|
Hey guys,
I run PFS for a small group of about 10 folks where I work. One of them playing a brawler with grapple...and he has a buddy that likes to cast vanish on him so he can sneak up on casters and ambush on them. Since many of the "final" battles have included a lot of 1 caster fights, the net effect is this largely trivializes these fights. Now, I fully support this use of combined tactics to take down something that would be harder to drop in a stand up fight....however, I would like to at least provide some level of challenge. My current thoughts on this are...
1) Research all my spells ahead of time better, so I know what I have that is vocal only.
2) If there are any mooks, they immediately go after the grappler since he is also -4 to his dex.
Still, I'm interested in what other people do to at least make things interesting with grapple specc'd players verse casters.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
You don't have to worry about components when grappled. You can still cast spells with somatic and material components, but you have to make a concentration check regardless.
You could also pick scenarios that would keep him from using that trick. "Storming the Diamond Gate" (3-7) comes to mind.
|
|
I know you can cast while grappled...Making that check can be troublesome sometimes though....missing just 1 spell can frequently mean game over. I'm not saying I want to be able to overpower my players....just present a challenge or a bit of unexpected problems to deal with. They have used this trick 2 times now, and I can sense a pattern developing...
I just want to avoid this becoming an I win button. Its hard for casters to break free with their usually low CMD/CMB values.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As RDN said, the whole "can't cast while grappled" is some kind of holdover from 3.5, ....
To be fair to the GMs who employ that rule, it's in the first couple of editions (oops, sorry: "printings") of the Pathfinder core rulebook. People who know the Pathfinder rules need to know that the grappling rules have changed. (I know that I don't keep up with all the rule changes, every time a book is revised.)
I just want to avoid this becoming an I win button. Its hard for casters to break free with their usually low CMD/CMB values.
This is something for the writers and developers to address. If you just rewrite stat blocks or mook tactics to fix the issue, then Mike and John don't know how serious a problem it is.
Better to run as written, no matter how pedestrian the encounters, and post a review of the scenario, outlining your concerns.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys,
I run PFS for a small group of about 10 folks where I work. One of them playing a brawler with grapple...and he has a buddy that likes to cast vanish on him so he can sneak up on casters and ambush on them. Since many of the "final" battles have included a lot of 1 caster fights, the net effect is this largely trivializes these fights. Now, I fully support this use of combined tactics to take down something that would be harder to drop in a stand up fight....however, I would like to at least provide some level of challenge. My current thoughts on this are...
1) Research all my spells ahead of time better, so I know what I have that is vocal only.
2) If there are any mooks, they immediately go after the grappler since he is also -4 to his dex.Still, I'm interested in what other people do to at least make things interesting with grapple specc'd players verse casters.
It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it.
You have a PC whose "plan A" is a tactic that's great against casters, kinda "meh" against martials, and pretty worthless against monsters/demons/etc. And even where it's great, he still needs help.
This isn't an issue that needs fixing, this is a case of "working as intended". He pays his dues whenever he faces a babau or a roc or anything incorporeal or a pair of bulettes or... you get the idea. The caster fights are his reward for suffering through those. Don't take that away.
Don't confuse "successfully overcoming" with "trivializing".
I think my own solution feels far too simple, so feel free to poke holes in it.
Find some modules that don't have a single caster final fight, and run those instead? :)
(And as I haven't seen the majority of PFS scenarios, I know it may well be more difficult than I realize.)
|
|
Hey guys,
I run PFS for a small group of about 10 folks where I work. One of them playing a brawler with grapple...and he has a buddy that likes to cast vanish on him so he can sneak up on casters and ambush on them. Since many of the "final" battles have included a lot of 1 caster fights, the net effect is this largely trivializes these fights. Now, I fully support this use of combined tactics to take down something that would be harder to drop in a stand up fight....however, I would like to at least provide some level of challenge. My current thoughts on this are...
1) Research all my spells ahead of time better, so I know what I have that is vocal only.
