|
To start off, I want to let you guys know I'm not an RPG superstar. I'd see myself as an amature GM who doesnt know all the mechanics and source material.
The issue is whenever I try to setup and carry out a campaign for my friends, one of them who usually is the GM for us is pretty much like a sponge of rules and material. He does understand that I'm not as well versed with Pathfinder as he is and tries to not min/max his character so as to let me try and create a fun and lasting campaing for them.
Even though he doesnt go out of his way to break my encounters, it's just that he knows the combat system so well, he can easily solo my enemies without them having a chance. This also creates an issue with the other players who are playing with him. They aren't rules sponges like he is, but are still well off. Because he breaks my encounters, the other players are left just kinda hanging out or cleaning up the riff raff. It's causing the campaign to fall apart because the other players are not having fun and i dont know how to make it challenging for said sponge without making it a possible TPK for the rest of the players.
tl;dr: Amature GM not sure how to handle Pro Player who is playing with other amatures.
First, what does the character play and what is the rest of the party? You may need to design some encounters that will be more of a challenge to him, while not creating an unfair burden on the non-optimizers.
Personally the first thing I recommend when I here about encounters being solo'd is to introduce many monster fights. A single opponent against a party will typically be taken down quickly due to action economy.
In case you are not aware action economy is the fact that the party will have say 5 characters worth of actions compared to the lone enemy's 1-2 actions.
Probably the best way to challenge him is to create more dynamic encounters.
If it turns into a problem of making everybody unhappy you might approach the player about the issue, and try to find a balance to work out.
Three nuggets:
Be patient. The longer you do this the better you'll be. The gap will close and the awkwardness will turn into storytelling.
Be diligent. Read the rules for every encounter you design or pull out of a canned act. If there's terrain, read the rules for terrin during the week. If you don't get a monster, learn its special abililties, and commit it to a cinematic set of tactics for four rounds. If it gets chooped early, it was a well-described encounter. If it spends four rounds running its scripted plays, you've done alright for yourslef. Switch to full attacks so the fight doesn't drag on.
Be alert. I don't know anyone that doesn't miss a detail or have at least on preconceived issue with a rule they just don't maintain control of. Grappling. New rules for concentration checks. That sort of thing. Just cause he's more experienced doesn't mean he has it all down every time, so be sure you're ready to overrule him when something doesn't make sense, or you're able to fow with it to minimize interruptions, but you and he look it up together after the game to get it right next time.
If the guy paying in your game is a good egg, he wants you to be a success and have confidence so he can play more often and enjoy your game. If he's a bad egg, you can't trust him. Disintegrate him and sweep the dust into an urn. As a new GM, you're gonna need a lot of urns.
Good stuff
+1
These are all great suggestions as well. With experience a lot of these will become less of an issue. You can also see it as a learning experience of keeping up with strong players.
If you've got a player or a party (or both) who are routinely overpowering your encounters, start keeping additional monsters in reserve to bring into the fight if it's too easy for them. Don't deliberately plan against the party's worst weaknesses, but do design encounters that challenge the group.
For example, if the group is very strong in straight melee, design some encounters with terrain that makes it difficult for them to directly engage your monsters. Use swarms, flying monsters or other things that make them use new tactics.
Introduce tactical difficulties such as traps that isolate or remove party members at least temporarily. Give the party something else to think about than beating down your monsters.
Take advantage of some of the lesser used tactics in the game. Use trip and disarm to control the battlefield. Have some monsters with reach hiding behind meat shields that take damage.
Use spells and effects (even poison) that reduce the party's effectiveness. It's pretty easy to catch a disease that reduces strength, dexterity or constitution, and all of those will impact the character's raw ability.
A good encounter design is flexible and well thought out. You should have a good mix of abilities in the monsters instead of just a mob of the same monster, or one single big bad evil guy. Use run and gun tactics against the squishy party members while your meat shields slug it out with the tank. Hold something in reserve so that just when they think they've gotten the upper hand, you bring in the reserves while their spells and items are being depleted.
Put a healer in your NPCs. Don't let the party whittle down your monsters while they drink potions and replenish their hit points. Monsters heal too.
Mostly you just have to learn how to challenge your play group. Learn from them. When they use some tactic that breaks your encounter, put that in your own bag of tricks and use it against them later.
Good luck.
I concur with MaxBarton's request for more information. Knowing what characters are in your party and which one your former GM is playing (level, class, race, basic build) would be very helpful.
One thing that can be helpful when you have one player with much more knowledge and experience than the rest, especially if they're used to GMing, is to bring them in on the GM side of the equation. (Don't tell him the entire adventure, of course, you still want them to have 'player' fun.) You can give a player like that a special role in the game.
One example:
His character is employed by a powerful person who would like to become the patron or employer of your group, but only if they can prove themselves worthy. His character has been assigned to travel with them, and evaluate them for later service. He has to be helpful enough to earn his place in the group, but he can't do everything for them or they'd never prove themselves! You could give him a magic item that casts sending once per day so that he can report on his mission, and the boss gets surly if there's no report for a couple days in a row.
If you've got a player or a party (or both) who are routinely overpowering your encounters, start keeping additional monsters in reserve to bring into the fight if it's too easy for them. Don't deliberately plan against the party's worst weaknesses, but do design encounters that challenge the group.
For example, if the group is very strong in straight melee, design some encounters with terrain that makes it difficult for them to directly engage your monsters. Use swarms, flying monsters or other things that make them use new tactics.
Introduce tactical difficulties such as traps that isolate or remove party members at least temporarily. Give the party something else to think about than beating down your monsters.
