How to play support/be a team player?

[Gwazi Magnum]

A question that dawned on me from my Bard thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?501794-Buffer-Bard-needs-more-to-do)

I'm not the best at playing supports. I'm not foreign to the concept, but most of my supports in the past have usually leaned more towards the buffed combatant category. Which leads to me asking for advice on what makes a good support? What are general tactics, tricks or general pieces of advice you would give for someone looking to explore a support class?

[Firest Kathon]

I think when playing support your goal should be to enable the other party members to do "their thing", usually dealing damage. A bonus of +X to something (attack, damage, whatever) is nice, but I find it uninspiring (no pun intended).

Instead, think about what could stop the other party members from using their abilities and how to work around it. Examples: The fighter cannot reach the flying enemy => grant them the ability to fly. The rogue cannot sneak around because the enemy has great senses => make them invisible. The enemy can only be damaged by good-aligned weapons => enchant the weapons. Those are just basic examples, but should give you an idea what you are looking for. If you are looking at high-op discussions, characters are usually able to fix their own limitations. I find that in mid- to low-op play this will be more the role of a supporter.

The second approach is to look at what the enemy can do to disable your party members and then have ways to get them out of it. Examples: The enemy can grapple the wizard => have a way to get them out of the grapple. They have some magical protection => dispel it. Etc.

[Geddy2112]

In the broadest sense, support means to provide aid to others; to assist in their efforts and enable them to do their jobs, or make their jobs significantly easier.

Buffing is one side-adding bonuses to attack and damage help those who attack and deal damage deal more damage-they land more hits, and when they hit their hits pack more punch. Defensively, you can buffer armor class, making them harder to hit. The less hits they take, the longer they can stay up and fighting. You can boost HP for a similar effect, while boosting saves prevents them from being debuffed or otherwise taken out of the fight. Defensive buffing keeps your allies fighting, while offensive buffing helps them fight more effectively.

Debuffing is the reverse, where instead of making your allies capable of taking more damage/hitting higher difficulties, you lower the bar. Debuffing your opponents defenses has the same effect as boosting your allies offense. Debuffing your opponents offense has the same effect as boosting your allies defense.

There are support classes on both sides of the fight-if your allies become debuffed, a support class can break these debuffs or cancel them out with buffs. Likewise, a support class can negate buffs on allies.

In general, a support class should try to provide as much boon to the party as possible. Against a horde of enemies, debuffing a single enemy won't provide much boon for the party. Against a single enemy, debuffing is highly effective. Likewise, boosting a single ally is less effective than boosting all of your allies, unless you are enabling a particular ally to launch a particularly devastating nova or similar ability.

Support abilities need to be active before the fight if possible. Once combat breaks out, support needs to go up first-this is why most support classes boost initiative as much as possible, as a well placed buff/debuff at the start of the fight can often end the encounter.

Lastly, a support class needs some versatility- if they rely on one or two tricks to buff the party, there is a high probability they will run across a situation where these buffs won't work. Some support spells/abilities are also incredibly specific, but when you need them you really need them(water breathing) so a support class should have access to these, but these are generally not in their core bag of tricks. Any caster who can prepare spells will have some niche utility spells they only use sometimes, but a scroll or wand of these abilities is also handy. Scrolls and wands also enable a lot of classes to have support magic if they are spontaneous casters or noncasting.

[Zaq]

Hmm. I'm of two minds on this topic. On the one hand, I generally want to encourage folks to explore roles that they might not normally think are their thing. You don't want to always play the same character in each game, so if you're always the frontline sack of meat, or the sneaky stabby guy, or the magic-worshipping caster, or whatever (regardless of the specifics—your Barbarian isn't the same character as your Warblade, but they still probably had similar roles), it can do you some good to broaden your horizons a little bit, and to your credit, it sounds like that's exactly what you're doing. The game is vast, and while you don't have to play every single possible option, it's often worthwhile to break out of your comfort zone a bit, even if all it does is give you a renewed appreciation for your preferred role.

On the other hand, you also don't want to play completely against type if it's going to be gratuitous (i.e., being support for the sake of being support instead of for the sake of it being what you want to do) and make you unhappy. Like, it's more than fine to take characters in weird and unique directions (that can be half the fun, sometimes), but we've all experienced a game with those characters where the player clearly wanted to do something other than what their character is actually good at, and those players aren't usually actually happy with what they're doing. Since the purpose of the game is to have fun, that's counterproductive, so you don't want to end up in that sort of situation.

This, of course, seems contradictory, and in some ways, it kind of is. I think what I'm trying to get at is that it's good to branch out, but make sure that you're still playing a character that you want to play, even if it's outside of your comfort zone.

As for the specifics? There's a lot of different ways to support, though Geddy2112 gave a decent overview of things. 3.5 (/PF) does make support a bit more finicky than, for example, 4e does, since it's entirely possible to make supporting other characters be literally all that you do (in contrast to, for example, also attacking on your own), and if you aren't happy with that style of play, it's going to feel kind of jarring to you. There's nothing wrong with loading up on standard action buff spells if you can get in the support mindset, but just doing that without adjusting to that mindset is likely to end in culture shock, for lack of a better term.

I don't necessarily have a solution to this. I think my goal is just to point out that you're going to have to adjust your expectations of what your character does and doesn't do if you want to really enjoy a different style of play. I do understand that your goal in posting this thread is to do precisely that, so I wish I had some more specifics to offer. Perhaps this post is useless. Perhaps if you ask some specific questions, I might be able to generate some specific answers?

