How to deal with non-combative PC


Advice


Greetings,

I am going to start to DM the Giantslayer Adventure Path to a group of friends. Most of them have a lot of experience with tabletop RPGs and Pathfinder in general. However, one of the player never played a lot of RPGs but always wanted to. He asked me which kind of character he could make, and I simply answered "the character you want to".

Anyhow, he wants to make an Archaeologist Bard. He does not want to use bardic performance or a lot of spells, or even, by his words, be "heroic" in combat. He wants to make something very close to Bilbo Baggins, and that's fine by me. It is different to what most of my players do and I'm very curious to what kind of situations that kind of character can create.

What I'm preoccupied with is the combats. The rest of the players can deal with this pretty fine (we have a summoner, a sorcerer and a fighter), however I'm worried that the combats won't be fun for the Archaeologist player, and since this Adventure Path contains a lot of it I would like to create something or add something to make that player do something fun and engaging while the rest of the party hacks aways at orcs and giants. I thought about putting contraptions or objects to most of the battles but after a while, depending of the scenery, this won't really make sense.

Do you already had this kind of situation? How you deal or would deal with this?

Thanks

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Make a very strong suggestion that his character is non-viable.

Or simply just let the chips fall where they may. Character death can be a learning experience.

If he gets upset, remind him that the campaign is called "Giantslayer" not "The Hobbit".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even Bilbo participated in many combats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say to first let him stick with his concept. As the battle times get boring for him, he may wish to join in. If he expresses that he is no longer enjoying his character, allow him to make some changes (for free since he is new to RPGs) and help him make something that can join in with the rest of the group in taking down those giants.

In my experience, there are just some players that only like the combat-side or only like the roleplay-side of the game. Most fall in the middle, and hopefully he will find his fit. If he still wishes to keep his concept and not join the battles in actual battle, perhaps allow him to have a modified version of "Aid Another". By being the 'help', he can avoid being heroic. But I have a feeling (or hope rather) that as he watches the others have fun in combat, he too may feel the need to jump in.

Sczarni

You should take your time to politely explain him that Pathfinder can be provide roleplaying and interesting story, but large focus of the game can be about combats. PCs are typically adventurers. Adventurers that run away or do not participate in combat can be viewed as redundant. After all, why would you party up with a person who is doing literally nothing when it matters?

Adam


2 people marked this as a favorite.

what DM-DR said.
That said, Halfling aid-another builds can be fun, too.

Grand Lodge

if he still wants to play a character that has a hands-off approach to combat, maybe explain to him the aid another action. That way, at least he can help out his party, without being directly involved in the fight. other than that, maybe throw something small at him that will "force" him to fight...not totally sandbag him, but show him that he will have to eventually man up and fight sometimes.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Amitay wrote:
He does not want to use bardic performance or a lot of spells, or even, by his words, be "heroic" in combat.

This is a wonderful opportunity... for you.

It's your chance to up your game, add some spice to your encounters and make them truly memorable. Instead of just throwing big bags of hit points at the party until one side wins, you can do all kinds of other fun stuff.

For example:

Stage a fight on a drawbridge, where levers on each side control when it raises and lowers, dynamically altering the battlefield from round to round. Getting between sides while the bridge is up requires a feat of acrobatics to tightrope walk.

Have a battle in some underground ruins where the party needs to set different gems in four statues around the room, but it's also filled with intelligent monsters who don't want that to happen. So, while the rest of the party is doing battle, Bilbish is racing around trying to figure out which gems go where.

Do the classic shipboard battle, except instead of it being out on the high seas, have it take place in the treacherous narrow straights between rocky islands. Sure, most of the party needs to be engaged in battle against the sahuagin pirates attacking them, but who's going to steer the ship, climb up and fix the cross mast when it breaks, and throw rope lassos around rocky pillars to make hard turns during the storm?

