|
So, my group has been playing rise of the records for the last few months and something recently came up that just hasn't sounded right in the game that I wanted to get others feedback on. We have a ranger player (me) in the group who just gained their animal companion right before our party assaulted thistletop. Almost immediately upon arriving while we were fighting the goblin leader in the throne room our dm told me that after being hit by the goblin and its dogslicer, my wolf animal companion refused to listen anymore and even became somewhat unfriendly to the me. As soon as the fight ended the dm took control of the wolf and had it leave, ignoring the rangers handle animal checks to try and control it.
When confronted with this the dm said that the ranger was cursed by the spirit of angry dogs from the dogslicer and that he was just going straight out of the module Burnt Offerings. Then said that it was possible to control it yet, but it was just extremely hard to do and that it was about a dc 30 skill check to succeed. Now, to me this is just a bit hard to buy something like that coming right out of the module, and seems like a complete Dick move on the dm's part. So, with that we were without the animal companion for the entire rest of thistletop.
So my questions, am I just completely misunderstanding paizo using something like that curse in the AP or am I right that this was just a complete Dick move on the dms part that he is now using paizo to hide behind to deny his actions? Now, granted he is a new dm, and new dms make mistakes but this seems well beyond the scope of a mistake in not knowing the rules, which there have plenty of already as well.
If this is the wrong place for this post, please forgive me. Well, for that and any typos I may have made. These Damn smart phones have a mind of their own when it comes to typing and autocorrect
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't recall what was in the adventure path.. but personally sounds like a HUGE dick move by the dm..
VERY RARELY would ANY adventure path "neuter" any character ability like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was all the DM's doing.
There's no such "animal companion curse" in the module.
Well, since the cat's out of the bag, I'll chime in:
- No, there is no such curse in the anniversary edition. I don't own the first edition.
- As a new DM, I can see him seeing your ranger as "too powerful" as compared to the rest of the group, and trying to do something to slow you down through Thistletop. I think it's a kind of cool effect if it lasts an hour or two. If he permanently took away your animal companion then yeah, he went way beyond "acceptable messing with the characters" and into the realm of "being a dick". Some DMs like to challenge characters to move out of their comfort zones. Steal the wizard's spellbook. Cut the cleric off from his god for a day. Something monumental, but temporary. Some are just jerks. I can't tell from the amount of information you've given which side your DM falls on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. That's rough. Hope it works out for you.
As for my opinion, it's not just "dickish" but passive aggressive as well. If you're going to be nasty or unfair about something, own up to it at least. Don't blame fake rules in an otherwise fantastic (and well-written) module.
Agreed that would be a cool short-term effect, but it's not in either the original or AE versions. Sounds to me like an inexperienced GM overreacting to a perceived power imbalance. If he didn't want you to have an animal companion, he should have told you that you needed to take the alternative Nature's Bond option at character generation.
There is something like this in Tales of the Old Margreve by Open Design. Does he have it? Maybe he pulled it into RotRLs.
|
|
I can't honestly say if he has that book or not, but if I had to guess I would say probably not. I know he is extremely tight money wise, and I even in fact purchased the rise of the runelord path for him cause he wanted to try to dm once since he didn't have the money for it. I know I talked him about this once already, but apparently it must not have stuck as he pulled something pretty much identical to this again just the other day while we were fighting the Skinsaw man in the Misgivings Friday night and again blaming it on the module. I guess we'll see what he says when I bring this up to him this time.
|
If you want to see the adventure path as written, just read it and don't ask a GM to waste their time running you through it. Or run it yourself. Calling the GM a dick rarely ends well, but often ends games. Cut the guy some slack.
(FWIW, I've done this situation to a ranger in a campaign before - it was so I could provide a cooler in-game animal companion, one that wasn't available during character creation but was "unlocked" by cool roleplay. Of course, if the player in question called me a dick over it, he wouldn't have gotten a thing except shown to the door.)
The curse is a slight dickish move.
Lying and saying it's straight out of the module is a completely dickish move.
Any idea what his logic was for doing this? (and then doing it a second time, apparently?)
Incidentally, I would see this as a problem with 2 main ways of handling this:
1) Sit down with a one on one chat. Don't be accusatory, etc. This is the kind of advice you'll find all over these forums, and for good reason, it works.
2) Lie back. Passive aggressive, and a bad idea in most cases, but I have known a player or two who can't comprehend that they're doing anything wrong until someone does it back to them. In this case, you would need to make it clear in discussion afterwards that the lie was not to spite, but rather to illustrate how things feel from your point of view. (Handle this method with large amounts of caution, obviously.)
If you want to see the adventure path as written, just read it and don't ask a GM to waste their time running you through it. Or run it yourself. Calling the GM a dick rarely ends well, but often ends games. Cut the guy some slack.