[Gwazi Magnum]

On the other hand, you also don't want to play completely against type if it's going to be gratuitous (i.e., being support for the sake of being support instead of for the sake of it being what you want to do) and make you unhappy. Like, it's more than fine to take characters in weird and unique directions (that can be half the fun, sometimes), but we've all experienced a game with those characters where the player clearly wanted to do something other than what their character is actually good at, and those players aren't usually actually happy with what they're doing. Since the purpose of the game is to have fun, that's counterproductive, so you don't want to end up in that sort of situation.

That's a bit unavoidable in this specific case.
Cause I'm entering a campaign where I'm the only player and am allowed to create a 6-man party (all based on previous characters of mine personality wise).

So, there's not really a way around not playing support without... well... (https://youtu.be/JXCLtD5batc?t=5s)
And even then you can argue there's Skalds involved. :P

+Majority of the time I end up being the only optimiser in a more casual group anyways, often creating balance/power issues among the Party. If I learned to how to play Support right though? Then I'd probably enjoy it more since I do generally want to try such a role out successfully, and it would mean my optimising no longer steps on the toes of others.


Perhaps if you ask some specific questions, I might be able to generate some specific answers?

What is the air speed velocity of an unladden swallow?

I'm not really sure what specifically to ask other than:

1. What are not spell ways to help buff/support a party?
2. How does one learn the proper timing to land a spell? Cause I have a feeling I might gut-react spell spam and then be out when it actually matters.

[weckar]

I usually play support of one type or another, but usually leaning towards debuffing over buffing. Currently playing quite a fun fear-inducer with a few marshal levels tacked on both for social reasons and to help the group more directly.

[Barstro]

I skimmed, but I think an avenue was missed.

IMO, supporting the team involves;
1) Buffing (Haste, Circle/Protection from __, Enlarge front melee, Greater Magic Weapon)
2) Debuff (this is really #3, but I'll put it as #2 because it's almost the opposite) Big drawback is that the enemies can make saving throws.
3) Battlefield Control (Walls, pits; anything to split the enemy's party so your team can work on one at a time)
4) Summons (provides flanks (buffs), takes up space (battlefield control), gain access to other spells (all the above))

As was mentioned; a Supporter should look as if he did nothing at all to an uninformed viewer, but the discerning tactician will note that he is really what won the fight. Man with stick kill enemy, singing boy only made enemy sparkle.

[ace rooster]

If the question is about not overshadowing your party, I would actually avoid debuffing and buffing. It is quite easy to go overboard and turn the rest of the party into excecutioners rather than warriors, and even fairly minor buffs or debuffs can make it hard for a player to feel like they did the work. This is especially true if you are granting important capabilities, such as flight or invisibility, that the character would be harmless without. That sort of hard reliance can be fine when you are relying on somebody who is taking a backseat roll, but relying on somebody who is already having a fairly dominant impact can be grating.

A battlefield control roll sounds more like what you are wanting. Summons in particular are great, as they are very versatile, but not particularly dangerous. If the wizard's summons have been stalling some mooks harmlessly, wandering over and slaughtering them will make the barbarian giddy. That same barbarian flanked by two bears is also far safer, simply because that is 4 squares less to threaten them. Bull rushing bears is also worth a mention. The AoO does not stop the bull rush, (and given that your summons are HP sponges anyway wastes the AoO) and moving a threatened target causes them to provoke an AoO from the barbarian. Cutting off retreats and chasing down fleeing secondary foes are generally too small jobs for a PC, and a readied attack against a secondary spellcaster is also generally not worth a PC action.

The important thing to aim for about this is that it remains a game where the other players are playing their characters. It can feel like they are playing your abilities if you go too heavy on the buffing, while going too heavy on the debuffing can make target selection too simple, and the game disappears for them. I would focus on clearing up secondary objectives, and stalling secondary threats.

[Gwazi Magnum]

If the question is about not overshadowing your party, I would actually avoid debuffing and buffing. It is quite easy to go overboard and turn the rest of the party into excecutioners rather than warriors, and even fairly minor buffs or debuffs can make it hard for a player to feel like they did the work. This is especially true if you are granting important capabilities, such as flight or invisibility, that the character would be harmless without. That sort of hard reliance can be fine when you are relying on somebody who is taking a backseat roll, but relying on somebody who is already having a fairly dominant impact can be grating.

A battlefield control roll sounds more like what you are wanting. Summons in particular are great, as they are very versatile, but not particularly dangerous. If the wizard's summons have been stalling some mooks harmlessly, wandering over and slaughtering them will make the barbarian giddy. That same barbarian flanked by two bears is also far safer, simply because that is 4 squares less to threaten them. Bull rushing bears is also worth a mention. The AoO does not stop the bull rush, (and given that your summons are HP sponges anyway wastes the AoO) and moving a threatened target causes them to provoke an AoO from the barbarian. Cutting off retreats and chasing down fleeing secondary foes are generally too small jobs for a PC, and a readied attack against a secondary spellcaster is also generally not worth a PC action.

The important thing to aim for about this is that it remains a game where the other players are playing their characters. It can feel like they are playing your abilities if you go too heavy on the buffing, while going too heavy on the debuffing can make target selection too simple, and the game disappears for them. I would focus on clearing up secondary objectives, and stalling secondary threats.

I agree that summons can be a ton to help the party, but there are two main potential issues I can see with this.

1. Summons have the tendency to bloat combat, slowing it down to a crawl. This can make players feel disengaged as their turn takes forever, or even worse feel like the summoner stole the combat because all those bloat turns are that players turns.

