|
My party of 5 7th level characters recently found themselves ambushed by two invisible stalkers while walking across some rickety planks above a nasty pit. The druid had a single casting of faerie fire, and managed to land it quite well on one of the two (the round after a full attack dropped her to 3 hit points).
The witch, druid, and alchemist made short work of that one while the monk and gunslinger took a severe beating from the other one across the room. They both acrobatics'd their way out (guessing expertly which square it was striking from) and then huddled in a corner with the others while it attacked them with hit-and-run tactics (stealth up one round - next round, attack and flee). They quickly became convinced there was more than just one remaining, and fled. Luckily, it was bound to a single chamber and didn't follow them.
The gunslinger was furious at me for throwing such an "unfair" encounter at the party, despite the fact that they trampled half of it easily and escaped unscathed. They came back the next day loaded with piles of invisibility-detection gear and killed the sole remaining stalker in seconds.
Is my player's anger justified? I felt the encounter went beautifully - they faced a difficult challenge and had to work hard to overcome it. Particularly because the gunslinger is such a devastating combatant, it was nice to see how he'd adapt when facing a foe that was difficult for his arsenal to affect (lots of gunshots and attacks were fired into empty squares). How would you respond to a player being unhappy with a situation like this?
|
If everyone else was cool with it and had fun then no problem, tell him that not every fight is supposed to be a walk over or guaranteed win, there's a reason the encounter table has rules for creating encounters with CRs both above and below party level.
If he genuinely thinks that the fight was beyond their ability, simply point him back to the actual fight... one stalker dead quickly, the other they made a sensible retreat and came back prepared, hardly op. If he's just upset that it wasn't a cakewalk and expects not to have to worry about death... he should probably reevaluate the sort of game he wants to play in if the rest of the group enjoyed it and you like running something with a bit of challenge to it.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, if the player is furious at encounters with invisible things, what's he going to think of player-foiling tactics such as displacement and DR/- later on? Sounds fairly balanced given the stalkers would not pursue outside a certain zone, leaving the tried-and-true method of "live to fight another day" a valid card in the player arsenal.
|
Well, I'll tell you, I'm often /that guy/.
Not all the time mind you, and usually never when I get killed. Cause usually when I'm killed it was quite obvious what happened...
I'm not sure if its for him, but for me, When I think a battle was unfair its often because something just wasn't right. Like my abilities become invalidated by something off the top of the DMs head.
In one adventure, we ended up fighting several monsters that were resistant or immune to most of what I could do. Like we had a monster that was intangible. Another with a dr 10. more were swarms. And I'm a gunslinger, in a campaign where magic weapons were hard to come by, and then where usually for the other players. (Guns uncommon) So, basically I didn't get to add to the encounter.
So its very much possible, you had something like that for this player. He wasn't able to add to the encounter other than get his rump kicked and flee the encounter. Did he even get to add anything in the second run Or was the witch druid and alchemist jumping in and curbstomping the monster?
Does he normally curbstomp monsters himself?
Have your players played Pathfinder at that level before, or is this their first time at level 7?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So many times I see a post that is presented as a game problem and when I read it, I see a group dynamics problem.
Your gunslinger player has some expectations about game play that he feels were not met. Have you sat down with him and asked him to explain in detail why he feels the game did not meet his expectations?
From what you've posted we can only make assumptions. If the gunslinger player felt that his abilities were completely negated and all he could do in the fight was run and hide, then he is probably reacting to feeling like the encounter did not give him a chance to contribute. I don't know what level of experience (or maturity for that matter) your gunslinger player has, so have no idea what sort of expectations he might have about how the game works.
As a ranged combat specialist he may have felt especially exposed in an encounter where an invisible opponent was utilizing hit and run tactics which probably made him feel pretty useless and vulnerable.
I'd talk with him and allow him to express his concerns so that he gets it off his chest. I'd let him know that there might have been other options he could have utilized in the combat, and that over the course of the campaign he is likely to find his options limited in the future. Those might be times for another character in the party to shine. I would make sure he got a chance to shine in an upcoming encounter.
It sounds like you just need to sit down and have a conversation with him that shows him you are listening, you understand and you want the game to be fun for him.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the encounter was fine, but players will gripe.
