Hello, I am an experienced DM and long term pathfinder player but I have a challenge I am struggling to come to terms with. Our group has a new player who seems to continually keep pushing boundaries. We are quite a small group (four of us) so we definitely want to bring new players in. However we also are fairly restrained after playing together for so long, we voluntary avoid some classes - gunslingers with their touch attack rolls, summoners and eidelons etc. We also voluntarily try not to outshine each other too much.
The new player seems to be constantly trying to find strings of combinations of feats, equipment and archetypes to recreate 'superhero' or comic book/manga type styles at low levels. Discussions so far have include using a weapon in teeth to get an extra attack; using a throwing shield because it apparently grants a 'free throw attack'; Pistollero with revolvers; a character with fire absorbtion then attacking oneself with a flaming weapon... and on and on.
I am running a campaign which is a fairly realistic Skull and Shackles campaign using Fire as She Bears to up the realism. This was made clear at the start of the campaign. My general assumption is that core rules are safe but additional equipment and rules should really be checked in. I have made it clear from the outset that this is low magic - spells are limited to 4th level, no 'fly' spell or 'create water' to maintain the integrity of the campaign as long as possible. These restrictions are balanced by much more hit points, skill ranks as rewards and generous gold.
He went with a two weapon fighter ranger and took a saw toothed sabre after a thread on here about finding the best off-hand weapon. It made sense and was quite pirate like so I was fine. At fourth level he said he wanted an animal companion I said I would like him to take something that fitted the setting. He wants to take a wolf, that he would then chose to make large in a few levels because he wants to ride it. I explained that I didnt like the idea of that, because a large amount of combat will occur on/off and between ships and that a dire wolf didnt seem to fit a tropical pirate setting.
He seems to have taken this very personally and now feels I am either being arbitrary, or deliberately cramping his style. I just want to have a world with verisimilitude and a strong theme while maintaining balance between characters. I also don't want him to become frustrated because a large pet won't fit in many of the encounters I have in mind and I don't want to shoehorn it in. He says he doesnt understand the 'pirate theme'.
I like the fellow and I think he is driven by a desire to make heroic comic book or manga-like characters with cool and great powers rather than deliberately upstaging other players. To be clear the example above is not necessarily overpowered, just not practical or fitting for a ship based pirate campaign. However I think the approach of searching the threads/or creating new ones to find combinations powerful combos underpins this and I am concerned for the future as I am a common DM.
What would your advice be. I have tried explaining why I have a difficulty with it and his response is to say that the game has wizards and dragons so why can't it have giant wolf riding pirates. I have some sympathy with this point of view but just because it exists in Golarion doesnt mean it fits in a pirate campaign. I don't to lose the player from the group if I can help it.
|
If there can be Tengus in the Shackles, I don't see why there can't be a wolf. Creatures show up in odd places in Golarion. To say that a wolf in the shackles breaks verisimilitude is a bit disingenuous, and to disallow it seems unnecessarily strict. Especially considering how many pirates are Chelaxian, and there should be plenty of wolves in Cheliax.
As for the animal not being useful in ship to ship combat, very few animals would be useful in that situation. As long as the player knows that before hand, and is fine with that, I don't see an issue. It's accepted by most players with large animals that they may not be useful in every situation.
I don't have such a problem with a wolf per se, but much of the combat is ship based - fights in rigging, scaling grapel lines or swinging from ship to ship. I'm not even sure how a wolf would get aboard a ship not docked in port without being hoisted on a boom every time. There is also the effect on the other crew, there are goats and pigs on board for rations. Many of the combats and dungeons are in submerged caverns or in small cramped areas. Lastly the whole rational of travelling somewhere by ship negates the need to ride anything - and doing so just seems silly and unnecessary.
I have personal concerns about the effect one mounted character has in many encounters but in this example I am concerned the reverse is the case - it will require suspending the realism of the game to to shoehorn it into encounters to be at all useful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh my god. You're the GM of that other guy ALL THOSE OTHER GUYS. This is some hilarious social experiment, isn't it? You're in cahoots.
Jaunt, there are two sides to every coin my friend.