2. Some DM's tend to ban summoning because of this so it's not even an option. Granted, I only have one DM currently that did this ban, and it's only on the players side so I'm tempted to say in that case it's more of a power grab than anything else.

[Barstro]

If the question is about not overshadowing your party, I would actually avoid debuffing and buffing. It is quite easy to go overboard and turn the rest of the party into excecutioners rather than warriors, and even fairly minor buffs or debuffs can make it hard for a player to feel like they did the work. This is especially true if you are granting important capabilities, such as flight or invisibility, that the character would be harmless without. That sort of hard reliance can be fine when you are relying on somebody who is taking a backseat roll, but relying on somebody who is already having a fairly dominant impact can be grating.
I've never had anyone complain about getting the extra attack from Haste.
I've never had anyone say "stop making me invisible, I did not make this Rogue with precision damage in mind".
The Paladin in my current party did not say to me after the game "I'm so glad that you failed your saving throw and ran away in fear during that second fight, otherwise you could have cast Fly on me and I would have been forced to attack the flying enemy with my magic sword instead of firing a mundane shortbow from the ground and not making it through DR on the rare occasion that my shots actually hit."


I agree that summons can be a ton to help the party, but there are two main potential issues I can see with this.

1. Summons have the tendency to bloat combat, slowing it down to a crawl. This can make players feel disengaged as their turn takes forever, or even worse feel like the summoner stole the combat because all those bloat turns are that players turns.

2. Some DM's tend to ban summoning because of this so it's not even an option. Granted, I only have one DM currently that did this ban, and it's only on the players side so I'm tempted to say in that case it's more of a power grab than anything else.
I agree with both of those observations. IMO, a support player uses summons for reasons other than to cause damage (flanking, tripping, SLA/spells).

A passable support player is one who casts Haste in the first round and finds at least something to do for the remaining rounds.
A good support player does what Ace Rooster advises against; becomes the star and lets the rest of the team mop up.
A superior support player has the ability to do the above, but stays his hand so that the rest of the team is useful.

[Name1]

I've never had anyone complain about getting the extra attack from Haste.
I've never had anyone say "stop making me invisible, I did not make this Rogue with precision damage in mind".
The Paladin in my current party did not say to me after the game "I'm so glad that you failed your saving throw and ran away in fear during that second fight, otherwise you could have cast Fly on me and I would have been forced to attack the flying enemy with my magic sword instead of firing a mundane shortbow from the ground and not making it through DR on the rare occasion that my shots actually hit."

Kinda funny... I actually had people like that.

[Gwazi Magnum]

A superior support player has the ability to do the above, but stays his hand so that the rest of the team is useful.

Kind of says something about system balance when this is needed though. :P


Kinda funny... I actually had people like that.

Part of me will never understand how people who get annoyed at cooperative tactics decide they want to play a cooperative game.

[Barstro]

Kind of says something about system balance when this is needed though. :P
That's part of being a good team player. Otherwise, the Level 1-4 Fighter would tell the useless Wizard to stay home and read a book while he does the real work and the Level 15+ Wizard would leave the party altogether and take over the world by himself.

The game is inherently unbalanced. Mario Lemieux was by far the best player for the Penguins, but he often passed so others could take a shot.


Part of me will never understand how people who get annoyed at cooperative tactics decide they want to play a cooperative game.
Sometimes "correct" cooperative tactics can be too much. I had a character that was, by far, the greatest damage threat in the game. Another player had the ability to let a party member get a second turn in a round. Smart play is to have my character destroy yet another enemy, but I really felt bad about it (so much so that I changed my build to be more defensive).

Often the most "cooperative" thing to do is spend all the gold on magic items for the main caster and let the mundanes sit on the sidelines. While correct, it's not fun.

Support makes others shine. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Gwazi Magnum]

That's part of being a good team player. Otherwise, the Level 1-4 Fighter would tell the useless Wizard to stay home and read a book while he does the real work and the Level 15+ Wizard would leave the party altogether and take over the world by himself.

The game is inherently unbalanced. Mario Lemieux was by far the best player for the Penguins, but he often passed so others could take a shot.

Sometimes "correct" cooperative tactics can be too much. I had a character that was, by far, the greatest damage threat in the game. Another player had the ability to let a party member get a second turn in a round. Smart play is to have my character destroy yet another enemy, but I really felt bad about it (so much so that I changed my build to be more defensive).

Often the most "cooperative" thing to do is spend all the gold on magic items for the main caster and let the mundanes sit on the sidelines. While correct, it's not fun.

Support makes others shine. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is that really how tabletop should be though? Or have we just accepted that because we haven't seen anything better? (https://youtu.be/eJ6kclT15z8?t=5m35s)

[Barstro]

Is that really how tabletop should be though? Or have we just accepted that because we haven't seen anything better? (https://youtu.be/eJ6kclT15z8?t=5m35s)

Tabletop is a simplistic summation of various interactions between Vancian magic (of which I am not a fan) and made up physics. Within those constraints, players often try to interpose real world physics with illogical results.

After all, under RAW (which is the summation of the game's physics) a hammer can do just as much damage to someone wearing plate armor as someone wearing chain armor. The (our world) reality is that chain armor does almost nothing to lessen the effects of bludgeoning damage.

This version of tabletop gaming is inherently fair in a very narrow range. Unfortunately, simple rules make things unfair the more they need to be applied. If you want a game where everyone has similar usefulness throughout the entire game, you need more rules. I'm not a fan of that either.

I will continue to play the game where my character helps out the TEAM as much as possible. Such help can often be in the form of holding back on all that I can do so that everyone can have fun.

