could this metagaming issue also be resolved by no longer having one PC do something other PCs would want to stop
player conflict requires some socially expert players
That's not it, he does the same thing if I accidentally spill the beans about a monster or npc. For example he wanted to get books on liches or maybe an arrow of undead slaying when the party headed out to the Earthmote despite not knowing Valindra Shadowmantle was a lich because none of them are from Toril (its a good thing I stopped him there because he would have just caused a TPK)
I already know what I need to do, I just gotta stop being a chicken shit and cut him off as soon as he starts down that road and explain, again, why it's not good
and then inform him that we're going to have to play without him if he can't stop
It has nothing to do with PCs being opposed, after all he looted an artifact that was plot important, hid it, and literally gave it away to a random questgiver saying "oh I dont know what this thing is" with a big stupid grin on his face because he likes derailing plotlines (and now there are tabaxi assassins trying to kill him for giving an important cultural relic to the Zhentarim, oops)
At this point, start objectively trolling him; let him get his books and undead slaying arrows and find out way too late that they're utterly bunk; the books were written by Olov who is a drunk idiot manchild that doesn't know jack shit about liches and the Arrows are just enchanted with a spell that makes them twice as hard to break.
When he gets mad because you're road blocking him tell him this wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't blatently cheating.
If he still doesn't get it tell him to GTFO.
Also "I'm just playing my character" is a valid excuse only when the issue is one that is deeply embedded in the identity of the character and provides depth and nuance as opposed to "Fuck you I do what I want"
Yeah I’m 90% sure he wanted to succeed just to take the magical nuke and fuck the campaign with it but i cant prove it
That’s part of my issue he denies it when asked privately and is like I’m just playing my character, i feel like i need to force some drama and ask the whole table on Sunday
That is such a cop out when a player pulls out that old chestnut.
I've had one character who was like that. Just one.
His name was Gaddez Darkmoor and he was one of the three characters I developed for the gaming guardians PBP forums (It was a great scene like... christ, gotta be 12 years ago) that hailed from rifts earth and due to issues that he had rooted to his backstory, he didn't accept leadership from others quickly or easily. Which made him (and by extension me) come across as an asshole because when someone of higher rank gave him guff there were good odds that he would give it right back because simply put: he didn't put up with shit from anyone.
And there were good reasons for this based on who he was and what his lfe expieriences were (he was an orcish mercenary leader/demolitions expert who due to 4th generation genesplicer mutations designed to create greater levels of psionics in successive generations that inadvertently manifested as super intelligence... and a complete inability to expierience fear) had come to respect ability more so then titles and popularity.
So to a lot of people my character was a colossal douche, but I countered by pointing out that while my character could be an asshole he wasn't impossible to lead and in an environment crawling with archmages, demigods, ninjas, werebeasts, golems, dragons and super heroes... I was the only character with a real weakness since mine was the only one that was ever a real and persistant issue.
But yeah it sounds like override367 is just dealing with an entitled prick.
could this metagaming issue also be resolved by no longer having one PC do something other PCs would want to stop
player conflict requires some socially expert players
I have my players do opposed rolls vs each other on things like deception vs insight, perception vs sleigh of hand, and even athletics vs acrobatics all the time. Everyone roleplays and has fun with it, because they are all adults.
The trick is to just set the rules of the table up-front at "you can't roll dice to fuck with other players, you have to actually agree with each other on what happens. If you both decide that you want the outcome to hinge on a contested check or whatever, then that's fine, but there's no 'I roll slight of hand to try to pick the wizard's pocket and steal his doodad' if the wizard doesn't want that to go down."
That way grownups who want to roleplay a thing can resolve shit with dice just fine but fucksticks who are just looking to troll somebody can simply get told 'no' - and likely won't even try, since you already told them they can't. And as a bonus, if they're really dead-set on playing pvp and adamant that they should be able to do so with people who don't want to, then they'll just get mad and refuse to play at your table in the first place. It's a great way to filter out toxic players in session zero (and set boundaries with borderline players before the issue becomes personal).