Okay, I thought this was an elaborate troll job as this GM is referencing several other threads I've skimmed. But then I checked, and OP in those threads are characters of the same account. My mind is blown. The conspiracy has been laid bare.
It is actually a serious question about a tricky situation Jaunt. though point taken.
Okay, here's my for realsies, super srs advice.
First, if you're playing a game which significantly deviates from vanilla Pathfinder, always mention it before bringing in the new guy. I'm assuming you did, and your player conveniently failed to mention that to us. Water under the bridge, either way.
Second, did you have a group chat about the themes, feel, setting, and so forth? It's one thing for you to be like "hey, we've been planning this as a group. Low magic, k?" and another, more powerful thing for everyone to be present and say "yeah, let's have low magic" "that'll be awesome, I'll take survival so I can find or make fresh water" "let's stock up on pitch so we can make flaming arrows for all our pirate dudes", etc.
Third, I'm assuming he's reading this thread. Sup, bro.
Fourth, I wouldn't worry so much about the wolf. If there's one thing that's thematic for pirates, it's being crazy as a mug of spiders. If one of them has a giant wolf for nothing other than raiding coastal villages, I'd say it's cool. Wolves are decent swimmers. I think you're taking an extra critical view on everything this guy brings in because you and I both think mouth knives are a stupid thing. If he is willing to accept his wolf will suck at boarding actions, fights in the rigging, exploring cramped sea caves, and basically everything else, then the wolf should be fine.
Fifth, if he then complains that his wolf is useless, just say "it's in the book, suck it up".
|
Sword,
As much as you are keen on running your pirate game, it might make sense to back up and run a short 2-3 session game that could either be related to your pirate game (maybe side adventure with different characters that the main group could hear about) or completely separate.
It sounds like there is a fundamental difference between the new player's gaming style and the unspoken compact at the table/your group's social conventions. Rather than disrupt a campaign that it sounds like you have spent quite a bit of thought on, maybe let the new player integrate into the group and figure out things in a setting you don't mind getting "wrecked" a bit in the process.
I have had similar situations, and usually it took about 3-5 game sessions before they figured out the situation, the GMing style, and the personalities of other players. Once that happens, things should go smoother.
Alternatively, you may find the two sides irreconcilable, but it sounds to me like you have an excited player who will settle in if given a chance.
Oh and BTW, a wolf is actually a very unusual and cool AC for a pirate game, especially if the group starts calling themselves the Sea Wolves or the like :)
On the other hand, feel free to give him his wolf, and watch it drown in it's first misstep when trying to board other ships.
As tempting as a good drowning is or even a ballista to the muzzle, I try not to enforce my views using capital punishment. Even in an RPG. Lol. I would much prefer to solve the problem in advance rather than invalidate a characters choice mid game. Though it is sooooooo tempting.
I am assuming that the guy is reading. He seems to respect the communities views and has raised the issue already in a thread. I'm hoping that an open discussion will help get some different perspectives. We have already tried to discuss this by email and it felt unresolved. He seemed still agrieved and I remained unconvinced.
I do need to be careful Jaunt that I don't approach good ideas from a negative perspective just because it isnt my bag.
One of the things I'd take into consideration is where the ranger came from. If he grew up largely on land, then it might make sense for him to net a land animal. Whether or not its effective at ship to ship fighting is a totally different story, but not one that should worry you since it's his companion that might be largely useless or just plain die.
If you are in fact worried that it won't do much good, I'd suggest saying such. It doesn't have to be an aquatic animal. After all, fish aren't going to help much when the players are on the ships and not in the water. Perhaps a bird would work.
In the end, it is your game to run. Sometimes you just have to give a solid, "Nope," to things. Even if it is actually fairly reasonable, albeit not all that useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like a breakdown of Creative Agenda.
The game you want to run is at odds with the game your player currently wants to play in.
You need to talk to the player out of game and tell him the kind of story you want to run. Convince him of your vision and get him on board. Ask him to work with you.
You just need him to realize that the whole game will be cooler if everyone is on board with the stylistic choices.
Tell him what your stylistic source material is. See if it is anything he likes. Work from there.