[Gnaeus]

I cannot believe that in all this discussion of support characters no one has mentioned item crafting. Haste is a great spell, but the high level caster who casts it is amateur hour compared with the one who made some boots for the melee guys weeks before. Don't cast fly. Make a flight item. I guess haste and fly are good wand choices for a familiar with +19 UMD. But your best support actions are done in town in downtime. If you can't make the specific thing they need, you can reduce costs on the items that you can make, and free up enough WBL that they can buy the thing they need.

[Barstro]

I cannot believe that in all this discussion of support characters no one has mentioned item crafting. Haste is a great spell, but the high level caster who casts it is amateur hour compared with the one who made some boots for the melee guys weeks before. Don't cast fly. Make a flight item. I guess haste and fly are good wand choices for a familiar with +19 UMD. But your best support actions are done in town in downtime. If you can't make the specific thing they need, you can reduce costs on the items that you can make, and free up enough WBL that they can buy the thing they need.

I did not mention it because it is not necessarily the Support character who is crafting (blaster wizard can craft). Crafting absolutely aids the party and goes beyond typical WBL, but Crafting is an ability or a job while Support is a role.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I'll chime in with one bit that others haven't already said better:

I don't believe in pure support characters. Every character should have some ability that they can use to end a fight on their own. If an epic battle comes down to "support" character A and a lone low level minion, it shouldn't be, "OK, this is a TPK because my character is support and is utterly useless without his companions."

Characters that are designed as "support" can generally incorporate at least mediocre individual offensive capacity with minimal sacrifice of their other abilities. Is the wizard geared for buffing and debuffing? Great, but pack a level appropriate wand of magic missile and a scroll of ice storm just in case. Is your bard focused on inspiring his allies? Great, but does it really cost you that much to have something else to do if you allies are incapacitated? Is your cleric focused on support? Great, but you can pack a scroll of divine power and a +1 weapon.

When I'm personally playing "support" characters, I tend to go for a combination of fully capable personal combatant with fully capable support built in. (For example, a cavalier/bard/battle herald who is only a few steps behind a fighter or paladin when not buffed and is about as good as them when buffed... but who brings the full bardic inspiration suite to the table for the rest of the party or an archer cleric who can do all normal cleric buffs and then drop a quickened divine favor+full attack). That's not the only way to go, but it illustrates the point: just because your character brings good buffs to the table doesn't mean that's all you bring to the table. Most of the time, obtaining near full strength buffing will incur only minimal opportunity costs to the character's personal abilities. To use the Hammer/Anvil/Arm combat analysis, a party full of characters who can function simultaneously as Hammer and Arm has a lot more force multiplication options than a party that is 50% pure Arms with no hammer capability. It is also a lot less fragile since any part can be incapacitated and it can keep hammering, while a party that is divided between pure arms and pure hammers will find itself shut down if the pure hammers are incapacitated, leaving only arms that don't have hammers to swing.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'll chime in with one bit that others haven't already said better:

I don't believe in pure support characters. Every character should have some ability that they can use to end a fight on their own. If an epic battle comes down to "support" character A and a lone low level minion, it shouldn't be, "OK, this is a TPK because my character is support and is utterly useless without his companions."

Characters that are designed as "support" can generally incorporate at least mediocre individual offensive capacity with minimal sacrifice of their other abilities. Is the wizard geared for buffing and debuffing? Great, but pack a level appropriate wand of magic missile and a scroll of ice storm just in case. Is your bard focused on inspiring his allies? Great, but does it really cost you that much to have something else to do if you allies are incapacitated? Is your cleric focused on support? Great, but you can pack a scroll of divine power and a +1 weapon.

When I'm personally playing "support" characters, I tend to go for a combination of fully capable personal combatant with fully capable support built in. (For example, a cavalier/bard/battle herald who is only a few steps behind a fighter or paladin when not buffed and is about as good as them when buffed... but who brings the full bardic inspiration suite to the table for the rest of the party or an archer cleric who can do all normal cleric buffs and then drop a quickened divine favor+full attack). That's not the only way to go, but it illustrates the point: just because your character brings good buffs to the table doesn't mean that's all you bring to the table. Most of the time, obtaining near full strength buffing will incur only minimal opportunity costs to the character's personal abilities. To use the Hammer/Anvil/Arm combat analysis, a party full of characters who can function simultaneously as Hammer and Arm has a lot more force multiplication options than a party that is 50% pure Arms with no hammer capability. It is also a lot less fragile since any part can be incapacitated and it can keep hammering, while a party that is divided between pure arms and pure hammers will find itself shut down if the pure hammers are incapacitated, leaving only arms that don't have hammers to swing.

Is this something you can say Support Characters can be ready to do right at level 1? Or is this versatility something they'd have to build into?

[Barstro]

I don't believe in pure support characters. Every character should have some ability that they can use to end a fight on their own. If an epic battle comes down to "support" character A and a lone low level minion, it shouldn't be, "OK, this is a TPK because my character is support and is utterly useless without his companions."

Your version of "pure support" appears to be a quadriplegic.

Trying to max Support at level one still makes the character almost as good at melee or ranged as a Fighter. (not very)
Max Support later on (assuming the entire rest of the team fell and only a minion is left (your scenario)) will most likely have resulted in;
Haste still being up (no reason to think the Support didn't include himself in it)
The ability to cast Protection from __ (less chance to be hit)
The ability to cast Fly on himself (standard Support Buff spell).
The ability to cast Invisibility (again, standard).
The ability to cast Glitterdust (very versatile spell).
Has at least one of the Party's CLW wands.