Take advantage of some of the lesser used tactics in the game. Use trip and disarm to control the battlefield. Have some monsters with reach hiding behind meat shields that take damage.
Use spells and effects (even poison) that reduce the party's effectiveness. It's pretty easy to catch a disease that reduces strength, dexterity or constitution, and all of those will impact the character's raw ability.
A good encounter design is flexible and well thought out. You should have a good mix of abilities in the monsters instead of just a mob of the same monster, or one single big bad evil guy. Use run and gun tactics against the squishy party members while your meat shields slug it out with the tank. Hold something in reserve so that just when they think they've gotten the upper hand, you bring in the reserves while their spells and items are being depleted.
Put a healer in your NPCs. Don't let the party whittle down your monsters while they drink potions and replenish their hit points. Monsters heal too.
Mostly you just have to learn how to challenge your play group. Learn from them. When they use some tactic that breaks your encounter, put that in your own bag of tricks and use it against them later.
Good luck.
+1.
Remember that you can't win or lose you are merely a story teller.That said I find that strong tactical GMing can make nearly any encounter a fun and challenging one. One of my favorite tactics to allow other players a chance to shine is to separate the party.
Ex: you party is moving through a dungeon. The moment that the first 2 player walks through the door it slams shut and out of magically hidden cubbies emerge a score of skeleton warriors. 20 in each room. this will allow everyone to fight but the battles will feel like there are completely their own.
Additionally, if you are worried about your other players feeling left out you could high light their abilities outside of combat.
Besides the above advice, and TRYING to get better (it sounds like watching what this guy does is a good place to start), I would say two things:
Tell him it´s OK to analyze out-loud the monster´s options... He probably will avoiding using ALL his uber-rules knowledge (i.e. monster abilities his character shouldn´t know about), but there´s no reason he can´t ponder aloud what the monster´s good moves would be... Thus reminding YOU of options that Team Monster has that you overlooked, or reminding you of options that Team PC may use in return. That is a pretty different tone for combat, but it can also help everybody learn... And/or you and him have ´tactics/rules chats´ disconnected to actual encounters, but where he can teach you his knowledge.
Secondly, why not between the two of you, figure out the choice of race/class that makes the disparity between yours and his tactical skill-level the LEAST relevant? Maybe it won´t make it disappear, but it seems reasonable that there are some classes which are more leverageable, and some which are less... Especially when SPECIFICALLY dealing with his skills vs. your skills, i.e. maybe there´s some areas where you actually aren´t that bad (he could probably tell you), and so PCs whose best moves mostly interact with the game in that area are going to present the least problems.
|
Hey guys Im gonna weigh in quick. Im the guy hes talking about above. Dale and I have been playing on and off for about 6 months now. He has made some great strides as a GM and he takes all the advice the group can give him. I've been playin 3e+ and pathfinder since it dropped way back when and have gotten pretty comfortable with the rule set. One of the other issues is the group size we have. our group, due to geographic separation usually sits with a duo of players plus GM. we try to rotate GMing duties so everyone gets to try out their ideas and run with whatever pops out. This spawns a secondary issue that usually, due to the rotation, Dale doesnt get the full opportunity to explore some of the more complex aspects of the rules you run into later in the game. Currently Dale and I are players in our third's campaign. Both the GM and I are on about the same level for rules comprehension and application which intimidates Dale a bit. We're trying to scale back a bit and we've been making a concerted push to get Dale into the limelight, but I guess we'll have to try a bit harder. Some great ideas in here guys. I will take the advice and try my best to apply it. Dale, I hear ya buddy.
To start off, I want to let you guys know I'm not an RPG superstar. I'd see myself as an amature GM who doesnt know all the mechanics and source material.
The issue is whenever I try to setup and carry out a campaign for my friends, one of them who usually is the GM for us is pretty much like a sponge of rules and material. He does understand that I'm not as well versed with Pathfinder as he is and tries to not min/max his character so as to let me try and create a fun and lasting campaing for them.
Even though he doesnt go out of his way to break my encounters, it's just that he knows the combat system so well, he can easily solo my enemies without them having a chance. This also creates an issue with the other players who are playing with him. They aren't rules sponges like he is, but are still well off. Because he breaks my encounters, the other players are left just kinda hanging out or cleaning up the riff raff. It's causing the campaign to fall apart because the other players are not having fun and i dont know how to make it challenging for said sponge without making it a possible TPK for the rest of the players.
tl;dr: Amature GM not sure how to handle Pro Player who is playing with other amatures.
How is he breaking the encounters? How/Why are the other players not contributing?
If I were him I would help the others out by explaining tactics, and/or feat selection among other things. By making the group better I have less to worry about.
edit:ninja'd by the player somewhat.
Hey guys Im gonna weigh in quick. Im the guy hes talking about above. Dale and I have been playing on and off for about 6 months now. He has made some great strides as a GM and he takes all the advice the group can give him. I've been playin 3e+ and pathfinder since it dropped way back when and have gotten pretty comfortable with the rule set. One of the other issues is the group size we have. our group, due to geographic separation usually sits with a duo of players plus GM. we try to rotate GMing duties so everyone gets to try out their ideas and run with whatever pops out. This spawns a secondary issue that usually, due to the rotation, Dale doesnt get the full opportunity to explore some of the more complex aspects of the rules you run into later in the game. Currently Dale and I are players in our third's campaign. Both the GM and I are on about the same level for rules comprehension and application which intimidates Dale a bit. We're trying to scale back a bit and we've been making a concerted push to get Dale into the limelight, but I guess we'll have to try a bit harder. Some great ideas in here guys. I will take the advice and try my best to apply it. Dale, I hear ya buddy.