Yeah i set a no pvp unless everyone agrees to it at the table rule when anyone is joining the game.
not to say that there aren't antagonistic relationships between characters or that the characters won't roll against each other.
If the fighter is looking for the rogue and the rogue is hiding in the trees the fighter needs to make his perception test unless the rogue stops hiding.
Last session my players brought the dice out amongst themselves to see if one of them (the fighter everyone knew was charmed) could convince the other to take the cambion's deal. The other guy literally didn't know what he wanted to do, so they threw down some opposed charisma checks and the sorc went with the results and listened to the obviously charmed fighter cause in the cambion's words "just cause he's charmed doesn't mean he can't make coherent arguments, it just means he wasn't going to shoot me in the face the moment I revealed myself."
could this metagaming issue also be resolved by no longer having one PC do something other PCs would want to stop
player conflict requires some socially expert players
I have my players do opposed rolls vs each other on things like deception vs insight, perception vs sleigh of hand, and even athletics vs acrobatics all the time. Everyone roleplays and has fun with it, because they are all adults.
The trick is to just set the rules of the table up-front at "you can't roll dice to fuck with other players, you have to actually agree with each other on what happens. If you both decide that you want the outcome to hinge on a contested check or whatever, then that's fine, but there's no 'I roll slight of hand to try to pick the wizard's pocket and steal his doodad' if the wizard doesn't want that to go down."
That way grownups who want to roleplay a thing can resolve shit with dice just fine but fucksticks who are just looking to troll somebody can simply get told 'no' - and likely won't even try, since you already told them they can't. And as a bonus, if they're really dead-set on playing pvp and adamant that they should be able to do so with people who don't want to, then they'll just get mad and refuse to play at your table in the first place. It's a great way to filter out toxic players in session zero (and set boundaries with borderline players before the issue becomes personal).
I'd have to just end the campaign if I disallowed interparty conflict, as one of the party members is an evil cultist of Vecna. That particular wrinkle hasn't been a problem, even when it caused PVP once (it was expected), we all went into this eyes open. My point about the metagaming player is that player conflict isn't really the problem, it's that one player likes to metagame - even in games where the party is completely unified in their goals he does things like read the module ahead of time so he can gain an edge eg: "I stay out in the hallway, you guys can go in there, Im going to wait here and keep an action prepared to shoot at any flesh golems"
"who said anything about flesh golems?"
"Oh I mean just to be cautious hold an attack"
he is disabled and we try to give him a wide berth because of it, but we can all tell when he's doing it because he thinks hes pulling one over on everyone and gets this look on his face thats super obvious
it's a very tricky situation where I feel like the correct answer may be just limiting his autonomy and explaining why he can't do something, since none of us really want to kick him out, we want him to act properly (which again is actually hard for him to do, although I feel like he hides behind his disability sometimes and he's not very good at it)
could this metagaming issue also be resolved by no longer having one PC do something other PCs would want to stop
player conflict requires some socially expert players
I have my players do opposed rolls vs each other on things like deception vs insight, perception vs sleigh of hand, and even athletics vs acrobatics all the time. Everyone roleplays and has fun with it, because they are all adults.
The trick is to just set the rules of the table up-front at "you can't roll dice to fuck with other players, you have to actually agree with each other on what happens. If you both decide that you want the outcome to hinge on a contested check or whatever, then that's fine, but there's no 'I roll slight of hand to try to pick the wizard's pocket and steal his doodad' if the wizard doesn't want that to go down."
That way grownups who want to roleplay a thing can resolve shit with dice just fine but fucksticks who are just looking to troll somebody can simply get told 'no' - and likely won't even try, since you already told them they can't. And as a bonus, if they're really dead-set on playing pvp and adamant that they should be able to do so with people who don't want to, then they'll just get mad and refuse to play at your table in the first place. It's a great way to filter out toxic players in session zero (and set boundaries with borderline players before the issue becomes personal).
