getting in the way of your fun.  Doesn't seem to me like you're doing anything wrong here.  Rather, it seems like he's artificially adding guards everywhere you go to railroad you into playing the way he likes to play his characters.  So talk to him.  Tell him that's no fun.  A good DM will listen.
#13 elricofgrans Mar 12, 2010 16:24:07	Yes, we definitely need to leave the city.  It was originally a wilderness campaign, but the DM suddenly changed it part way.  He said he will revert to a wilderness one after a couple more month in this city.  It was originally supposed to be a 5-10 week side-quest, but that was in August >_<  I have passed the skill challenge suggestion (along with some examples I thought up) onto the DM as a possible solution.  I suspect the DM does want to present the combats he designed; the one time I avoided one, he kept telling the rest of the party about how good the combat they missed was, and that they missed some great treasure (I had to cut him off here before he accidentally created an ugly situation). I spoke with the DM before posting here, and several times since, but I do not think he knows what to do about this (he has only been DMing for 12 months, so it not super-experienced).  I have also spoken with some of the other players about this several times now, but I am just not getting any closer to working out how to make things work.  The cleric is currently away, so I cannot speak with him about this right now.  The ranger likes my character's `antics', but agrees too much time is wasted.  The wizard just wants to get to the beat-down and was unimpressed the one time I succeeded in avoiding combat; the DM is not sure how to balance my interests and the wizard's when they completely contradict each other.  The easiest way to make things work is for me to change, which is what I am trying to find a way to do; I am just making no progress on this, as I cannot find a way to realistically make such a dramatic change to a character, and not end up making it a character I do not like (thereby having a second PC commit suicide).
#14 inarai Mar 12, 2010 18:51:14	Yes, we definitely need to leave the city.  It was originally a wilderness campaign, but the DM suddenly changed it part way.  He said he will revert to a wilderness one after a couple more month in this city.  It was originally supposed to be a 5-10 week side-quest, but that was in August >_<  I have passed the skill challenge suggestion (along with some examples I thought up) onto the DM as a possible solution.  I suspect the DM does want to present the combats he designed; the one time I avoided one, he kept telling the rest of the party about how good the combat they missed was, and that they missed some great treasure (I had to cut him off here before he accidentally created an ugly situation). There's part of the problem - he's punishing you for coming up with a different solution to the situation.  You should still get your rewards - you did still overcome the challenge.  If nothing else, you should be able to alter the conditions of the fight in your favour.  Reduce the size of the opposed forces, sabotage/hide their equipment or lock the armoury so that any of them not armed at that exact time can't fight... And the simple answer to balancing what players want is not to try to please them both at the same time - have interesting combat for the wizard, certainly, but also fun non-combat events for you and the ranger. Because if it's a 4 person party, and 2 people like these non-combat events, it's not fair to expect them to give that up because a wizard just wants to blast things - if you want different things, people are gonna need to wait for a bit, or alternatively, participate in parts that aren't their main interest, much as you do when it comes to combat.  Who knows, he might find that if some skill challenges and the like come along that are interesting for his character, might find he likes them. That said, if you do need to change (say, the DM doesn't know what to do with non-combat activities, etc.), show his hesitiance in his approach to combat - maybe he's a Cunning Sneak Sharpshooter, striking unseen from the shadows and away from harm?
#15 tequila_sunrise Mar 12, 2010 19:11:07	First, I'd like to say that you're being too generous with your DM and the wizard player. It's great that you're trying to change in order to have the game run smoother, but they can dam well meet you half way. It's rather selfish of them to want a constant game of Diablo: the Tabletop Edition, while you want to play D&D. Okay, with that rant aside here's a suggestion: I am just making no progress on this, as I cannot find a way to realistically make such a dramatic change to a character, and not end up making it a character I do not like (thereby having a second PC commit suicide). Imagine yourself as an adventurer. You're a resourceful person, willing to use subterfuge and stealth to accomplish your ends. But for some reason, those things never work: somehow you always end up carving a bloody path through a continuous series of foes foolish enough to fight you. Would you not eventually adapt to your situation? Personally, I know it wouldn't take me long to say "The gods clearly want me to kill everything in my way, so why am I avoiding the inevitable? If my enemies are too dumb to get out of my way, I'll build myself a tower of fame and glory built on their cold dead bodies!"