Deep in the dungeon, the party stumbles across a tribe of goblins that live in an abandoned dwarven mining shaft. Because it's several miles deep and a thousand feet across, the goblins get around using an elaborate (but unreliable) network of swinging ropes. In the inevitable battle that follows, most of your combat players will probably just focus on dealing damage and whatnot, but sneaky Bilbish can zip around cutting ropes to deal with enemies!

So yeah, the point here is: Take this opportunity to put all those extracurricular activities into your battles that usually frustrate combat-oriented players. Crank them up into fun skill challenges and you'll not just make Bilbish happy, but might just find that everyone around the table enjoys the fights more, too!


Along with the advice above, if he doesn't want to run any of the signature bard stuff, maybe he'd be happier with a similar rogue archetype? Sneak Attack isn't very heroic you know, and denying dex bonuses is very helpful.


First: I wouldn't have him build a character that is chock full of abilities he doesn't want to use. Find out what abilities he wants his character to have, then help him to build a character with a focus on those abilities. Rogue, inquisitor, investigator, or something else may come closer.

Second: I have seen groups where a character doesn't participate very much in combat. They actually can work out very well if everyone is ok with the concept. Jimmy-Joe is the scout and party face, but mostly cowers in combat. He throws a few knives, but not to all that much effect. However, he is expected to really step-up and handle the out of combat stuff very well. (Which allows the other guys to eliminate that completely from their builds.) But that should be discussed as a group. Some groups are ok with it, but some groups get very resentful if one of the PC’s is felt to not be pulling-his-own-weight in combats.

Third: I think zero participation in combats will quickly get boring for almost anyone. Even in a heavy role playing campaign (it doesn’t sound like yours is), combats tend to take up a fair percentage of gaming time. As grimdog73 said, look into the aid another action. I’ve even seen Halfling builds that pretty much specialize in that. Giving their allies amazing bonuses on AC, hit, saves, and/or skills – but able to do almost zero damage themselves when in combat. (To be honest, I think the Hobbit stories are the primary reason those skills and build possibilities were added to the game.)
Sneaking around to steal the spell component pouch, holy symbol, or wand from enemy casters. Using various tactics or skills to distract/interfere with archers or caster. Knowledge skills or magic to know the abilities of opponents. Saving the hostages. Grabbing the MacGuffin. Active traps or obstacles in the field of combat to be deactivated or removed. (You could certainly add more of these last 3 into the campaign.)

Fourth: Bilbo doesn’t really work all that well in the typical PF adventuring campaign. He would be a low level expert or rogue NPC that is being protected by a large group of mid-level adventurers for a specific task to be undertaken later. It is also quite arguable that he did not even do a good job of performing that specific task, even if the story did come out ok in the end.
A single non-combatant in a group of 8 PC’s is not usually that significant in PF. It is often tough to get 8 people actually into a combat at the same time, so it might not even be noticed. But a single non-combatant in a group of 4 PC’s is much more significant.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

The first thing to do, is discuss your concern with him. "I am worried you are going to be bored during combat," is a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up with your player. Asking him how he plans to support his party in combat in other ways is also a perfectly reasonable conversation to have.

I had a player--who played a bard in fact--who played a character who did not have a lot of combat optimization and felt like at least early on he would probably run and hide in the fight.

I did ask him if he was frustrated and or needed stuff to do. He told me he was happy roleplaying his character's cowardice and would have him be more daring as they got more experienced. He found ways in particular to buff the party and support in other ways with skill checks, and he was happy. The rest of the party was also happy with him providing support, and the party otherwise had casters and melee focused characters that could handle the hurting things part of combat just fine. He also performed very useful non-combat roles.

Things worked out because
- The player wasn't bored and I checked with him to be sure
- The other players were fine with how things were working
- The PCs worked well together as a team and each gave each other room to do their thing.
- He had adequate stuff to do in other situations.

Now, if you anticipate your game will be heavy combat, that is a problem and you need to be sure he is aware of this. My campaign was balanced about 40/60 combat/exploration and roleplaying.

