Ok, I am having a falling out with the group I am playing with because of their shenanigans. We are playing the iron gods campaign. One of the latest things they wanted to do was to befriend a monster npc and have it join our party after I said I was dropping out of the group due to their crap.
After hearing about they were trying to do, I told them this was one of the main reasons I dropped out of the group. Other than the DM waving his hand and fiating it all(basically allowing it just because they want it.) Unless the story itself dictates a npc joining the party, and only then for a short while or temporally, I don't see how they can have a npc monster join the group without some kind of class feature like the animal companion from the druid class or a feat such as leadership.
One of the group says that this is only needed to insure loyalty, and used hiring mercenaries and buying animals such as horses and tigers as examples. I can see that happening, but only if you keeping paying the mercenary over time and that would add up to quite a bit of gold over time, and I can see you buying animals but even then you would need to probably use the handle animal skill a lot to even keep it under control.
Basically what I am trying to say is they do a lot of things in my opinion isn't even allowed in the rules. Like hey we feed this monster, have him join us and call him Mr. Giggles. Again I just want to slap my head at this nonsense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does sound like deep nonsense, I sympathize.
This said, I have never been able to wrap my head around the idea of having to use a feat to get a loyal sidekick. Seems more like the sort of thing you would use an extended version of the diplomacy skill for, in addition to wages, gifts, services and care.
That's the kind of thing we did back in the dawn of RPGs: post an ad for hirelings at the inn for a couple hundred gold pieces, offer them a signing bonus, a half share of treasure and free room & board.
Of course, a DM is free to use such a system as he sees fit, or even let players use their characters' diplomacy, intimidate or bluff skills to convince NPCs or monsters to do things, even to become a sort of companion or hireling.
It sounds like your group is very young, and enjoy doing silly things for the fun of it. As long it's fun for everyone, then that's great. The RPG hobby is all about having fun. But if they're having fun at your expense, that's not fun for you.
You basically have 3 choices:
1) Go away and find a different group, or start DMing a game the way you think it should be done.
2) Suck it up and go with the flow, hoping they will get tired of picking on you and that the game will become fun again.
3) Talk things over with the DM and/or the problematic players, and get them to see how you feel.
Good luck!
Sorry, whats your question? I cant find it. It seems like you want to ask if having a monstrous npc help the party rules legal. To which the answer is yes...mostly.....
It really depends on how you classify "monster". Is something a monster because it's in the bestiary? it's non humaniod? low to no mental stats? lack of sapience or consciousness?
Controlling the thing would again depend on what the "monster" is specifically.
Animal-Handle Animal
Something with consciousness or sapience- Diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, or ???
Anything else- up to the Gm
What it really comes down to is DM discretion. Does the DM want the party to be able to befriend a monster.
This just sounds like a case of the group wanting a sillier game while you want a more serious game. Neither way is wrong and if you can't handle their playstyle you probably did the right thing by leaving.
The GM isn't doing his job properly. While some people allow followers without the leadership feat, that is precisely what Leadership is FOR.
Most people consider it overpowered, and don't even allow it in the game, so for the GM to hand wave it and give the benefits without anyone having even taken the feat is a serious slap in the face to anyone who HAS taken it...
If, as you say, you control the playing space, then you do have some leverage to make your point...
However.
I don't recommend being rude about it. I would approach your GM politely and express your concerns in an articulate fashion. If he isn't willing to run the game by the rules, request that he make a list of any changes he plans on implementing in the future.
I would use kicking them out as the last option, and wouldn't hold it over their heads, otherwise you risk making yourself look petty.
Don't burn your bridges, good gaming groups can be hard to come by.
It does sound like deep nonsense, I sympathize.
This said, I have never been able to wrap my head around the idea of having to use a feat to get a loyal sidekick. Seems more like the sort of thing you would use an extended version of the diplomacy skill for, in addition to wages, gifts, services and care.
