Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

BINGO! Right there we have a winner. How can this not be spun as anything other than choosing the absolute most penalizing interpretation you possibly could? The player jumps through every hoop to bind a Glabrezu and it turns out that this one, out of the infinite number of Glabrezu in the Abyss, just happened to have granted a wish within the last 30 days.

Would you actually do that in a game?

Hehehe. I would so do that. It would be hilarious.




Aside: You sorta have an ax to grind with this whole "most penalizing interpretation" thing don't you. I hadn't noticed it at first, its subtle, but I'm starting to pick up on the clues.

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps in this case the best impact you could have would be no impact at all - realize you're stuck between honour and action, bow out, and leave this one to your supporting cast. (in other words, not every scene should expect to engage every character, and not every character <read: player> should automatically expect to be able to participate in every scene)

And the best part? She's still alive to escape from the Baron's prison and come back at the party as a recurring villain later! I love it when players give me-as-DM gifts like this!

Lan-"'if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice' - Rush"-efan

I totally understand your point. But, there is the practical end of things as well. Not including a player in a scene might be perfectly okay, or it might not be.

For example, I play 3 hour sessions 1/week. Say a given scene lasts 40 minutes (totally random number). Excluding my character from that scene cuts me out of a significant portion of play time for that week. Yes, I can certainly sit quietly and observe, but, RPG's aren't really a spectator sport. I wouldn't really criticize a player for being a bit put out when he's sitting on his hands for a large chunk of a session because the DM framed the scene in such a way that his character just can't contribute.

I remember some years ago playing in a "Lost Tomb" type scenario where the tomb was filled with constructs and summoned elementals. The rogue basically sat on his thumbs for three sessions because he just couldn't contribute significantly to the adventure, outside of the occasional Search and Remove Traps roll. Nothing to talk to, and no sneak attack damage to any of the opponents.

I really think this was a mistake on the part of the DM. He should have changed the opponents in the adventure to include that player, not exclude.

Being sidelined is fine, once in a while. If you're playing 8 hour sessions, then who cares if you sit out for half an hour? Heck, you probably needed a pee break and a beverage anyway. Not a big deal. But, table realities can change that dynamic pretty quickly.

 

[Hussar]

Hehehe. I would so do that. It would be hilarious.

Aside: You sorta have an ax to grind with this whole "most penalizing interpretation" thing don't you. I hadn't noticed it at first, its subtle, but I'm starting to pick up on the clues.

Wasn't meaning to be subtle about it. I thought I was pretty overt. Very few people ever accuse me of subtlety.

But, again, look through every single example. Every one. The DM's are choosing interpretations which are penalizing the players. And, it makes sense, since it's a means to balance caster power. The problem, for me, is that it hinges on so much rules lawyering from the DM that it would suck all the fun out of the game.

I mean, my head would explode if a DM pulled that with a Glabrezu that I summoned. It would piss me off to no end and likely result in a huge row at the table. To me, that's about as bad as it gets for DMing. The player has jumped through all the hoops, dotted the I's and crossed the T's and then the DM pulls the rug out from under him for nothing. Completely genre breaking, completely immersion breaking, for me.

To me, that's about the worst thing a DM can do. In a 2e game I was playing I had a paladin. So, after 4th (5th?) level, I called my paladin's warhorse. Now the character was envisioned as Knight. Full plate armor, shield, Dudley Do Right, the whole nine yards. And I'd even specifically asked the DM if I could have a bit of a custom horse that could, not really fly, but jump very far (I'd just seen Krull for the umpteenth time and wanted a Fire Horse).

So, off we go, paladin mount quest. Fight the monsters, brave the dangers and at the very end, I get a sabre toothed cat, a la He Man. Total bait and switch. The fact that the cat was actually probably better than the horse didn't matter. I had made what I wanted for my character perfectly crystal clear and the DM totally ignored me for his own ideas. Heck, that was one of the big improvements, IMO, of 3e. You didn't have to be dependent on DM's for basic character elements. You just got them automatically.