Beyond checking in with your player, the one mechanical concern I would express to him is that the archeologist loses one of the best features a support-based bard has: bardic performance. ETA: I just realized you said he doesn't want to use this, but as others said, he needs to pick a class with abilities he wants. But anyway Archeologist's Luck is much less useful to a character that doesn't want to participate in combat.

Thematically, the archivist (APG) is very similar to the archeologist but does not lose performance (just alters it slightly). The change it DOES make--where the character more makes analytical speeches to the party to inform them about what they are facing--I think, if I understand correctly what your player is going for, would actually help him perform the role he wants to play much better. I think a lot of people think of bardic performance as actual "singing a song to make the party feel good" and it doesn't have to be; the archivist and similar archetypes emphasize simple oratory which perhaps won't be as much of a turnoff to him?

What I'd personally worry about is not what he'll do in combat, but rather what he DOES plan to contribute at all, anywhere. "Being like Bilbo" isn't an adequate explanation (Bilbo DID talk to and inspire his compatriots, so if he doesn't want to do that, then there's a disconnect here.)

If after your conversation with him, it seems like he wants to play a lump who doesn't do ANYTHING (which is different from a PC that doesn't want to have a strong combat role, but perform important jobs elsewhere), maybe describe your expectations for players in general and make clear that if he's not interested in meeting those expectations, he may wish to either find another opportunity to play elsewhere or reconsider the kind of character he wants to play. It could be he is imagining gameplay to work in a very different way than it will and that could be a major source of disappointment for everyone all around.


Look into allowing the Draconic Auras from 3.5, they are area effect abilities that help in a radius without him having to do anything...


He chose the wrong class, that's the only problem. Bards are meant to help in combat through flanking and spells, with the Archaeologist having an emphasis on flanking and damage.

If he wants to be non-combative, a Rogue can do the trick. Make an Aid Another build, make a defensive Feint build, make a Steal build... but use your class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the real problem.

Bilbo had an author. The author made sure Bilbo had interesting things to do, at least occasionally. The most important thing Bilbo did was provide a focus for the author to tell the story. Specifically, telling the story from the point of view of a harmless, helpless guy who knew NOTHING of the big world and had to learn EVERYTHING at the same pace the author wanted the READER to learn the relevant story bits.

It's a common theme in stories that have authors. See Bilbo, Frodo, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Katniss Everdeen, Lieutenant Ripley, and many, many others.

That all works very well when there is an author and a plot and a story that has a fully-controlled beginning, middle, and end. When every conflict is controlled by the stroke of a pen (or of a keyboard). That author is there to make the helpless hero learn, grow, and survive impossible odds and maybe even be the improbable hero in the end.

Also note that NONE of those characters I mentioned would have gone on any adventures at all, and certainly NOBODY would have dragged them along into danger except for very contrived premises created by the author - there is no way those dwarves would have taken Bilbo to Lonely Mountain because he could contribute NOTHING to their chances of survival - but Gandalf tricked them into it for reasons only Gandalf could know.

But Pathfinder is not like that. Every conflict is resolved by random chance (dice). Every hero MUST provide his or her own "armor" because, unlike characters in a novel, RPG characters have no "plot armor" to protect them, no author to keep them safe with the mere stroke of his pen. Sure, the GM can fill that roll, but not if he really cares at all about the dice (and if he doesn't, then he should be an author instead of a GM).

To that end, creating a Pathfinder character means making sure you're relevant when it counts. Have the ability to contribute to your own survival and to your team's survival. Make sure the team wants your character there, not because you're a player at the table so they have no choice, but because your character increases their chances of surviving.

Really, if you're doing ANY roleplaying AT ALL, those other adventurers won't saddle themselves with a worthless companion - it jsut means everyone dies. They'll get rid of Bilbo Baggage and find Beorn to actually help them finish their quest and survive.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are always things to do in combat, even without fighting. Search the room, distract enemy combatants, interact with the environment, etc.

