Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9270817" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Pathfinder 1e notably included the presence of buffs in their encounter math.&nbsp; They assumed that of course melee would have access to haste at level 5-6 (and even made a haste-like for the Cleric to make this more likely to occur).&nbsp; Of course, this made the game harder for groups who didn't have access to the proper buffs.I bring this up because it's the flipside of 3.5's design, where the only thing taken into account is magic items, the default array, and the classic four man part (Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard), with Clerics doing nothing but healing and Wizards doing nothing but blasting (and we all know what happened there).If you don't account for buffs in the game because you don't want to force a player to fill a certain role, then if someone does, the game becomes much easier.&nbsp; If you do, and those buffs don't manifest, it becomes much harder.&nbsp; This creates an optimal play pattern either way- you might not be &quot;forced&quot; to play in the &quot;correct&quot; manner, but if you don't, your party might* suffer for it.*There are, of course, other factors, like player skill, how optimal their characters are built, how well the characters complement one another, and so on.&nbsp; At the end of the day, if the players go &quot;off script&quot;, the DM has to adjust for it without any real guidance from the game books.&nbsp; Now, in the hands of an experienced DM, this might not be an issue, but if the DM doesn't have that experience, I see no problem suggesting players play in an optimal fashion.One DM I know handled this by simply slashing the xp earned whenever his groups won &quot;too easily&quot;- &quot;after all, that's what the DMG says!&quot;.&nbsp; I pointed out to him, however, that he was punishing his players for being good at playing the game.&nbsp; If they knew that they were earning half xp because they dared to use optimal strategies, I'm sure they'd be pretty annoyed by it.&nbsp; &quot;Oh well, I always use tougher monsters so they get the same xp.&quot;, was his reply.&nbsp; Which I felt was even worse- now you had to play optimally just to survive encounters!What I always tell my players is, &quot;you don't have to have a heal bot or a buff guy or a controller, but things will probably be easier if you do.&nbsp; I'll do my best to adjust if you want to do your own thing, but I don't want to hear complaints if it doesn't work out.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9270817, member: 6877472"] Pathfinder 1e notably included the presence of buffs in their encounter math. They assumed that of course melee would have access to haste at level 5-6 (and even made a haste-like for the Cleric to make this more likely to occur). Of course, this made the game harder for groups who didn't have access to the proper buffs. I bring this up because it's the flipside of 3.5's design, where the only thing taken into account is magic items, the default array, and the classic four man part (Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard), with Clerics doing nothing but healing and Wizards doing nothing but blasting (and we all know what happened there). If you don't account for buffs in the game because you don't want to force a player to fill a certain role, then if someone does, the game becomes much easier. If you do, and those buffs don't manifest, it becomes much harder. This creates an optimal play pattern either way- you might not be "forced" to play in the "correct" manner, but if you don't, your party might* suffer for it. *There are, of course, other factors, like player skill, how optimal their characters are built, how well the characters complement one another, and so on. At the end of the day, if the players go "off script", the DM has to adjust for it without any real guidance from the game books. Now, in the hands of an experienced DM, this might not be an issue, but if the DM doesn't have that experience, I see no problem suggesting players play in an optimal fashion. One DM I know handled this by simply slashing the xp earned whenever his groups won "too easily"- "after all, that's what the DMG says!". I pointed out to him, however, that he was punishing his players for being good at playing the game. If they knew that they were earning half xp because they dared to use optimal strategies, I'm sure they'd be pretty annoyed by it. "Oh well, I always use tougher monsters so they get the same xp.", was his reply. Which I felt was even worse- now you had to play optimally just to survive encounters! What I always tell my players is, "you don't have to have a heal bot or a buff guy or a controller, but things will probably be easier if you do. I'll do my best to adjust if you want to do your own thing, but I don't want to hear complaints if it doesn't work out." [/QUOTE]

Verification