That's the kind of thing we did back in the dawn of RPGs: post an ad for hirelings at the inn for a couple hundred gold pieces, offer them a signing bonus, a half share of treasure and free room & board.
Of course, a DM is free to use such a system as he sees fit, or even let players use their characters' diplomacy, intimidate or bluff skills to convince NPCs or monsters to do things, even to become a sort of companion or hireling.
It sounds like your group is very young, and enjoy doing silly things for the fun of it. As long it's fun for everyone, then that's great. The RPG hobby is all about having fun. But if they're having fun at your expense, that's not fun for you.
You basically have 3 choices:
1) Go away and find a different group, or start DMing a game the way you think it should be done.
2) Suck it up and go with the flow, hoping they will get tired of picking on you and that the game will become fun again.
3) Talk things over with the DM and/or the problematic players, and get them to see how you feel.
Its pretty much how you said. I tried to suck things up at first, and did let alot of things slide and tried to have fun, but hey you know the old saying give someone an inch and they will take a mile. I have tried talking to the group and the DM but it seems I am the lone man standing when It comes to my side of the argument. I tried to be nice about things and then one added that I am not even playing the AP anymore, and that's when I looked at the group and said they better find another place to play this little pathfinder ap. Kinda sucks to argue with the guy that provides the place, the electricity, the internet and network(computer maps of the ap we run), 73 inch screen television, as well as folding table our 7-8 man group uses for when we play the game. But hey some kids gotta learn the hard way.
Another reason I am thinking about dropping the group completely they have no commitment to an ap what so ever. We started off playing runelords at the end of last year and it went well for awhile. We basically all meant up at least once a week and played for about six to seven hours a night. Then about 2-3 months ago some of them wanted to run iron gods too and give ourselves a break from runelords, and I tried to go along with it at first, but realized what a big mistake that was. Considering AP's like runelords or iron gods can take up months if not over an entire year to complete if your lucky and stick to it. On top of that some of them keep talking about how they don't like their PCs and what to have new ones by killing the old ones off. And one of them wants to start another ap on top of the two we are already running. I have put a lot of time into the runelords one and hate to give it up, but with they way this group keeps going I best just drop out.
Sounds like bad GMing.
Sorry dude.
I have been in groups that switch it up a lot, eventually they switch to a better GM and settle down.
It's up to you to choose whether or not you want to wait it out.
Maybe take a break from the group, rejoin later?
Always be polite though, don't be a jerk.
Sorry, whats your question? I cant find it. It seems like you want to ask if having a monstrous npc help the party rules legal. To which the answer is yes...mostly.....
It really depends on how you classify "monster". Is something a monster because it's in the bestiary? it's non humaniod? low to no mental stats? lack of sapience or consciousness?
Controlling the thing would again depend on what the "monster" is specifically.
Animal-Handle Animal
Something with consciousness or sapience- Diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, or ???
Anything else- up to the GmWhat it really comes down to is DM discretion. Does the DM want the party to be able to befriend a monster.
This just sounds like a case of the group wanting a sillier game while you want a more serious game. Neither way is wrong and if you can't handle their playstyle you probably did the right thing by leaving.
You raise a good point. To be more specific, from what I understand they wanted to use it and its abilities, like an animal companion or npc cohort. Again I have no problems with PC's using skills such as bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, or even handle animal to get an npc, monster or otherwise, to change it's attitude, back down, or run away, or even do a specific one time action depending on the situation which is clearly outlined in the skills description for each one.
But when they want to keep it as a "pet" and uses it's abilities permanently or until it dies. Gotta draw the line there. To me, and this is my direct opinion nothing more or less, it has a cost. Nothing like this is free because it disrupts the balance of the game. Again I know I am not the gm of the game, but when the group starts allowing stuff like this to happen I just don't want to be a part of it. To me for a player to get something they want they have to pay the toll or cost. You want a pet, fine play a class that gives you one or take a feat. You want to be a big bad melee character pick a class like paladin or fighter. You want to be a magic user fine go with wizard or cleric. You want to play something unconventional fine, play the character your way, but anything you want to do has to be something the class you take would allow not just because you want things your way without paying for it.