I'd have to just end the campaign if I disallowed interparty conflict, as one of the party members is an evil cultist of Vecna. That particular wrinkle hasn't been a problem, even when it caused PVP once (it was expected), we all went into this eyes open. My point about the metagaming player is that player conflict isn't really the problem, it's that one player likes to metagame - even in games where the party is completely unified in their goals he does things like read the module ahead of time so he can gain an edge eg: "I stay out in the hallway, you guys can go in there, Im going to wait here and keep an action prepared to shoot at any flesh golems"
"who said anything about flesh golems?"
"Oh I mean just to be cautious hold an attack"
he is disabled and we try to give him a wide berth because of it, but we can all tell when he's doing it because he thinks hes pulling one over on everyone and gets this look on his face thats super obvious
it's a very tricky situation where I feel like the correct answer may be just limiting his autonomy and explaining why he can't do something, since none of us really want to kick him out, we want him to act properly (which again is actually hard for him to do, although I feel like he hides behind his disability sometimes and he's not very good at it)
One or two of the players at my table has a bit of a bad habit of announcing what he wants to do, then "oh i actually meant I was gonna do this" when I adjudicate the result. He's better about it now, but I was juggling the idea of just giving him one or two takebacks per game, just with cards from a deck. It acknowledges that he's pretty absent minded, and allows for that, and caps it in a way that still gives him some agency.
As for the metagaming, it's more work but I'd consider changing around the module some. If your guy isn't going to quit metagaming, and you don't want to boot him, then I don't know of a good way out of it expect to change the game.
could this metagaming issue also be resolved by no longer having one PC do something other PCs would want to stop
player conflict requires some socially expert players
I have my players do opposed rolls vs each other on things like deception vs insight, perception vs sleigh of hand, and even athletics vs acrobatics all the time. Everyone roleplays and has fun with it, because they are all adults.
The trick is to just set the rules of the table up-front at "you can't roll dice to fuck with other players, you have to actually agree with each other on what happens. If you both decide that you want the outcome to hinge on a contested check or whatever, then that's fine, but there's no 'I roll slight of hand to try to pick the wizard's pocket and steal his doodad' if the wizard doesn't want that to go down."
That way grownups who want to roleplay a thing can resolve shit with dice just fine but fucksticks who are just looking to troll somebody can simply get told 'no' - and likely won't even try, since you already told them they can't. And as a bonus, if they're really dead-set on playing pvp and adamant that they should be able to do so with people who don't want to, then they'll just get mad and refuse to play at your table in the first place. It's a great way to filter out toxic players in session zero (and set boundaries with borderline players before the issue becomes personal).
I'd have to just end the campaign if I disallowed interparty conflict, as one of the party members is an evil cultist of Vecna. That particular wrinkle hasn't been a problem, even when it caused PVP once (it was expected), we all went into this eyes open. My point about the metagaming player is that player conflict isn't really the problem, it's that one player likes to metagame - even in games where the party is completely unified in their goals he does things like read the module ahead of time so he can gain an edge eg: "I stay out in the hallway, you guys can go in there, Im going to wait here and keep an action prepared to shoot at any flesh golems"
"who said anything about flesh golems?"
"Oh I mean just to be cautious hold an attack"
he is disabled and we try to give him a wide berth because of it, but we can all tell when he's doing it because he thinks hes pulling one over on everyone and gets this look on his face thats super obvious
it's a very tricky situation where I feel like the correct answer may be just limiting his autonomy and explaining why he can't do something, since none of us really want to kick him out, we want him to act properly (which again is actually hard for him to do, although I feel like he hides behind his disability sometimes and he's not very good at it)
I think you've got a idea how to handle it then. I would also suggest some in game consequences too. If he reads ahead about flesh golems, then go ahead and put a nasty surprise in there for him. Just to let him know you're onto his bullshit from time to time.
could this metagaming issue also be resolved by no longer having one PC do something other PCs would want to stop
player conflict requires some socially expert players
I have my players do opposed rolls vs each other on things like deception vs insight, perception vs sleigh of hand, and even athletics vs acrobatics all the time. Everyone roleplays and has fun with it, because they are all adults.