#16 elricofgrans Mar 13, 2010 0:08:42	That said, if you do need to change (say, the DM doesn't know what to do with non-combat activities, etc.), show his hesitiance in his approach to combat - maybe he's a Cunning Sneak Sharpshooter, striking unseen from the shadows and away from harm? From an RP perspective, that woud be perfect for me (I had not thought of that), but mechanically it would be no good.  I am expected to `tank', as they put it.  When combats start, I stand in the middle of the enemies next to the Cleric while the Ranger and Wizard pling away from a distance.  The DM also likes putting together encounters with little-to-no terrain you could hide behind.  It tends to be narrow, empty alleyways or small, empty rooms. Imagine yourself as an adventurer. You're a resourceful person, willing to use subterfuge and stealth to accomplish your ends. But for some reason, those things never work: somehow you always end up carving a bloody path through a continuous series of foes foolish enough to fight you. Would you not eventually adapt to your situation? Personally, I know it wouldn't take me long to say "The gods clearly want me to kill everything in my way, so why am I avoiding the inevitable? If my enemies are too dumb to get out of my way, I'll build myself a tower of fame and glory built on their cold dead bodies!"  That is also an interesting way of looking at it that I had not considered.  Mentioning the gods gives me an idea too.  My character worships Brandobaris (he is embarassingly generic), but the Cleric is a Priest of Kord.  Yeah, you already know where this is going.  My character lacks the strength to be a real buiser, but it I make use of that Duelist Rogue article I could perhaps have him inspired by the Cleric into changing to worshiping Kord.  The Cleric's player would definitely jump at the role-play behind this in five seconds (he commented before that his character viewed mine as misguided and needing his direction), and the Wizard has another `keen for combat' ally. Perhaps, despite a background of (mostly) dodging the law, he views recent events with the party as Brandobaris abandoning him; the Cleric then jumps in and comforts that this is actually all the blessing of Kord and takes him under his wing.  Maybe even a divine multi-class somewhere down the track, if I qualify for one.  Something like that!  I will need to speak with the DM and other players to see what they think, but I think this is something we could develop to make everyone happy.  After all, even a little religious discovery will not completely kill his old habits, merely restrict them to situations where the DM wants a skill challenge instead of a combat. I think I finally have a solution to an issue that had left me feeling horridly troubled!  Thank you all for your kind words, advice and careful thought.
#17 inarai Mar 13, 2010 0:24:23	That said, if you do need to change (say, the DM doesn't know what to do with non-combat activities, etc.), show his hesitiance in his approach to combat - maybe he's a Cunning Sneak Sharpshooter, striking unseen from the shadows and away from harm? From an RP perspective, that woud be perfect for me (I had not thought of that), but mechanically it would be no good.  I am expected to `tank', as they put it.  When combats start, I stand in the middle of the enemies next to the Cleric while the Ranger and Wizard pling away from a distance.  The DM also likes putting together encounters with little-to-no terrain you could hide behind.  It tends to be narrow, empty alleyways or small, empty rooms. ... ... ... Wow.  That's just...  Wow.  They're expecting a ROGUE to tank?  Someone critically fails to undestand party composition.  The only class in that party I could see making a tank out of is the cleric, and that assumes this is 3.5...  Not sure how feasible that is in 4e, if that's what you're playing.  The party composition is just not set up for that kind of combat.  Workable, I'm sure, but you need to do 3 things: 1: Change the conditions of combat, in world.  Ensure your enemies are caught at a disadvantage.  And the DM needs to not brickwall you from doing such things. 2: Engage in fast, hard strikes rather than battles of attrition, you aren't able to fight those unless the cleric starts tanking - and he's all you've got.  Rogues are not tanks.  They can be set up to dodge well enough, certainly, to keep themselves alive in the kind of fighting the class is designed for - not the kind of fighting they want you to do.  Also, the wizard is going to need to take and employ as much crowd control as possible, to the detriment of damage output. 3: Take advantage of map features.  This will require the DM to create map features - or, find other ways to get yourself concealment.  They exist. If they're expecting you to fill a main tank role, they need to adjust those expectations.  Rogues do not do that.