A Cleric/Bard/Etc. would almost certainly have some sort of decent armor, since they are proficient. Otherwise, we are looking at a Wizard/Sorcerer/Etc. who, if he doesn't have Mage Armor (possible, since he is going for Max Support), has some other spell in its stead that is probably useful.


Frankly, I challenge you to build a "Pure Support" character than cannot defeat an NPC that meets the definition of "minion". FWIW, my definition is a character at least one level below the PC's level, with either a magic weapon that is level appropriate OR magic armor (but not both), and has no specialized traits. I do not know of a Slayer minion or a Summoner minion and minions do not exist to actually upgrade the PC's equipment from a victory.

Also, since we are looking at both the rest of the party somehow being knocked out, this must have been a fight that lasted a few rounds, so any obvious buffs (i.e. Haste) are up and running.

I believe those terms are fair and logical based on your statement, but I will entertain arguments to the contrary.

EDIT: I thought this topic had a Pathfinder tag. It does not. I'd prefer this challenge be met with Pathfinder rules, but I understand if 3.5 is your game of choice.
Of course, I'd be happy to start this on a new thread if this is too tangential.

[Gwazi Magnum]

EDIT: I thought this topic had a Pathfinder tag. It does not. I'd prefer this challenge be met with Pathfinder rules, but I understand if 3.5 is your game of choice.
Of course, I'd be happy to start this on a new thread if this is too tangential.

Nah, my default now is Pathfinder and this does add to the discussion of what's a support so go nuts. :)
The only reason I didn't include the tag anyways was to expand the pool of people giving their opinion.

[ace rooster]

I've never had anyone complain about getting the extra attack from Haste.
I've never had anyone say "stop making me invisible, I did not make this Rogue with precision damage in mind".
The Paladin in my current party did not say to me after the game "I'm so glad that you failed your saving throw and ran away in fear during that second fight, otherwise you could have cast Fly on me and I would have been forced to attack the flying enemy with my magic sword instead of firing a mundane shortbow from the ground and not making it through DR on the rare occasion that my shots actually hit."

Half the fun of playing a rogue is safely getting your precision damage off. By casting invisibility on them you completely remove that minigame. Most players believe that power is good, so will not complain at the time. Instead, you get fuzzy complaints like "stop powergaming", or "stop building OP characters", or people just not playing with you. I've seen smart people completely fail to understand that their actions are undermining the fun condition of other players, and even more smart people fail to identify why some players are not fun to play with. The OP explicitly mentioned that he was the 'powergamer' in their group, and my post was particularly aimed at them.

Buffing and debuffing can easily break the "my character is awesome" feel. If your barbarian can take on 3 orcs solo, you can get the MCIA feel. If a powergamer buffer appears, and you can take on 30 orcs now, those 3 orcs seem a little puny. You lose the MCIA, and your character feels shackled to the buffer. In a tight group of good players who all trust each other and are built to the same level, it can be replaced by everyone getting a "this team is awesome" feel, but I have found this quite rare.


I agree with both of those observations. IMO, a support player uses summons for reasons other than to cause damage (flanking, tripping, SLA/spells).

A passable support player is one who casts Haste in the first round and finds at least something to do for the remaining rounds.
A good support player does what Ace Rooster advises against; becomes the star and lets the rest of the team mop up.
A superior support player has the ability to do the above, but stays his hand so that the rest of the team is useful.

I strongly disagree with this last statement, at least if you are refering to play time. A superior player should never be staying their hand; especially to avoid overshadowing the team. The other players will figure it out, and will feel cheated. There was a thread a little while back by somebody pissed off at another player doing exactly that. Soft handicaps that they can throw off at any time are not a good idea. Thankfully, character construction offers the ability to build hard handicaps into your game, and you cannot throw these off.

What a player should be doing (IMHO) is building so that they can play to the best of their ability and increase the fun of the other players and DM (which requires understanding their fun conditions). Summons are generally good for that. You have to be good at running them fast though, which is a whole minigame on it's own.

[Barstro]

1) Buffing and debuffing can easily break the "my character is awesome" feel... You lose the MCIA, and your character feels shackled to the buffer.

2) A superior player should never be staying their hand; especially to avoid overshadowing the team.

3) What a player should be doing (IMHO) is building so that they can play to the best of their ability and increase the fun of the other players and DM

I find those statements contradictory.
If I follow #2 and #3, then I can easily build a character that violates your #1.

By the time I get all the buffs on your hypothetical barbarian and all the debuffs on the enemies, at least six rounds will have passed. If a fight actually lasted that long, then chances are that all the support was required. Maybe the barbarian will feel a little sad while killing three enemies in the next fight after killing thirty just a day ago, but at least he's alive to do so.

If the barbarian killed 30, then my character put up walls so that the barbarian took on only six at a time (no way I would let my party member get surrounded four men deep). That's not him relying on me to make him strong, that's him relying on me to keep the fights fair.

EDIT:
I'd say that you and I have opposite philosophies that yield the same result.

I typically will build the best character I can for a certain role, and then play him in such a way as to be fair.

You seem to intentionally build sub-optimal characters and then struggle to play them as well as possible so they can be as effective as the other players.

Frankly, the character I have now is akin to what I interpret your strategy to be; Support Sorcerer who refuses to attack. Sadly, I've already had to violate that a couple times because the team was getting destroyed and he had no way to help other than a wand of MM. But, in a couple levels he will probably be so good at support and have such potential with summoning that I'll simply be forced to not use him to his max power*. I have no problem with that.

*Once a caster has access to Magic Jar, not using that every fight is "staying his hand".