(FWIW, I've done this situation to a ranger in a campaign before - it was so I could provide a cooler in-game animal companion, one that wasn't available during character creation but was "unlocked" by cool roleplay. Of course, if the player in question called me a dick over it, he wouldn't have gotten a thing except shown to the door.)
I appreciate your opinion, but I'm going to offer 3 salient points:
(1) The GM cut off a part of the ranger's power with no warning, and no indication that it wasn't permanent. As a GM I would be prepared for a player to be upset with this. You say you did this to one of your players. Did he really just say, "OK," and move on without questioning you about it at all? Or did he ask a few questions, you gave him reasonable answers, and you both moved on?
I don't believe that showing a player to the door for being upset is a reasonable reaction. As Gluttony said, the best tactic is a one-on-one chat about it after the game so both parties can clear things up.
(2) When confronted, the GM lied and said, "This is part of the AP; it's not my fault." A perfectly reasonable answer would be, "Why don't you calm down, let the scenario play out, and see what happens?" By saying, "It's not my fault," the GM made it sound much more like a permanent loss, and added to the player's anger, rather than doing anything about it.
(3) The player hasn't followed up with any indication that the GM did anything other than permanently remove his animal companion, so he had to find and train a new one (I assume). In fact, his follow-up post says the GM did "something almost identical to this again" against the Skinsaw Man.
Yep. I'm not there, and I'm not hearing the GM's side of things. But at the moment, from the player's point of view, the GM is repeatedly removing his animal companion not as a plot point, but to keep it out of critical battles. If it is indeed happening as Malith describes, it's at best poor GMing, and at worst being a jerk. Letting someone play a ranger and then removing their animal companion for certain battles is Not OK in my 'book of GMing'. The lying just adds weight to Malith's side; I don't follow the APs all that closely when I run people through them, but I don't have little brownies steal all their gear and say, "Oh, it's in the AP! It's not my fault!" either.
|
|
If you want to see the adventure path as written, just read it and don't ask a GM to waste their time running you through it# Or run it yourself# Calling the GM a dick rarely ends well, but often ends games# Cut the guy some slack#
#FWIW, I've done this situation to a ranger in a campaign before - it was so I could provide a cooler in-game animal companion, one that wasn't available during character creation but was "unlocked" by cool roleplay# Of course, if the player in question called me a dick over it, he wouldn't have gotten a thing except shown to the door##
If you reread my posts, I have never called him a "dick" and consider him a friend# What I have said is that the curse and the way it was carried out came across as "dickish"# You don't have to be a dick to do something "dickish", there is a difference between the two and I stand by what I said#
If he would mention wanting to do something like that to offer me a cooler companion, that would be one thing# Perhaps it's just me, but if you are going to mess with a character in such a way though it should be discussed in advance# Just going ahead and disregarding their choices in character creation like that without consulting them about it looks like a jerk move to me, good intentions or not# I have DM'ed before, and speaking as both a player and a DM if you can't take someone objecting to something like that from your players I don't think your group would be for me anyway# I have played under arrogant and condescending DM's in the past and don't have time for such behavior these days#The curse is a slight dickish move#
Lying and saying it's straight out of the module is a completely dickish move#
Any idea what his logic was for doing this? #and then doing it a second time, apparently?#
Who Knows, I made a point to talk to him outside the game about the curse specifically which was when he told me that it was straight out of the AP# In fact it was that conversation which prompted me to start this thread to begin with when what he said about it just didn't sound or feel right# I even specifically asked about animal companions during this chat to see if he had a problem with them, and was told there were not any problems there# All I can imagine is that he feels my character is overpowered as he has mentioned a few times how I always have very effective characters in past games despite the game system we play and mentioned how much damage my ranger does just using power attack# That or perhaps he just hates animal companions and just won't say anything despite being asked about it# I know up to now in almost two full levels of play there has not been a single combat I have had my wolf companion the entire time for some reason or another#
1) Sit down with a one on one chat. Don't be accusatory, etc. This is the kind of advice you'll find all over these forums, and for good reason, it works.
Couldn't agree more with this statement. Getting into an argument about something like this is not any way to solve anything and a good way to kill groups. Regardless, I do plan on having another one on one chat with him like you mentioned to try and come to some sort of resolution and figure out what's going on.
|
|
(2) When confronted, the GM lied and said, "This is part of the AP; it's not my fault." A perfectly reasonable answer would be, "Why don't you calm down, let the scenario play out, and see what happens?" By saying, "It's not my fault," the GM made it sound much more like a permanent loss, and added to the player's anger, rather than doing anything about it.
I have to say, being lied to about it probably bothers me more than anything. I'm a patient person and willing to bend over backwards to help, going so far as to even drive a good half hour out of my way to give him a ride to and from the game since his car died. Being lied to about this however I see as a straight up insult. If your going to do something, at least be man enough to be honest about it.