I guess you could say I've got an axe to grind here. To me, it looks like you and N'raac and Ahn are more interested in your campaign than in the characters. Again, to me, this leads to frustrated players who wind up just going along for the ride and never try to make anything that the DM doesn't approve of, because they know that, unless they game the DM, they're never going to get it. It makes the game 100% about the DM and not the game. And I'm there to play D&D, not Wicht: The Gaming.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I frankly doubt that [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] would find a game involving Manbearcat's techniques awesome.

That depends. If I was playing D&D, no. If I was trying out some other game, I might. Maybe.

 

[Wicht]

But, again, look through every single example. Every one. The DM's are choosing interpretations which are penalizing the players.

And that's just a factually inaccurate assessment of my game. Notice the offer I would make of allowing my casters to bargain at a penalty rather than just flat out rule against them. I very rarely try to penalize my players just to penalize them or in some quest for balance.

And, it makes sense, since it's a means to balance caster power. The problem, for me, is that it hinges on so much rules lawyering from the DM that it would suck all the fun out of the game.

We don't have much rule's lawyering at our games. I prefer a more smooth, faster game. I'll wing a ruling if I can rather than spend copious amounts of time poring over the fine print of the rules. Generally my instincts serve me pretty well, I think, and most of my guesses as to "how it should work" end up matching fairly closely with the fine print.

I mean, my head would explode if a DM pulled that with a Glabrezu that I summoned. It would piss me off to no end and likely result in a huge row at the table. To me, that's about as bad as it gets for DMing. The player has jumped through all the hoops, dotted the I's and crossed the T's and then the DM pulls the rug out from under him for nothing. Completely genre breaking, completely immersion breaking, for me.

It would still be funny once. I wouldn't do it every time. But there's no doubt I'm going to keep that idea in the hopper.

Really, why can't you just cast the spell again the next day? (and I doubt I would do it if there was actual consequences on the line)

I guess you could say I've got an axe to grind here. To me, it looks like you and N'raac and Ahn are more interested in your campaign than in the characters. Again, to me, this leads to frustrated players who wind up just going along for the ride and never try to make anything that the DM doesn't approve of, because they know that, unless they game the DM, they're never going to get it. It makes the game 100% about the DM and not the game. And I'm there to play D&D, not Wicht: The Gaming.

I would humbly suggest that you stop making assumptions about play tables you've never played at. You are reading far too much into things and making some seriously misguided accusations not borne out by either the conversation nor reality.

If you ever attend Origins, look up one of my games. You'll have fun.

 

[LostSoul]

What it also does is gives the party a chance to mess things up.

I don't think that's the best example. The party can't mess things up because they have no information that would allow them to make a choice. Things can get messed up, sure, but it doesn't have anything to do with the choices the players are making. It's something that just happens.

If the example included something like the PCs seeing a shady pair in the local inn having secret discussions each day - which is probably close to the minimum amount of information you could give - then you could say they made a choice. (That's probably a stretch, but I guess it depends on how difficult you want to make your game.)

 

[N'raac]

Well, I was more commenting on the part that a selfish creature will never do anything for nothing.

Doing something for nothing is altruistic, which is pretty much the opposite of selfish.

Consistent with their values and goals, in your view, you mean. After all, you've now imposed your own interpretation on their values and goals.

Well I am the DM, who else gets to interpret the value and goals of NPCs? (excepting in some shared story indy game, which I am not playing, so it doesn't count)

Perhaps the NPC’s should just be ciphers, who exist solely to serve [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s whims?

But, it's not really something for nothing. Not in that sense. The player cast the spell and expects to get the results from the spell. When I cast fireball, is it unreasonable to expect to do d6/level damage? Planar Binding spells do exactly what they say - give wizards the ability to gain a powerful ally who will do something for them.

You have read the spell text right? The spell text that explicitly says there will be bargaining, that the creatures will not perform unreasonable tasks, and that, in short, it is not guaranteed to work every time? There is no "interpretation" here, just the rules as explicitly written. A DM who fails to bargain on behalf of the NPC is the one who is failing to follow the spell text as written.

If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell. Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you.

Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only so inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

As [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] notes, bargaining is generally expected. A fairly simple service gets the opposed CHA check. Glabrezu have a 20 CHA. They get to try their SR 21 against your binding once per day. That special magic diagram causes them some issues.