Populate your combat environments with lots of "stuff": dungeon dressing, furniture, books, glyphs, etc etc. that he can interact with. Give him lots of opportunities to be clever.

Have him make knowledge checks during combat to discover enemy weaknesses, offer tactical advice, etc.


Give him a ring of invisibility and let him BE Frodo, if that's all he wants.

I don't see this character being a problem. Party cheerleaders can be great comic relief if played properly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

it is a good thing all of your have read Giantslayer and can give such good advice

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:
it is a good thing all of your have read Giantslayer and can give such good advice

I would argue that part of being a GM is rewriting the published stuff to make it fit your party better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Toss in some sub-objectives that will assist the party. Make things that can fall and drop and spill and get knocked over onto enemies by a sufficiently intelligent and skilled party member. Players enjoy doing cool things like bringing down the room and using their intelligence score in combat.


Wolfsnap wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
it is a good thing all of your have read Giantslayer and can give such good advice
I would argue that part of being a GM is rewriting the published stuff to make it fit your party better.

I would argue that you wasted a lot of money buying an AP if you're just going to rewrite the whole thing anyways...

Shadow Lodge

cravenly cower for the course of crucial combat

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Maybe have him do a Dirty Tricks-style rogue? De-buffing opponents can be just as effective as buffing allies. Or maybe go the whole Combat Expertise route, with Improved Disarm and Trip? (Might not be all that easy against a bunch of giants...) Making a fighter that doesn't fight, or at least not do a lot of damage, might be fun and subversive. But it would provide all the feats needed to be good at that kind of style of combat.

And maybe give him the Helpful trait so he can +4 Aid Anothers. Are there feats and other traits that help with helping? Like move= or swift-action Aid Anothers?

EDIT: A brawler might work even better! He could go around unarmed, and eventually gets bonuses on Combat Maneuvers. Just ignore the name.

And you sprinkle in a bunch of fun and useful magic items that don't necessarily increase combat prowess, but can give him fun things to do outside of combat, or act as trump cards to help his allies.


The problem is not his choice of class or archetype. Archeologist bards can be quite competent in combat. Depending on his build he could be anywhere from average to extremely competent in combat. I have seen a dervish dancing archeologist that was one quite deadly. All it took was weapon finesse, dervish dance, archeologist luck and heroism. Heroism is an extremely useful long lasting buff that will actually be just as useful out of combat as it will be in. Even if he is going to avoid combat this is one spell he should pick up.

One thing that would work is for him to play the reluctant hero. Make sure his build has at least basic competency in combat and just have him be reluctant to fight. This way no one will expect him to do anything in combat but when he is really needed he can come through for the party. Think of B.A Baracus in the A Team movie. He spent half the movie preaching that violence was wrong and how he would not fight, but in the end he came through.


I remember I had a gnomish illusionist who rode on a Roc who was similar to this. He was an old man, but he didn't have any real attacking spells aside from permanently blinding enemies with Blindness.

He was loads of fun for me, not necessarily for the rest of the party as the things he could do were disruptive to the enemies, but not harmful.

The character he wants to play can be a load of fun. The non-combat character surrounded by a horde of seemingly bloodthirsty killing machines.

The character can work, he could be The Only Sane Man in a group of insane people, or it might seem that way. However, Pathfinder is very combat centric, and for that reason he needs to at least be able to do something in combat. Alternatively, you could modify the CR system to fit your style if he is next to useless in combat. Just subtract one from the encounter's CR and you instantly have a CR encounter appropriate for the actual combatants.

If you don't know, the CR system is built around having 4 characters.


Reread the spider battle to see just how heroic Bilbo was in combat. He singlehandedly saved everybody's life there.

You don't have to be a front-line fighter to contribute to combat. Bardic Performance is a very easy way to contribute, of course. Archaeologists lose that, but are actually better fighters than plain bards. Playing an Archaeologist and not taking advantage of that makes little sense. Maybe another class or archetype fits his desired play style better, although being new, he probably has no idea what kind of play style he prefers. Archaeologist is not bad as an all-round choice to explore different play styles; he can fight, sneak, cast spells, open locks, etc.