The trick is to just set the rules of the table up-front at "you can't roll dice to fuck with other players, you have to actually agree with each other on what happens. If you both decide that you want the outcome to hinge on a contested check or whatever, then that's fine, but there's no 'I roll slight of hand to try to pick the wizard's pocket and steal his doodad' if the wizard doesn't want that to go down."
That way grownups who want to roleplay a thing can resolve shit with dice just fine but fucksticks who are just looking to troll somebody can simply get told 'no' - and likely won't even try, since you already told them they can't. And as a bonus, if they're really dead-set on playing pvp and adamant that they should be able to do so with people who don't want to, then they'll just get mad and refuse to play at your table in the first place. It's a great way to filter out toxic players in session zero (and set boundaries with borderline players before the issue becomes personal).
I'd have to just end the campaign if I disallowed interparty conflict, as one of the party members is an evil cultist of Vecna. That particular wrinkle hasn't been a problem, even when it caused PVP once (it was expected), we all went into this eyes open. My point about the metagaming player is that player conflict isn't really the problem, it's that one player likes to metagame - even in games where the party is completely unified in their goals he does things like read the module ahead of time so he can gain an edge eg: "I stay out in the hallway, you guys can go in there, Im going to wait here and keep an action prepared to shoot at any flesh golems"
"who said anything about flesh golems?"
"Oh I mean just to be cautious hold an attack"
he is disabled and we try to give him a wide berth because of it, but we can all tell when he's doing it because he thinks hes pulling one over on everyone and gets this look on his face thats super obvious
it's a very tricky situation where I feel like the correct answer may be just limiting his autonomy and explaining why he can't do something, since none of us really want to kick him out, we want him to act properly (which again is actually hard for him to do, although I feel like he hides behind his disability sometimes and he's not very good at it)
I think you've got a idea how to handle it then. I would also suggest some in game consequences too. If he reads ahead about flesh golems, then go ahead and put a nasty surprise in there for him. Just to let him know you're onto his bullshit from time to time.
When he opened the magic chest I had it explode, he complained the wizard opened it without issue and I asked if he checked for traps, and how he knew the wizard didn't check for traps
That kind of thing will keep happening when he acts on knowledge his character doesn't have
100% start changing things from the book drastically. If he's rolling in trying to be prepped for undead even though the characters would have no reason to prepare for undead... make em all constructs. If he gets salty explain that the books are merely guidelines and the final adventure is of your construction.
Like if they are headed to strahd's castle... okay everyone knows what's up, that guy's a vampire, prep for undead. However if there's no reason for the characters to know they'd want fire resist for this next dungeon we're headed to (cause it would make the whole dungeon a cake walk) and you try to get the whole party to gear up with some fire resist for no in game reason... I'm gonna switch this to the craziest ice and lightening dungeon you've ever seen. The characters weren't supposed to know what was coming, and now they didn't.
guy sounds toxic disability or not—if someone was using their condition like that at my table it would trigger a Real Talk night at my table prefaced with a stern “cut that shit out, you’re being an asshole” lead in
emotional manipulation is bullshit no matter what angle you choose to film it from
I'm not too worries about it just left a bad taste from an otherwise stellar session
He's super loot oriented and is getting a legendary bow next week unless they don't go where they plan to so that should satisfy him for a bit
You realize that your rewarding bad behavior right?
+8
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
Haha there's no moral component toward allowing the guy to have fun. If it's not bothering the other people at the table enough to deal more harshly with the guy then don't deal harshly with the guy! No such thing as badwrongfun
Haha there's no moral component toward allowing the guy to have fun. If it's not bothering the other people at the table enough to deal more harshly with the guy then don't deal harshly with the guy! No such thing as badwrongfun
The issue is that a player is cheating at a really basic level and using an incredibly horseshit excuse (It's who my character is!) to justify his actions.