Sorry, whats your question? I cant find it. It seems like you want to ask if having a monstrous npc help the party rules legal. To which the answer is yes...mostly.....
It really depends on how you classify "monster". Is something a monster because it's in the bestiary? it's non humaniod? low to no mental stats? lack of sapience or consciousness?
Controlling the thing would again depend on what the "monster" is specifically.
Animal-Handle Animal
Something with consciousness or sapience- Diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, or ???
Anything else- up to the GmWhat it really comes down to is DM discretion. Does the DM want the party to be able to befriend a monster.
This just sounds like a case of the group wanting a sillier game while you want a more serious game. Neither way is wrong and if you can't handle their playstyle you probably did the right thing by leaving.
You raise a good point. To be more specific, from what I understand they wanted to use it and its abilities, like an animal companion or npc cohort. Again I have no problems with PC's using skills such as bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, or even handle animal to get an npc, monster or otherwise, to change it's attitude, back down, or run away, or even do a specific one time action depending on the situation which is clearly outlined in the skills description for each one.
But when they want to keep it as a "pet" and uses it's abilities permanently or until it dies. Gotta draw the line there. To me, and this is my direct opinion nothing more or less, it has a cost. Nothing like this is free because it disrupts the balance of the game. Again I know I am not the gm of the game, but when the group starts allowing stuff like this to happen I just don't want to be a part of it. To me for a player to get something they want they have to pay the toll or cost. You want a pet, fine play a class that gives you one or take a feat. You want to be a big bad melee character pick a class like paladin or fighter....
I'm 100% on board with you.
for a class that doesn't start with an animal companion to gain one, they require two different books and THREE FEATS!
So by level seven, you can have an animal companion equal to a Druids.
For a GM to just GIVE this out to someone would be a serious insult to the player who invested three feats into having it.
And that is just for a basic animal companion, not a dragon or magical beast...
At level seven, you can take Leadership, which gives you AT BEST someone two levels lower than you...
You should point this out to the GM if you still talk to him/her.
Contributor
|
To be perfectly honest, they shouldn't need a feat to convince a creature to aid them, if that's what the GM decides the creature would do.
However: the GM should carefully consider the creature's power level relative to the players.
-Too pathetic to improve the party's capabilities much? It'll be fine.
-Outclasses the party handily? NO. Find a reason it can't help, GM.
-Relative to party's strength? Nothing wrong with that... but (and I think this is the "rule" you're looking for) it's like adding a PC.
You wouldn't add a PC to the party without giving him or her an equal share of xp; a monster should have the same effect. So if there were four PCs and the monster makes five, just divide xp five ways instead of four. In addition, most creatures will want a material reward as well - likely resulting in less treasure per person due to the extra share.
So it's not "free". (At least, not if the GM's doing things properly). Maybe they wouldn't be as eager to hire up these creatures if the price were paid.
...Sorry, whats your question? I cant find it. It seems like you want to ask if having a monstrous npc help the party rules legal. To which the answer is yes...mostly.....
It really depends on how you classify "monster". Is something a monster because it's in the bestiary? it's non humaniod? low to no mental stats? lack of sapience or consciousness?
Controlling the thing would again depend on what the "monster" is specifically.
Animal-Handle Animal
Something with consciousness or sapience- Diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, or ???
Anything else- up to the GmWhat it really comes down to is DM discretion. Does the DM want the party to be able to befriend a monster.
This just sounds like a case of the group wanting a sillier game while you want a more serious game. Neither way is wrong and if you can't handle their playstyle you probably did the right thing by leaving.
You raise a good point. To be more specific, from what I understand they wanted to use it and its abilities, like an animal companion or npc cohort. Again I have no problems with PC's using skills such as bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, or even handle animal to get an npc, monster or otherwise, to change it's attitude, back down, or run away, or even do a specific one time action depending on the situation which is clearly outlined in the skills description for each one.