2) If there are any mooks, they immediately go after the grappler since he is also -4 to his dex.Still, I'm interested in what other people do to at least make things interesting with grapple specc'd players verse casters.
It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it.
You have a PC whose "plan A" is a tactic that's great against casters, kinda "meh" against martials, and pretty worthless against monsters/demons/etc. And even where it's great, he still needs help.
This isn't an issue that needs fixing, this is a case of "working as intended". He pays his dues whenever he faces a babau or a roc or anything incorporeal or a pair of bulettes or... you get the idea. The caster fights are his reward for suffering through those. Don't take that away.
Don't confuse "successfully overcoming" with "trivializing".
You bring up a good point. This same character tried to grapple a ghoul once....and have getting nearly nommed to death, and contracting ghoul fever....he stopped doing it to monsters. I think, at the very least, I will do more research to determine ahead of time what the caster could do if grappled...but otherwise let the tactic stand. My biggest problem has been, once grappled, I didn't know what I could have him do and be effective. (There isn't a whole lot if they have no mooks) But, I suppose that is the casters arrogance. The over-arrogant caster overcome by tricky adventurers is a pretty common trope.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
IMO The whole grapple thing sucks and needs to be removed from Pathfinder. A tricked out maxed Maneuver Master is just a pain to deal with. (Not impossible, by any means.. just annoying to make sure every encounter isn't one he's going to steamroll over). In my past experience I've seen that the only one having fun at the table is the Man.Master himself. In a home campaign it's possible to tailor encounters around him so that everyone can have a good time and something to do. But in a PFS setting you cant do that and I've seen many encounters just ended when the end guy got grappled. Everyone has fun in their own way and the monk deserves to have fun also, but I just hate seeing five other players leaving the table with a bad experience.
That doesn't seem to be the case here; there's even another PC regularly spending resources to enable the grappler. Sounds to me like the table's having fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You bring up a good point. This same character tried to grapple a ghoul once....and have getting nearly nommed to death, and contracting ghoul fever....he stopped doing it to monsters.
Exactly. :) Grappling a ghoul means instead of three attacks and up to 4 Fort saves, it's two attacks and up to 3 Fort saves. Yay? Compared to tripping it (-4 to all those attacks, -4 to AC) or one-shotting it with two-handed Power Attack, the grappler's not looking so hot. He paid his dues, and the casters are what he gets for his investment. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestions:
If you're unhappy when Player A pulls his grappling trick against lone casters, let someone else GM the scenarios which feature lone casters.
If other players are unhappy when Player A pulls his trick, they should tell him so.
If nobody is unhappy when Player A pulls his trick (which is quite possibly the case), nothing needs to be done.
|
|
For example in the pinned state the person controling the grapple loses their dexterity bonus to AC.Whoa, I didn't know that. Learned something new today! :D
Keep in mind, the Tetori archetype for the Monk adds the "Graceful Grappler" extraordinary ability:
Graceful Grappler (Ex)
A tetori uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine CMB and CMD for grappling. At 4th level, he suffers no penalties on attack rolls, can make attacks of opportunity while grappling, and retains his Dexterity bonus to AC when pinning an opponent or when grappled. At 8th level, a tetori gains the grab special attack when using unarmed strikes, and can use this ability against creatures his own size or smaller by spending 1 point from his ki pool, or against larger creatures by spending 2 points from his ki pool. At 15th level, a tetori gains the constrict special attack, inflicting his unarmed strike damage on any successful grapple check.
This ability replaces flurry of blows.
So, while some grapplers may be affected by the loss of their Dexterity bonus to AC, others may not be.
|
I'm having a similar issue. the last two scenarios I've run (4-19 and 5-02), I've considered the boss fights essentially ruined by tetori monks. different players, same result.
last night, a monk wanted to pin a mounted cavalier. there was nothing in the rules to disallow it, so I used GM fiat. earlier in the game, he pinned two hags (he had one handed grapple), released one to tie the other up, then immediately regrappled the released one. in a single turn.