Like, I would break out a whole arsenal of GM tools(tm) for dealing with this kind of protracted horse shit including:
1. Changing the module so that his omnicience doesn't work.
2. consistently making his skill checks fail.
3. Forgetting his turns.
4. inventing traps for him to fall into that don't work on others because of specific parameters that only he meets.
5. Changing the RP day without telling him.
These are point blank "GM is an angry dick" moves but when it comes to someone violating the trust compact between fellow players and the GM I get really vindictive until the player either rectifies their behavior or they quit.
This all boils down to consent. It sounds like your players have already consented to having some degree of antagonistic interaction between player characters, but the difference here is that they had all agreed on playing it true to their characters, when it's clear that this player is trying to justify his actions ad hoc by claiming its how his character would behave.
But more importantly, the player is violating the unwritten contract that all the players consented to, that y'all were going to be playing a particular campaign. His deliberate and blatant attempts at trying to derail the campaign are not something anyone else involved in the game consented to, and I have a feeling none of them would consent to such an action, either.
Honestly, it's bad enough that I would talk to other players privately about it before the next session and do a full-on intervention for the player, where y'all come out and say his behavior at the table isn't someone anyone else here is enjoying and that if he doesn't want to participate in the collaborative game in good faith, then he should pack up his shit and leave, because last session provided a great way for his character to be removed from the game (you mentioned assassins, right?)
Haha there's no moral component toward allowing the guy to have fun. If it's not bothering the other people at the table enough to deal more harshly with the guy then don't deal harshly with the guy! No such thing as badwrongfun
The issue is that a player is cheating at a really basic level and using an incredibly horseshit excuse (It's who my character is!) to justify his actions.
Like, I would break out a whole arsenal of GM tools(tm) for dealing with this kind of protracted horse shit including:
1. Changing the module so that his omnicience doesn't work.
2. consistently making his skill checks fail.
3. Forgetting his turns.
4. inventing traps for him to fall into that don't work on others because of specific parameters that only he meets.
5. Changing the RP day without telling him.
These are point blank "GM is an angry dick" moves but when it comes to someone violating the trust compact between fellow players and the GM I get really vindictive until the player either rectifies their behavior or they quit.
none of these are good ideas because they fundamentally are all using in-game stuff to try and fix and out-of-game problem.
Spent all day making a Warlock who could hang on the front lines, only to find out the lore I had for the character wouldn't work with the party (I had a pact with the Fiend, party was full of do gooders)
Decided to save that character for later. Instead made a Ranger. Horizon Walker, Duelist, with long sword and a shield. My AC and damage output are very good, and I have spells! Looks fun to play. I chose human varient so I could take the Magic Initiate feat and get some cantips plus another spell. I'm sure there's a better fighting feat but that might be to mini maxy for this character.
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
Spent all day making a Warlock who could hang on the front lines, only to find out the lore I had for the character wouldn't work with the party (I had a pact with the Fiend, party was full of do gooders)
Decided to save that character for later. Instead made a Ranger. Horizon Walker, Duelist, with long sword and a shield. My AC and damage output are very good, and I have spells! Looks fun to play. I chose human varient so I could take the Magic Initiate feat and get some cantips plus another spell. I'm sure there's a better fighting feat but that might be to mini maxy for this character.
What spells have you chosen for Magic Initiate?
I'd also argue Magic Initiate can be a very good feat for martials.
Haha there's no moral component toward allowing the guy to have fun. If it's not bothering the other people at the table enough to deal more harshly with the guy then don't deal harshly with the guy! No such thing as badwrongfun
The issue is that a player is cheating at a really basic level and using an incredibly horseshit excuse (It's who my character is!) to justify his actions.
Like, I would break out a whole arsenal of GM tools(tm) for dealing with this kind of protracted horse shit including:
1. Changing the module so that his omnicience doesn't work.
2. consistently making his skill checks fail.
3. Forgetting his turns.
4. inventing traps for him to fall into that don't work on others because of specific parameters that only he meets.
