Will my GM hate me?


Advice


I am seriously considering going a Tetori for a new campaign, but I'm wondering will my GM hate me for going one? I have read in other posts that the Tetori can rip the fun out of a campaign. Can't a GM still adjust encounters for us and make it challenging or other measures to counter the Tetori?


Probably not. If that is the character style you want to play go for it. Just talk to your dm on what level of optimization he wants and go from there. Some Dm's don't like certain types of characters and that's ok. Find something that works for both of you. Good luck and happy gaming :)


Atalius wrote:
Can't a GM still adjust encounters for us and make it challenging or other measures to counter the Tetori?

I've never played, played with, or GMed for a Tetori specifically...but I think what you're basically asking is "Will my GM hate me for making a grappling character?"

From what I've seen (which certainly isn't exhaustive) the problem with grappling is that it tends to be either nearly useless (lots of individual enemies where grappling a few doesn't matter or a few big mobs with insane CMD) or completely crippling (casters or humanoid enemies in general whose CMD isn't the highest). So it's kind of a binary on/off switch in terms of "Will my character break this encounter?"


To add to that, it's a binary on/off switch that involves the memorization of a complex and fairly unintuitive system. As a GM I personally wouldn't be too keen on a guy coming in with a grapple character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your GM will be annoyed (up to angered) if you show up on game night with a surprise character that's totally unsuitable for the game. Really, you can't talk to your GM early enough to ask "what about X?"

Case in point.. I ran a recent game in which I told the players each character had to have one Campaign Trait, so the character would have some ties to the community where the adventure would begin (it was Rise of the Runelords for the curious).

So as we're getting ready and I'm reading over the characters.. one of the players didn't bother to read that email. He showed up with a character who had no connection to the community.. not only no campaign trait, but also ... an orphan who had been sold into slavery from this town as a child and raised by a master who was now deal. No family. No friends. Nothing. And THE wrong history for this town. His sole reason to be there was "It's a PC". That is the sort of thing that will drive your GM nuts.

Now replace that with "a mounted character in am all-dungeon campaign" or a "a magic-hating barbarian in a campaign about saving a wizard school" or "an evil traitor in a holy knights campaign" or "a paladin in a grim-and-gritty seedy underbelly of society campaign".

Talk to your GM about what IS and what IS NOT going to work.


Urath DM wrote:

Your GM will be annoyed (up to angered) if you show up on game night with a surprise character that's totally unsuitable for the game. Really, you can't talk to your GM early enough to ask "what about X?"

Case in point.. I ran a recent game in which I told the players each character had to have one Campaign Trait, so the character would have some ties to the community where the adventure would begin (it was Rise of the Runelords for the curious).

So as we're getting ready and I'm reading over the characters.. one of the players didn't bother to read that email. He showed up with a character who had no connection to the community.. not only no campaign trait, but also ... an orphan who had been sold into slavery from this town as a child and raised by a master who was now deal. No family. No friends. Nothing. And THE wrong history for this town. His sole reason to be there was "It's a PC". That is the sort of thing that will drive your GM nuts.

Now replace that with "a mounted character in am all-dungeon campaign" or a "a magic-hating barbarian in a campaign about saving a wizard school" or "an evil traitor in a holy knights campaign" or "a paladin in a grim-and-gritty seedy underbelly of society campaign".

Talk to your GM about what IS and what IS NOT going to work.

most of those character concepts could be pulled off in the example campaigns


Lady-J wrote:
most of those character concepts could be pulled off in the example campaigns

Perhaps. If the player and GM worked together on the concept.

In other words, talk to your GM.

If your GM approves your concept and wants help in making the campaign fun and challenging for you and the other players, your GM could come here.


Keep Calm and Carrion wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
most of those character concepts could be pulled off in the example campaigns

Perhaps. If the player and GM worked together on the concept.

In other words, talk to your GM.

If your GM approves your concept and wants help in making the campaign fun and challenging for you and the other players, your GM could come here.

even without working with the dm if you rollplay right and have your backstory all sorted out it would be a breeze to play most of those.


As some folks say, "Haters gonna hate", so you might as well go ahead and do your thing if that's what you really want. If you play a super grappling PC because you think it will give you a power up you'll probably be sad since the DM will likely counter it and shut you down while the other players criticize you. If you play it because being a great wrestler is your concept you might be able to enjoy putting the concept into action as best you can though.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Countering a tetori is pretty easy; just have more than one enemy combatant. Last I checked, even the most powerful tetori builds can still only grapple one opponent at a time.

A GM who doesn't realize that, and bans the build simply because he doesn't feel it is balanced (or rather, that he can't handle it), doesn't really strike me as being too experienced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In any scenario in which you are bringing a potentially overpowering or potent build to a table, you need to double check with your GM to see if they are okay with that in the first place.

Explicitly explaining the strengths and weaknesses of a build can definitely help ease tensions between you and the GM, but don't gloat about it or what it can do. Particularly rules intense builds are also good to explain to a GM so you don't need to go looking for rules mid game and you are both on the level as to how the build works. I make it a matter of habit to explain in great detail in group chats not only complex builds I want to play, but also builds in general utilising underused rules. I also make sure my GM can look over a build I want to bring to the table well in advance so they can ask questions, ask for alterations due to a lack of cohesiveness with the campaign or being too strong for their level of optimisation, or veto it entirely. Personally, I make it pretty clear I build for optimisation (not necessarily min-maxed but definitely in the higher echelons of power), so whatever I present might be stronger than typical builds or do some odd stuff that could catch a GM unawares.