+ a million for being a good sport!
Since you're both here now, and you've described some more detail of the situation, let me throw out a suggestion. Throw out half the rules and wing-it when Dale is GM, and make the game about story, character, and roleplaying rather than tactics.
It sounds like you've got three games going. Both of the other games are GMed by rules experts. Everyone is getting a chance to play in a tactically challenging, rules obeying, game? Let Dale pick a world that the rest of you have never read about (Not Goloron, maybe something he makes up or has read in a book) and the other two of you get to have fun exploring it.
To Dale's benefit, his players won't know everything about the world and the creatures in it better than he does. To the players' benefit, you won't know everything about he world and the creatures in it! There are a million things you can do with the basic D&D framework that don't appear in any of the standard material all of us old-timers have read.
|
|
Kyle Lefever
Hey guys Im gonna weigh in quick. Im the guy hes talking about above.
Ha ha, Funny you caught my post, Kyle. But what he said really does finish up what I was trying to say about my initial post. I know i'm not the best but I really do want to improve and the biggest thing that hangs on my head is trying to figure out how to make it interesting and challenging for all the players of my campaign.
I really like your guys' suggestions on how I can change it up and utilize tactics that aren't used often.
Oh and Kyle, expect my campaign to involve a mystery surrounding some Zon Kuthites....
Sounds like you guys are cooperating and keeping open communication, which is key. Everything else is just practice.
Are you running published material or designing your own? For a beginning GM, I would strongly suggest using published material to smooth out the learning curve a little. Once you've figured out why fights are designed with certain creature combinations and tactics in mind, then you can modify and build new encounters using similar design aspects. But in the beginning, when you're still trying to get a handle on the mechanics, it's much easier if you can just plunk in a fight that a pro built.
You don't need to run an entire published module as written -- just strip out the fights, reskin the opponents if appropriate to your campaign, and use those.
I'd also suggest just having ONE fight or tactics-heavy encounter per game session (or two, if you think you're up for two) and really trying to learn the relevant feats/spells/rules for that encounter, so you can run that one fight to the best of your ability and also learn the combat rules piece by piece as you play through them.
Then, for the rest of each game session, maybe shift the focus over to roleplay and worldbuilding -- important aspects of GM'ing that should be equally emphasized, but which don't require a ton of rules mastery to do. It'll give the less rules-oriented players a chance to shine via roleplay, and it may lower your own stress level and make things more fun on that count too.
A lot of this is dependent on what works best for your group's gaming style, but hopefully there's something in there you can use. :)
|
It is tough to run a fight when your players know the game tactics better than you know them. When I was learning the game I found it useful to run small skirmishes on my own where I would try to find out how tactics work and when and why I would use them.
You can up your game by getting a copy of their character sheets and running the encounters you plan to use on your own. This will accomplish two things. First you will have a more solid understanding of the fight and how it will go down. This will let you focus on better tactics in the actual game. Second, you will gain a better understanding of the PC tactics and why they might use them.
When you are actually running a fight and a player does something unexpected then you should ask them why they chose a particular action over other actions you thought might be better. It will slow the game down a bit but with only two players in your game that should not be a problem. To be clear I am not saying you should challenge their choice you should only try to get enough information to illuminate their reasons for that choice.
Finally, I would like to suggest that you maybe put aside being the DM. Running a D&D type game takes a lot of dedication to understanding the rules and comprehending how they interact. A lot of players have cool ideas for a game but never seem to be able to cross over to the comprehensive knowledge required to run games.
|
|
Here's one question.. are you mixing 3.x edition stuff with Pathfinder, possibly at the request of a player or two?My advice in that case would be that it's best to take the time to learn Pathfinder straight before tinkering it with other system mechanics. Pathfinder was not created to be balanced with the bulk of 3E's supplemental material.
I go ahead and make sure whenever I'm GMing for them that only published Pathfinder material from Paizo is allowed for our games. That way it cleans up the amount of material I have to track among other things.
Maybe once I feel more comfortable I'll start adding more books to my allowed list.
Finally, I would like to suggest that you maybe put aside being the DM. Running a D&D type game takes a lot of dedication to understanding the rules and comprehending how they interact. A lot of players have cool ideas for a game but never seem to be able to cross over to the comprehensive knowledge required to run games.
I honestly would disagree on that, Karkon. Yes it may be true that some people are unable to bring their ideas for a story to the rest of their friends due to the fact that their storytelling and GM skills are somewhere at the value of moot.
However, it can be simply the catch-22 situation for them:
"I'm not experienced because I haven't been given the chance to (insert job or position here), yet I cant be a (insert job or position here) because I don't have that experience.
I truly believe that regardless of wether or not they are good at being a GM, everyone should try and be a GM whenever they can. It's not only a positive learning experience (if you have a good group), it's also a great way to work on other tangible social and critical thinking skills that can be applied to great skill in other parts of a person's life.
I also think of it like Xbox 360 Achievements. How can you say you are a master at the game if you've gotten all the achievements except multiplayer ones?
Hi Dale, why don't you ease the trouble for yourself by GMing a module or adventure path? Especially adventure paths are very new-GM friendly by having all the things pre-made for you; and the game starts at level 1; so very little mad optimization at that point.
|
|
Hi Dale, why don't you ease the trouble for yourself by GMing a module or adventure path? Especially adventure paths are very new-GM friendly by having all the things pre-made for you; and the game starts at level 1; so very little mad optimization at that point.
