Heard a ridiculous thing at encounters tonight

[shamsael]

We had twelve players and two DMs. When they were trying to decicde how to split the groups betwee the two tables, I suggested everyone be divied up so that each table had all four roles covered.

One of the DMs repsonded (sarcastically, I think...) "make sure you optimize those characters too."

My immediate response was "I'm not optimized. That's why I want a defender and leader in my group. So I don't die."

The rest of the encounter, I couldn't stop running my mind through through various fantasy stories, heist movies, super hero teams, power rangers episodes, sports teams, and I can't think of a single shred of precedent to suggest that a team of complementary specialists is somehow meta or has no place in a serious roleplaying game. The most homogenous team I can think of is the Seven Samurai, but even they had specialties: a rogue, a tactician, some brutish guys, some light fighters...

I just can't abide this idea that wanting to cover all roles in a party of six is a bad thing.

In the end, my table had 2 leaders, 3 strikers, 1 controller and almost TPKed when the dragon got bloodied. Fortunately, our halfling bard was able to force a reroll on that attack, resulting in a miss which only managed to bloody the entire party.

 

[malraux]

An optimized character can stick out like a soar thumb if no one else is. But building an optimized party is kinda like the opposite of that.

 

[MerricB]

Obviously, this DM really hated that the cleric existed and interfered with their killing of the PCs.

Sigh.

 

[Ferghis]

I just can't abide this idea that wanting to cover all roles in a party of six is a bad thing.

It's not. I'm not sure I'd argue that you can't play without all roles covered, but covering them all is a good thing.

 

[MerricB]

In the end, my table had 2 leaders, 3 strikers, 1 controller and almost TPKed when the dragon got bloodied. Fortunately, our halfling bard was able to force a reroll on that attack, resulting in a miss which only managed to bloody the entire party.

Uhh... just a rules alert here: about every blast/burst attack I know require one damage roll but *separate* attack rolls against each member of the party.

I don't think this is any different.

Cheers!

 

[Dice4Hire]

Uhh... just a rules alert here: about every blast/burst attack I know require one damage roll but *separate* attack rolls against each member of the party.

I don't think this is any different.

Cheers!

Maybe the halfling bard WAS the party ,and the other five just hangers-on looking for a bit of glory.


But yes, getting 4 roles out of six players is hardly optimizing. It is a weird comment.

 

[OpsKT]

I wish I had to work to figure out how to deal with that many... my STUPID store only seems to draw 4 if I drag some in by their arm...

 

[Saracenus]

Um, would it make you cry if I told you the store where I coordinate D&D Encounters at ran 8 full tables last week?

Sorry,

 

[OpsKT]

No. I am pretty sure that I have the misfortune of running at the very worst store for RPGs in Michigan.

If you want Magic or Clix, though, THOSE HE CAN GET YA! Just don't order a book. Apparently, paper is only for cards.

 

[Vael]

As a DM, I encourage my PCs to balance the four roles, and we regularly run two tables, will split up PCs to best balance both tables. Doesn't always happen, given that we do have friends that want to game together.

Still, balancing roles isn't exactly an optimization cheesefest. And it makes quite the difference, last week's Encounter, I had 4 strikers and a defender. Almost TPKed them. This week, I had 2 Strikers, 2 Leaders and a Defender (and a late-arriving Controller), and still drained both Leaders of their heals. The new Dragons are vicious.