How much should I (as a GM) metagame about my players?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RSX Raver wrote:
Why should every NPC behave with the same guile and expertise as the heroic adventurers? That feels way too much like a GM attempting to beat the players, not facilitate the telling of a story where the PCs are the heroes.

Not every enemy NPC would. Just ones with Intelligence scores above 5. That seems to be the spot where the Paladins and Monks start thinking tactically and positionally aware, right? Besides, there's a significant gap between "the same guile and expertise" and "enough situational awareness to know that the guy with the giant pointy stick will try to stick me if I get close enough."

I won't run intelligent combatants as if they're foes in a tower defense game.

As a player, I prefer wins against competent foes- -a win like that feels earned. Watching NPCs run headlong into the a spear feels comedic, not heroic.

5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht

Jeff Hazuka wrote:

As a player, I prefer wins against competent foes- -a win like that feels earned. Watching NPCs run headlong into the a spear feels comedic, not heroic.

Exactly this, that's why I made this thread. I know it feels good when you've bested a strong foe, that's why I'd like to play my foes intelligently. Having your enemies run headlong and repeatedly into your Combat-Reflexes-with-polearm frontliner lessens the victory for both the players and the GM.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeff Hazuka wrote:


Not every enemy NPC would. Just ones with Intelligence scores above 5. That seems to be the spot where the Paladins and Monks start thinking tactically and positionally aware, right? Besides, there's a significant gap between "the same guile and expertise" and "enough situational awareness to know that the guy with the giant pointy stick will try to stick me if I get close enough."

I won't run intelligent combatants as if they're foes in a tower defense game.

As a player, I prefer wins against competent foes- -a win like that feels earned. Watching NPCs run headlong into the a spear feels comedic, not heroic.

I run tactics as written, and do not deviate until something transpires to specifically cause the NPCs to deviate from tactics as written,even if they seem 'less-than-optimal'. Do NOT want to run the risk of a concern being raised about my GM style for 'too much table variation'.

In the case of a Polearm user, if two people attempt to get within reach,and BOTH get whacked,then that'd be a good cause to start deviating. Until that point,though,there's no reason to take certain things into account.

5/5 5/55/55/5

come on, everyone knows mooks all rush in at once!

Silver Crusade 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
come on, everyone knows mooks all rush in at once!

A level 1 warrior is a mook.

A level 2 fighter is a veteran.

Unless you believe the 1st edition Players Handbook, which said a level 1 fighter is a veteran, but that never made sense to me.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Fromper wrote:


Unless you believe the 1st edition Players Handbook, which said a level 1 fighter is a veteran, but that never made sense to me.

Someone that actually hasn't seen a fight yet would still be a warrior.

Silver Crusade 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fromper wrote:


Unless you believe the 1st edition Players Handbook, which said a level 1 fighter is a veteran, but that never made sense to me.

Someone that actually hasn't seen a fight yet would still be a warrior.

Which didn't exist back in 1st edition, which is my point. The lowest possible sword swinger was a level 1 fighter, and the level title was "veteran".

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

In first edition, most humans were 0-level. If you made it to level 1, you *were* a veteran.

EDIT: Human's and halflings were zero level. Other demi and semi humans were first level at the lowest.

Scarab Sages

Jeff Hazuka wrote:

Not every enemy NPC would. Just ones with Intelligence scores above 5. That seems to be the spot where the Paladins and Monks start thinking tactically and positionally aware, right? Besides, there's a significant gap between "the same guile and expertise" and "enough situational awareness to know that the guy with the giant pointy stick will try to stick me if I get close enough."

I won't run intelligent combatants as if they're foes in a tower defense game.

As a player, I prefer wins against competent foes- -a win like that feels earned. Watching NPCs run headlong into the a spear feels comedic, not heroic.

Ideally, the GM should be roleplaying each NPC as if each were a real creature. So, for PFS, depending on how the scenario explains the NPCs, should determine how they fight.