I appreciate your suggestion, lorekeeper, although I'm not too green and can hold my own(combat is just my weak point). I actually started my GM experiences using the adventure paths. And you hit a lot of good points about how friendly they are to people who have not been a GM.
Offline, Kyle and I also had a discussion about how I deal with him when he starts to run rampant in my games. He made a good point while we were talking and that was my confidence level. If he did something that I was unawares of, I would act blustered and not know how to deal with it. He would then explain to me what exactly he is doing, why, and how it works through the rules. But what I fail do do sometimes when he is playing, is remember that I am running the game and not him. If I don't like what he is doing, I need to let him know he can't do that or start making things a lot harder (eg: throw a swarm at him).
So there are only 2 players in the party? Hmmm that makes things a bit trickier. I really think we need the specifics to offer solid advice. What are they playing(Race/class/feat choice/talents). What do they normally do (tactics, character behavior). That is the information that an experienced dm takes to counter one player being more powerful then expected. Given the player's reasonable nature, it seems that this is system mastery and not powergaming. So really the issue is to see the character's strengths and design around it.
So if you can give us an idea on the characters, their level, and their normal tactics, as well as what a typical encounter for you looks like we can probably give more specific advice.
|
|
Finally, I would like to suggest that you maybe put aside being the DM. Running a D&D type game takes a lot of dedication to understanding the rules and comprehending how they interact. A lot of players have cool ideas for a game but never seem to be able to cross over to the comprehensive knowledge required to run games.
I honestly would disagree on that, Karkon. Yes it may be true that some people are unable to bring their ideas for a story to the rest of their friends due to the fact that their storytelling and GM skills are somewhere at the value of moot.
However, it can be simply the catch-22 situation for them:
"I'm not experienced because I haven't been given the chance to (insert job or position here), yet I cant be a (insert job or position here) because I don't have that experience.
The thing is that you do not need experience being a DM to gain rules and tactics comprehension. I learned all that on my own by reading the rule books and considering builds and situations on my own before I ever ran a game. It was by creating that solid foundation that I was able to solidly handle being a DM. As a DM I had to gain experience in specifically "DMs running games" issues but that is not really the problem for you.
The problem is that your players are running roughshod over your combat encounters. In over 30 years of gaming I have seen the pattern repeated often enough. Player has a cool idea for a game. Player asks to DM. Player does not have the rules comprehension to implement said cool idea effectively. Player is forced into bad DM mode (rail road, arbitrary rulings etc). Game falls apart.
|
|
The problem is that your players are running roughshod over your combat encounters. In over 30 years of gaming I have seen the pattern repeated often enough. Player has a cool idea for a game. Player asks to DM. Player does not have the rules comprehension to implement said cool idea effectively. Player is forced into bad DM mode (rail road, arbitrary rulings etc). Game falls apart.
Great point, you did hit the nail on the head. I can tell you I have made some big improvements with encounter rules although I am still learning how to get it down pat so I don't end up watching my encounter crash and burn. It's a tough groove to get out of yet, with my improvements and the wonderful help my friends are giving me along with everyone's advice here, I'm sure I can fix my problems before long. I'm also feeling much more confident about my upcoming campaign than my past ones solely because I understand how to utilize combat better.
|
|
@Kolokotrani- Currently Dale is off. The last time he GMed, I played a dex based (started with a 20 dex) rogue assassin dual wielding patas. at the time we finished, Oeneus was a human rogue 3/assassin 7. We were playing Rise of the Runelords. In Skinsaw Murders, he dropped Foxglove in three rounds with solid rolls and an excellent setup round. Later when Oeneus and Lalianna (straight leg ranger 9(ranged-longbow), went into the lumber mill, Oeneus was able to move through every room in the building and eliminate every cultist before they got a second action, with a little help from Lalianna. Basically. Oeneus would run into a room and tumble into a flanking position. Initiative would go and Oeneus having a +10 at this point (dex 22 with improved intiative) would gain flanking bonuses with sneak attack while the cultists were flat footed and wipe the floors with them. The elven judge at the top went down just as quickly (4 pata attacks with sneak attack while flanking). To top it off both of them snuck past the golem, and Oeneus was able to stay hidden from the Lamia at the top of the clocktower and set up his death attack, for which she promptly failed her save. Lalianna drew her attention to the other side of the room while Oeneus remained hidden. We played off each other nicely and made really messy short work of almost every encounter. That was shortly before our schedules changed and we started a new campaign (one of the players had a personal issue that required a move).
|
Just as a side note, ranged weapons no longer provide flanking, only melee weapons do. Its a minor tweak to the system and I can't remember the exact thread but it was discussed quite a lot as it pertained to whips. You would have SA from the flatfooted status but a ranger could not provide flanking to you using a bow at range.
Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
|
|
Just as a side note, ranged weapons no longer provide flanking, only melee weapons do. Its a minor tweak to the system and I can't remember the exact thread but it was discussed quite a lot as it pertained to whips. You would have SA from the flatfooted status but a ranger could not provide flanking to you using a bow at range.
Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
she was using a point blank ranger set up, so she would come in as well just not as stylishly. Like I said we built to play off of each other.
she was using a point blank ranger set up, so she would come in as well just not as stylishly. Like I said we built to play off of each other.Just as a side note, ranged weapons no longer provide flanking, only melee weapons do. Its a minor tweak to the system and I can't remember the exact thread but it was discussed quite a lot as it pertained to whips. You would have SA from the flatfooted status but a ranger could not provide flanking to you using a bow at range.
Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
Point blank shot doesnt make a weapon threaten. The ranger would have to be weilding a melee weapon in order for you to get flanking.
