|
Does anyone else feel constrained by all the options?
Confused? Let me explain. When a player wants to do something cool and creative with their character that already has a rule/feat/class feature that covers it, I feel like I have to say know because what if someone else took the time to pick that option that allows them to do it?
The other day, one of my players wanted to grab a zombie and throw him into another one. At first I was inclined to just have him make a grapple roll or a modified bull rush, but then I remembered there was a Barbarian rage power that allowed just that kind of maneuver (Body Bludgeon). Since he had an open rage power slot, I let him pick it and we went from there, but it brought up an issue that I didn't even realize was an issue.
So what do you do when this happens? I guess I could have just allow PCs to do the things without the feat/class ability/whatever but at a penalty, but it feels like an unsatisfying solution. Though, so does just saying no, tough luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
It sounds like you are a GM. You should do right by your players by allowing them to roleplay-to-respec.
For example, the barbarian in my party recently became frustrated with her waraxe-shield combination. She picked it because it was aesthetically pleasing many levels ago, but in the upper levels AC becomes increasingly irrelevant for those who don't invest heavily. A barbarian... can't.
It was becoming evident during play. So I said to him (the player is male, the PC female) "Your frustration is a form of roleplaying. Declare that your character is fed up and retraining her fighting style in response to that last problem."
Insisting that the re-spec gets role-played, and takes a bit of time in-game, should serve to restrain players from constantly changing their characters. But it is also fair, and keeps people from getting "locked in" to bad options, or options that might become bad over time. People adapt in real life, I think martial characters deserve that chance as well.
I've participated in this type of conversation many times on the boards, and there are a number of different solutions depending on the exact nature of the problem... but the above solution is probably the most flexible.
You should also consider applying the general mechanics to allow players to do things even if they don't have the exact power. We were just having that conversation here.
You may also like to reserve a small number of feats/rage powers/etc. as provisional. Here's a version of that. In a nutshell, you let your barbarian switch up her most recent power once per day. That way she gets to try a prospective power before making it permanent.
There are lots of discussions and solutions, I hope this helps you somewhat.
I tell them to make a combat maneuver. Works real well.
Yes. Also, I think Evil Lincoln had a lengthy post about feats in particular that tended to do this that's worth looking up (and he has since ninjaed me while I was writing this reply with his own well worded response). For example, why does someone need Antagonize to try to taunt/goad an enemy, why isn't a Diplomacy or Bluff check adequate?
I think Pathfinder is better than 3.5 in this regard (I recall the PHB II had a number of feats I axed not because I thought they were overpowered, but because they all covered stuff I thought anyone should be able to do with an adequate skill check, etc.). But it still happens--there are a lot of abilities that really should be options anyone can get, or left to GM moderation.
And yes, regarding body bludgeon, I think anyone should be able to pick up a creature and be able to use them as an improvise weapon should they have the Strength to lift them easily and succeed on appropriate combat maneuver checks. Although your player wanting to throw the zombie, it's a slightly different thing--I'd probably do a grapple check, and then on the next turn, have him do a bull rush check which if succeeded, put both characters a square back and dealt damage to both of them.
As GM you're always free to of course say, "this ability doesn't apply"--and since the core rules are fortunately largely free of this issue, it's easier to ban the supplementary rules that do not work as well. But it's still annoying that you have to comb through the materials you want to choose and cull the stuff you find unnecessary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think I may just make a point to be watchful of telling my players to avoid chargen choices that I'd allow them to do without a feat/ability.
Strike Back, Rhino Charge, Unseat and Antagonize (sort of) are some of the worst offenders in my personal opinion. There are many more.
In the other thread, someone suggested keeping the feats, but just making them grant +4 to the attempt that is available to everyone. I really appreciate the simplicity of that.
To use your specific example: anyone could try a Body Bludgeon maneuver, and the barbarian with the rage power would simply get a +4 to such maneuvers. Very neat.
The +4 is an awesome idea.
The +4 is an awesome idea.
Credit is due to the poster mplindustries.
in my games, everything that is physicly possible is also possible for players, however I try to balance it so that it isn't better as a normal attack (in general, exploiting weaknesses is good) and of course not easier than with a feat.
So allow it, if you know the feat, do the same but give a considerable malus (like -4 or -6) on whatever check it is.
Always saying "Yes, but...." is the key to good dungeon mastering.
Give out -2,-4,ect..(heck even a -10 is better than a no) to rolls when a player wants to do something fun and creative because being fun and creative is why we play these games.
|
|
Always saying "Yes, but...." is the key to good dungeon mastering.
Give out -2,-4,ect..(heck even a -10 is better than a no) to rolls when a player wants to do something fun and creative because being fun and creative is why we play these games.
And normally that is my response, it's just something about D&D/Pathfinder that makes me feel like I'm more obligated to stick to the rules, when there is already a rule for it. Not sure why.
I think I'm going to combine my decision to discourage those feat/ability choices with granting a +4 bonus if they decide to take it anyways (due to it being a prereq or something).
in my games, everything that is physicly possible is also possible for players, however I try to balance it so that it isn't better as a normal attack (in general, exploiting weaknesses is good) and of course not easier than with a feat.
So allow it, if you know the feat, do the same but give a considerable malus (like -4 or -6) on whatever check it is.
+1
Always saying "Yes, but...." is the key to good dungeon mastering.
Give out -2,-4,ect..(heck even a -10 is better than a no) to rolls when a player wants to do something fun and creative because being fun and creative is why we play these games.
I've seen this a few times across the boards. It bears repeating.
I would really like to see this philosophy enshrined officially in the Pathfinder RPG. I'd be quite happy if it was a design rational for new powers, in addition to a blanket "Rule-0" style empowerment for GMs to resolve older rules that don't jive well.
This issue perfectly captures my biggest regrets and grievances about the game. Note how they can be fixed pretty easily!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer a bonus over a penalty for two reasons.
1) many of these things are actually hard to pull off. A penalty in most cases guarantees that no one will attempt them. I want to encourage options, or I would not be considering this rule, therefore, I prefer a bonus.
2) A penalty creates a whole class of combat options that are penalized; charge is not, but strike back is. A bonus means you can attempt pretty much anything, and there is no separate class of options that are penalized; charge and strike back may both be attempted without penalty, and a feat could theoretically improve either.
It's a small difference, owing to personal preference as much as anything else.
---
We need more precise language to discuss this concept. I would like to suggest in the manner of "Unbirthdays". A player without the Strike Back feat may now attempt the unfeat, or may take the strike back feat to get the +4. (or alleviate the penalty if that's how you want to handle it)
Some very merry Unfeats to my players!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note how they can be fixed pretty easily!It may be a quick and effective fix, but it's like using duct tape to hold something together, the problem may be solved but you are always going to be aware of it.
That sentiment is the (sadly true) bane of houseruling GMs worldwide.
|
|
That sentiment is the (sadly true) bane of houseruling GMs worldwide.Note how they can be fixed pretty easily!It may be a quick and effective fix, but it's like using duct tape to hold something together, the problem may be solved but you are always going to be aware of it.
Yeah, but some house rules are uglier fixes than others.
The problem for most houseruling GMs is that all fixes look ugly, even the awesome ones.
Even if many of the Pathfinder RPG rules come from popular 3.X houserules.
Story fixy ruletime GM goodbad.