Regarding tactics, I don't really think it's a matter of intelligence. Many animals and insects use great tactics, against their normal foes in real life. Most human tactics are based on things humans have witnessed animals and insects doing.

When PCs encounter a creature, basically, you run though a series of questions to determine what it would do:

Is the creature motivated to attack the PCs, or is it reacting in self defense? If motivated, what does it hope to gain from this encounter? Does this creature fear death? And if they fear death, do they believe they can escape death, should they find themselves in a situation where they percieve that they may die? Does the creature get along with any other creatures in this encounter? Do they know the other creatures in this enounter well enough to work in concert with them? And do they have a predetermined plan of attack? Does the creature have any instinctual/trained fighting styles?

These questions all come to mind and do have bearing on a given combat, be it a PFS scripted one or not. That tower defense approach really only has bearing if the creatures are protecting something (or are too slow to flee) and their training/instinct suggests that standing around waiting for the PCs to come to them is a viable tactic. Tower Defense is the sort of tactic I'd expect from a Tortise, or a Giant Slug, or humans engaging in combat as a delay tactic so others would have more time. Kobolds may also use such a tactic, should sneaking away fail.


isnt a little metagming helpful as a gm ?

Dark Archive 1/5

Jeff Hazuka wrote:
RSX Raver wrote:
Why should every NPC behave with the same guile and expertise as the heroic adventurers? That feels way too much like a GM attempting to beat the players, not facilitate the telling of a story where the PCs are the heroes.

Not every enemy NPC would. Just ones with Intelligence scores above 5. That seems to be the spot where the Paladins and Monks start thinking tactically and positionally aware, right? Besides, there's a significant gap between "the same guile and expertise" and "enough situational awareness to know that the guy with the giant pointy stick will try to stick me if I get close enough."

I won't run intelligent combatants as if they're foes in a tower defense game.

As a player, I prefer wins against competent foes- -a win like that feels earned. Watching NPCs run headlong into the a spear feels comedic, not heroic.

Everyone keeps mentioning Intelligence as how tactical a fighter should be, but the fact is in Pathfinder your Int score has little to do with it. As Murdock pointed out, things with animal intelligence (or even less) can fight tactically. It is about experience, not book smarts (Which is what the Pathfinder Intelligence score represents.) Wisdom is a far better mental stat for ones ability in combat. Note that Sense Motive is keyed off this and is used when someone tries to Feint you in combat.

I would like to point out that the correct tactic against a spear user (Or anyone with a reach weapon when you do not have one) is absolutely to move into reach. That is the real life tactic, and since the martial aspects of fantasy combat take their inspiration from real combat, there is no reason the enemy would not do so. Perhaps they do it Acrobatically(That word looks funny), like a PC could try, but they are not going to stand around when they react first in combat(Unless the scenario tactics say so). If you run them like the veteran heroes, then the heroes also run through reach all the time against large creatures, most of the time just risking an AoO to get up on the enemy.


I apologize for the brief derail, but I didn't feel like my question deserved its own thread. If it spirals out of control, I will make a new thread for it.

Castilliano wrote:

Re: Combat Reflexes

-Ready action to 5' step forward and attack when polearm user approaches.

Quick question: Does the polearm user get an attack or would this negate the intended attack completely?

I find this a very clever and potent tactic!

Silver Crusade 1/5

Gummy Bear wrote:

I apologize for the brief derail, but I didn't feel like my question deserved its own thread. If it spirals out of control, I will make a new thread for it.

Castilliano wrote:

Re: Combat Reflexes

-Ready action to 5' step forward and attack when polearm user approaches.

Quick question: Does the polearm user get an attack or would this negate the intended attack completely?

I find this a very clever and potent tactic!

It doesn't work. You can ready a standard action, but what is attempted here is a free plus a standard in one. No dice. And if it did work, it would render all polearms obsolete: everyone facing a polearm readies to step in and strike, and when they do so the polearm user is no longer at a distance they can attack from.

