So my party consists of 3 players. At present they are level 12 and we just entered the Ice Queen's Tomb in book 3.
Party consists of Starsoul Sorceress, Time Oracle and a Brawler (Pummeling charge optimized).
The problem we ran into with the frost giant camp was that the party is a group of people not inclined to subterfuge or sabotage (in character) and the last few sessions have boiled down to just the Sorceress running around with invisibility. The Brawler isn't particularly stealthy, and the Oracle in her full plate isn't either. And since they screwed up their invisibility abuse pretty hard the towers all geared up with See Invisibility potions. The players themselves out seem to have pigeonholed their characters personalities to overly direct approaches to everything.
So what I want to do is shore up their lack of flexibility a bit with a GMPC, but I'm uncertain as to exactly what I want to make. I think a rogue-like would be good, although not a necessity. Someone who can aid and suggest alternatives but not necessarily steal the spotlight from the players.
Any ideas?
|
Well, See Invisibility isn't available in potion form;
Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.
It's in fact quite difficult to provide minions with their own perfect anti-invisibility measures. The closes you can get is knowing that invisible creatures are somewhere in the area, with closed doors/bead curtains, and guard dogs with Scent.
See, this was my opinion as well. I gave them feedback and suggestions that the way they were approaching this was slowing the game down and preventing other people from enjoying things. They were only using one mechanic, not being very careful about it. I offered up alternative actions and their rebuttal was "our characters wouldn't think that way, and none of us are stealthy so it won't work."
I guess the hireling is a good idea.
@Ascalaphus - if it wasn't potions, it'd have been scrolls or wands with UMD. The adventure path mentions they'll take serious effort to counteract anything the players do recklessly (iirc it specifically mentions things like see invisibility). The path was written to challenge the players into coming up with varying tactics that successfully evade suspicion, but it seems the players created characters they believe couldn't adapt to the scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, don't us a "DMPC". Just don't. It can't be *your* character, you can't make in-character decisions while simultaneously being the DM.
However...
Your players can get hirelings the old fashioned way, with ads at local taverns, offering a signing bonus and x gp per day plus hazard pay.
They can meet some interesting NPC who they convince to join them on their quest. Then you hand them the NPC's character sheet, and have them run him or her... except if they try to make the NPC do things he wouldn't want to do.
They can take Leadership at 7th level and manage their new pal all the way from A to Z. Some folks don't like this feat, but IMHO it's a good way to help out a group that often has less than 4 players. There is also a lesser version (lower level) of leadership whose name I forget.
About the stealth issue, don't forget there are ways to combat not being stealthy. Getting silenced is a good start. Invisibility potions exist. And other sorts of illusions and tricks of misdirection can work in some circumstances.
Have some NPC who is a retired stealth specialist chat them up in a bar and suggest some ways they could be more stealthy themselves.
|
|
Fair enough, just wanted to point out this specific way doesn't work. Doesn't mean they can't take other countermeasures.
Anyway, I don't think a GMPC is a good solution for your problem. In general, GMPCs are not a good thing, but they're at their worst when they're central to the action, which is exactly what would happen here.
I have no idea what the PCs are supposed to achieve in that book, so it's hard to offer specific advice. But I'd be inclined to stick to my guns and not change anything; "we won't adapt" is not a very good answer. Make sure you've scaled difficulty to be fair to a small group. Then let them succeed or (likely) fail, but give them the chance to run away when things go south. Take especial care not to cut off their escape route.
If it's a matter of the PCs mostly needing advice, how about instead putting a mentor/sage in the story, but located conveniently far from the action? Perhaps a retired old adventurer. Not willing to go on adventures himself, but someone who you can bounce ideas off or ask for tips.
Wheldrake hits the nail on the head. While I would agree that, in theory, a GMPC can work, it will far too often cause more problems than it solves. That said, NPCs, hirelings, and followers are all a great way to help plug holes in the party and can all be run by the players (while agreeing that if the players try to make an NPC do something she wouldn't actually do, then the GM can step in).
If the players still refuse to take the very overt hints/offers, then let them keep doing what they are doing and if it kills the PCs then so be it. Sometimes in order to teach the players, you need to actually kill (fairly of course) the characters. Also, don't forget that you can always ask a character to make an Int or Wis check to recall something the player has forgotten or to suggest an idea that the character might think of but the player wouldn't.
@Wheldrake - exactly, that's the thing I am concerned with. But to be fair, hirelings and companions aren't much different unless I allow the players complete control over them and what they do. I suppose they could just ask me "would they be okay with this" and I'd confirm or deny it. Also, the players are not adverse to the GMPC, in fact the two experienced ones unanimously suggested that I do just that.
As for them finding a hireling or NPC, they'd have to travel back to town for it. This camp is several days journey from any town, high in the mountains. I'll try and work it in later when they have a chance to be at the towns again or maybe hint at it.
Another option is to just have a mountaineer of some kind be there (ranger of some sort) who has been casing the place out for weeks due to disturbances by the Giants and that could be a short NPC that has good stealth abilities (wish I'd have thought of that sooner now, haha).
@Gargs - one of my players already went on a rant about how strong the enemies were (seeing as he's a brawler, and has 1-hit pretty much everything he's come across) after trying to punch one of the "minions" and them being able to take his punch. I get the feeling that if they die in the game, it'll not go over very well. I want the game to be a challenge, but I don't want it to feel broken and unfair.
Still, I think even if my players think their characters wouldn't know how to do things the way the adventure expects them to (ie, sabotage things stealthily or without being discovered) should at least be considered over the RP. It doesn't matter if you're RPing your character to a T if the story gets halted as a result.
Regardless I've gotten some good advice on how to handle this, the goal of the GMPC was mostly an in-character reason to offer up alternatives to the party. Not to be highlighted in combat of even disabling traps. At best, scouting and sort of setting the tone for encounters.
@Emn1ty: I should clarify. Definitely you need to play by the rules, I'm not saying just kill them out of spite. The point though is that intelligent enemies will eventually learn and adapt to what you do. I'm not personally familiar with this AP, but it sounds like this is exactly what the AP scripts so to speak. That the giants are sufficiently intelligent that they learn from their mistakes, etc. If the players refuse to change tactics, then they should run into issues. While I think you do, as the GM, have a bit of a responsibility to tailor the campaign to the abilities of the party, I don't think that means that everyone needs to roll over for the party. After all, if the PCs are never actually in danger, where's the fun? You might as well just have a story hour.
As for the NPC issue, actually what you propose "allow them complete control" is pretty much what I would suggest. In my current game that I am playing in, the GM gave us an NPC cleric at the start of the campaign. That cleric is controlled by one of the players. All the GM does is occasionally point out details about the cleric's personality ("He's LG, he's not going to torture the guy", "Oh, if nobody wants that shiny little ring, the cleric would love it", etc., etc.). She gave us the base personality (he's really good hearted but also more than a bit greedy) and really only steps in if we suggest the cleric is going to do something against his (now her - long story) nature.