Seems, however, that we have not read about the Glabrezu.

Once per month, a glabrezu can fulfill a wish for a mortal humanoid. The demon can use this ability to offer a mortal whatever he or she desires—but unless the wish is used to create pain and suffering in the world, the glabrezu demands either terrible evil acts or great sacrifice as compensation.

Seems like the rules provide a balance against L11 Wizards summoning Glabrezu as a source of free wishes. But, of course, since I actually read the rules, I am being horribly biased against [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s wizard and taking the worst possible interpretation of the rules, I suppose.

Isn't it funny that every PC in the world has time issues, so, casters never have time to rest and gain spells (that's directly from N'Raac btw, that was his counter to why caster parties are weaker), yet every NPC in the world has unlimited time and nothing going on that is being disturbed by being held prisoner by some uppity wizard. You did, after all, comment that the immortal being wouldn't be bothered by being held up, so, the offer of release isn't sufficient of an incentive to gain some action from the bound creature.

Seems like PC’s are always scurrying hither thither and yon trying to accomplish their goals. Like Wicht, I see immortals having more patience than that.

Funny thing is, I honestly think you don't see it. Look at every single example in this or any other thread like it. Every single time this comes up, it's exactly the same. There is no imbalance because "good DM's" make good rulings and limit caster power.

They at least read the rules and assess and interpret them in a balanced manner. They don’t decide that “speak in a strong voice” means “you can whisper” or ignore the Glabrezu’s approach to granting wishes, then complain that the wizard is overpowered now that they’ve ignored the various rules that might make them better balanced.

Hehehe. I would so do that. It would be hilarious.

I’d consider it if the PC thought it was just a matter of “cast, wish, repeat”. If he has to engage in actual bargaining, and meet the terms a Glabrezu typically imposes, then probably not.

Aside: You sorta have an ax to grind with this whole "most penalizing interpretation" thing don't you. I hadn't noticed it at first, its subtle, but I'm starting to pick up on the clues.

Wasn't meaning to be subtle about it. I thought I was pretty overt. Very few people ever accuse me of subtlety.

I don’t think you’ve been unclear, if that’s any consolation.

But, again, look through every single example. Every one. The DM's are choosing interpretations which are penalizing the players. And, it makes sense, since it's a means to balance caster power. The problem, for me, is that it hinges on so much rules lawyering from the DM that it would suck all the fun out of the game.

Can you cite one of your spell interpretations that has not had the actual text of the rules operate against it? Maybe if you read all the rules you are relying on, you might not have such a high opinion of the overpowered nature of the spells and tactics you suggest.

I mean, my head would explode if a DM pulled that with a Glabrezu that I summoned. It would piss me off to no end and likely result in a huge row at the table. To me, that's about as bad as it gets for DMing. The player has jumped through all the hoops, dotted the I's and crossed the T's and then the DM pulls the rug out from under him for nothing. Completely genre breaking, completely immersion breaking, for me.

He cast a couple of spells, ignored the text discussing how Glabrezu grant wishes and wanted something for nothing. Then he has a hissy fit. Not a player I want at my table anyway.

To me, that's about the worst thing a DM can do. In a 2e game I was playing I had a paladin. So, after 4th (5th?) level, I called my paladin's warhorse. Now the character was envisioned as Knight. Full plate armor, shield, Dudley Do Right, the whole nine yards. And I'd even specifically asked the DM if I could have a bit of a custom horse that could, not really fly, but jump very far (I'd just seen Krull for the umpteenth time and wanted a Fire Horse).

So it’s OK for you to ask for some special extras, but not for the GM to provide something different. I’d agree that a sabre tooth cat may not have been a great Dming approach, but what entitled you to expect something better than the rules provide for?

I would humbly suggest that you stop making assumptions about play tables you've never played at. You are reading far too much into things and making some seriously misguided accusations not borne out by either the conversation nor reality.

Hope springs eternal..