I've talked to my VL about this, and he mentioned a lot of tables just refuse tetoris at their tables. is this legal? can I ban a character class and make them play something else?
|
|
I've talked to my VL about this, and he mentioned a lot of tables just refuse tetoris at their tables. is this legal? can I ban a character class and make them play something else?
Absolutely not. Tetori monks are explicitly allowed by PFS rules. Until that changes, GMs have no right to ba players from their table just because of class/archetype choice.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I've talked to my VL about this, and he mentioned a lot of tables just refuse tetoris at their tables. is this legal? can I ban a character class and make them play something else?
Not if it's a publicly advertised game. But if it's just a private game among friends (that still gives PFS credit), you can all agree not to play certain builds.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, CRobledo says "No."
RainyDay Ninja says "Sometimes yes, sometimes no."
I complete the triumverate and say "Yes."
You are always free to decline to GM a table, and you don't need to specify a reason. Now, you're letting down the local store/con coordinator. If you do that frequently, it's likely you'll be asked to judge less frequently.
If you want to give a reason, then level with the players. "I'm sorry, but my GMing skills aren't up to providing a fun experience with that PC in the party. I don't understand the archetype well enough to judge whether its working by the rules, or provide the party with appropriate challenges."
EDIT: We are apparently no longer in the PFS forums. Since this is now considered a home campaign, ban anything you like.
throw in some clerics with the "Liberation" domain as baddies
the as needed freedom of movement at low level can stymie a grapple-dependant PC to add some surprising challenge to a fight that the party might presume will be easy.
throw in some clerics with the "Liberation" domain as baddies
the as needed freedom of movement at low level can stymie a grapple-dependant PC to add some surprising challenge to a fight that the party might presume will be easy.
Doesn't that break the aim of running the adventure as written to be PFS-legal?
(which makes me wonder if this needs to be moved back to the PFS forums to make that clearer)
I've flagged the thread as wrong forum, hopefully someone will move it back. OP, can you edit the title to
How to deal with grappling PCs in PFS without breaking "run as written"
Or something like that, to make it clearer?
I misread that as 'rules as written' it should've been clear enough as is... my bad
You could use disguise to make a monk look like the party caster (well will you look who's grappling me, SURPRISE)
I think an invisible caster will be somewhat hard to find as well as grapple with.
Have the evil ranger use his companion wolf to trip the attacker using a flanking position and see how much the attacker likes to fight lying prone.
You could ambush the player trying to attack the caster using a concealed second group, after all advancing behind enemy lines is dangerous.
I wouldn't use this every encounter, but I like to keep the player affraid of the many unknowns that threaten him/her.
And if the party has a caster, use this tactic on them as well, because I really admired the great idea.
Make them use more tactics by throwing in some things that counter that tactic, but don't hard counter specific tactics all the time.
|
|
I really do not think read through the scenarios and choose those without casters by themselves is a solution. The GM has already wasted his$4 in that case. Itis not as if he can get his money back to buy another scenario. Nor can he browse a society scenario off the shelf before buying. If lucky, the GM had a chance to play it first but even that is not always the case. We have a hard enough time getting people to GM. Telling people to now be even more choosy about what they GM or not is just going to make finding a game even harder. My frank suggestion is to suck it up and accept that some fights will be easier on the players than others. In fact, every fight should be easier or harder depending on what classes are present. I suspect that grappler makes some of the fights harder for the group when another build would be preferable.
I would be particularly ticked off if I went to a game and was told the judge didn't want to follow through on his commitment because he didn't think he could provide a fun, challenging table for the players because he did not understand a class. If that is what they honestly think, they never should have agreed to judge in the first place. Otherwise, do the best you can and learn from your mistakes by asking others for help, don't make me waste my time and money to find out you No longer feel comfortable with the PC make up. What is wrong with this type of judge, are they afraid they are going to get a rep as an easy judge? Is thatreallyso terrible? Plenty of people finds game fun with little more than the chance to sit down and play. Not every player wants to fearfortheirPCs life every single game. Hasthistypeofjudge forgotten that thePCs are expected, often even supposed to win?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, CRobledo says "No."