But when they want to keep it as a "pet" and uses it's abilities permanently or until it dies. Gotta draw the line there. To me, and this is my direct opinion nothing more or less, it has a cost. Nothing like this is free because it disrupts the balance of the game. Again I know I am not the gm of the game, but when the group starts allowing stuff like this to happen I just don't want to be a part of it. To me for a player to get something they want they have to pay the toll or cost. You want a pet, fine play a class that gives you one or take a feat. You want to be a big bad melee character pick a
Tried too, but they still argued with me about it.
To be perfectly honest, they shouldn't need a feat to convince a creature to aid them, if that's what the GM decides the creature would do.
However: the GM should carefully consider the creature's power level relative to the players.
-Too pathetic to improve the party's capabilities much? It'll be fine.
-Outclasses the party handily? NO. Find a reason it can't help, GM.
-Relative to party's strength? Nothing wrong with that... but (and I think this is the "rule" you're looking for) it's like adding a PC.
You wouldn't add a PC to the party without giving him or her an equal share of xp; a monster should have the same effect. So if there were four PCs and the monster makes five, just divide xp five ways instead of four. In addition, most creatures will want a material reward as well - likely resulting in less treasure per person due to the extra share.
So it's not "free". (At least, not if the GM's doing things properly). Maybe they wouldn't be as eager to hire up these creatures if the price were paid.
Agree with want you are saying 100%. There's gotta be a cost. Like for example in the runelords ap I have been a part of, same group but different gm. I was allowed to have a dragon as a mount or animal companion. My GM allowed a third party pdf called the Dragon Companion Handbook to be used in our Runelords ap. But to meet the prerequisites for having the dragon, I hand to have a class that granted an animal companion class feature like my paladin's divine bond, hand to take two feats for it, learn dragonic, and even hand to put some skill ranks into magic arcana. We hand to homebrew it a little bit, but I still hand to pay a 'cost' for it.
I can see both sides.
If players always want to have animals, monsters etc. that can be irritating.
But sometimes it is the best way to solve some rp activities. For example in one game my kobold pc found and hatched a tatzlwyrm egg because he thinks of himself as a dragon and did not want to leave the egg behind. Now, some time and some roleplaying later the GM ruled that the "little bugger" has grown up some and I can take him with me when I'm on my way to some adventure.
So, what could we have done?
I'm not level 7 yet, so leadership is out. It is no animal so multiclassing to some AC class is out. And even if, how would you stat a tatzlwyrm as an AC? Torchbearer or squire? Both would not allow tatzlwyrms.
I talked to my GM about it as he decided that the tatzlwyrm, seeing me as his parent, would just follow me around as an NPC.
Edit: We are level 6 now vs. the tatzlwyrm's CR2
I can see both sides.
If players always want to have animals, monsters etc. that can be irritating.
But sometimes it is the best way to solve some rp activities. For example in one game my kobold pc found and hatched a tatzlwyrm egg because he thinks of himself as a dragon and did not want to leave the egg behind. Now, some time and some roleplaying later the GM ruled that the "little bugger" has grown up some and I can take him with me when I'm on my way to some adventure.So, what could we have done?
I'm not level 7 yet, so leadership is out. It is no animal so multiclassing to some AC class is out. And even if, how would you stat a tatzlwyrm as an AC? Torchbearer or squire? Both would not allow tatzlwyrms.
I talked to my GM about it as he decided that the tatzlwyrm, seeing me as his parent, would just follow me around as an NPC.Edit: We are level 6 now vs. the tatzlwyrm's CR2
To be pretty honest, this in only one issue in a long line of issues I have with the group I am playing in. Each group has their own play style and as long as the group itself has no problems with it, hey different strokes for different folks. I know I can't force my group to play exactly the way I want and I try to comprise with them, but it seems the more I give in to the way they want to do things the less my opinion matters to the point I just don't want to play in that group anymore. Heck a few of them have even complained about me coming to the boards in the past when it came to asking about rules and advice on other pathfinder related things. But to me you guys are fellow pathfinder players and are considered a neutral party because you have nothing to gain by agreeing or disagreeing with what I post or say.