5. Changing the RP day without telling him.
These are point blank "GM is an angry dick" moves but when it comes to someone violating the trust compact between fellow players and the GM I get really vindictive until the player either rectifies their behavior or they quit.
none of these are good ideas because they fundamentally are all using in-game stuff to try and fix and out-of-game problem.
And not just that: it brings a new level of passive-aggresive fighting to the table. It solves nothing, just adds more problems to an evening that already sounds like a shitshow.
Warlocks should always choose Eldritch Blast. I know that much, at least.
Sure, but is it a good choice for a ranger with the Magic Initiate feat? I mean, without the Invocations to juice it up, it does fair damage, but it's still just cantrip damage.
GFB is good for anyone who's swinging a sword or other melee weapon in a crowded room. Got to spread that burning love around a bit.
I think I would have gone with Shield instead of Armor of Agathys personally, but maybe that's choosing utility over flavor. Since you can only cast AoA at lvl 1 using the feat, it's only 5 temp HP. But shield is a straight +5 to AC for the round. The Armor is likely going to be obsolete before long, boosting your AC by +5 is going to be good for annoying the DM for forever.
What's the best casting stat for the Ranger? I think that is going to affect which class you choose to, er, choose from with the feat, which also will slightly alter which cantrips you can choose.
What's the best casting stat for the Ranger? I think that is going to affect which class you choose to, er, choose from with the feat, which also will slightly alter which cantrips you can choose.
Taking eldritch blast as a ranger is kind of a wierd choice; The class is built with a slant towards shooting a bow (as evidenced by archery and the various magic arrow spells) and it's casting stat is wisdom.
Like, if I was running a melee ranger I might want it, but if that was the case I probably wouldn't be going for a Charisma cantrip when I could get something like thorn whip, sacred flame or produce fire since those complement my Wisdom casting stat.
My RL game met again today, after a long hiatus! We all got promoted to level 4 since the last time, and we'd just finished repairing a small ship and took it out along the coast to turn a weeks-long hike into a days-long sea voyage.
It seemed that our GM was looking for ways to get us off the boat to slow our roll in the adventure a little (stopping to repair it had surprised him), so over the next few days we were attacked by giant octopi, a wild-necromatic animated Yuan-ti sketal abomination, a foursome of eel-people who tried to sabotage the ship, and eventually a fucking manticore flew out and destroyed the mast. This final one wasn't really a surprise; we'd been hearing roars from something huge from the coast every time we stopped for the night, but all it was really doing was making us more determined to stay in the water as long as possible to hopefully pass whatever the heck was making that noise.
Anyway, the manticore swoops in and perches on the mast, destroying the sail in the process, and we roll for initiative.
GM rolls a 1.
In the very first round, our team does over 60 damage to the thing. It gets in one multi-attack with its tail before we hammer it again, and with its next turn tries to flee, and our ranged users bring it down with their parting shots.
The experience has made me a little leery of my Cleric's damage output, since people are putting super arrow shots and Eldritch Blasts out into everything, and the best my guy can do without spending spell slots is 1d8 melee or Sacred Flame cantrips. I'd heard Clerics were supposed to be really tanky, but I'm not seeing it so far.
GNU Terry Pratchett
PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
Hit me up on BoardGameArena! User: Loaded D1
Taking eldritch blast as a ranger is kind of a wierd choice; The class is built with a slant towards shooting a bow (as evidenced by archery and the various magic arrow spells) and it's casting stat is wisdom.
Like, if I was running a melee ranger I might want it, but if that was the case I probably wouldn't be going for a Charisma cantrip when I could get something like thorn whip, sacred flame or produce fire since those complement my Wisdom casting stat.
Melee Focus, I have Cure Wounds, Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike.
Mostly so I can throw it while moving into melee range.
Id probably go druid and grab Shillelagh to cast on my bow, produce flame so i can always torch up if necessary, and faerie fire... cause it's one of the dopest party buffs
Taking eldritch blast as a ranger is kind of a wierd choice; The class is built with a slant towards shooting a bow (as evidenced by archery and the various magic arrow spells) and it's casting stat is wisdom.