#18 elricofgrans Mar 13, 2010 17:17:06	4E, and the Cleric cannot take a hit.  He has as few HP as the Wizard and, until recently, he had the lowest defences; he has now just caught up to the Wizard's AC.  Thanks to Lost in the Crowd, my character (situationally) has the best defences and he also has the most HP.  Add in that he is pure melee and the mostly ranged party wants him taking point.  I was previously expected to play the party Defender, but my characters would be unconcious, dying, or dead quite early in every encounter as literally every opponent would focus fire on me the whole encounter (even if I tried running away, they would ignore the rest of the party and focus on me).  I made a Rogue this time hoping to be able to do something more interesting, but it was not well received.  I suspect once this guy is dead I will be told to make another silent automaton of a Defender. I have spoken to the DM about changing the encounter styles a few times, as they are consistently bad for the whole party.  I tried using the campaign I DM to illustrate encounters in wider areas with cover, difficult terrain, etc in them, but he and the power-gamer reacted quite badly to this and refused to play that session.  Ever since, I have been required to present encounters in fixed-spaced areas where the enemy just march up mindlessly in a straight line and let the party beat them up in sequence.
#19 inarai Mar 13, 2010 18:02:46	4E, and the Cleric cannot take a hit.  He has as few HP as the Wizard and, until recently, he had the lowest defences; he has now just caught up to the Wizard's AC.  Thanks to Lost in the Crowd, my character (situationally) has the best defences and he also has the most HP.  Add in that he is pure melee and the mostly ranged party wants him taking point.  I was previously expected to play the party Defender, but my characters would be unconcious, dying, or dead quite early in every encounter as literally every opponent would focus fire on me the whole encounter (even if I tried running away, they would ignore the rest of the party and focus on me).  I made a Rogue this time hoping to be able to do something more interesting, but it was not well received.  I suspect once this guy is dead I will be told to make another silent automaton of a Defender. That creature behaviour seems wrong.  There's just about nothing in the game that should be causing them to do that.  Looking at it, though...  You've got 2 strikers, a controller, and a leader.  That is workable, but not easily.  And it does not involve tanking. The Wizard gets the job of keeping the enemy from doing damage.  He is a controller, and he's gonna need to play straight into that as much as possible, you've got nothing else.  You need to find ways of getting stealth.  Your DM should be at least throwing a few crates and such around, but more importantly, you should try to find something that will net you something similar to 3.5's Hide in Plain Sight.  The cleric should consider powers that net you temp HP or defence bonuses. If they want the classic Defender, someone who enjoys that should roll it.
#20 elricofgrans Mar 13, 2010 19:00:49	Yes, I spoke with the DM about that before too.  I am not sure why, but he seems convinced that all enemies should pile onto the Defender, no matter what.  Only the rare Lurker threatens the others, and once the Defender drops he begins very obviously fudging rolls to avoid TPK. Technically, we have three Strikers.  The Wizard is built as a Striker. No spells have any control associated with them, as he is only concerned about DPR.  He spends each session trying to outdo the Greatbow Ranger.  I have spoken with him about sacrificing some damage for control, or more party-friendly spells, but he is not interested.  The Ranger has considered trying to build his character into a part-time Controller to make up for this. The Cleric's favourite spell is Priest's Shield, which gives us both a defence bonus, assuming I am not trying to get my Sneak Attack (which I have all but given up on).  Beyond that, his character is built heavily for healing.  His Encounter, Daily and Utility Powers are all about healing in some form or another, and he took that healing Class Feature instead of Turn Undead (I forget the name).  Healing Surges are almost a non-issue, as we do not run many encounters per day, so we are more limited by how much healing the Cleric can put out than we are by number of surges.