[Elder_Basilisk]

Your version of "pure support" appears to be a quadriplegic.

Trying to max Support at level one still makes the character almost as good at melee or ranged as a Fighter. (not very)
Max Support later on (assuming the entire rest of the team fell and only a minion is left (your scenario)) will most likely have resulted in;
Haste still being up (no reason to think the Support didn't include himself in it)
The ability to cast Protection from __ (less chance to be hit)
The ability to cast Fly on himself (standard Support Buff spell).
The ability to cast Invisibility (again, standard).
The ability to cast Glitterdust (very versatile spell).
Has at least one of the Party's CLW wands.

A Cleric/Bard/Etc. would almost certainly have some sort of decent armor, since they are proficient. Otherwise, we are looking at a Wizard/Sorcerer/Etc. who, if he doesn't have Mage Armor (possible, since he is going for Max Support), has some other spell in its stead that is probably useful.


Frankly, I challenge you to build a "Pure Support" character than cannot defeat an NPC that meets the definition of "minion". FWIW, my definition is a character at least one level below the PC's level, with either a magic weapon that is level appropriate OR magic armor (but not both), and has no specialized traits. I do not know of a Slayer minion or a Summoner minion and minions do not exist to actually upgrade the PC's equipment from a victory.

Also, since we are looking at both the rest of the party somehow being knocked out, this must have been a fight that lasted a few rounds, so any obvious buffs (i.e. Haste) are up and running.

I believe those terms are fair and logical based on your statement, but I will entertain arguments to the contrary.

EDIT: I thought this topic had a Pathfinder tag. It does not. I'd prefer this challenge be met with Pathfinder rules, but I understand if 3.5 is your game of choice.
Of course, I'd be happy to start this on a new thread if this is too tangential.

You would think that it's hard to build a pure support character who can't beat a bad guy reasonably termed a "minion" but I've seen it done (the one TPK my group suffered in Age of Worms was due to the the party being largely incapacitated due to Confusion and bad guys--it came down to the "support" cleric vs a bad guy warrior (don't know the level and build because I was a player not the DM but he was fairly clearly a minion type). The cleric couldn't beat the warrior in a crossbow duel because he was "support" and hadn't bothered to make himself able to do anything himself. It's also a fairly common plague on PFS tables and was at Living Greyhawk tables before that. I think I remember such a character actually landing a hold person at one table then failing to successfully kill the foe with a coup de grace (2d6-2 damage does not result in a difficult fort save to avoid dying).

And as far as it goes, it can actually be done fairly easily. Give yourself a bard or cleric (the two main "support" classes). Pack an 8 or 10 strength and a mediocre dex. Take spells like haste and maybe spells like daze or grease or hideous laughter, but don't take anything that actually does damage or that would enable you to coup de grace a foe. Don't bother with even a masterwork weapon (not that a masterwork weapon would be likely to make much difference). Voila. You have a character, who even while haste and inspire courage are up can't reliably hit an NPC warrior a level or three under party level and when he does hit, does not do appreciable damage. Most likely result of the duel: a long boring whiff fest interrupted by rounds where the warrior is incapacitated by daze or something similar which slows the already slow motion beatdown but doesn't change its trajectory. The duel ends in the support character being knocked unconscious and coup de graced by the NPC warrior who hits him more often and does more damage when he lands a hit.

For an actual response to the challenge, see below:
Name Human Fighter level 5 (skill points 15) Heavy Foot
(Fighter )
hp 52 (5d10+10+5+5), CR 4 XP 1200, Any Medium Humanoid
Init +5 Speed 20 AC 21, Touch 12, flat footed 19 (masterwork Full-plate, Shield, none)
(+1 Dex, +9 armour, +1 feats)
Melee Base Attack 5 CMB 9; CMD 21, Single Attack(+1/+0) Falchion +12 (2d4+9/18-20) Full Attack (+1/+0) Falchion +12 (2d4+9/18-20); Space 5ft.; Reach 5
SA , SQ Armour Training 1, Bravery 1
Fort +7, Ref +3, Will +5,
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 11, Wis 12, Cha 8
Skills Climb 8, Handle Animal -1, Intimidate 7, Know Arch & Eng 4, Know Dungeon 4, Perception 2, Ride 6, Survival 1, Swim -4 Feats: Dodge, Power Attack, Weapon Specialization, Armour Prof Heavy, Armour Prof Light, Armour Prof Medium, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Martial Weap Prof, Shield Proficiency, Simple Weapon Proficiency, Toughness, Tower Shield Proficiency, Weapon Focus; Languages Common
ITEMS: Masterwork Full-plate, Cloak of resistance (+1) +1 saves, Masterwork Falchion, regular morningstar, regular dagger, 3 javalins