I generally like heavily restricted campaigns - having said that, I think it's always worth letting the players drive which restrictions are cool and which are just needlessly limiting.
In this case, unless his tastes are way outside the rest of the group's, I'd let him have a wolf companion. I don't really see why that's an impossible or even out-of-genre thing (unless you're shooting for really strict adherence to hollywood depictions of pirates or something. Even then, I don't think I'd be too troubled to see one of the crewmembers with a snarly wolf in a pirate movie).
Enlarging it to ride seems like a poor choice (given the cramped dungeons, underwater-ness and swinging through the rigging situations he'll be facing). I wouldn't rule it out, but I'd make sure he knew he was choosing to play a mounted character in a campaign where that doesn't work very well a lot of the time.
Btw as some kind of 'meta advice': in his thread, I think you should explicitly state that you're the DM. For everyone else's benefit at least, but also so he's clear it's you posting there.
Btw as some kind of 'meta advice': in his thread, I think you should explicitly state that you're the DM. For everyone else's benefit at least, but also so he's clear it's you posting there.
Yeah, I wasn't wild about seeing the criticsm in print at first aired on the forum but at the same time 360 feedback is not necessarily a bad thing. Particularly when it is independent. I almost don't want to sanitise the opinions on there by posting as the DM. That said you make a good point.
Dog, cat, monkey, parrot, seagull, shark, squid, snake pretty much anything from the ranger list other than horse.
That said there have been a lot of advice about allowing pirates to be crazy. The response from the crew to the wolf could be a good role play opportunity along with the potential interaction with a certain free captain in book 4. I'm not a tyrant - I am open to changing my mind if the arguments are persuasive.
I am not comfortable with a giant saddled and bridled riding wolf. I don't like games where some people are mounted and others aren't. Aside from the practical considerations discussed above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggested in your players thread that the reason you were not allowing the wolf companion was that it would be severely limited. Your player did not seem to think that was going to be the case. He mentioned that you there had been only one dungeon and did not think there were going to be many in the campaign. It looks like you are actually allowing some choices that rangers normally do not get. Did you tell him this? Let him know that you think that if he takes the wolf once it becomes large it is going to be hard to take it with him on missions.
A giant moray eel becomes large so that may work for an aquatic mount. You could also allow the shark to become large so he could use a shark as a mount, but that would be a house rule.
The most common advice given in that thread was for you two to sit down and discuss the situation. That is really what you need to do. Also make sure he knows that rangers are three levels behind on the progression for animal companions so his wolf will not become large until 10th level. I get the impression he thinks that when his ranger gets to 7th level the wolf becomes large.
|
|
You're the DM. Saying what fits your vision for the game and what doesn't is entirely your right and prerogative, and while he can of course disagree with the way you do it, he must respect that it's your world as long as he's playing your game. If he's only interested in making every game he plays in conform to a single genre that your game isn't, he needs to either expand his mind or admit that he doesn't really want to play your game. It really is that simple.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread needs to be re-titled as "I didn't do a good job of communicating just how specific my vision for this campaign was, and now I'd like advice in dealing with the consequences of my own communication failure."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animal companions don't HAVE to become large, they can instead stay the same size and gain +2 to... uh... is it STR and CON?
Perhaps that would be a good compromise?
A pirate with a wolf sounds cool. A pirate with a Large Wolf sounds inconvenient for the rest of the crew...
Mounted combat is just not that useful on ships. My husband played a halfling cavalier who rode a medium wolf, and after the third boat-based adventure in a row, he wanted to swap the character.
What about suggesting an aquatic mammal like a sea lion, walrus, or otter? Having something that's equally effective on land and in the water would be really useful.
Mounted combat is just not that useful on ships. My husband played a halfling cavalier who rode a medium wolf, and after the third boat-based adventure in a row, he wanted to swap the character.
What about suggesting an aquatic mammal like a sea lion, walrus, or otter? Having something that's equally effective on land and in the water would be really useful.
The problem is Rangers have a very small list of potential Animal Companions. Sea Lion, Walrus, and Otter are not on it.