#21 inarai Mar 13, 2010 20:31:28	Yes, I spoke with the DM about that before too.  I am not sure why, but he seems convinced that all enemies should pile onto the Defender, no matter what.  Only the rare Lurker threatens the others, and once the Defender drops he begins very obviously fudging rolls to avoid TPK. Technically, we have three Strikers.  The Wizard is built as a Striker. No spells have any control associated with them, as he is only concerned about DPR.  He spends each session trying to outdo the Greatbow Ranger.  I have spoken with him about sacrificing some damage for control, or more party-friendly spells, but he is not interested.  The Ranger has considered trying to build his character into a part-time Controller to make up for this. The Cleric's favourite spell is Priest's Shield, which gives us both a defence bonus, assuming I am not trying to get my Sneak Attack (which I have all but given up on).  Beyond that, his character is built heavily for healing.  His Encounter, Daily and Utility Powers are all about healing in some form or another, and he took that healing Class Feature instead of Turn Undead (I forget the name).  Healing Surges are almost a non-issue, as we do not run many encounters per day, so we are more limited by how much healing the Cleric can put out than we are by number of surges. ...  Okay, you've got some problems.  My suggestions: 1: That wizard should rebuild.  If control doesn't appeal to him, he could switch somehow to a Defender with Striker as a secondary role.  You could, easily enough I think, rewrite your character into a Bard(Leader, Controller secondary, best skill monkey class in the game hands down.  Combat style I suspect might appeal to you more, and very good for the out of combat stuff you want.)  This switches you to Leader/Leader/Striker/Defender with some decent control and extra striking.  That's actually highly viable. 2: Creature behaviour needs to change.  Really.  That's just...  Wrong.  Nothing would behave like that.  At all.  Not to mention the game is absolutely designed for them to behave differently.  That's why Defenders tend to have powers to keep enemies on them. 3: If he wants DPR, the Wizard is playing the wrong class/role.  That's not what they do.  And Rangers are single-target DPR kings besides.  Regardless, that reeks of not understanding the game...  If the controller is just going for damage, you've got problems.  Especially in a 4 person party.  People really have to know their roles there.  Perhaps getting slapped around a bit, what with there being no defender, would teach him a bit/
#22 elricofgrans Mar 13, 2010 22:38:02	I would love to have a Bard more than anything else (it is the sort of character I normally play in other games), but I am banned from it.  The DM is concerned I would completely take-over role-play/skill challenges if I had one.  He is probably right, but I am not sure how that is any different from the current situation. The Wizard is not interested in my opinion on his character either.  I have brought it up several times before and he does not want to hear it.  He absolutely convinced that his character build is flawless (CharOp would probably fall over laughing if they saw it).  It is the same in the campaign I DM: he plays a Paladin, but tries to set up situations where the enemies have to ignore his mark so he can increase his DPR.  The Rogue and Druid in that game is not very happy about this, but he is again convinced he is right.  Both his characters are under serious risk of being killed by the rest of the party (it has been threatened enough times), so I am just waiting for that to happen. Since the Wizard joined the group, even since I stopped playing the Defender, his character has rarely been touched.  He hides behind everyone else, and the enemies happily ignore him.  The Ranger is similar.  Most encounters go by without him taking a hit, but he gets pummeled in the encounters where he does take a few blows.  It is the Cleric and whatever I play that take all the hits.  It has been seven sessions since I stopped playing the Defender (and sworn to never do it again), and the Wizard has not once received any serious threat from the enemies, so I cannot see his opinion changing soon.