Dark Archive 1/5

supervillan wrote:
Gummy Bear wrote:

I apologize for the brief derail, but I didn't feel like my question deserved its own thread. If it spirals out of control, I will make a new thread for it.

Castilliano wrote:

Re: Combat Reflexes

-Ready action to 5' step forward and attack when polearm user approaches.

Quick question: Does the polearm user get an attack or would this negate the intended attack completely?

I find this a very clever and potent tactic!

It doesn't work. You can ready a standard action, but what is attempted here is a free plus a standard in one. No dice. And if it did work, it would render all polearms obsolete: everyone facing a polearm readies to step in and strike, and when they do so the polearm user is no longer at a distance they can attack from.

You can ready a standard action to include a 5' step if you have not moved that turn. So you can stand where you are and ready to 5' step and attack if the polearm user gets within 10' of you. You can not move up to 10' away and then ready an action to 5' step and attack.


supervillan wrote:
Gummy Bear wrote:

I apologize for the brief derail, but I didn't feel like my question deserved its own thread. If it spirals out of control, I will make a new thread for it.

Castilliano wrote:

Re: Combat Reflexes

-Ready action to 5' step forward and attack when polearm user approaches.

Quick question: Does the polearm user get an attack or would this negate the intended attack completely?

I find this a very clever and potent tactic!

It doesn't work. You can ready a standard action, but what is attempted here is a free plus a standard in one. No dice. And if it did work, it would render all polearms obsolete: everyone facing a polearm readies to step in and strike, and when they do so the polearm user is no longer at a distance they can attack from.

You actually can, but with a caveat

Quote:
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.

Grand Lodge 4/5

supervillan wrote:


It doesn't work. You can ready a standard action, but what is attempted here is a free plus a standard in one. No dice. And if it did work, it would render all polearms obsolete: everyone facing a polearm readies to step in and strike, and when they do so the polearm user is no longer at a distance they can attack from.

Nah, it doesn't render a pole arm obsolete. It just levels the field. My level 6 fighter, if you did this, would nod, 5ft step away from you, and trip you. As you fell, he'd hit you again. Then he'd hit you while you were on the ground.

If you used step up, he'd probably curse, then plan next time use a move action to back away, instead of a 5ft step. Then he'd just trip you using his feet, then he'd punch you on the way down with his spiked armor. Once you were down, he'd punch you again just for good measure.

When you stood up, he'd punch you again.

Then after your attack, he'd use a move action to back away, then he'd ready an action to attack you should you approach. He'd use his readied action just to hit you. He'd use his op attack to trip you, then he'd take another op attack on the way down.

You could stand up if you wanted. I'd hit you again. You could then 5ft step in and get your one attack. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

It's why polearm warriors tend to also learn a close-combat weapon they can use while holding on to their polearm. Like armor spikes, or unarmed strike, or boulder helmets. That way people can't escape by coming too close.

2/5

Gummy Bear wrote:

I apologize for the brief derail, but I didn't feel like my question deserved its own thread. If it spirals out of control, I will make a new thread for it.

Castilliano wrote:

Re: Combat Reflexes

-Ready action to 5' step forward and attack when polearm user approaches.

Quick question: Does the polearm user get an attack or would this negate the intended attack completely?

I find this a very clever and potent tactic!

As you've seen from the other responses, it's a legal tactic. Which means polearm specialists have to pay attention to whether their foes have moved or not, or have feet planted (ready action) for a quick step into close combat.

This sort of wariness, coupled with the fact that polearms were better defensively or when moving steadily together, feels realistic enough not to call "metagame" though system mastery is definitely part of it.
The tricky part for the GM comes with combinations/phrasing, as well as dealing with the rules/nerfing argument that will follow. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that players won't feel betrayed/cheated. Or vice-versa if you're the player.