If he doesn't want melee, give him a bow. Excellent weapon in the hands of a high-dex archaeologist. And don't forget whip proficiency! Lousy for damage, but it has reach and can trip and disarm. Not a great weapon in the long run, but fun to play around with at low levels with little investment. And maybe he does want to go down the (expensive) whip feat chain.

Also recommend Grease as a fun spell for trickery in combat.

Finally, as a GM, you could put non-combat objectives in your combats. Some of the most fun combats I've been in had me freeing a prisoner while my buddies were fighting, or being tied to a tree by my buddies (I was a werewolf and it was full moon, but I hadn't changed yet), and talking a bunch of attackers out of the fight by convincing them I was on their side. Any combat that's more than simply bashing away hitpoints is instantly memorable. It's good to do even if you don't have a dedicated non-combatant in your group. (Though I have no idea how this fits in your AP.)

But it's probably also worth discussing the combat heavy nature of the campaign with him.


You see, knowing is half the battle. Give them some advantage for knowing things like what those giants are, weakness, strength and other detail will give a place for that non combative PC. In real world, not everyone in an adventure group can fight. Some of them are just scholars or merchants. Do they always get killed? No, as GM/Gods of your world. You have to decide does everything has to be killed/is combat the only way to kill? Last session, the sorcerer in my group killed the entire encounter with countless of creature by just talking. His words were strong and clever enough to kill infinite amount of spawns. So it's really up to the GM. My GM was surprised too, but he decided this works with that encounter. I think you should try to do that as well. Not all encounters ends with killing in combat.


Run as written, let him figure things out?

My general approach to GMing is that it's my job to do three things:
Present the material as best as I am able
Challenge the party
Provide opportunities for players to have fun

Note: #3 there isn't "Make sure everyone has fun" because that's actually impossible. It's up to the player to find fun in something. I do need to make sure that what I'm running has possibilities for the players to have their fun, but ultimately it's up to them to actually derive enjoyment from the proceedings.

Looking over the opening post, you're running an AP and are worried that the player who's opting to play a non combat character won't have fun. In theory, he knows what he's getting into. The AP is named GiantSLAYER, so someone who isn't really down with slaying stuff, giants in particular, might find some issues with being not very useful. That said, I'm assuming (without reading the AP) that it's not all slaying all the time, and that situations may occur in which a silver tongued bard with a heart of gold and a sword of lead might find utility. Maybe the player is really looking for opportunities to run, screaming, from an onslaught of giants after his friends have all been ground to make bread. Maybe the player's banking on rich interpersonal connections between his fellow PCs to alleviate the boredom of "I hit the big thing with my sharp pointy stick until it stops moving."

Or maybe not. Maybe he really did pick the wrong character idea for the campaign and he's not going to have any fun. I suggest, instead of determining which it is for him, you give him some rope, let him figure out where his fun lies, and be a bit generous with rebuilding if he determines that Flaily McWetnoodle, Bard and Professional Pantswetter isn't really what he wants to run with in the game. Empower the player. Heck, it could even lead up to a Crowning Moment of Awesome as Flaily discovers the inner strength he'd been hiding all along and smashes the menacing giant with his trusty lute for 50 damage before grabbing the fighter's greatsword and finishing the brute off!

tl;dr: let him make mistakes, if they are in fact mistakes, and work with him after to fix things instead of solving problems that may not exist.

The Exchange

I'd take the non combative PC challenge and do it with maneuver master/lore warden mix, then flavour all those combat maneuvers as oops those baddies came after me and tripped over their own feet...then they slipped and dropped their weapon as well. Or how they ended up being redirected in the opposite direction ^^ Might be fun, really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First of all, I think the General Consensus is: "Help him to build his character". He doesn't know the system, so building the character he wants is likely something he doesn't know how to do. Work with him and he'll probably be happier in the long run.