RainyDay Ninja says "Sometimes yes, sometimes no."
I complete the triumverate and say "Yes."You are always free to decline to GM a table, and you don't need to specify a reason. Now, you're letting down the local store/con coordinator. If you do that frequently, it's likely you'll be asked to judge less frequently.
To be fair, I 100% agree that a GM can totally refuse to GM a table because of whatever reason. I'm just saying that if he chooses to GM, and a player sits down with a tetori, his choices remain either to GM or not, but not to ban that specific player's character.
Saying "If you play that character I walk" is taking the table hostage, and pretty bad form imho.
|
|
So, CRobledo says "No."
RainyDay Ninja says "Sometimes yes, sometimes no."
I complete the triumverate and say "Yes."You are always free to decline to GM a table, and you don't need to specify a reason. Now, you're letting down the local store/con coordinator. If you do that frequently, it's likely you'll be asked to judge less frequently.
To be fair, I 100% agree that a GM can totally refuse to GM a table because of whatever reason. I'm just saying that if he chooses to GM, and a player sits down with a tetori, his choices remain either to GM or not, but not to ban that specific player's character.
Saying "If you play that character I walk" is taking the table hostage, and pretty bad form imho.
Agreed, the "Yes" by Chris was really more like,
"Yes...you can choose to take your ball and go home."
I really do not think read through the scenarios and choose those without casters by themselves is a solution. The GM has already wasted his$4 in that case. It is not as if he can get his money back to buy another scenario.
No, but what he can do is post here and ask other GMs for module suggestions that fit a requirement of "no single-caster final fight", given that he knows for sure a grappler is going to show up.
|
|
So, CRobledo says "No."
RainyDay Ninja says "Sometimes yes, sometimes no."
I complete the triumverate and say "Yes."You are always free to decline to GM a table, and you don't need to specify a reason. Now, you're letting down the local store/con coordinator. If you do that frequently, it's likely you'll be asked to judge less frequently.
To be fair, I 100% agree that a GM can totally refuse to GM a table because of whatever reason. I'm just saying that if he chooses to GM, and a player sits down with a tetori, his choices remain either to GM or not, but not to ban that specific player's character.
Saying "If you play that character I walk" is taking the table hostage, and pretty bad form imho.
When DM'ing something that you KNOW that OP build is going to cakewalk and diminish the fun for the table you can always do what I've seen done a few times.
Hand the OP monster a chronicle sheet, congratulate them on their single handed success and send them on their way. After that turn back to the table and continue the introduction for the rest of the players.Do that a few times and the player will correct themselves or level that character out of the society.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be glad he's not sundering the spell component pouches.
I totally do this ASAP, but most scenarios have Sorcerers so no pouch.
To the OP: don't worry about it. If you follow the tactics and the players are trivializing the material then both you and your players are doing your job perfectly.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
When DM'ing something that you KNOW that OP build is going to cakewalk and diminish the fun for the table you can always do what I've seen done a few times.
Hand the OP monster a chronicle sheet, congratulate them on their single handed success and send them on their way. After that turn back to the table and continue the introduction for the rest of the players.Do that a few times and the player will correct themselves or level that character out of the society.
You've seen GMs actually do that? I don't even know what to say.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Do that a few times and the player will correct themselves or level that character out of the society.
I'm kinda shocked so many people have opinions like this?
Telling players they can't play certain builds and giving them a sheet before they complete it isn't allowed.
I've never ran into a GM like this and I hope I never do.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
When DM'ing something that you KNOW that OP build is going to cakewalk and diminish the fun for the table you can always do what I've seen done a few times.Hand the OP monster a chronicle sheet, congratulate them on their single handed success and send them on their way. After that turn back to the table and continue the introduction for the rest of the players.
Do that a few times and the player will correct themselves or level that character out of the society.
Mathwei, I put this post aside for a minute, took a deep breath, handled some other tasks, and I think I'm finally at a point where I can address this.
