I've seen Bon Mot used dozens of times. I've never seen a GM use the Retort option for an NPC.
In one published Paizo adventure, the PCs were given the ability to command a squad of NPCs to deliver a volley unto the enemy as an action. The PCs just took care of the enemy themselves.
Elsewhere in published material, PCs are given the ability to partially collapse a tunnel to damage their foes in the fallout. They never did, instead choosing to rely on their own inborn abilities and magical gear.
I'm beginning to see a trend of granted temporary abilities (specifically actions and activities) getting ignored in favor of personal, known abilities.
Has anyone made similar observations in their games? Do you and your fellow players take advantage of temporarily granted actions and abilities where they arise?
Or is the red barrel in the corner behind the enemy line completely ignored?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the time when such a situational ability isn't used, it's because the players just plain forgot about it. Combat starts, the GM says some stuff about an ability, then there's enemies moving around, initiative rolls, people looking up a feat of their own - it's quickly forgotten.
Another reason is that the effect, or expected effect, is often not really that big. Or the players just don't really know what it'll do. So they focus more on their normal abilities that they know well.
Another reason may be that the players' existing action routine is already quite demanding. If you're doing an underwater adventure and it's already quite hard to move around, then you don't have that many actions left to do fancy stuff.
I think as a GM you can make these more attractive:
- put a visual reminder on the middle of the table of the thing that can be done
- don't be too cagey when telling the players what the mechanics for the thing are. You want to "sell" it to them.
And if you're designing a gimmick yourself:
- resist the urge to make it take 2+ actions, unless the effect is genuinely better than just casting a spell
- resist the urge to make it use MAP unless it's really good. If it doesn't take MAP then it's more interesting as a third action for martials
- if it's some ranged thing, like a cannon, consider if it really needs to be Dex-based. Characters with good dex probably already have a ranged attack. The characters without a ranged option already, probably have poor dex.
- check if the effect is really likely to work against the boss. It's very depressing if it turns out the cool gimmick gets critically saved against most of the time
Now that you mention it, in every video game where something like that comes up I try my best to complete the scenario without utilizing the gimmick.
In TTRPGs, I've regularly seen the same thing happen with my players. I once had a super hard series of fights released from rooms around a clock themed circular chamber, with a giant pendulum that swung by every round that you could kite the mindless enemies into to smush. They refused to attempt it, and instead fought bitterly and nearly died.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another reason is that the effect, or expected effect, is often not really that big. Or the players just don't really know what it'll do. So they focus more on their normal abilities that they know well.
Another reason may be that the players' existing action routine is already quite demanding. If you're doing an underwater adventure and it's already quite hard to move around, then you don't have that many actions left to do fancy stuff.
These are the two main points I would have also highlighted if @Ascalaphus didnt beat me to it. Tight action economy on behalf of your characters and/or concerns regarding the cost-benefit relation of those actions.
For example in our group we found that it was mainly the ranged attackers (Ranger and Wizard) that sometimes had actions to spare because movement was not always a necessity.
I'm often the one using the temporary abilities because of this:
Another reason may be that the players' existing action routine is already quite demanding. If you're doing an underwater adventure and it's already quite hard to move around, then you don't have that many actions left to do fancy stuff.
In my opinion, that's the main thing. A lot of characters are built with a very demanding routine, or at least the player is used to a specific routine, and they won't change it, ever.
Among my characters, I'll separate them into 2 types:
- The ones with a strong role inside the party. These ones will rarely use the temporary abilities unless their main schtick is not really important in the current situation. If I'm the tank, I won't suddenly leave the frontline because there's a nice red button on the wall.
- The ones that are designed to exploit opportunities (my Alchemist and my Summoner are clearly among those). With these characters I always use the temporary abilities as these characters are specifically designed to get the most out of them.
I personally love when there are temporary abilities (especially if I'm playing a character who can use them).
Also, temporary abilities don't have to be used. Sometimes, they aren't used but it's not a bad thing per se. There's no need to force your players by giving crazy strong effects to temporary abilities. It's fine if they are left on the side as long as everyone's having fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I see players go to both extremes on that. Both "there's a special thing! I wanna be the one to do the special thing!" and "I don't know that this weird thing will work well, and my character is built to do X, so by Gorum I'm doing X"
In APs that try it, the special ability is often something that requires a way to trigger that the party may or may not be prepared to use. If it requires a skills they are not good at (diplomacy to command a group to fire, for example, it can not feel worth trying. Even if the DC is low (unlikely if the ability has a strong effect), the players don’t know that, and figuring it out can take actions.
Even so, I think it depends on the play style of the group a fair bit. If the enemy uses effects against the PCs to great effect and the character see they can do the same, they are often more likely to do it. If it is something like causing a cave in on the enemy, but it would cause damage to Allie’s as well, then they are much less likely to use it as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use the retort option quite often with NPCs. Seems better to retort than take the penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only time I've seen something even close to temporary abilities being used is when they're integral to an encounter. For example, if there's a fire that is clearly spreading during a fight and burning down the building they are in, then the PCs might use some of the surrounding props to put it out.