You don't need rules justification for having an NPC join a party, any more than you need a rules justification for having a PC join a party.
You should have a story/role-playing justification, and the GM should watch out for game balance implications of adding a new ally (just as with a new PC) and whether you're sharing loot and experience with them, and there's the issue of who controls the new ally - if it's a specific player, they're basically getting twice as many actions as everyone else, and if it's the GM, you're making more work for him...
You don't need rules justification for having an NPC join a party, any more than you need a rules justification for having a PC join a party.
You should have a story/role-playing justification, and the GM should watch out for game balance implications of adding a new ally (just as with a new PC) and whether you're sharing loot and experience with them, and there's the issue of who controls the new ally - if it's a specific player, they're basically getting twice as many actions as everyone else, and if it's the GM, you're making more work for him...
Heck I would even settle for something like this, but when it comes to role playing my group doesn't even do it that well. Let me give you a picture of our last session of what happened and what caused me to rip up my character sheet and throw it in the trash. We are halfway through exploring a buried ancient technological ship. There are 7 PCs total and 1 DM. Any kind of storytelling in the session tonight, none existent. Just a bunch of yahoos running around making a bunch of skill checks out of turn and pressing buttons to see what would happen with little regard for the consequences. I couldn't even get a word in edge wise to what I wanted to do with my character. I tried telling the group about this in the past about having some kind of order we go in and have a set amount actions and that way we would all get a turn, but majority of the group does not want to do this and play casually, only a couple players want to take repeated actions over and over again, and with seven players can you imagine the chaos.
Are you playing with a bunch of retarded monkeys? They don't even use initiative?
You aren't walking away from a gaming group, you're walking away from a bunch of yahoos.
Good riddance to them.
Are you playing with a bunch of retarded monkeys? They don't even use initiative?
You aren't walking away from a gaming group, you're walking away from a bunch of yahoos.
Good riddance to them.
I was using the word yahoos to be nice, but hey a rose is rose by any other name. Initiative only take place when there is a battle after that everything goes back to chaos.
Only using Initiative in battle is normal.
Your problem is one of too many players with not enough sense. You can't fix that by enforcing a few rules.
Only using Initiative in battle is normal.
Your problem is one of too many players with not enough sense. You can't fix that by enforcing a few rules.
I hate to say, but I will agree with you on that, no arguments here.
In chaotic situations where multiple people want to act at the same time, I have them roll initiative.
With that many players, you have to give everyone a chance to do stuff, whether you are fighting things or not...
Example:
PC party had captured an NPC and convinced him to come with them to town, where they would release him (he had info relevant to the quest they were on), he was friendly and cooperative, grateful that they hadn't killed him like the rest of the bandits he had been with.
In town, he had a chance to slip away into the crowd, and had already given the party the info they wanted, so he took off.
They all wanted to do stuff (ranging from 'chase him down and give him some gold' to 'I don't care, I'm gonna go pickpocket some random') No-one wanted to attack him, but they all started to talk.
I had them roll initiative.
Anywho, you aren't the GM, so I'm just ranting.
In chaotic situations where multiple people want to act at the same time, I have them roll initiative.
With that many players, you have to give everyone a chance to do stuff, whether you are fighting things or not...
Example:
PC party had captured an NPC and convinced him to come with them to town, where they would release him (he had info relevant to the quest they were on), he was friendly and cooperative, grateful that they hadn't killed him like the rest of the bandits he had been with.
In town, he had a chance to slip away into the crowd, and had already given the party the info they wanted, so he took off.
They all wanted to do stuff (ranging from 'chase him down and give him some gold' to 'I don't care, I'm gonna go pickpocket some random') No-one wanted to attack him, but they all started to talk.
I had them roll initiative.