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]

"dotted the I's and crossed the T's and then the DM pulls the rug out from under him for nothing" ...

see that's why the summoning backfired... can only "dot" lower case "i"s ... you deserved to be screwed

Seriously, classic example of the opposite of fail forward

 

[N'raac]

No one is saying that you realize. Not one person in this thread has said we must always be able to get past the chamberlain. That's entirely your own fabrication. Actually, you're the one who has claimed that there must be situations where it is impossible to get past the Chamberlain, regardless of the actions of the PC's. No matter what they do, they cannot pass.

To be clear, when I say “cannot get past the chamberlain”, I mean “it does not matter how well you roll – success is beyond your abilities”, not “if you roll three 1’s in a row, you will fail to get past the Chamberlain”.

You skipped the part where that was a Still, Silent Charm Person. So, where is the suspicion? And, of course, the Chamberlain, after the spell ends, immediately recognizes exactly what has happened to him, knows that it's magic and reacts in the most negative way possible. I mean, through fairly easy play, you could make it sound like it was the Chamberlain's idea all along and he might not even know he was influenced. That is what Bluff skills are for after all.

So if your character were charmed by the Chamberlain (surpise, he ALSO has a still silent Charm spell), you’d be OK with that result imposed on your character? The other PC’s should not even attempt a Sense Motive check to see if they suspect an enchantment, nor should you when the Charm ends? After all, it seemed perfectly reasonable to donate half your wealth to aid the Kingdom in this time of need, right?

BINGO! Right there we have a winner. How can this not be spun as anything other than choosing the absolute most penalizing interpretation you possibly could? The player jumps through every hoop to bind a Glabrezu and it turns out that this one, out of the infinite number of Glabrezu in the Abyss, just happened to have granted a wish within the last 30 days.

OK, previously, you told us Glabrezu just LIVE to grant wishes to mortals, now it’s almost certain that the one you conjure up would have had no possible option to do so in the past 30 days. They’re not trying very hard to grant those wishes, are they?

 

[N'raac]

I don't see any reference to "good and noble king" in post 1403 in which @Manbearcat describes the framing and resolution of the scene - the goal is described as "to get to and convince the king to act or sponsor/deputize them, or grant them resources/assets/hirelings". That is pretty standard, I think - the goal is to achieve a certain ingame outcome, not to achieve a metagame-level rewriting of the king's backstory.

Why would the noble Paladin and his righteous comrades seek the aid of a despot who pays off enemies with the lives of his people?

What is distinctive about the "indie" technique is that the complications and secret backstory - such as that the king has been trafficking with dragons - becomes relevant as a consequence of play, rather than serves as an input into action resolution via affecting fictional positioning in ways that the players aren't aware of.

Again, I find it odd that the king is discovered to routinely trade with dragons when their arrival and departure at his castle would seem obvious to the denizens of the area. Why are they not aware of such routine comings and goings? Looked at another way, if the PCs logically have some knowledge of the local area, do they have the fictional positioning to reasonably establish dragons coming and going?

I don't read it that way at all. Manbearcat doesn't tell us exactly what the player framed as his goal, but it looks to me like the goal was to drive the drake off by making it think it had been cursed. And that succeeded - the drake flew off, and didn't return within the context of the scene. But I would be gobsmacked if anyone involved in resolving that skill check thought that by succeeding at it the city had been saved from retribution.

Bluff - As the drake is preparing to tests its torn wings for flight, the Rogue saunters over and picks up one of its dislodged scales from the floor. He pulls a (useless) scroll from his belt and in the same ancient tongue, he threatens the drake with a powerful geas ritual of nslavement should the drake play a part in any retribution against the people of the city. He spends an Action Point and uses Resourceful Action (+ 5 due to roll), ensuring success.

As a rattled drake flies off . . .

Seems like the player would be quite justified believing his efforts were to prevent the Drake drawing retribution on the city. He spent resources to ensure success. I thought success meant success – full stop – and not success that later has adverse consequences like retribution on the city.

Your response seems to come from a very strong "mechanics as process simulation" perspective - so that if the character does something which is, within the fiction, tactically suboptimal, then you as a player have foregone your chance to have an impact on the fiction.

I can impact on the fiction without having that impact be the best possible one to achieve our goals. I do not believe that every attribute of the PC’s must be a strength in every situation. Weaknesses, flaws and foibles also contribute to making an interesting, fleshed out character.