#23 inarai Mar 14, 2010 0:08:31	I would love to have a Bard more than anything else (it is the sort of character I normally play in other games), but I am banned from it.  The DM is concerned I would completely take-over role-play/skill challenges if I had one.  He is probably right, but I am not sure how that is any different from the current situation. The Wizard is not interested in my opinion on his character either.  I have brought it up several times before and he does not want to hear it.  He absolutely convinced that his character build is flawless (CharOp would probably fall over laughing if they saw it).  It is the same in the campaign I DM: he plays a Paladin, but tries to set up situations where the enemies have to ignore his mark so he can increase his DPR.  The Rogue and Druid in that game is not very happy about this, but he is again convinced he is right.  Both his characters are under serious risk of being killed by the rest of the party (it has been threatened enough times), so I am just waiting for that to happen. Since the Wizard joined the group, even since I stopped playing the Defender, his character has rarely been touched.  He hides behind everyone else, and the enemies happily ignore him.  The Ranger is similar.  Most encounters go by without him taking a hit, but he gets pummeled in the encounters where he does take a few blows.  It is the Cleric and whatever I play that take all the hits.  It has been seven sessions since I stopped playing the Defender (and sworn to never do it again), and the Wizard has not once received any serious threat from the enemies, so I cannot see his opinion changing soon. Here's my suggestion:  DM stops pulling punches from those two.  That Wizard needs to stop thinking it's all about DPR - he won't if doing it wrong has no consequence.  If his character gets killed because of his mistakes, a) That's fair b) Maybe he'll learn.  And next time he says he's doing it exactly right, I suggest shoving the PHB in his face and ask him where the word Striker is in the Wizard's role entry. The way you have it going now, he's doing it wrong and the DM is basically coddling him for that.  This gets more complicated to do in your game where he's the defender, but I would suggest this:  Let his refusal to actually defend lead to colossal failures in game.  The party does not acheive a goal, or gets captured, or loses loot or doesn't get it in the first place.  Clear consequences for the behaviour may correct it.  With the paladin, I suggest rather bluntly implying that should he continue to breach the Paladin's code of conduct like he is, he will become an ex-paladin, and no longer eligible as a PC - or, seeing as 4e killed the code of conduct, have a bunch of other divine characters devoted to the same god, to kill/arrest him for conduct unbecoming of his station.  I have a feeling the other PC's will be disinclined to help him with this. I'm not talking about contrived circumstances, either, rather, situations which would work out fine if everyone were doing their job right.  Let it become clear (emphasize it in descriptions, even) that this is all the result of him not properly pulling his weight.  He will not see a problem until it presents one, and as it stands it sounds like campaigns are changing around his mistakes. Either way, the enemy should play tactically; they should attack threats.  If the ranger and wizard are standing beside each other, they can be controlled/blasted into oblivion.  They're also still prime targets for ranged units, and melee creatures should try to close. As for being banned from playing Bard, well, that seems artificial: The skill monkey will always shine in matters of skills.  That is their JOB, at least in part. And I know, some of this sounds a little bit punitive, but, well, you're dealing with a problem player.  Talking to him about the issue doesn't seem to work, the next step is to demonstrate it.
#24 tequila_sunrise Mar 14, 2010 0:17:07	...I was previously expected to play the party Defender, but my characters would be unconcious, dying, or dead quite early in every encounter as literally every opponent would focus fire on me the whole encounter (even if I tried running away, they would ignore the rest of the party and focus on me).  I made a Rogue this time hoping to be able to do something more interesting, but it was not well received.  I suspect once this guy is dead I will be told to make another silent automaton of a Defender... ...I have spoken to the DM about changing the encounter styles a few times, as they are consistently bad for the whole party.  I tried using the campaign I DM to illustrate encounters in wider areas with cover, difficult terrain, etc in them, but he and the power-gamer reacted quite badly to this and refused to play that session.  Ever since, I have been required to present encounters in fixed-spaced areas where the enemy just march up mindlessly in a straight line and let the party beat them up in sequence... ...Yes, I spoke with the DM about that before too.  I am not sure why, but he seems convinced that all enemies should pile onto the Defender, no matter what.  Only the rare Lurker threatens the others, and once the Defender drops he begins very obviously fudging rolls to avoid TPK... ...The Wizard is built as a Striker. No spells have any control associated with them, as he is only concerned about DPR.  He spends each session trying to outdo the Greatbow Ranger.  I have spoken with him about sacrificing some damage for control, or more party-friendly spells, but he is not interested... ...The Cleric's favourite spell is Priest's Shield, which gives us both a defence bonus, assuming I am not trying to get my Sneak Attack (which I have all but given up on)... I'm sorry but why are you playing with these people, again? Some of their behavior can be explained as ignorance or lack of imagination, but your games with these people sound like chores. The wizard player in particular sounds like a total tool, and the DM sounds like he needs to spend a few more months playing under a real DM before trying it himself. Are these people your friends, are you just that desperate for a D&D fix or are you exaggerating a bit?
