this post was submitted on 11 May 2025
398 points (97.8% liked)
RPGMemes
11677 readers
964 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Being useless in combat is a personal choice that can absolutely be avoided without hampering your ability to be a skillmonkey. You won’t be obliterating the enemy en masse, but that’s what the casters are for.
Play a Thief rogue and have a blast with fast hands when initiative is rolled, or be almost any bard and hand out bardic inspiration while you stand as a mild speedbump of meat between the wizard and the enemy.
Or maybe chat with your DM about game expectations prior to playing? I know it’s an impossible ask for the internet at large.
The problem is that while combat focused PC have armour, high initiative, multiple attack per round, and don't fail their roll. You're like acting at the end of the round, once when other PC do it 3 times, fail your attack and as soon as you get hit you're unconscious. The cool part of putting the big combat at the end of the session is that you can take a nap, and have the GM waking you up at 5 combat is over, let's give the XP and the first train homes leaves in 30 minutes
Ah so we’re complaining that dumping constitution makes you die faster? Yeah if you roll up with 8 strength 8 dex and 8 con you’re going to get split in half by the first kobold you encounter, what a concept.
If you’re playing a bard with 14 charisma(or heaven forbid, 16 like a filthy minmaxer), you’re only a few percentage points behind your team on your vicious mockeries. You genuinely have to try to be truly useless.
Chat with the whole party. Some of them might not be happy with you avoiding all the combat.
Absolutely, there should be some level of “okay who stands in front of the skeletons, who fireballs the skeletons, who puts the fighter back together after they get fireball’d too, and who stops the whole party from getting killed by a trap before they even reach the battle”. If you’re gasp optimizing, you might even tailor your skillmonkey around the gaps in your party’s abilities - you probably don’t need the world’s best arcana checks with a wizard in the party, but it would be nice to grab face skills if you don’t have any other charismatic fellows around.
That is a lot more optimization than I'm used to. In my group people just come up with characters they want to play and the GM works with that.
Mind you, we do discuss what kind of game we're playing so we don't end up with four pure noncombatants doing a dungeon crawl. But ending up with four wizards? Yeah, that might happen or even be encouraged.
I really don't wanna have to discuss who has to change their character concept because we need a healer or our party composition won't be optimal.
The idea that players all make their characters in isolation and just show up on session 0 with them sounds like such a recipe for disaster. I know it can work sometimes, much like "just grab four things from the fridge and throw them into the soup" can work sometimes. But sometimes you get like gummy bear pizza bites with shrimp and mayo topping.
I think a lot of games that came after D&D figured out solutions to common problems, but D&D insists on staying kind of archaic.
It's not about who has to change their character concept. But about building a party which can work together.A session zero and common character creation is universal seen as a good practice
I've seen campaigns where players had to actively avoid PvP due to big difference in goal/loyalties/alignment. Let's avoid the my family hates your familytrope.
Then, indeed, not doubling the skills or have skills not matching the campaign. You don't want to have 5 pilots for one space ship. Especially if it means you don't have a social character.
There is more character I'd like to play than games where I could play them, so not that much of a problem anyway
I find that a lot of D&D players seem to have a fairly mechanistic view of the game, more so than with other games. This is probably a result of D&D, as an offshoot of a tabletop strategy game, being designed in such a manner. Now, your approach is already a lot softer (and I agree that some preplanning is recommended) but the "every party needs a tank, a caster, a healer, a skill monkey, and one of the needs to be the face" I responded to is fairly common in the D&D world.
I don't agree with that level of party planning. I find it awfully reductionist and belying a mechanistic view on how the game works. I also never found it necessary. Every single element in that list is optional if the players and GM can deal with it. Heck, I've never even been in a game with a semi-dedicated healer. For something with clear, limited in-world roles (like your starship example), you do need to allocate them but games like that are rare.
Of course, like I mentioned that D&D's design informs the way it's talked about, my experiences are colored by the systems I've played, particularly The Dark Eye. TDE affords players much less power than D&D. Spellcasters are much weaker due to slow resource regeneration – they use a mana point system and a high-powered spell will take multiple long rests to recover from. Sure, you can combat heal or throw a fireball but only when necessary. Also, there are way more skills so even with all party members pitching in you won't have expertise or even competency in everything.
As a result, the idea of having a party that can take on any challenge (and/or deal with several high-stakes battles in a short time frame) is unrealistic. This actually frees up a lot of conceptual space since there's no one party that can do every kind of adventure. So with some coordination you can make anything work, even a party with no combat or magical skills who Shawn Spencer their way through quests.
What absolutely needs to be worked out are things that could set the party against itself or keep a player from interacting with the others. But that's more of a player behavior thing; e.g. you can play a perfectly selfish, evil character who still puts the party's interests ahead of their own – if they're played to consider having reliable friends worth more than short term gain. So yeah, I also expect a certain amount of character tailoring, just on the roleplay level rather than mechanically.
Just for clarification - you don’t want ensure your party has, say, someone with the ability to talk to people, but you also don’t want to talk to your DM ahead of time to ensure you’re not playing a politics heavy game where a face will be absolutely necessary to make any progress?
Not everyone needs to be specced into being the perfect version of one of those four basic archetypes. Like you mention, “dedicated healer” is essentially gone in place of short rests and healing word spam. But won’t it feel awful goofy to have a player die as the three other 8 wisdom barbarians fail their medicine checks to stabilize?
Some basic discussion of what the adventure or campaign is going to be about is of course necessary. A full-social adventure with a party of dedicated murder hobos won't work. But if the characters fit mostly within the requirements of the adventure then everything else can be adjusted.
Let's say the GM wants to do an adventure where the characters will investigate a murder of a member of the city council, which will lead into uncovering and fighting a cult that is infiltrating the city's upper echelons. The players are only told that the adventure will involve investigation, combat, and high society interaction.
The players come up with a detective, a brawny priest, and a politician who likes dueling. So they've got the investigative and social skills, the priest and politician do reasonably well in combat, the priest can even provide some healing, but there's no ranged firepower and nobody can break into anything. The GM can tailor the adventure to match that; there's no need for anyone to redesign their character so that the party can engage flying enemies or obtain evidence from a locked room.
Likewise, if the party were to consist of three wizards from the local college, the adventure could still work. One of the players is suggested to hold a teaching position at the college to provide social clout, one should ideally have some experience with investigation or political scheming, everyone is recommended to keep Mage Armor prepared, and the cult now favors ranged combat. The plot might move a bit slower because of less plentiful healing opportunities and frequent rests.
All of this assumes a GM who primarily wants to work with the players to tell a story. If the GM wants to do an unforgiving grind where the players will need to use every advantage (in and out of game) to survive, this won't fly. Bring an optimized roster or perish. (Of course, most unforgiving GMs I know won't allow magical healing so that character injuries actually mean something.) I probably wouldn't join that game but some people roll like that.
On the whole, I don't find it that goofy when characters die in combat. At least not goofier than when parties always just happen to consist of people whose skills perfectly complement each other, especially ones that form by happenstance.
True in pathfinder, not so true in DnD 5ed