As I said just above, this is up to the framing. If my PC is present in a scene then I would expect the GM to frame it so as to engage my PC. How I would respond would depend upon that framing. An obvious default would be to politely ask my comrade not to touch me, and to persuade the NPC in question of what is needed or expected.

Sure. And if the best tactical response is to engage in dialogue with the King and agree that we will not expose the fact that he is delivering babys to appease the dragons, will your Paladin stoop to that level as well? Perhaps the King also wants him to swear an oath by the Demon Prince Orcus to get the aid and assistance we set out to obtain. Will he do that as well? Or must there never be a situation framed where the Paladin will be placed at a disadvantage if he honours his principals and beliefs, so such choices must never exist in your game?

The PCs in my current game have saved a couple of major towns and their hinterland from goblin invasions, stopped gnolls running rampant through that same hinterland, helped some elves recover stolen idols from a black dragon, redeemed a fallen paladin, reestablished an abandoned temple, rescued a drow outpost from Orcus, and stopped Miska the Wolf-Spider's attempt at escaping from Carceri (which admittedly they also inadvertantly abetted somewhat), all for very little reward.

“reward” need not be cash. Did they advance their cause? Did they defend the innocent and uphold righteousness (assuming these are things their characters value)? Then they did this for their own reasons, just as the Glabrezu might grant a wish in exchange for causing evil and chaos, even if such evil and chaos aligns perfectly with the wizard’s desires. The wizard is getting his wish at no cost, because the Glabrezu gets what he wants out of it as well.

Example: in the past few years I've had two magic-users, mechanically pretty similar (very high Int, decent Dex and Cha, not much else) but vastly different in non-mechanical personality...which reflects in how they play:

- one is a pompous LN type who grew up in (equivalent of) a Roman culture - her goals are to help civilize the world by ridding it of monsters etc. and bringing good Roman ideals to all, and later to become the first woman in the Senate. In play this reflects where she will take the lead while others dither, cast in a controlled (sometimes even elegant) manner, and not tolerate dissension in the ranks.

- the other is a flighty CE type who is only with the party at all because a) her friends are, and b) adventuring gets you rich. She's a nasty <female-dog> to be around but tries not to piss off the party *too* much. Her long-term goal is to be the evil wizard that lower-level adventurers go out to kill, and to fund her activities off what she loots from said adventurers. In play her personality reflects in that nobody ever knows quite what she will do next but it'll probably involve fire at some point, and if a few innocents get hurt in the process: shrug "oops".

Good example of characters who are mechanically identical but play completely different.

And now we're into what I call (though perhaps redefining the term a bit from its usual use) powergaming, seeing D&D as chess-with-personality. This style of play, where everything is done perfectly and you always make the right choice (even without necessarily having the in-character knowledge to do so), just isn't any fun - it's too serious. It's also not very realistic. To me the fighter who glares into the eyes of the Umber Hulk - that's brilliant! And if he makes his save and fights the thing it's heroic too. And if he fails his save, well that's what experience is all about and he'll know better next time...assuming he survives.

Great term, that! There is, to me, an implicit onus on the GM to value role playing, not just tactical excellence. Just as I don’t expect PC’s will always choose perfect tactics, I expect the NPC opponents to also have personalities and blind spots – they, too, can make mistakes. If any tactical error means character loss or TPK, then PC's who are free to always select the best tactics will arise.

Obviously. And no matter what you do you'll have an impact. My argument is that you seem to want that impact to always be positive and controlled, where I say a negative or neutral or completely unexpected impact arising from doing the wrong thing can be just as entertaining. The only way to completely de-protagonize your character (in almost all situations) is to do nothing at all and just stand there quietly, and very few if any players will do this on a regular basis.

Agreed – you can play your character, or you can play a chess piece. Being an honour-bound Paladin is a good character and interesting to play. Being honour-bound only when it is to your benefit is not being honour-bound at all. What happened to “Indie play tests the characters’ beliefs”? Who was it that said “having principles is easy – it’s living up to them that’s hard”?