(3) The player hasn't followed up with any indication that the GM did anything other than permanently remove his animal companion, so he had to find and train a new one (I assume). In fact, his follow-up post says the GM did "something almost identical to this again" against the Skinsaw Man.
I haven't lost the animal companion permanently ever. My wolf came back after we finished Thistletop and rejoined me after having a remove curse cast on me in town. During the fight against the Skinsaw Man he had him run off after I rolled a #1 on the wolves attack, saying that the Skinsaw Man had that power over all animals and that it was again straight from the AP.
Let me make one correction though, I did forget about the last combat we had in the "Misgivings" against the giant bat. I was able to keep my wolf for that entire combat.
|
Well, to be fair to the GM, unless your AC has been trained to "attack anything" (requires two tricks assigned to "Attack"), and assuming the 1 was rolled for your Handle Animal check, then the AC would not attack. If your GM is not requiring you to do a Handle Animal check to get your AC to attack, then you are getting an easier time with your AC than you really should (which could possibly account for him thinking your PC is overpowered, if that is indeed the case).
EDIT: Correction, he did not give a bogus reason for your AC fleeing against that encounter. In fact, the AC should not have even been given an attack.
EDIT 2: OK, so in the original version, Aldern has the following special ability:
Unnatural Aura (Su) Any animal within 30 feet of Aldern automatically becomes panicked and remains so as long as it is within this distance.
BUT he does not have it in the Anniversary edition.
EDIT 2: OK, so in the original version, Aldern has the following special ability:
** spoiler omitted **BUT he does not have it in the Anniversary edition.
Thank you for pointing this out! I thought I was going mad because I remembered reading that Aldern had something like that, but couldn't find it in my anniversary edition anywhere.
Who Knows, I made a point to talk to him outside the game about the curse specifically which was when he told me that it was straight out of the AP# In fact it was that conversation which prompted me to start this thread to begin with when what he said about it just didn't sound or feel right# I even specifically asked about animal companions during this chat to see if he had a problem with them, and was told there were not any problems there# All I can imagine is that he feels my character is overpowered as he has mentioned a few times how I always have very effective characters in past games despite the game system we play and mentioned how much damage my ranger does just using power attack# That or perhaps he just hates animal companions and just won't say anything despite being asked about it# I know up to now in almost two full levels of play there has not been a single combat I have had my wolf companion the entire time for some reason or another#
Hmm... Have you tried something along the lines of:
"When I ask you if you feel anything is wrong/overpowered with my character, are you telling me how you really feel? Because I'm willing to work with you to create a character that isn't a problem for you, but I need to know what specifically you don't like in order for me to do so."
|
|
Well, to be fair to the GM, unless your AC has been trained to "attack anything" (requires two tricks assigned to "Attack"), and assuming the 1 was rolled for your Handle Animal check, then the AC would not attack. If your GM is not requiring you to do a Handle Animal check to get your AC to attack, then you are getting an easier time with your AC than you really should (which could possibly account for him thinking your PC is overpowered, if that is indeed the case).
EDIT: Correction, he did not give a bogus reason for your AC fleeing against that encounter. In fact, the AC should not have even been given an attack.
EDIT 2: OK, so in the original version, Aldern has the following special ability:
** spoiler omitted **BUT he does not have it in the Anniversary edition.
True, but that was one of the first tricks I taught my companion. Unless I am mistaken, and correct me if I am, but training him to attack anything should overcome that problem I thought. I dont know what the adventure said for the Skinsaw man, but I do know that since I bought the book for him it was out of the Anniversary edition.
|
|
True, but that was one of the first tricks I taught my companion. Unless I am mistaken, and correct me if I am, but training him to attack anything should overcome that problem I thought. I dont know what the adventure said for the Skinsaw man, but I do know that since I bought the book for him it was out of the Anniversary edition.Well, to be fair to the GM, unless your AC has been trained to "attack anything" (requires two tricks assigned to "Attack"), and assuming the 1 was rolled for your Handle Animal check, then the AC would not attack. If your GM is not requiring you to do a Handle Animal check to get your AC to attack, then you are getting an easier time with your AC than you really should (which could possibly account for him thinking your PC is overpowered, if that is indeed the case).
EDIT: Correction, he did not give a bogus reason for your AC fleeing against that encounter. In fact, the AC should not have even been given an attack.
EDIT 2: OK, so in the original version, Aldern has the following special ability:
** spoiler omitted **BUT he does not have it in the Anniversary edition.
If you assigned two tricks to the attack trick then your target for a Handle Animal check to get it to attack would be 10 instead of 25 when attacking any target; a single trick assigned to Attack allows a DC 10 Handle Animal check to have your AC attack humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants and other animals only. You still need to make the Handle Animal check though.