Secondly, Here's a summary of the Giantslayer AP for anyone interested (If you're planning on playing it, mild spoiler alert).

DM-DR wrote:
If he still wishes to keep his concept and not join the battles in actual battle, perhaps allow him to have a modified version of "Aid Another". By being the 'help', he can avoid being heroic.

Really good advice from DM-DR.

Headfirst wrote:
This is a wonderful opportunity... for you.

Another really good post. Having read the synopsis for Giantslayer (linked above), it seems like there's a lot of room for a non-combat character.

(Edit:The following contains spoilers from the Giantslayer AP)

Spoiler:
Chapter 1: The characters are investigating something when the town is attacked. Maybe the rest of the party holds off the orcs while Bilbo finishes the investigation? Adding urgency shouldn't be too tough.
Chapter 2: They're going after a Mcguffin ... Bilbo goes for the Mcguffin while the rest defend him, pretty straightforward that one.
Chapter 3: Another Mcguffin.
Chapter 4: They're raiding a giant camp. Maybe the party creates a distraction while Bilbo sneaks in to do some sabotage?
Chapter 5: This one doesn't instantly present anything, but maybe it's time for Bilbo to take a back seat and watch his friends do what they do best - Kill Everything!
Chapter 6: Well this one reminds me so much of The Lonely Mountain that I don't feel like I need to say much, but if you can't think of anything, maybe there's some way for Bilbo to free the Dominated Red Dragon? Let's be honest, if that's not a way to help the party, I don't know what is.

These are all just ideas (mostly the most obvious ones), I'm sure you can come up with more.

DM_Blake wrote:
Bilbo had an author ... Every hero MUST provide his or her own "armor" because, unlike characters in a novel, RPG characters have no "plot armor" to protect them, no author to keep them safe with the mere stroke of his pen.

This is a good point, but ... Try reading up on Hero Points (Advanced Players Guide, p322). Would they fit your campaign? You can even build a character around them (there are specific feats and spells that revolve around Hero Points).

It is worth noting that adding Hero Points to your campaign will change the challenge (essentially your PC's will be more powerful), and that this is one more thing for your new player to learn. It's up to you if you think it's more beneficial or harmful to the group experience.

One last thing, Teamwork Feats.
If the party isn't amenable to taking Teamwork Feats to make Bilbo feel useful, you could consider giving the group a free teamwork feat between chapters (or every 2 chapters or whatever you think won't break the game). They're getting a free feat, but it has to be one that they can all use. Stealth Synergy would mean they can all save skill points while Bilbo powers up his sneakiness, Combat Medic let's them ignore poison etc if that's a worry, extra flanking/defence/whatever is always welcome.
Like Hero Points, giving free feats would power up the PC's, so you'd have to decide if that would unballance the party or not.

Just to reiterate, the main point this thread seems to be making is that if you don't help build his character, he's going to be a lot less useful. That doesn't mean you have to take over building his character, but you know better how to achieve his goals than he does.


I really like the idea of free Teamwork feats, +1 internet points!

I'm gonna reiterate my earlier suggestion of looking at the Draconic Auras from 3.5, they are feats he can take that grant a variety of effects... passively.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I played a chaos gnome brass dragon shaman wannabe Sherlock Holmes. My first 2 feats were Investigator and Urban Tracking, so not a combat powerhouse. But by 6th level, he had a bunch of different party buffs, a double-strength lay on hands, and lots of social skills. He even had Skill Focus Diplomacy and, eventually, Skill Focus Use Magic Device.

But if this is an absolute newbie, maybe the best character class will be ranger. The PF ranger introduces all sorts of rules systems at a pretty manageable rate. I'm guessing Favored Enemy: Giant is a bit of a no-brainer....

Ranger will teach skills, bonus feats and combat styles, terrain, spells, animal companion/party buffing, etc. etc.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How to deal with non-combative PC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.