Why does it always have to be about you/your PC? Maybe the scene you're in has nothing to do with you at all to begin with, you've been put in it to see if you realize this and can restrain yourself from interfering until unexpected-action X happens.

Heaven forbid the spotlight shine on another PC for a while – or that the PC’s actually live in a world where things happen without their direct guidance and direction. If that’s what Indie players want, good for them. That being the case, I understand enough to know an Indie game holds no interest for me. Though I'm not sure that is everyone's Indie game - [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] seems to grasp that the character with great social skills will have more impact in social scenes, and the others may be relegated to secondary roles for a time.

Making tactical errors doesn't necessarily make you a better roleplayer. Repeating tactical errors definitely doesn't. Taking risks with your own PC is part of the game, and can be fun.

It's not so much fun when your PC, when confused, chops another PC's head off (I've seen similar incidents before). It's even less fun the second time it happens. This style of play can have severe downsides if there isn't DM fudging so that the flavourful clueless mistakes of the method actor don't directly cause a trail of PC deaths or even TPKs. Holding the foaming barbarian back so he doesn't eviscerate the recalcitrant chamberlain can be fun the first time, but with repetition without any learning or character development it quickly turns being a quirk of character to an annoyance, to making the PC too much of a liability to tolerate. I've seen PCs fired or killed by parties tired of the unnecessary risks taken by such PCs in the name of fun and role-playing. The hackneyed phrase "I was just playing my character" are typically the last words of many such PCs.

The other characters should play in character as well. And I agree that the characters must develop over time. That same berserker spent some time being very down on the wizard (a wild mage). He should go back to spell-school and learn to cast properly – his incompetence endangers us all! Until the day we debated how to get past two guard towers held by Bugbears and, while we’re debating, someone asks where the wizard went. Just about that time, he comes racing back in, half a dozen bugbears hot on his heels. He Webbed up one tower luring out the guards in the other, getting us past both - while we stood around and talked.

Now, had I been playing a lawful, tactics oriented warrior, he’s a loose cannon and an idiot. I wasn’t playing that character. The Berserker sees that, well, maybe the lad’s spells don’t always work perfectly, but he’s got courage and he doesn’t hesitate to risk his life for his teammates. You have a problem with him? Then you have a problem with ME.

Seriously, every style of play has strengths and weaknesses. Used "incorrectly", any style of play can lead to issues within a game. The posters here have developed their play and refereeing styles in reaction to the best and the worst they have seen over their years. The issue being one persons best may well be another's undesirable or worst. We value different game goals and our choice of DM tools and tactics reflect that.

A great summary.

I totally understand your point. But, there is the practical end of things as well. Not including a player in a scene might be perfectly okay, or it might not be.

For example, I play 3 hour sessions 1/week. Say a given scene lasts 40 minutes (totally random number). Excluding my character from that scene cuts me out of a significant portion of play time for that week. Yes, I can certainly sit quietly and observe, but, RPG's aren't really a spectator sport. I wouldn't really criticize a player for being a bit put out when he's sitting on his hands for a large chunk of a session because the DM framed the scene in such a way that his character just can't contribute.

I remember some years ago playing in a "Lost Tomb" type scenario where the tomb was filled with constructs and summoned elementals. The rogue basically sat on his thumbs for three sessions because he just couldn't contribute significantly to the adventure, outside of the occasional Search and Remove Traps roll. Nothing to talk to, and no sneak attack damage to any of the opponents.

I really think this was a mistake on the part of the DM. He should have changed the opponents in the adventure to include that player, not exclude.

I think you could not contribute as effectively as you wanted in the manner you wanted. You could still attack and have some impact, just not as much as you want. Just as flanking allows you to Sneak Attack some opponents, it also gives your teammates a bonus to hit, so that's a further contribution. You could certainly use the Aid Another action to contribute to party success.

But you could not benefit from your Sneak Attack, so you look to have chosen to sit on your thumbs for three sessions rather than think outside the box and contribute to the extent possible in other ways. The GM did not exclude you – you excluded yourself. And, for a change, the fighter got to be the guy inflicting the most damage on the enemy, rather than being in the rogue's shadow.