Good tableside manner is the best tool for this job. Don't compete with the players for authority, just ask questions like "how do you think I should have handled that differently?" and listen. You don't need to act on it, just listen.
Nobody likes losing. Some people take it better than others. Part of your job as GM is to be the bad guy, and some players have a hard time keeping that separate from direct aggression.
In general, I talk a lot of trash when the players are winning, and I am pretty apologetic (but firm) when they are losing.
+1 to adamantine dragon. There may be an expectations issue.
All in all, when faced with an encounter I cant deal with, I have no shame in running. I would run and come back equipped as hell to deal with the situation. As long as this is a one-time thing, I dont see any problems.
|
|
So its very much possible, you had something like that for this player. He wasn't able to add to the encounter other than get his rump kicked and flee the encounter. Did he even get to add anything in the second run Or was the witch druid and alchemist jumping in and curbstomping the monster?
The second fight, every player got one hit in and then the witch's familiar sneezed on it for its sole remaining hit point, heh.
Have your players played Pathfinder at that level before, or is this their first time at level 7?
They hit level 7 immediately before that fight.
-
To those saying I should talk with the player, I have. I just wanted some input from others to gauge my reaction to the issue.
One issue I have with this particular player is metagaming. I can't tell you how often I've described a monster as frightening or mysterious, and he will come back in seconds knowing exactly what it is, and let the other players know that its Fort Save is only a +3, and its touch AC is 23 so rays and gunshots won't be as effective. But that is a different story.
His complaint was specifically "Three CR 7 monsters is too many! It's not a fair fight for our level 7 party." It was RIGHT after a rest, and restock for consumables in town too...
Have your players played Pathfinder at that level before, or is this their first time at level 7?They hit level 7 immediately before that fight.
No, that's not what I'm asking.
Have your players played at level 7 before, or are these the highest level characters they've ever had?
If you have a player metagaming in that manner, I highly recommend reskinning your monsters so that he can't recognize them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely sounds like a player problem, talk to him about the meta gaming, tell him that it's ruining both your enjoyment of the game and also giving away information that should be discovered through play or Knowledge checks. If he wants to play a character with great knowledge skills who actually informs his friends about these sorts of things in character... encourage it! That's great roleplay and totally in game, the way he's going about it now is simply meta gaming. More importantly, if he's the only one who is unhappy let him know what style of game you're going to keep running so he can decide if it's for him, alternatively if *everyone* is unhappy, consider changing up the game style to something both you and they will enjoy.
As an aside, if his meta gaming really bothers you, do mention to him that "not all creatures are typical of their species" and start changing stats up. The next creatures he meets with a low fort save actually have a higher con and great fortitude, but the high touch ac he was expecting on them is lower due to a low dex, etc. If he starts asking to make knowledge checks... let him! Success means he recognises the creature as an offshoot and knows the changes, and you've started training him to use in game skills to gain in game knowledge without him realising :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, this sounds like a group dynamics problem.
You need to sit down with this player and essentially create a social contract that describes how the game will be run. If he won't agree to one that is agreeable to you, then you are incompatible at the game table.
This is not a game problem. This is a social dynamics problem. You have to deal with it that way.
It appears that your encounter was completely unfair in that the party didn't just walk over it. It seems that he wants pretend danger to the party.
Having a goblin fight the party and die before it attacks is boring, but having an ogre fight the party and die before it attacks is exciting. The fact that in neither case was the party in any danger doesn't matter, because everyone knows a goblin is a wimp and an ogre is a challenge. (adjust the monsters for an appropriate level)
I tell my players that I use the stats in the bestiary as a guide, not a bible. I modify stats at will. I also reskin regularly and give monsters and NPCs class levels and create my own monsters out of whole cloth.
My players don't even bother to look up monsters in the bestiary. They use knowledge checks and go with what I give them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hand the "PC" a tissue and a new diaper. See invisability 2nd level, or if that's above his pay grade flour 1 pound for 2 copper pieces.
The player metagames? You got one over on him, you hit him in the dignity.