Name Human Bard level 8 Bard
hp 65 (8d8+16+8),
Init +7 Speed 30 AC 20, Touch 14, flat footed 17 (+2 Chain Shirt)
(+3 Dex, +6 armour, +1 deflection)
Melee Base Attack 6 CMB 6; CMD 20, Single Attack Whip +8 (1d3+2) or Shortbow ,Composite +9 (1d6 X3)
Full Attack Whip +8/+3 (1d3+2) or shortsword +7/+2 (1d6 19-20) or Shortbow ,Composite +9/+4 (1d6 X3) range 70; Space 5ft.; Reach 5
SA , SQ Bardic Knowledge (Ex), Bardic Performance, Countersong, Distraction, Inspire Competence 3, Inspire Courage 2, Lore Master 1, Versatile Performance 2, Well Versed, Dirge of Doom, Suggestion
Fort +7, Ref +12, Will +9,
Str 10, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 18 + 2 = 20
Skills Acrobatics 14, Appraise 0, Bluff 12, Climb 0, Diplomacy 16, Disguise 12, Escape Artist 8, Intimidate 5, Know History 5, Know Local 4, Know Nobility 4, Linguistics 4, Perception 16, Perform 16, Sense Motive 4, Sleight of Hand 3, Spellcraft 0, Stealth 11, Use Magic Device 8 Feats: Armour Prof Light, Combat Casting, Improved Initiative, Lingering Performance, Scribe Scroll, Shield Proficiency, Simple Weapon Proficiency, ; Languages Common
Spells Known: Bard Spells: CL 8 Concentration 13 Level 0 (4) DC 15: Dancing Lights, Daze, Detect Magic, Flare, Message, Prestidigitation, ; Level 1 (6) DC 16: Abundant Ammunition, Alarm, Disguise Self, Feather Fall, Moment of Greatness, ; Level 2 (5) DC 17: Discovery Torch, Gallant Inspiration, Heroism ; Level 3 (3) DC 18 dispel magic, glibness, haste,
ITEMS: +2 Mithral Chain Shirt, Cloak of resistance (+3) +3 saves, Eyes of the eagle (+5) +5 perception, Glove of storing -, Headband of alluring charisma (+2) +2 CHR, Ring of Protection (+1) +1AC, +2 Whip, Masterwork shortsword, masterwork dagger, masterwork shortbow.

For the purpose of the challenge, if we assume that the bard put heroism on the other characters who are now incapacitated, so he just has haste and inspire courage to help him out, he's attacking at +11/+11/+6 for 1d3+4. Average damage of 7.22/round so on average, he'll take 8 rounds to whittle down the fighter. The minion fighter is hitting at +12 for and average of 14 damage. Average damage of 9.66 per round so he'll take 7 rounds to pound the bard into the turf.

Now, it is fairly close and the bard actually wins the analysis if he had Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip rather than Combat Casting, Lingering Performance, and Scribe Scroll (or just weapon finesse and weapon focus). That said, if you assume that the haste runs out or that the minion fighter has some buffs going (because he's just the last man standing from the main encounter, not a solo enemy), he'll get pasted again. Or if I use a greatsword wielding orc barbarian 5 with Power Attack, Furious Focus, and Weapon Focus. (+14 raging for 2d6 + 14 = 16.17 DPR which finishes the bard off in 4-5 rounds. (Or course, the orc barbarian has a lousy armor class so his 82 raging hit points go away in about 6 rounds--fortunately, he has ferocity to ensure the kill if he gets really unlucky).


Is this something you can say Support Characters can be ready to do right at level 1? Or is this versatility something they'd have to build into?
It rather depends. If you are going for hybrid support like the reach cleric who focuses on support or the 18 strength bard with a longspear, you can be ready to go at level 1. If you are doing an archer cleric, it probably takes another level or two to get the feats but your stats are probably set up so that you can get by with a morningstar until then. If you are going for a battle herald and started as a cavalier, your support side doesn't come on line until level 2.

If you are going for a more focused support and debuff character like the Kitsune bard in your other thread, you can have some alternative strategies ready to go at level 1 (debuffing with daze and grease, etc) and some tactics that are good enough to get the job done at level 1 (at level 1, a light crossbow--preferably masterwork and a mediocre dex is a meaningful contribution and a viable backup strategy, but it won't stay viable for every long). If you want some more flexible strategies later on, you will probably have to build and/or buy your way into them. If support is your primary role, for example, and debuff is your second role, you may be able to make do with use magic device and a wand of magic missile or scrolls of ice storm as an "oh no, it's up to me to win the fight myself" contingency plan. You don't have to be able to do that every fight, but you want something in your pocket in case it comes up.

[Gwazi Magnum]

It rather depends. If you are going for hybrid support like the reach cleric who focuses on support or the 18 strength bard with a longspear, you can be ready to go at level 1. If you are doing an archer cleric, it probably takes another level or two to get the feats but your stats are probably set up so that you can get by with a morningstar until then. If you are going for a battle herald and started as a cavalier, your support side doesn't come on line until level 2.

If you are going for a more focused support and debuff character like the Kitsune bard in your other thread, you can have some alternative strategies ready to go at level 1 (debuffing with daze and grease, etc) and some tactics that are good enough to get the job done at level 1 (at level 1, a light crossbow--preferably masterwork and a mediocre dex is a meaningful contribution and a viable backup strategy, but it won't stay viable for every long). If you want some more flexible strategies later on, you will probably have to build and/or buy your way into them. If support is your primary role, for example, and debuff is your second role, you may be able to make do with use magic device and a wand of magic missile or scrolls of ice storm as an "oh no, it's up to me to win the fight myself" contingency plan. You don't have to be able to do that every fight, but you want something in your pocket in case it comes up.

So sometimes yes, sometimes no?
And in the no cases you're either relying on grabbing a few feats or getting some wands & scrolls?

[Barstro]

Spells Known: Bard Spells: CL 8 Concentration 13 Level 0 (4) DC 15: Dancing Lights, Daze, Detect Magic, Flare, Message, Prestidigitation, ; Level 1 (6) DC 16: Abundant Ammunition, Alarm, Disguise Self, Feather Fall, Moment of Greatness, ; Level 2 (5) DC 17: Discovery Torch, Gallant Inspiration, Heroism ; Level 3 (3) DC 18 dispel magic, glibness, haste,


From the Spells known, I consider this character to not be "Pure Support", but a split between Support and Skill Monkey. However, I would not feel at all slighted if others disagreed with my assessment.