Like, if I was running a melee ranger I might want it, but if that was the case I probably wouldn't be going for a Charisma cantrip when I could get something like thorn whip, sacred flame or produce fire since those complement my Wisdom casting stat.
Melee Focus, I have Cure Wounds, Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike.
Mostly so I can throw it while moving into melee range.
Thorn whip is way better for that since it drags targets to you. True, you don't have the same range but you will hit way more consistantly and it's not like rangers are plodding when it comes to movement speed.
Taking eldritch blast as a ranger is kind of a wierd choice; The class is built with a slant towards shooting a bow (as evidenced by archery and the various magic arrow spells) and it's casting stat is wisdom.
Like, if I was running a melee ranger I might want it, but if that was the case I probably wouldn't be going for a Charisma cantrip when I could get something like thorn whip, sacred flame or produce fire since those complement my Wisdom casting stat.
Melee Focus, I have Cure Wounds, Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike.
Mostly so I can throw it while moving into melee range.
Thorn whip is way better for that since it drags targets to you. True, you don't have the same range but you will hit way more consistantly and it's not like rangers are plodding when it comes to movement speed.
Especially the horizon walker. That subclass eventually goes full night crawler.
Closing the gap isn't a problem for the horizon walker.
But Zephyr Strike allows me to strike on the same turn? So I can get bonus movement, get an additional d8, and add my usual bonus d8 as bonus action. Either way I'm also not looking to go full min max here, I already rolled really well on stats, and my DM said I could use the fighting style Dueling (+2 to hit) with my longsword and shield.
100% start changing things from the book drastically. If he's rolling in trying to be prepped for undead even though the characters would have no reason to prepare for undead... make em all constructs. If he gets salty explain that the books are merely guidelines and the final adventure is of your construction.
Like if they are headed to strahd's castle... okay everyone knows what's up, that guy's a vampire, prep for undead. However if there's no reason for the characters to know they'd want fire resist for this next dungeon we're headed to (cause it would make the whole dungeon a cake walk) and you try to get the whole party to gear up with some fire resist for no in game reason... I'm gonna switch this to the craziest ice and lightening dungeon you've ever seen. The characters weren't supposed to know what was coming, and now they didn't.
my current Pathfinder campaign is using a premade campaign module, but one of my players has been GMing it for another group so he knows about most of the stuff
so I've been making some drastic changes just to keep him on his toes! he's been doing his very best not to metagame things, but it's hilarious to have some significant change happen and he's completely thrown off his expectations for something
It's based on the class you take it from. Wisdom for clerics, druids, paladins and rangers. Intelligence for wizards. Charisma for bards, sorcerers and warlocks. So in your example, taking from the warlock list means that the save/attack stat for any of those spells would be your charisma. Chances are that it's not a high stat for you, so you'd probably want to pick things that just happen, no roll like Booming Blade. Though taking either Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade wouldn't be recommended by me, not for a ranger. You already get Extra Attack and you can't use that with the attack cantrips.
Posts
At this point, start objectively trolling him; let him get his books and undead slaying arrows and find out way too late that they're utterly bunk; the books were written by Olov who is a drunk idiot manchild that doesn't know jack shit about liches and the Arrows are just enchanted with a spell that makes them twice as hard to break.
When he gets mad because you're road blocking him tell him this wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't blatently cheating.
If he still doesn't get it tell him to GTFO.
Also "I'm just playing my character" is a valid excuse only when the issue is one that is deeply embedded in the identity of the character and provides depth and nuance as opposed to "Fuck you I do what I want"
I've had one character who was like that. Just one.
His name was Gaddez Darkmoor and he was one of the three characters I developed for the gaming guardians PBP forums (It was a great scene like... christ, gotta be 12 years ago) that hailed from rifts earth and due to issues that he had rooted to his backstory, he didn't accept leadership from others quickly or easily. Which made him (and by extension me) come across as an asshole because when someone of higher rank gave him guff there were good odds that he would give it right back because simply put: he didn't put up with shit from anyone.