If your encounters where designed to undermine any attempt at preparation on a regular basis, then he may have had a reason to complain. Mr. Fishy runs a complex game fill with tricks, traps and suffering for the stupid and arrogant. Mr. Fishy has had players get upset and curse him and leave the table...Mr. Fishy waved. Mr. Fishy plays and runs with wit and moxie, smart players do well. A#~*%$~s quickly learn to hate Mr. Fishy, as GM or PC.
Do you feel like the encounter was unfair? Because you were by the book on CR-vs-character lvl.
|
|
Have your players played at level 7 before, or are these the highest level characters they've ever had?
Highest ever.
You can't stop him from keeping stats in mind to himself. But, the next time he tells the group, inform him flat out that you'll CHANGE the stats if he does it again. Now he can find encounters unfair. Or you can have attacks hit him without rolling, since he wants to use knowledge without rolling.
Yeah, I've begun to reskin monsters, and change stats, which confuses him and makes him fume a bit.
This is absolutely a player problem. He sounds like every poor aspect of a power gamer who wants nothing more than to see things twice his CR die as soon as he attacks them. I'm willing to bet his gunslinger build is right off a forum. He needs a few pure RP non combat sessions to cool his jets.
The strange thing is, he's not like that at all. He prefers the RP aspect of the campaign - out of all my players, he'd be the most likely to rejoice if we had an entire week go by without a die roll. I think he does like things to be very orderly and predictable in combat, though, and when that stability is threatened, it can get him annoyed. And his gunslinger build is far from optimized, just a moderately powerful gunslinger (whose power level I'd rate around 3rd out of the 5 players).
-
The player in question is an excellent contribution to the campaign, which is why I bring up the issue at all. If he was an asshat about things, I would just dismiss his concerns. But he's a valued party member and a good player, which is why I wanted more input on reactions to his concerns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be a potentially dissenting voice here, was the party allowed any chance to notice invisible monsters in the room? Remember, by the rules invisibility gives a +20 to Stealth checks, but does NOT automatically prevent a high enough Perception roll from noticing that some invisible presence(s) are there. Also, does the druid have a pet? If so, and it has the scent special quality (which most animals do), that would also notice the stalkers within 30 feet and give warning.
In summary, if you declared auto-surprise in direct contravention to the game rules, that would indeed be unfair, in a sense. If, on the other hand, you followed the rules (allowed Perception, even if passive only, and took scent into account if applicable), then the player needs to stop whining.
Players don't like it when they have to fight something they're useless to. Gunslingers are awkward in that the only way they can deal with any problem is to shoot it. If they can't solve the problem by shooting it, then they feel shafted.
Though, for some reason, it never seems to occur to gunslingers to carry different types of weapons. A scatter weapon would have worked well.
Yeah, before we pile on and blame the player, let's gather and review all the facts. See my post just above.
I think I've avoided blaming anyone. This is simply a situation where the GM and the player have to reconcile their expectations about the way the game will be played and what is acceptable behavior at the table.
If you have a player metagaming in that manner, I highly recommend reskinning your monsters so that he can't recognize them.
It may also be worthwhile to talk with him in private.
"Say, I understand you didn't enjoy the tactics much in that last fight. Sorry - I'll try and keep it in mind. Could you try and be a bit more of a roleplayer, though? You've been metagaming all campaign. It's a give and take."
If he doesn't respond, reskin him into a new player promptly. I agree that, as a GM, it's important to run a game enjoyable to the group, and that you have the most influence on that - but you deserve to enjoy yourself as well, and that is the players' responsibility.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be a potentially dissenting voice here, was the party allowed any chance to notice invisible monsters in the room? Remember, by the rules invisibility gives a +20 to Stealth checks, but does NOT automatically prevent a high enough Perception roll from noticing that some invisible presence(s) are there. Also, does the druid have a pet? If so, and it has the scent special quality (which most animals do), that would also notice the stalkers within 30 feet and give warning.
In summary, if you declared auto-surprise in direct contravention to the game rules, that would indeed be unfair, in a sense. If, on the other hand, you followed the rules (allowed Perception, even if passive only, and took scent into account if applicable), then the player needs to stop whining.
I had every one roll perception when they entered the room, and once again at the beginning of every round, and every time one of them was attacked. And I had the stalkers take a -10 penalty to Stealth every time they moved more than 15 feet in a move action.