I've heard of people who dismiss a player, with a Chronicle sheet, during a game where they are making a mess of things: not breaking any rules, but over-powering the rest of the party. It has much less to do with a one-trick build as with play style.
I don't like that technique, but I can see it being a tool in a GM's toolchest. It's grossly insulting to the player.
But you're claiming that you've seen it done, and that it was done before the game even started.
It's still grossly insulting to the player, but for no reason. "You want to play this scenario with your tiefling paladin? Too bad. I think your PC might be an overmatch for the encounters, so I'm going to kick you from my table, with no chance to establish whether you're actually going to wreck the scenario or not, and I'm going to hand you a Chronicle* so that no other GM can let you play at his table either, even if he wanted to."
I hope to heaven that I'm never at a table where a judge tries to pull that on a player.
*(0 xp, 0 pp, 0 gold, I presume, since the PC didn't get to play through any encounters)
|
|
I have let it be known to my local community that I dislike the tetori build, because I think it destroys scenarios. I'm going to leave it at that.
the next time someone plays one and ends a scenario prematurely, I'm simply going to hand everyone their character sheets, apologize to the non-tetori players, and tell everyone to go home.
hopefully they'll get the point sooner or later that their style of play is impacting everyone else at the table. I'll let peer pressure handle the rest. I get my credit either way. it's not worth getting worked up over.
"hey, you pinned the dragon? that's just swell. here's your chronicle. go home. two hours early."
|
|
Instead, how about you take the problem player aside and explain to him that it is bad gaming sportsmanship to overpower encounters to the point that other players do not feel they are having fun. Mention to this player that other players feel useless and have no chance to shine.
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"
This can happen with anything, not just tetori monks. Summoners with crazy eidolons. Pouncing, raking enchanced animal companions. Some gunsligners.
Dialogue can help solve quite a bit of problems.
I'm going to have to step back from this tread for a bit, it's giving me gas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead, how about you take the problem player aside and explain to him that it is bad gaming sportsmanship to overpower encounters to the point that other players do not feel they are having fun.
I highly recommend that the other players should talk to Player A, not the GM. Why? Because the other players are much better judges over whether they're actually having fun or not than the GM is!
|
|
Everyone is there to have fun....Including the GM...if you have a table of uber optimized grapplers, gunslingers, witches, etc that trivialize every encounter then I feel yes...the GM is entirely within his rights to stop the game...hand out chronicle sheets and tell the players to go away and stop wasting HIS time...he is the one who has taken the time to prep the scenario and has actual spent MONEY purchasing it. It's pretty poor sportsmanship to purposely come to a game with the intention of wrecking every encounter.
I feel that the GM is entirely within their rights to tell problem players/classes to just go away.
Everyone is there to have fun....Including the GM...
I certainly agree that the players should speak up if the players are not having fun.
And I agree that the GM should speak up if the GM is not having fun.
However, I don't think it makes much sense for the players to say that the GM is not having fun, for example. By far the best person to assess whether Bob is having fun is Bob himself.
|
|
Still, I'm interested in what other people do to at least make things interesting with grapple specc'd players verse casters.
Something I do is keep track of whether the caster knows the party is coming, due to advance warning, sounds made, etc. If so, he can put up his min/lvl and 10 min/lvl buff spells before the party enters the room. Spells like fly, invisibility, freedom of movement, and see invisibility, to name a few.
In your case, the party is buffing, so the bad guys need to buff as well.
-Matt
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the very least, it's never okay to hand out chronicle sheets to players who have not finished a scenario, so all this "hand him a sheet and send him home" business is entirely illegal.
Can a GM boot a player who's actually being disruptive? Of course.
Are overpowered builds often a tool of disruption? Certainly.
But the stuff being suggested in this thread currently? Sorry, that's just seriously not cool, and again, completely illegal.
And whenever your "solution" to a "problem" is something illegal, it's time to reevaluate whether or not the problem really lies with the other person.