#25 mondos123 Mar 14, 2010 1:12:46	I was just going to say, why bother playing with these people if you're not having fun. I understand they might be your friends and you feel obligated to play with them, but if you're time is being wasted by people who don't consider your enjoyment of the game, maybe you should consider letting go. It sounds to me that you're experiencing one problem after another. Personally, I would not be able to deal with that. If you decide to, just after your next game, politely tell the DM that you're no longer interested in playing the game. You can even do it by email or instant messaging if you don't want to do it in person. I'd try to leave on amicable terms if possible.
#26 elricofgrans Mar 14, 2010 3:56:47	We are all friends, and we do other things together without issue.  The original group (DM and three of the four players) started off as a group of collegues who would pinch a meeting room after work to play.  As we have moved on in our careers since, we no longer work together, and the only location we could find that worked for games was my appartment.  On sessions where I am ill/away/busy, they have to cancel as no appropriate alternative venue can be found.  If I stopped, it would make me feel like a right a-hole and not leave a good impression on the others.  Besides, it took me 15 years to find a group of people to play with, so I would not like my chances of ever finding another group, and this is the sum-total of my social life. When we started, none of us (DM included) had played D&D.  Since then, they have all played under me for a short time now, but the other DM could count the number of sessions he has played on his hands.  Likewise, when his only experience as a player is under a complete newbie DM, I am not sure he will learn too much from watching me. The way you have it going now, he's doing it wrong and the DM is basically coddling him for that.  This gets more complicated to do in your game where he's the defender, but I would suggest this:  Let his refusal to actually defend lead to colossal failures in game.  The party does not acheive a goal, or gets captured, or loses loot or doesn't get it in the first place.  Clear consequences for the behaviour may correct it.  With the paladin, I suggest rather bluntly implying that should he continue to breach the Paladin's code of conduct like he is, he will become an ex-paladin, and no longer eligible as a PC - or, seeing as 4e killed the code of conduct, have a bunch of other divine characters devoted to the same god, to kill/arrest him for conduct unbecoming of his station.  I have a feeling the other PC's will be disinclined to help him with this. Thanks, that gives me a really good idea for their next session.  Either he learns quickly, or the direction of the campaign takes a sharp turn and he is forced to learn.  Failure would derail my plans, but could also be a heck of a lot more interesting.  The party was about to escort a VIP.  I had originally planned on them getting to the location safely enough (with the trouble coming after), but I could have an encounter and make the VIP stick to the Paladin asking for his protection.  The rest of the party fills their roles perfectly (the Rogue one-shots Brutes, the Druid locks-down the worst enemies, and the Warlord makes sure those two operate at 100%), so it would rely on him focusing on protecting over killing to overcome this issue.  If he protects the VIP, I will make sure he gets a cookie; if not, the plot potential behind this is amazing.
#27 tequila_sunrise Mar 14, 2010 20:48:45	We are all friends, and we do other things together without issue.  The original group (DM and three of the four players) started off as a group of collegues who would pinch a meeting room after work to play.  As we have moved on in our careers since, we no longer work together, and the only location we could find that worked for games was my apartment.  On sessions where I am ill/away/busy, they have to cancel as no appropriate alternative venue can be found.  If I stopped, it would make me feel like a right a-hole and not leave a good impression on the others.  Besides, it took me 15 years to find a group of people to play with, so I would not like my chances of ever finding another group, and this is the sum-total of my social life. I see; that's a tough situation, to be sure. It's taken me quite a long time to get my current group together -- I live in an rp desert -- so I know how hard finding gamers can be. Nevertheless, I can't help but suggest that you assert yourself a bit more. Your friends are able to walk all over your gaming interests because they know you aren't willing to give up the group. They're you're friends, so they probably think of it as "Oh Elric complains, but he doesn't really mean it. Who doesn't like killing enemies?" That doesn't make them any less selfish though. They need to learn to compromise a bit. You have leverage, so use it! You might feel like an a-hole, but believe me you're not. For example, if I came into your apartment every week to play bad music, watch bad movies and get high/drunk, would you not kick me out just because I assumed that you enjoy all those things? Well the only difference between me and your friends is that you call them friends. And that's great, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use your own home as leverage. Here's what I suggest: Send them an email saying "You know guys, my heart's just not into the game. All we do is kill, kill, kill and it's gotten repetitive. So after our next session, I'm taking a break from the game." And then DO IT, if they don't shape up during the next session. You can still do other stuff with them, assuming they're mature enough. And you can always make more friends, even if it's as hard for you as it is for me. Even if they're not gamer friends, you'll find some way to have fun with other people. You really owe it to yourself to get out of this rut you're in, because it could be so much better and life's too short!