Besides which, the player wants something he can ride. Horse and Wolf are out for arbitrary reasons, leaving only things that start off small and at best grow to Medium size.
I really don't see the issue. Yes, it's not going to be very practical. So what? There are bits in Skull and Shackles n land. Quite a few of them in fact.
Having a shark as a companion is going to be impractical just as often as having a wolf is. Possibly less so, since you can slap a Water Breathing spell on the wolf and have him gain Swim ranks (one of the skills ACs can learn with Int sub 3), but you can't as easily make your shark walk on land if need be.
Suggest an Eagle, and re-skin it as like, a Dire Parrot or something.
:D
This entire problem can be solved easily by a single spell.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/carry-companion
Can't use your wolf, or unfeasible to use it? Put it in the Pokeball.
Ready to ride? Large wolf I choose you.
I have a group of people I have played with for a long time as well. From time to time a new person comes in, and as you can imagine some are better or worse fits. So, I understand some of your frustrations.
That being said, this player probably knows that he can't be the same as you and your friends because there isn't the shared history that is part of your group's chemistry. So, he's just being himself. I've been in his shoes before, and think he's doing the right thing. Youi should take this as an opportunity that could stop your group from becoming stagnant.
I'm also playing in S&S, and my GM talked to us a bit about not stretching the boundaries too much. We try to respect that, but on the other hand he hasn't actually said no to a whole lot.
Finally, as far as wolves and pistols and ships go, I think you're overreacting. Please consider that S&S is already taking medieval-fantasy characters and putting them into a bastardized pirate setting, complete with peg legs and parrots and monsters and lightnin bolts and ghosts and a pirate council. The integrity you are trying to maintain is pretty random. The campaign already doesn't make sense, but its fun. Well what exactly is wrong with a pirate owning a wolf? Does a shark make more sense? It doesn't make sense that all of this other stuff is OK, but not wolves.
Keep an eye on some of the stuff he is wanting that isn't supported by the rules, but it would be good for everyone involved if you make saying yes more of a habit if you think he is good for the group. If not, keep saying no and he will probably leave the group.
That wasn't supposed to turn into a rant. Sorry. Maybe my view would be different if I saw it firsthand, but your post is all I have to go on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of these issues revolve around what a person considers cool. There seems to be two types of response on the thread...
The first is "ultimately it's your choice, try and compromise with the player at the same time explain why a large riding wolf would be awkward."
The other type is "stop being a d#€k and let him have what he wants, who cares, it's about fun".
I get the first piece of advice, and it is the pathi will undertake. I Suspect from his post he belongs to the latter camp.
I wasn't being arbitrary when being uncomfortable with the wolf it was the prospect of it being ridden that I took an issue with. That would be the same as it being a dolphin, shark or moray. As a DM takes a long time investing in a campaign to try and add lots of cool things, fleshing out the communities, NPC's, working out workable ship combat, adding cannons, and letting them build the best ship in the shackles by collecting the choicest materials across the shackles. fleshing out combats on decks etc,
Players always throw spanners into the works, they try to do crazy things, and that is fine. Having mounted characters can be fine (but I find the rules for them unbalanced and unrealistic and am uncomfortable with them in my games having DMd a number of games with a single mounted character). I don't think it is too much to ask for the two weapon wielding, ship navigating, spell casting pirate ranger to leave the giant wolf saddle in the sea chest.
|
@The Sword
As much as I see, most of the information was given to the player on head start of entire campaign. Even if you somehow forgot to mention something, because every one of us is a human being and you wouldn't guess but human beings make mistakes 24/7, you were honest from the start.
Now, I can understand the regular player nagging "Please GM, can I have that!", but sometimes both GM and player push a bit too hard into one direction. Why don't you allow him the wolf, but warn him that it might not fit into the encounters you planned out. After all, if a GM has to change everything because player choose to take a wolf companion, it becomes rather stressful and anti-fun environment and we don't want that to happen. It's also gonna give you a fine borderline to understand his further motives.
At least, that's how I would do it.