They failed every time. T_T
The druid's animal companion is a Roc, and was inside her Pokeball for this encounter.
The gunslinger did have a scatter weapon, and did hit the monster more than once with it. I didn't tell him whether he'd hit, though, and told him "You may have hit, but you can't see."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Morph, for whatever it's worth, from your description I would say that you ran the encounter absolutely according to the rules. I can't find anything about your execution that I would fault, in fact I'd say you probably ran it better than I would have.
The question I would be asking myself in your shoes would be whether I was aware of and sensitive to my players' body language and reaction to the encounter.
For example, when you say that the gunslinger hit the target more than once but that you only said "you may have hit him" did the gunslinger react negatively?
I might well have added "on that last shot you heard a satisfying grunt indicating you hit something, but you couldn't identify the exact location."
Something as simple as that can completely turn a player's attitude from "this sucks" to "Alright!"
Um, wouldn't he notice where the scattershot hit? I know they are tiny, but if flour makes invisible things visible, then he should get a check to notice the bullets floating in midair.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, wouldn't he notice where the scattershot hit? I know they are tiny, but if flour makes invisible things visible, then he should get a check to notice the bullets floating in midair.
If I were the GM I'd rule that bullets embedded in the body of an invisible creature were also invisible.
I would probably make it more likely that the PC noticed some blood appearing on the floor, but by then the stalker may have moved.
I had every one roll perception when they entered the room, and once again at the beginning of every round, and every time one of them was attacked. And I had the stalkers take a -10 penalty to Stealth every time they moved more than 15 feet in a move action. They failed every time. T_T The druid's animal companion is a Roc, and was inside her Pokeball for this encounter.
This information definitely puts things in a different light, for me. Thanks.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have your players played at level 7 before, or are these the highest level characters they've ever had?Highest ever.
This.
For everyone else jumping all over the players, take a step back.
Right around level 6 to 8, the game begins to get progressively harder. Playing PFS especially but also in my home games/modules, I have seen this again and again and experienced it myself by having to learn a lot of things the hard way as I have begun to play more and more at these levels and beyond.
Players who are used to rolling over encounters on the pure merits of their build suddenly realize they need to account for allllll kinds of scenarios and tactics that they have not yet seen. The spells, melee damage, ranged abilities and combat manuevers they have been using up to this point suddenly aren't enough, as you begin to plentifully encounter creatures such as:
-Invisible enemies
-enemies with concealment/miss percentages
-Enemies with all kinds of DR - Good, Cold Iron, Silver, Untyped, etc.
-creature subtypes that are immune to precision damage/crits/flanking
-creatures with much higher CMB/CMD scores
Your player just probably got metaphorically kicked in the teeth for the first time and did not handle it well emotionally. That being said, they came back with all the tools they needed to handle it the second time, so they most definitely learned a lesson and will not be caught unprepared for invisible creatures again.
Your players are most likely in for the rude awakening that I and a lot of other PFS'ers get right around these levels and where "be prepared" means looking beyond your build in order to survive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The encounter was fine. The group could have been better prepared, but they survived without casualty.
Also, it sounds like your players should have been utilizing readied actions. Ready an action to attack into a square when you are attacked. I'm not sure if it's RAW or being generous, but I would allow a character to know which one of the 8 directions a melee attack came from.
Also, players could have done a lot of things. Where was the flour or crush chalk to try to cover the creature or be able to detect where its standing?
I like smashing face. When something stops me from smashing face effectively, I get frustrated. Sounds like what happened.
This especially happens if we're playing late into the night and my usual self awareness drops.
The encounter was fine, and frankly I think that the angry we stock up on anti-invis stuff was a good answer. Maybe his character would develop a strong dislike of invisible critters.
However, as you've described the metagame ability of the player, his anger was just a case of him crying because he wasn't the best one at this fight. Just move on. Also remember to reskin monsters or change stats on the fly if you need to...:)
Remember, its a DC 20 Perception check to notice the presence of an invisible creature that is not actively using stealth i.e right after an attack.