#28 inarai Mar 14, 2010 21:13:26	We are all friends, and we do other things together without issue.  The original group (DM and three of the four players) started off as a group of collegues who would pinch a meeting room after work to play.  As we have moved on in our careers since, we no longer work together, and the only location we could find that worked for games was my apartment.  On sessions where I am ill/away/busy, they have to cancel as no appropriate alternative venue can be found.  If I stopped, it would make me feel like a right a-hole and not leave a good impression on the others.  Besides, it took me 15 years to find a group of people to play with, so I would not like my chances of ever finding another group, and this is the sum-total of my social life. I see; that's a tough situation, to be sure. It's taken me quite a long time to get my current group together -- I live in an rp desert -- so I know how hard finding gamers can be. Nevertheless, I can't help but suggest that you assert yourself a bit more. Your friends are able to walk all over your gaming interests because they know you aren't willing to give up the group. They're you're friends, so they probably think of it as "Oh Elric complains, but he doesn't really mean it. Who doesn't like killing enemies?" That doesn't make them any less selfish though. They need to learn to compromise a bit. You have leverage, so use it! You might feel like an a-hole, but believe me you're not. For example, if I came into your apartment every week to play bad music, watch bad movies and get high/drunk, would you not kick me out just because I assumed that you enjoy all those things? Well the only difference between me and your friends is that you call them friends. And that's great, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use your own home as leverage. Here's what I suggest: Send them an email saying "You know guys, my heart's just not into the game. All we do is kill, kill, kill and it's gotten repetitive. So after our next session, I'm taking a break from the game." And then DO IT, if they don't shape up during the next session. You can still do other stuff with them, assuming they're mature enough. And you can always make more friends, even if it's as hard for you as it is for me. Even if they're not gamer friends, you'll find some way to have fun with other people. You really owe it to yourself to get out of this rut you're in, because it could be so much better and life's too short!  I will append one suggestion:  Give them, and yourself, an out if you go the ultimatum route.  Suggest that you can't keep playing that way, strongly imply that if things don't change, you're gonna need to take a break, etc.  That might bring out a better resolution than a simple "this is what is going to happen".
#29 chanter_hound Mar 14, 2010 22:35:43	What if you were just to kill the rest of the party?
#30 elricofgrans Mar 15, 2010 14:56:48	For example, if I came into your apartment every week to play bad music, watch bad movies and get high/drunk, would you not kick me out just because I assumed that you enjoy all those things? Hehe, excellent example. We had our weekly session last night.  I intended to do exactly what you suggested before we start.  Coincidentally, the DM was introducing a new player to the group who came to observe, so I decided it best to lighten it just a touch.  Previously, I had explained to the DM what I need to be able to enjoy the game, so this time I explained it to the group.  I added what I had been aiming to do with my skill antics (so they understood that my sneaking around was not supposed to be time-wasting, but was intended to benefit the party) and made it clear that charging blindly into every potential combat just does nothing for me.  I had previously disgussed this issue with everyone one-on-one, so I made sure that the whole group knew everything that had been disgussed.  Only time can show if this improves. The Wizard issue seems like it will sort itself out, as we are on the verge of a TPK after that session.  Unless the DM pulls out a deus ex machina and hand-waves all the restrictions that have been on the party for the past six months (RP imposed, but ultimately mechanical), I cannot see how we could possible avoid it.  Assuming the likely, I will strongly urge the Wizard to roll a Striker (then I would be happy for him to DPR all day), and I will make another appeal to be allowed to roll a Bard. Thank you again for all the suggestions!