Being a flagrant power-gamer is all about being open and honest and a willingness to adjust. :3


Ravingdork wrote:

Countering a tetori is pretty easy; just have more than one enemy combatant. Last I checked, even the most powerful tetori builds can still only grapple one opponent at a time.

A GM who doesn't realize that, and bans the build simply because he doesn't feel it is balanced (or rather, that he can't handle it), doesn't really strike me as being too experienced.

That's pretty much how to handle high end grapplers in practice. It's fine if the grappler can negate the (seemingly) most powerful enemy combatant as long as the remainder of the antagonists are appropriately challenging/fun for the rest of the party to fight. It's less of a problem than like "save or die" specialist Wizards since the Tetori needs to keep spending actions to lock down whatever.

Probably the more your campaign revolves around something other than "fighting in order to get to the next room" the more acceptable something with a silver bullet combat style is going to be. It'd be great fun to play a Tetori in an intrigue game, I think, because you're often going to want to tie people up and not kill them.


The mechanics of the Tetori have been well covered here, WAAAAY better than I could.

I think the important point is that the OP seems a touch smug about choosing a character that he thinks the GM will hate. At best this is a dick player move. It also may not even be a real thing, we don't have the GMs perspective here. OPs stated intent however is hardly admirable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

The mechanics of the Tetori have been well covered here, WAAAAY better than I could.

I think the important point is that the OP seems a touch smug about choosing a character that he thinks the GM will hate. At best this is a dick player move. It also may not even be a real thing, we don't have the GMs perspective here. OPs stated intent however is hardly admirable.

For what little it's worth, I don't see any nefarious intent. OP seems to be interested in Tetori but worried that it might make the game less fun. If anything, I'd say that having that concern top of mind is admirable. (but it's hard to accurately infer such things when limited to text)

All that said, I concur with everyone who said to talk to your GM. I'd be fine with a Tetori, but I'm pretty liberal and my players rarely if ever abuse mechanics such that it negatively affects the narrative.


Yeah, the GM has the final say regardless of what the OP does, so it doesn't matter if he hates it or not.

He could simply not allow it because it's a Core Only table. You never know...


As a GM I actually like it when my players create a powerful character. For me part of the fun of being a GM is building interesting challenges for my players. A good GM can adjust the challenge to suit the party, but I would much rather be able to go all out when designing encounters instead of having to scale down everything I create. The only time it really becomes a problem is when one character is at much higher or lower level of optimization than the rest of the group. Even then the conflict is more between the players than the GM.

Dark Archive

If you build a grappler, understand the rules. Many classes bog down tables, ie summoners, because the player spends 10 minutes around figuring out what his stuff does. Now a high level creative player can really abuse the system, but that requires some very complex builds and a massI've amount of content knowledge. In short, go for it if your confident in your ability, you should know what abilities are hyper cheese when you build them.

For example my monk can one round any single creature withing 1500 ft. As long as they can be grappled. And I mean literally any creature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

The mechanics of the Tetori have been well covered here, WAAAAY better than I could.

I think the important point is that the OP seems a touch smug about choosing a character that he thinks the GM will hate. At best this is a dick player move. It also may not even be a real thing, we don't have the GMs perspective here. OPs stated intent however is hardly admirable.

I have no idea what you mean. Clearly this is a misunderstanding. I really like to play a grappling hero as I am currently playing a grappling druid and enjoying it immensely. I would like to create a wrestler type of hero and going through the various options I came across a Tetori. Other options I came across were Brawler and Brutal Pugilist however I liked the Tetori more. I will talk to my GM and run this character by him, the last thing I wanna do is ruin the fun of the other players by just tieing up bosses over and over.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Countering a tetori is pretty easy; just have more than one enemy combatant. Last I checked, even the most powerful tetori builds can still only grapple one opponent at a time.

A GM who doesn't realize that, and bans the build simply because he doesn't feel it is balanced (or rather, that he can't handle it), doesn't really strike me as being too experienced.

That's pretty much how to handle high end grapplers in practice. It's fine if the grappler can negate the (seemingly) most powerful enemy combatant as long as the remainder of the antagonists are appropriately challenging/fun for the rest of the party to fight. It's less of a problem than like "save or die" specialist Wizards since the Tetori needs to keep spending actions to lock down whatever.

Probably the more your campaign revolves around something other than "fighting in order to get to the next room" the more acceptable something with a silver bullet combat style is going to be. It'd be great fun to play a Tetori in an intrigue game, I think, because you're often going to want to tie people up and not kill them.

I like this idea of an intrigue game, which AP's do you recommend for that?


In regards to a grappler's impact on encounters, when I played a super grappling Monk/Druid back in 3.5 the DM said he didn't really mind that PC much since he could account for him by simply adding an extra enemy with good HP to the encounter design. Of course if the DM makes an assumption that extra enemies are needed that could potentially make the entire adventure tougher since in theory the grapple master will be "tied up" too.

Honestly there are also plenty of enemies who would be difficult or impossible to grapple such as incorporeal creatures and stuff with Freedom of Movement (which as I recall might not work on high level Tetori). Some DMs also might enforce old 3.5 rules that you can only grapple a creature up to one size category larger than yourself. Such rules don't seem to exist in the Pathfinder RAW except in regards to the Grab ability.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Will my GM hate me? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.