Also, to be honest I am not familiar with the adventure path, what was foxglove and that level/how many cultists where there?
|
|
she was using a point blank ranger set up, so she would come in as well just not as stylishly. Like I said we built to play off of each other.Just as a side note, ranged weapons no longer provide flanking, only melee weapons do. Its a minor tweak to the system and I can't remember the exact thread but it was discussed quite a lot as it pertained to whips. You would have SA from the flatfooted status but a ranger could not provide flanking to you using a bow at range.
Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
Point blank shot doesnt make a weapon threaten. The ranger would have to be weilding a melee weapon in order for you to get flanking.
Also, to be honest I am not familiar with the adventure path, what was foxglove and that level/how many cultists where there?
As she was standing in front of cultist A while shooting him with arrows, logically he is threatened. With Oeneus standing directly behind the same cultist, he receives a flanking bonus, however as she is using a ranged weapon per the rules you mentioned above, Lalianna would not get the bonus.
As she was standing in front of cultist A while shooting him with arrows, logically he is threatened. With Oeneus standing directly behind the same cultist, he receives a flanking bonus, however as she is using a ranged weapon per the rules you mentioned above, Lalianna would not get the bonus.
No, he isnt. 'Threatened' is a condition that is defined in game terms. It CANNOT be achieved with a ranged weapon no matter how many holes you shoot in the cultist. You can only threaten with a melee weapon.
|
|
As she was standing in front of cultist A while shooting him with arrows, logically he is threatened. With Oeneus standing directly behind the same cultist, he receives a flanking bonus, however as she is using a ranged weapon per the rules you mentioned above, Lalianna would not get the bonus.
I did accept this as she was within threat range for melee(eg: smacking cultist A with her bow)
It makes sense to allow flanking bonus if she is fully capable of dropping her bow as a free action and use her quickdraw ability to whip out a dagger and gank his ass.
Now I agree that if she was outside of the cultist's range of movement for a full round, that she would be unable to trigger a flanking bonus. However that was not the case.
Either way, this is detracting from the main topic since something like that would come down to personal GM discretion.
|
|
No, he isnt. 'Threatened' is a condition that is defined in game terms. It CANNOT be achieved with a ranged weapon no matter how many holes you shoot in the cultist. You can only threaten with a melee weapon.
As she was standing in front of cultist A while shooting him with arrows, logically he is threatened. With Oeneus standing directly behind the same cultist, he receives a flanking bonus, however as she is using a ranged weapon per the rules you mentioned above, Lalianna would not get the bonus.
I think the big take away from this was that the situation was discussed and we did take the time to look up the rules. Dale agreed with my assessment and he allowed it. And as always logic trumps things that sometimes just dont make sense. I know it may be an interpretation of the rule but it works for us.
|
A normal 1d3 damage unarmed strike counts as a simple light weapon. An arrow can be used as a melee weapon (or it did in 3.5, haven't checked in pathfinder). A bow can be used as an improvised melee weapon. Then there's always brass knuckles, gauntlets, and a buckler that your ranger might also be able to use as a melee weapon, even when actively attacking with a bow. If your ranger is adjacent to the foe in question, I would rule that she threatens if she wishes.
I would also suggest not allowing anything but Core Rules material by default. You can make exceptions*, but it just keeps it simpler to focus on the Core Rules, which are the basis of understanding the mechanics well since APG, etc, tends to just modifiy those rules.
* AP/Region-specific Player´s Guide, if a character concept just CAN¨T WORK without it, etc, but you don´t need 2Handed or Archer variant Fighters to have a competent character using those styles.
|
|
I would also suggest not allowing anything but Core Rules material by default. You can make exceptions*, but it just keeps it simpler to focus on the Core Rules, which are the basis of understanding the mechanics well since APG, etc, tends to just modifiy those rules.
* AP/Region-specific Player´s Guide, if a character concept just CAN¨T WORK without it, etc, but you don´t need 2Handed or Archer variant Fighters to have a competent character using those styles.
+1
You sir, are a scholar and a gentlemen. That actually is not a bad idea. It could really help with establishing a cut and dry system that will help me from overlooking rule exceptions from say the APG and get blindsided by them.|
|
I would also suggest not allowing anything but Core Rules material by default. You can make exceptions*, but it just keeps it simpler to focus on the Core Rules, which are the basis of understanding the mechanics well since APG, etc, tends to just modifiy those rules.
* AP/Region-specific Player´s Guide, if a character concept just CAN¨T WORK without it, etc, but you don´t need 2Handed or Archer variant Fighters to have a competent character using those styles.
+1
You sir, are a scholar and a gentlemen. That actually is not a bad idea. It could really help with establishing a cut and dry system that will help me from overlooking rule exceptions from say the APG and get blindsided by them.
My feelings hurt. Now we're both in the wrong. I dont blindside... I sometimes attack from the front... but with rules it always straightforward.
I think the big take away from this was that the situation was discussed and we did take the time to look up the rules. Dale agreed with my assessment and he allowed it. And as always logic trumps things that sometimes just dont make sense. I know it may be an interpretation of the rule but it works for us.No, he isnt. 'Threatened' is a condition that is defined in game terms. It CANNOT be achieved with a ranged weapon no matter how many holes you shoot in the cultist. You can only threaten with a melee weapon.
As she was standing in front of cultist A while shooting him with arrows, logically he is threatened. With Oeneus standing directly behind the same cultist, he receives a flanking bonus, however as she is using a ranged weapon per the rules you mentioned above, Lalianna would not get the bonus.