Adam
I think you may be assuming the character wants to use the wolf for mounted COMBAT rather than just as a MOUNT, which seems unlikely. He's already specced as a TWFer, which means he A.) Doesn't have enough feats to spec into mounted combat and still do that and B.) Wouldn't be good at it anyway (since he is, at best, using one-handed weapons).
Even if he was, Skull and Shackles is a particularly bad AP fr mounted fighters, so that shouldn't be a concern.
I don't think anyone is saying you should bend over backwards and make sure his wolf i accommodated for...just run the AP as written and/or you already intended to. His wolf will be sometimes useful, sometimes not.
Agree with Rynjin and Malag.
He did want to ride it in combat though, leaping from ships deck to deck. I know what you are saying about being so feat heavy. It's another reason I don't like single mounted PCs they either become so excellent or utterly useless because of the specialisation.
When I think of the phrase 'ramp up your encounters' I don't think it means to make them all wolf accessible.
If you're constantly running into issues where the player's intent with their character isn't fitting with the world, and their choices when progressing the character are often met with rejection, it seems reasonable that the player would feel singled out.
It may be a good idea to talk to the player about the long view of what you expect in the game, and explain what you're balancing the game around mechanically, and what you are changing to maintain theme. Getting a build of the character up through the next 4 levels or so could also help get a handle on where the source of contention is.
|
|
@The Sword
It's actually fairly easy to make a one time offer with wolf companion. The pirates or not, trade is ever present. Simply let them capture a ship filled with all manner of exotic pets and animals or let him notice a wolf at the exotic trade market in the town. It's not always accessible, it's simply rare exotic beast. I somewhat share the displeasure against mounted PCs also ever since I had lv9 paladin dealing 180 dmg in one hit, but ridding a beast is still fairly okay in my book.
It's another reason I don't like single mounted PCs they either become so excellent or utterly useless because of the specialisation.
When I think of the phrase 'ramp up your encounters' I don't think it means to make them all wolf accessible.
I'll tell you what, I don't like mounted PCs either but my reasons have less to do with their damage output than the fact that they become helpless without their mounts, which leads to the player not enjoying the game.
Ultimately, your players are supposed to have fun too. I have been running a ROTRL campaign for over a year now and one of my players decided to go for a Gnome Cavalier. As much as I thought that I would dislike the character, I paid attention that my game would give him opportunities to shine too. It's the same with an archer trapped in a very small room really: they have to draw a melee weapon and feel useless until they get to the next encounter, in a wide-open field.
Your player wants a wolf and you feel that it's breaking your setting. Why not offer another animal companion of your choosing (maybe a panther or something else fitting), with stats similar to the wolf?
If your player says no to that then clearly they don't care about the meta and just want a wolf because they think it's cool.
In such case, why would you say no, really?
A DM usually wants their players to have fun and a wolf animal companion really does not seem like an unreasonable request...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All resolved, thank you for all the advice on both threads. As Dr Henry Killinger says, 'compromise, my friend, is the conerstone of diplomacy. and dipomacy is the cornerstone of love."
Happiness has once again returned to the venture compound.
I am a player in the beginning of book 3.
I love S&S, its been lethal and lots of fun.
I don't see it as a low magic game though.
Could also be an attempt for mechanical advantage -> ie. mount move (not charge) as free action w/ knees, full attack with two swords. I might be looking too much into it, but that's always a possibility.
Could also be an attempt for mechanical advantage -> ie. mount move (not charge) as free action w/ knees, full attack with two swords. I might be looking too much into it, but that's always a possibility.
You need to read the mounted combat section more carefully. From that section:
"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack"
I surprised no one has suggested the obvious, he wants a wolf animal companion in a sea-based AP, give him a seawolf.
Just re-skin the sea lion into a seawolf.
Your link is broked.
Yep, I suck at linking.
How's this? Seawolf.
Could also be an attempt for mechanical advantage -> ie. mount move (not charge) as free action w/ knees, full attack with two swords. I might be looking too much into it, but that's always a possibility.You need to read the mounted combat section more carefully. From that section:
"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack"
Thanks for pointing that mistake out (though you could have phrased it a little more politely). I never play with mounts, so was just going by what I had thought I remembered.