I'd direct all the blame on the druid who didn't wildshape into something with scent. =P Like a Tiger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My advice:
At the start of every campaign I run I make the following statement, "I do not plan on strictly adhering to the CR encounter tables for your encounters. There will be encounters that are a fair amount above your party level. Not every encounter will be "winnable" with fighting. I believe this gives an element of realism to the game. Understand that I am not out to kill the party, but it is your jobs as players (and characters) to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Every hero has had to make a tactical retreat at one point in their career and I don't plan on making your characters the exceptions.
As for the particular player... well, I don't see any major issue except for the metagaming. I hate that too. I would let him know that. In fact, if it were me I would let him know that if I see him bringing OOC knowledge up to the players/characters again that you would find a OOC way to handle it. I think a good way would be to dock his character some of the experience for each encounter. The justification would be that the character didn't learn as much as the other characters did because he thought he knew everything already. I would site the anecdote that, "You can't teach someone anything that already knows everything." But I would also extend the olive branch at any point letting him know that if he would like to stop metagaming then you would be happy to return to granting normal XP for encounters.
But yeah... expectations and all that. Players have them and GMs are allowed to have their own. Metagaming is not a minor pet peive, IMO.
It sounds like you ran this encounter by the book, Morph. I'm just reading your descriptions of gameplay on the interwebz, so I may have missed some of the ins and outs of the encounter, but if the entire party survived and came back with the right buffs to deal with it quickly at the start of the next play session, that honestly sounds a little bit epic; all I can picture is Ripley suiting up in the cargo loader at the end of Aliens.
it also sounds like The Gunslinger is a player who likes to stay well within his safety zone. Players like that get very ornery when when the GM throws an encounter out them that they aren't specialized for.
(Kirth, weren't we going to talk about the difference between optimization, and specialization, with DM collusion taken into account, on some other thread?)
His complaint was specifically "Three CR 7 monsters is too many! It's not a fair fight for our level 7 party."
He us mistaken
The CR of 3xCR7 monsters is CR10, which is an "epic" encounter in the CRB.The pit and environment increased the CR by 1 due to terrain advantage making it a CR 11, which is "equals" for a party of 4 level 7 adventurers. They have 5 characters so the CR for them is roughly CR 11.5, and therefore the encounter was between Epic and Equals, however since the PCs had more action economy the battle was in their favor, so no, there was not too many.
Your best bet is to give him misinformation if his character doesn't make the appropriate knowledge check.
Um, wouldn't he notice where the scattershot hit? I know they are tiny, but if flour makes invisible things visible, then he should get a check to notice the bullets floating in midair.
Invisibility hides anything that is concealed within an invisible creature. The bullets would disappear if they did any hp damage to the creature--if they don't then they would just bounce off.--
So, no.
Also, those bullets are moving at 400 MPH (Assumed muzzle velocity of 15th century bullet) all the way up towards 1800 MPH (Current era file muzzle velocity.)
If your eye can spot something of diminutive size moving at 400 or greater MPH then no fly shall ever escape your eyes.
Also, modern shotgun rounds have around 15 (Bird shot I think) to 25 (buck shot) to 50 (military grade) pellets in them. Of course this is all from memory, if you want the actual numbers then do research.
Coming late, but two invisible stalkers should come out to about an EL 9. Five level 7 PCs is an APL of 7.6 (or 8, if you prefer). It is a difficult encounter, just on paper. But the rickety boards make it more so.
You have to take special terrain and environmental factors into your calculations. CR/EL are not static. They do not depend merely on the number and type of creatures. Out on a flat field, probably. But above a chasm on unstable footing is a different thing.
That they survived is great, and I would expect a well-stocked crew to get along fine in an encounter that is only one EL higher (or one-and-a-half) than their APL. But here's the caveat:
If somebody dies, and it happens during an encounter that is overpowered, however slightly, you need to be prepared to admit you're at fault. From a player's perspective, they probably do not really need to expect anything higher than a level-equal threat. I am not saying that presenting something more challenging is wrong. Merely that it may not meet player expectations to do so, and you need to tread carefully in that arena.
EDIT: Are you saying there were actually 3 stalkers? Because that's an EL 10 vs an APL of 8, being generous. PLUS the rickety boards. Probably EL 11, all told, easy.