I agree with this behavior and have no problem with your house rule but it is that, and obviously, it didn't work because you ran rampant over the planned encounters. There is no question that allowing the bow to threaten made your character more effective (allowing him to flank for sneak attack). So your 'logical' interpretation of the rules in part lead to the degredation of the campaign the OP mentions. Certainly I wouldn't condemn any DM this ruling, but the fact that the DM in question is inexperienced and having difficulty with maintaining balance, means to me that 'logic' should not be at the forefront. Keeping a managable game should be.
|
|
I agree with this behavior and have no problem with your house rule but it is that, and obviously, it didn't work because you ran rampant over the planned encounters. There is no question that allowing the bow to threaten made your character more effective (allowing him to flank for sneak attack). So your 'logical' interpretation of the rules in part lead to the degredation of the campaign the OP mentions. Certainly I wouldn't condemn any DM this ruling, but the fact that the DM in question is inexperienced and having difficulty with maintaining balance, means to me that 'logic' should not be at the forefront. Keeping a managable game should be.I think the big take away from this was that the situation was discussed and we did take the time to look up the rules. Dale agreed with my assessment and he allowed it. And as always logic trumps things that sometimes just dont make sense. I know it may be an interpretation of the rule but it works for us.No, he isnt. 'Threatened' is a condition that is defined in game terms. It CANNOT be achieved with a ranged weapon no matter how many holes you shoot in the cultist. You can only threaten with a melee weapon.
As she was standing in front of cultist A while shooting him with arrows, logically he is threatened. With Oeneus standing directly behind the same cultist, he receives a flanking bonus, however as she is using a ranged weapon per the rules you mentioned above, Lalianna would not get the bonus.
But we just established in the rules, a bow does threaten as it can be used as a melee weapon. Or her fist, which is always an option just because she wasn't using it doesn't mean she wasn't threatening him with it.
But we just established in the rules, a bow does threaten as it can be used as a melee weapon. Or her fist, which is always an option just because she wasn't using it doesn't mean she wasn't threatening him with it.
Actually no, a fist does not threaten unless you have improved unarmed strike (or a similar ability). You are considered unarmed.
As for bows it is arguable.
"Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat."
A bow was certainly crafted to be a weapon, just not a melee weapon. Thus it doesnt fall under improvised weapon, neither do arrows. Improvised weapons are for chairs, poles, boards, things that are not already weapons.
|
|
But we just established in the rules, a bow does threaten as it can be used as a melee weapon. Or her fist, which is always an option just because she wasn't using it doesn't mean she wasn't threatening him with it.Actually no, a fist does not threaten unless you have improved unarmed strike (or a similar ability). You are considered unarmed.
As for bows it is arguable.
"Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat."A bow was certainly crafted to be a weapon, just not a melee weapon. Thus it doesnt fall under improvised weapon, neither do arrows. Improvised weapons are for chairs, poles, boards, things that are not already weapons.
arguable indicating that there is merit in both sides of the argument. Again the point of the exercise was Dale making a call as a GM, he asked about how flanking worked, we went over it, he made a decision on the rule and stuck to it. If he would have said it wasn't allowed then I would have dropped it altogether and moved on. I think he did a great job, but obviously you believe that I am biased by my position as a player. I want Dale to enjoy the game. Thats why we discussed the section on flanking, helping to improve his understanding. We are two very different people with different outlooks. He makes wonderful stories and I enjoy playing in his world. He enjoys the game as well, he's looking more for advice to make encounters more challenging, not hamstring players by using odd verbiage from the rulebook to rule against them. He keeps an open mind when reading the rules so he can look at them objectively. Now you will probably pounce on the odd verbiage. Before we jump down that rabbit hole, the message boards are full of questions concerning ambiguous wording on rules. You're interpretation may vary. Beauty of the game.
arguable indicating that there is merit in both sides of the argument. Again the point of the exercise was Dale making a call as a GM, he asked about how flanking worked, we went over it, he made a decision on the rule and stuck to it. If he would have said it wasn't allowed then I would have dropped it altogether and moved on. I think he did a great job, but obviously you believe that I am biased by my position as a player. I want Dale to enjoy the game. Thats why we discussed the section on flanking, helping to improve his understanding. We are two very different people with different outlooks. He makes wonderful stories and I enjoy playing in his world. He enjoys the game as well, he's looking more for advice to make encounters more challenging, not hamstring players by using odd verbiage from the rulebook to rule against them. He keeps an open mind when reading the rules so he can look at them objectively. Now you will probably pounce on the odd verbiage. Before we jump down that rabbit hole, the message boards are full of questions concerning ambiguous wording on rules. You're interpretation may vary. Beauty of the game.
I never try to hamstring players. I very rarely rule against my players, and when I do I try to work with them to find a compromise. Nor do I think you unduly tried to influence Dale to do something he shouldnt have. I believe that the spirit of the rules are that it should require a melee weapon to threaten an opponent, and that claiming a bow as an improvised weapon is trying to find a loophole in what has been a longstanding rule in 3.x. The balance between ranged weapons and melee weapons has always been melee HAS to get up close and personal, putting yourself in danger, ranged can do damage from far away, but is at a disadvantage when closed to melee distance. Allowing a bow to threaten reduces a portion of that disadvantage (and feats can get rid of the rest) putting the longbow as the undisputed king of combat, which is not somewhere I believe it belongs.
But that is ofcourse not the point. The point is that a specific ruling, made by an inexperienced dm directly lead to a player being considerably more capable then if the ruling had not been made as such. And as such, I think he should try to stick as close to rules as written as possible when he dms next to avoid such a situation, particularly since he seems to have alot of difficulty balancing and running combat encounters.
|
|
Honestly I'm wondering when James will duck in. It seems he has a radar for my posts and isn't usually far from them...