Anywho, you aren't the GM, so I'm just ranting.
I appreciate the advice, again its not just one or two things with my group but a bunch of little things. Hard to explain. One thing I can kinda of recall having a big argument on was loot distribution. I wanted everything to be fair when it came to the loot being handed out. We came up with alot of solutions, such as a need vs greed, group vote, and my personnel favorite was the d20 dice roll if players wanted to via for the same item. What I wanted was a clear cut and fair way, but some key members of the group wanted to do it their way, only sad thing was they, according to my view point, would change things up be with how they saw fit. For example in our runelords ap I play a paladin and we also have a sorcerer with leadership. Both classes are charisma based, or I should say they both benefit from a high charisma. Well at the time we had a headband of alluring charisma show up in our loot. Our Sorcerer got it, because I had went out in some of my previous downtime and bought one. I however made the comment that if I did not already have one I would have rolled him for it, this in turn caused the rest of the group to say he needs it more just because he has the leadership feat and that it would have been a group vote to decide. I was not to happy with that outcome, but hey you don't always get your way. A couple play sessions later we got another item, no one could demonstrate a need so it became a greed and I thought it would be subject to a group vote, I didn't want the item. Turns out I would have been the deciding vote, guess what happened they decided they would roll for it instead. Man did I get mad, they tried to play innocent and couldn't understand why I was mad because I didn't want the item in the first place. I told them it was not about the item, but the principle of the situation. Again I wanted clear cut rules, my group likes to make things up as the go. To me just a bunch of dirty group politics.
In regards to treasure, we calculate the total value (1/2 full price, what you would get if you sold it) and divide that total by the number of players.
You get that much loot.
You buy it out of the pool. We go around taking turns, and if there are two people who want the same thing, they bid on it.
You can borrow money from friends to get bigger items, but if you can't afford it, it gets sold and divided up.
totally works for us.
In regards to treasure, we calculate the total value (1/2 full price, what you would get if you sold it) and divide that total by the number of players.
You get that much loot.
You buy it out of the pool. We go around taking turns, and if there are two people who want the same thing, they bid on it.
You can borrow money from friends to get bigger items, but if you can't afford it, it gets sold and divided up.
totally works for us.
sounds fair to me
I've been running a campaign, where the players got a NPC to join with them. I allowed it because the original module stated that the NPC could be turned to join the party. After that adventure concluded, I researched basic hirelings and determined that he would accept 3 gold pieces per day to accompany them on a shift along with a portion of the gold. That said, the NPC is not as powerful as the party and will always lag behind in power. Since he is a hireling, he will still use his own discretion about what kind of danger he will actually jump in front of.
Hirelings have always been a part of the game, as long as it makes sense in-game. There are many stories of original D&D about Robilar driving his orc hirelings forward into waves of danger to soften enemies up before he strolled in and finished them off.
If you don't think it makes sense in-game, then that is one thing, but ultimately the GM makes that decision. If he allows it, then you're overruled and need to play along rather than threaten to quit the group.
There is no direct rule for this. It is all up to the GM. This is really more of a general advice or basic discussion type topic. I wouldn't allow it, but some people like games to run that way.
The changing characters and campaigns thing would bother me too. I wouldn't blame you for wanting to drop out of the group to find one more committed.
Befriending a creature to do something with you shouldn't be an issue, but the creature wouldn't be under player control. It would still be an NPC under the control of the DM.
Thanks for answering and giving me your advice and opinion guys. As for the ruling on having and keeping a npc in the party, I guess it really depends on the group. Honestly in my opinion when you have 6-7 players in one ap do you really need to befriend a monster or add an npc to a group. I could understand if they would get one through a class feature, but I think my group just wanted to do this to spite me.
I originally stated that our group could not have more than 5 players per ap when I agreed and joined the group. Anymore would just be too much and make the game unbalanced in my opinion. Friends of friends heard what we were doing and wanted to play, I should have put my foot down in the very beginning. Thanks for putting up with my ranting guys.