I think that you accepted my terms and presented two characters that adequately met my challenge.

I would like to point out this, though;
Your scenario does not show how the party would survive even if the Bard wins the fight. The party seems to be soundly beaten, and the Bard has no curing spells to revive anyone. Either the Party is stuck even after the Bard wins, or the Party is hurt by some very temporary situation (EDIT: and delaying the TPK will be enough for another party member to be able to join the fight).

Hideous Laughter is a quintessential Bard spell that would have allowed the Bard to win the fight and is much more of a Support spell, IMO, than Abundant Ammunition, Alarm, Disguise Self, or Feather Fall as it takes an enemy out of the fight. During those six rounds of helplessness, the Bard could have revived one of the more "fighty" characters.

[Gwazi Magnum]

The party seems to be soundly beaten, and the Bard has no curing spells to revive anyone.

Then replace one of those spells with a cure spell.
And I also think another argument could be if the Bard had another means to fight it's possible they could have switched to that before TPK and helped prevent it.

[Elder_Basilisk]

From the Spells known, I consider this character to not be "Pure Support", but a split between Support and Skill Monkey. However, I would not feel at all slighted if others disagreed with my assessment.

I think that you accepted my terms and presented two characters that adequately met my challenge.

I would like to point out this, though;
Your scenario does not show how the party would survive even if the Bard wins the fight. The party seems to be soundly beaten, and the Bard has no curing spells to revive anyone. Either the Party is stuck even after the Bard wins, or the Party is hurt by some very temporary situation (EDIT: and delaying the TPK will be enough for another party member to be able to join the fight).

Hideous Laughter is a quintessential Bard spell that would have allowed the Bard to win the fight and is much more of a Support spell, IMO, than Abundant Ammunition, Alarm, Disguise Self, or Feather Fall as it takes an enemy out of the fight. During those six rounds of helplessness, the Bard could have revived one of the more "fighty" characters.

I think you're right about the support/skill monkey split. In my experience the two tend to blend together especially in using the "I'm a ____, so it's OK that I'm personally useless in combat" rationalization. We could probably switch it to pure support without changing things but it makes the scenario more complicated and I was trying to pick spells etc quickly. Avoiding complications was actually one of the reasons that I didn't pick cure spells--I didn't want to try calculating "OK, so the bard five foot steps and cure uses cure serious wounds which extends his lifespan by two rounds so now he wins!"

As far as hideous laughter goes, it's a good spell that the bard might easily have. However, it really only has a 25% chance of changing the outcome since the victim gets a save as a full round action every round. Since the fighter minion has a +5 will save, he will make the initial save 50% of the time and an additional 50% of the time, he will make the first save as a full round action which would enable him to charge the fighty character the bard is healing, put him down after the bard just healed him, and start the sequence up again. So trying is 50% net negative, 25% wash (bard takes one round to cast the spell, minion takes one round to make the save), 12.5% chance one round positive, 12.5% more than one round positive. Casting defensively rather than taking a 5' step makes success slightly better (since you have a move to get adjacent to an ally, but reduces the total chance of success.

As for the party surviving if the bard wins the fight, the bard could easily have a wand of cure light wounds. Using it in the fight is a losing proposition (average healing 5.5 vs average incoming DPR of 9.66), and using a withdraw action or eating an AoO to reach a fallen ally and use it on them is a losing proposition as well. (The whether he withdraws (and eats a charge) or eats the AoO, the bard sustains an attack to make the attempt and if he revives a character, odds are good that the fighter minion will be able to put them down--possibly permanently--with a single hit which may well happen before they can act). Or maybe the minion has positioned himself in the door between the bard and his fighty companions. Worst case scenario, the party is all dead, but the bard can drag them onto a cart one at a time and take their bodies to a temple to be raised. Pretty bad, but better than a TPK.

[Gruftzwerg]

I prefer (cre-)active supports over reactive supports.

- disable enemies, why buff defenses when you can hinder your enemy to attack at all?

- don't save your buffs only to compensate. buff for advantages. buff the bow-user with fly/spiderclimb, enlarge the tank to fill the passage, so that enemies can't reach your backline.

- position yourself clever to have the most impact (so that you can reach everybody who needs help fast or can give others flanking bonuses).

- work out tactics before (when possible) fights. later talk about how they worked out.

- know what your teammates play and intend to build. this can help you to adjust your support build.

[Barstro]

As for the party surviving if the bard wins the fight, the bard could easily have a wand of cure light wounds. Using it in the fight is a losing proposition (average healing 5.5 vs average incoming DPR of 9.66), and using a withdraw action or eating an AoO to reach a fallen ally and use it on them is a losing proposition as well. (The whether he withdraws (and eats a charge) or eats the AoO, the bard sustains an attack to make the attempt and if he revives a character, odds are good that the fighter minion will be able to put them down--possibly permanently--with a single hit which may well happen before they can act). Or maybe the minion has positioned himself in the door between the bard and his fighty companions. Worst case scenario, the party is all dead, but the bard can drag them onto a cart one at a time and take their bodies to a temple to be raised. Pretty bad, but better than a TPK.

But, if the Bard has a wand, the he can use it on the party's fighter/cleric, whatever, who is certainly better matched to beat this mook.

I have trouble accepting your final sentence. If the Bard is capable of that, then I think running away and coming back later is just as viable. Note: I do not consider either viable.

But that's all moot. I have already declared you the winner of my challenge. I'm just pointing out how my PC would have done it differently.