It seems that if temporary abilities are going to be used, there needs to be a strong motivation to overcome the usual actions of the PCs. That motivation should be somehow built into the encounter.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed this too, but another thing I've noticed is a relationship between certain types of characters and this.
I'm sort of going to lump in temporary ability and environmental interaction here, because they're in a similar boat, but among all the games I'm involved in right now, the character most likely to engage with this aspect of the game is a Tiger monk in one of them.
It makes sense. He has high movement speed, can make two attacks with a single action, and always has both hands free. This means he can move around the battlefield to interact with the environment, perform odd actions, and still make two attacks fairly regularly... and even when he can't, he's generally the most capable when it comes to interacting with weird features.
There's an archer ranger in one game who's sort of in the middle. He likes to turret and shoot arrows... but he's a precision ranger with decent movespeed who can make two attacks with one action and has one hand free by default, so sometimes he'll maneuver around the battlefield to mess with stuff, or interact with objects, or use special temporary abilities, or access consumables or other magic items.
... On the opposite end of the spectrum, in one game we have a guisarme wielding Inexorable Iron magus. She almost never deviates from her core attack routine. Not-so-coincidentally, she has slower movement speed (from her plate armor), a 2+ action attack routine, and always has both hands occupied. Doing something as simple as opening a door would screw up her combat routine for that turn.... so she avoids stuff like that as much as she can.
Basically what we've found is that certain builds enable player agency by condensing action economy and allowing for mobility and freedom (and good hand economy too), and that other builds deny player agency by making those same things more restrictive. So there's often a direct relationship (from my experience) between those classes and how 'weird' they tend to get in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen Bon Mot used dozens of times. I've never seen a GM use the Retort option for an NPC.
It is a prompt for role playing. It is a good thing. If people don't have the time, Ok I know GMs get very busy. But it is there. I assume the NPC is always going to swear back at you even if they don't have a good retort.
I tend to interact with the enviornment or use special abilities. Especially if it makes sense narratively for my character. Even when I play something like lets say Magus or Thaumaturge who are encouraged to sort of stick to or enable a rotation of some kind. But then again, when I played my Magus I was already flexible with her turns and didn't stick to the spellstrike loop. While some classes are reatricted or some classes may help provide increase flexibility, i do think the type of player influences action choice(be it built in character mechanics or bespoke/uniqu4 mechanics for a fight/scenario.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed this too, but another thing I've noticed is a relationship between certain types of characters and this.
I'm sort of going to lump in temporary ability and environmental interaction here, because they're in a similar boat, but among all the games I'm involved in right now, the character most likely to engage with this aspect of the game is a Tiger monk in one of them.
It makes sense. He has high movement speed, can make two attacks with a single action, and always has both hands free. This means he can move around the battlefield to interact with the environment, perform odd actions, and still make two attacks fairly regularly... and even when he can't, he's generally the most capable when it comes to interacting with weird features.
There's an archer ranger in one game who's sort of in the middle. He likes to turret and shoot arrows... but he's a precision ranger with decent movespeed who can make two attacks with one action and has one hand free by default, so sometimes he'll maneuver around the battlefield to mess with stuff, or interact with objects, or use special temporary abilities, or access consumables or other magic items.
... On the opposite end of the spectrum, in one game we have a guisarme wielding Inexorable Iron magus. She almost never deviates from her core attack routine. Not-so-coincidentally, she has slower movement speed (from her plate armor), a 2+ action attack routine, and always has both hands occupied. Doing something as simple as opening a door would screw up her combat routine for that turn.... so she avoids stuff like that as much as she can.
Basically what we've found is that certain builds enable player agency by condensing action economy and allowing for mobility and freedom (and good hand economy too), and that other builds deny player agency by making those same things more restrictive. So there's often a direct relationship (from my experience) between those classes and how 'weird' they tend to get in combat.
Battlefield agency is too often overlooked while IMO in a well-constructed scenario it's pretty key.
Need to untie the captive prince? Open/close/bar the door for a major tactical advantage? Retrieve/catch/throw a macguffin? Do so many of the cool things that heroes do in heroic finales aside from beatdowns?So yeah, a party with little such agency won't (maybe to a degree can't) make too much use of interesting situations. I'd also add that players often don't know the value of the action. Do they have the stats for that ballista? And if they do, does it measure up?
In a homebrew, one might want to cater to the RPing of the PC. That wannabe general might dig commanding waves of archers while that curious (a.k.a. foolhardy) gnome will likely succumb to setting off explosives.
But the inverse might not be true. I know I've had PCs in tasty situations where my particular PC would resist taking the action.
I remember in the earliest days of 3.0 when two players got control of some released dwarf prisoners willing to fight their way out. The archer Rogue started flanking with his buddies and realized archery had been a poor choice for Sneak Attack. The player loved how his prisoners thrived (due to him killing whoever walked up to them) while the other player struggled and lost most if not all of his. I'm pretty sure the (no longer an) archer player would love to repeat that scenario while the second player (who was actually the better strategist) might not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, retort gets used when I actually come up with something clever (and in character) for the NPC to say. It's not about what's mechanically optimal, it's about what is fun and makes the game world feel fuller.