If Defender (D) and Polearm Attacker (P) clash...
-D readies for when P approaches, steps forward and attacks. P can still keep moving (if they have any movement left), likely 5' back to use his weapon. This requires having movement left and it provokes! Obviously you are fighting a veteran, or somebody with a great commander.
-D readies for when A attacks/begins attacking. This is cheesy, but also legal, but how would the order of events go? If allowed first, it nullifies the polearm attack (and the opportunity to readjust/move to attack), so I could see ruling that seeing the attack means the attack is occurring, a.k.a. it's too late. There was a 3.5 ruling that addressed this (re: Beholder eye beams), but I haven't seen a similar one in PF though I did look many years ago.
This is a gray area, but allowing this sort of ready to nullify an attack has horrible ramifications. Everybody starts readying 5' moves away from attacks (perhaps with an attack or spell thrown in before or after depending on reach).

Also messy if P charges because the movement and attack are one action, not interrupted at the start, but in the middle. Except, there is no in-between point. When P hits the 10' mark, there's a simultaneous (and required) attack, so does D's 5' & attack occur before or after that? What does that mean for initiative placement next round?
I know how I'd rule (for P to strike first, as part of the motion forward), and I feel we're in a similar gray area here. Why would the more reckless attack bear better fruit?

Lawyering is one reason reading too much in the Rules Forum irks me...

Cheers, JMK

Silver Crusade 1/5

Red Metal wrote:
supervillan wrote:
Gummy Bear wrote:

I apologize for the brief derail, but I didn't feel like my question deserved its own thread. If it spirals out of control, I will make a new thread for it.

Castilliano wrote:

Re: Combat Reflexes

-Ready action to 5' step forward and attack when polearm user approaches.

Quick question: Does the polearm user get an attack or would this negate the intended attack completely?

I find this a very clever and potent tactic!

It doesn't work. You can ready a standard action, but what is attempted here is a free plus a standard in one. No dice. And if it did work, it would render all polearms obsolete: everyone facing a polearm readies to step in and strike, and when they do so the polearm user is no longer at a distance they can attack from.

You actually can, but with a caveat

Quote:
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.

I stand corrected, thank you!

Silver Crusade 4/5

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
It's why polearm warriors tend to also learn a close-combat weapon they can use while holding on to their polearm. Like armor spikes, or unarmed strike, or boulder helmets. That way people can't escape by coming too close.

Off topic, but the dwarven boulder helm is my favorite weapon in the game. I just love the concept of being able to head butt people in combat. And it even gives bonuses if you bull rush, and violate NFL regulations by leading with your helmet, with semi-realistic consequences.

1/5

From here:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/knowledge/

"Recall Intrigues (Knowledge)
Source: Pathfinder Player Companion: Spymaster's Handbook
You can identify feats and the class features of various classes with successful Knowledge checks when you observe the feats or class features being used.
Check: You can attempt a skill check to identify a feat or class feature when you observe it in use, similar to how Spellcraft can be used to identify a spell. The feat or class feature must have some observable effect in order for you to attempt the Knowledge check."

The knowledge skill required and the DCs are in the table in the Spymaster's Handbook.

It seems only fair that the GM shouldn't be able to just do this with his NPC's and monsters without investing in the knowledge skills like a player would.

Also, I have 2 different Bards that have Flagbearer, but neither took Combat Reflexes to go with their longspears, so it is far from a given that every character armed with a reach weapon does.

5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht

Seems like a reasonable idea. Too bad most NPCs don't really have many knowledge skills, but that seems like a good compromise.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I generally treat the enemy as ignorant of the PCs specific abilities but aware of general combat roles and appearances based on their mental ability scores. Higher level enemies tend to be more aware of party capabilities due to better knowledge skills and divination magic. The dumb ones have to learn by experience, often fatally. In some cases, I will metagame towards the party by having the NPC blunder into a trap, such as using scorching ray on someone who has resist energy (fire) up, or attempt a maneuver the PC was built to counter. It gives them validation for their choices. (Of course, when they cast resist energy in front of the efreeti and his massive Spellcraft bonus, he just targets the people who don't have it cast on them yet, and then they have a bad day.)

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / How much should I (as a GM) metagame about my players? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.