What's that forum search? Little Kyle is making a post? Im on my way!
/James Jacobs casts Care Bear Stare dealing 15d10 Game Design Dmg with a 4d6 Willpower drainAs far as that specific encounter went, I allowed it because it gave our other player an opportunity to play as she saw fit and still be able to include her in the factor of the utter destruction of my foes.
And to reclarify my original post, I'm looking for advice that will allow me to challenge him better since a lot of canned encounters are too easy for him to handle.
|
|
One of the interesting things Dale does is that when he makes a call its out there for him to use. Ive been outflanked by his monsters and its not a fun thing to be on the receiving end. With Oeneus' abilities he often tries to take out range first. Dale began using a 15 foot block for his monsters, putting the brutes up front, throwing a 5 foot block between them, and having the ranged guys right behind. My character rolls into the middle and gets mirked hard. We accept the rule and he is not afraid of using our tactics against us.
|
|
As an outsider, it seems like Dale took advantage of Kyle's inexperience to get a house rule in that serves his character. I don't think this rule is ambiguous at all - a bow does not threaten.
The rules state "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." Point blank master doesn't change a bow to threaten squares
If the ranger had improved unarmed strike or armor spikes, you could argue that the ranger would threaten, but with a bow, she doesn't.
Now, if you truly want to make things easier for a newish DM, my advice is to play RAW, and if there is a non-RAW interpretation that might help your character, don't push it.
I think you got it switched around a bit? Are you meaning you think Kyle was manipulating my lack of combat knowledge? If thats the case I did take the time to think about the decision of allowing the flanking bonus. But at that point in the encounter, I knew it was going to be a quick sundering of my bad guys, so I allowed the rule since it gave the other player the opportunity to contribute to the utter murder. Essentially I decided that it was more interesting for story and player participation to allow the ruling.
And to reclarify my original post, I'm looking for advice that will allow me to challenge him better since a lot of canned encounters are too easy for him to handle.
Ooooh, got it. Thanks for including the Skinsaw Murders example; that helps a lot (and alerts me that I may need to adjust that series of encounters for my own group when they get there; they haven't had a particularly easy time through Burnt Offerings yet, but I wouldn't want the Skinsaw cultists to be a letdown later).
Basic advice, some of which is repeated from earlier in the thread:
-- more little enemies are harder to defeat than one or two big enemies (BUT make sure your little enemies can actually hurt the PCs; I tend to go with special effects like explode-on-death AoE bomb skeletons* rather than AC-dependent attacks, since a lot of little goomba monsters can't hit PCs worth a crap);
(* -- side bonus: this forces the PCs to strategize about how they're going to take out the monsters without killing themselves by setting off a chain reaction of exploding death. This encounter setup is easy to abuse and easy to overuse, but used sparingly and well, it makes me laugh and laugh.)
-- use enemies whose immunities/resistances complement other enemies' spells and SLAs;
-- divide and conquer: knock out some of your PCs with paralyzation effects, daze/sleep spells, isolation traps/spells (something as simple as a sliding wall or portcullis that cuts your party in half, or a wall of fire that they get to choose between leaping through [and taking damage] or staying isolated from the rest of the group), etc.;
-- hamper them: dazzle, sicken, poison, slow. Anything that cuts down the number of moves they get per round, or makes those moves less effective, is a killer;
-- use charm/domination to turn one PC against the others (not just in fights, but also beforehand when NPCs are gathering intel on what they'll be facing, and recruit one PC as a charmed spy to spill the beans on the rest -- this lets you target PC weaknesses more precisely without metagaming, AND raises the level of fear/anticipation since the players know it's coming);
-- and, most simply and often most effectively: de-emphasize combat. Build storylines that the PCs can't solve with a sword, but that require investigation, ingenuity, and roleplay to solve. As a side bonus, when they DO get to combat (and something in the story you've developed is at risk), they will hopefully care more because the stakes of victory carry some emotional weight.
There's probably tons more good advice on the boards.
Yeah, I give a +1 to Koloko on this specific one.
Maybe the rules aren´t explicit, but in cases like this it´s best to err on side of game balance (which is hard for a newbie to fully comprehend). The rules clearly don´t say ´bows don´t threaten as ranged, but of course can do so as Improvised Weapons´... Obviously every archer would love to not be subject to a limitation of their weapon, but treating that as ´standard´ rules (yet mysteriously not mentioned) just pulls the rug out from the game´s base-line balance. If you want rules back-up for that, to threaten with a melee weapon you need a weapon capable of inflicting damage, not a wet noodle... I don´t think most bows qualify as even improvised melee weapons, and there is certainly no rule that every objects needs to. Using them as such would seem to cause them to break quickly in any case.
The thing is, there´s plenty of other ways to threaten even without Improvised Melee Bows, Improved Unarmed is one, Armor Spikes another... But if you want to keep a handle on your game, it´s pretty reasonable to just talk with your players and say ´hey, let´s not go there, and play within the normal bounds of the game OK?´ In a game where everybody including the GM is on their shit, this might not be such a problem, I´ve even seen Feats/Special Bows which allow threatening and even normal melee attacks (w/o Improvised penalties). You just have to ask youself, is that your game or not?
Not allowing the archer to flank in this case wouldn´t mean that they are completely over-shadowed by the rogue´s combat dominance, in fact completey the opposite, because if they couldn´t flank the rogue couldn´t get Sneak Attack... Possibly meaning both characters would face a situation some-what out of their optimization-point... which every character should face on regular basis... Fudging the rules so characters can ALWAYS maximally use their abilities breaks the base-line balance of the game.
If Init is a problem, throw your NPCs a +2 or +4 Init bonus... AP NPCs are often poorly build, which works fine with average players, but with rules-expert optimizing players they can easily dominate... A few bonuses like that thrown the NPCs´ way can even things out. And like I said before, if you think it´s un-balancing your game, just ask you players ´why don´t you NOT choose this feat since your Init is already very high, go ahead and choose something else instead... You don´t need Imp Init Feat AND Reactionary Trait´. Obviously, I understand it´s harder to tell that to players who know the game better than you. But you can say it, because you´re the GM.
|
|
Yeah, I give a +1 to Koloko on this specific one.
Maybe the rules aren´t explicit, but in cases like this it´s best to err on side of game balance (which is hard for a newbie to fully comprehend). The rules obviously don´t say ´bows don´t threaten as ranged, but of course can do so as Improvised Weapns´... Obviously every archer would love to not be subject to a limitation of their weapon, but treating that as ´standard´ rules (yet mysteriously not mentioned) just pulls the rug out from the game´s base-line balance.The thing is, there´s plenty of other ways to threaten even without Improvised Melee Bows, Improved Unarmed is one, Armor Spikes another... But if you want to keep a handle on your game, it´s pretty reasonable to just talk with your players and say ´hey, let´s not go there, and play within the normal bounds of the game OK?´ In a game where everybody including the GM is on their s%!*, this might not be such a problem, I´ve even seen Feats/Special Bows which allow threatening and even normal melee attacks (w/o Improvised penalties). You just have to ask youself, is that your game or not?
Not allowing the archer to flank in this case wouldn´t mean that they are completely over-shadowed by the rogue´s combat dominance, in fact completey the opposite, because if they couldn´t flank the rogue couldn´t get Sneak Attack... Possibly meaning both characters would face a situation some-what out of their optimization-point... which every character should face on regular basis, if not the whole party at one. Then again, if the archer knew they couldn´t flank, I doubt the archer would be in or stay in melee-distance, meaning they would more or less be doing their thing (and thus likely ´shining´ vs. the non-Flanking Rogue).
Honestly, it seems very wierd that a Rogue is so consistently vaporizing opponents in a 2-PC party with an archer, who shouldn´t normally be Flanking. If your game was within normal play parameters vis-a-vis Flanking, and sequential enemies could be warned by their allies´...
How do I get the "rules expert optimizing player" added next to my name as a title? Seriously though, We tried not to get into situations where we didnt have the upper hand. There was a lot of sneaking and scouting going on, a quick retreat and tactics session then we'd roll in and let the chips fall. As for the Ranger, she was plagued with horrid rolls, which made for some interesting roleplaying situations, but she always felt behind the curve. so when Dale allowed us to let her act as a flanker it made it a bit better and offset her horrible luck. We kinda ran with it from there. He made the call early enough to allow us to shape our tactics to them.
|
|
And to reclarify my original post, I'm looking for advice that will allow me to challenge him better since a lot of canned encounters are too easy for him to handle.Ooooh, got it. Thanks for including the Skinsaw Murders example; that helps a lot (and alerts me that I may need to adjust that series of encounters for my own group when they get there; they haven't had a particularly easy time through Burnt Offerings yet, but I wouldn't want the Skinsaw cultists to be a letdown later).
Basic advice, some of which is repeated from earlier in the thread:
-- more little enemies are harder to defeat than one or two big enemies (BUT make sure your little enemies can actually hurt the PCs; I tend to go with special effects like explode-on-death AoE bomb skeletons* rather than AC-dependent attacks, since a lot of little goomba monsters can't hit PCs worth a crap);
(* -- side bonus: this forces the PCs to strategize about how they're going to take out the monsters without killing themselves by setting off a chain reaction of exploding death. This encounter setup is easy to abuse and easy to overuse, but used sparingly and well, it makes me laugh and laugh.)
-- use enemies whose immunities/resistances complement other enemies' spells and SLAs;
-- divide and conquer: knock out some of your PCs with paralyzation effects, daze/sleep spells, isolation traps/spells (something as simple as a sliding wall or portcullis that cuts your party in half, or a wall of fire that they get to choose between leaping through [and taking damage] or staying isolated from the rest of the group), etc.;
-- hamper them: dazzle, sicken, poison, slow. Anything that cuts down the number of moves they get per round, or makes those moves less effective, is a killer;
-- use charm/domination to turn one PC against the others (not just in fights, but also beforehand when NPCs are gathering intel on what they'll be facing, and recruit one PC as a charmed spy to spill the beans on the rest -- this lets...
Awesome advice, I really like the exploding munchkins. Gonna have to use that on in the next game I run...
Well, as advice to newbie GM, I´d say that was a really bad call because what it´s mostly doing is aiding the OTHER player who didn´t have a problem to begin with. If the archer needed help, he can be more generous with ´situational bonuses´ if she find ´interesting´ places to shoot from, etc. That would direclty help her.
And I wouldn´t say that throwing PBM into the mix as justifying Flanking, or believing that bows can default be used as Improvised Weapons actually denotes rules expertise, but I´m just speaking in broad terms, comparative to the GM here.
|
|
Well, as advice to newbie GM, I´d say that was a really bad call because what it´s mostly doing is aiding the OTHER player who didn´t have a problem to begin with. If the archer needed help, he can be more generous with ´situational bonuses´ if she find ´interesting´ places to shoot from, etc. That would direclty help her.
I could definitely agree with that. Nice point, Q.