And there were good reasons for this based on who he was and what his lfe expieriences were (he was an orcish mercenary leader/demolitions expert who due to 4th generation genesplicer mutations designed to create greater levels of psionics in successive generations that inadvertently manifested as super intelligence... and a complete inability to expierience fear) had come to respect ability more so then titles and popularity.
So to a lot of people my character was a colossal douche, but I countered by pointing out that while my character could be an asshole he wasn't impossible to lead and in an environment crawling with archmages, demigods, ninjas, werebeasts, golems, dragons and super heroes... I was the only character with a real weakness since mine was the only one that was ever a real and persistant issue.
But yeah it sounds like override367 is just dealing with an entitled prick.
Yeah i set a no pvp unless everyone agrees to it at the table rule when anyone is joining the game.
not to say that there aren't antagonistic relationships between characters or that the characters won't roll against each other.
If the fighter is looking for the rogue and the rogue is hiding in the trees the fighter needs to make his perception test unless the rogue stops hiding.
Last session my players brought the dice out amongst themselves to see if one of them (the fighter everyone knew was charmed) could convince the other to take the cambion's deal. The other guy literally didn't know what he wanted to do, so they threw down some opposed charisma checks and the sorc went with the results and listened to the obviously charmed fighter cause in the cambion's words "just cause he's charmed doesn't mean he can't make coherent arguments, it just means he wasn't going to shoot me in the face the moment I revealed myself."
I'd have to just end the campaign if I disallowed interparty conflict, as one of the party members is an evil cultist of Vecna. That particular wrinkle hasn't been a problem, even when it caused PVP once (it was expected), we all went into this eyes open. My point about the metagaming player is that player conflict isn't really the problem, it's that one player likes to metagame - even in games where the party is completely unified in their goals he does things like read the module ahead of time so he can gain an edge eg: "I stay out in the hallway, you guys can go in there, Im going to wait here and keep an action prepared to shoot at any flesh golems"
"who said anything about flesh golems?"
"Oh I mean just to be cautious hold an attack"
he is disabled and we try to give him a wide berth because of it, but we can all tell when he's doing it because he thinks hes pulling one over on everyone and gets this look on his face thats super obvious
it's a very tricky situation where I feel like the correct answer may be just limiting his autonomy and explaining why he can't do something, since none of us really want to kick him out, we want him to act properly (which again is actually hard for him to do, although I feel like he hides behind his disability sometimes and he's not very good at it)
One or two of the players at my table has a bit of a bad habit of announcing what he wants to do, then "oh i actually meant I was gonna do this" when I adjudicate the result. He's better about it now, but I was juggling the idea of just giving him one or two takebacks per game, just with cards from a deck. It acknowledges that he's pretty absent minded, and allows for that, and caps it in a way that still gives him some agency.
As for the metagaming, it's more work but I'd consider changing around the module some. If your guy isn't going to quit metagaming, and you don't want to boot him, then I don't know of a good way out of it expect to change the game.
I think you've got a idea how to handle it then. I would also suggest some in game consequences too. If he reads ahead about flesh golems, then go ahead and put a nasty surprise in there for him. Just to let him know you're onto his bullshit from time to time.
When he opened the magic chest I had it explode, he complained the wizard opened it without issue and I asked if he checked for traps, and how he knew the wizard didn't check for traps
That kind of thing will keep happening when he acts on knowledge his character doesn't have
Like if they are headed to strahd's castle... okay everyone knows what's up, that guy's a vampire, prep for undead. However if there's no reason for the characters to know they'd want fire resist for this next dungeon we're headed to (cause it would make the whole dungeon a cake walk) and you try to get the whole party to gear up with some fire resist for no in game reason... I'm gonna switch this to the craziest ice and lightening dungeon you've ever seen. The characters weren't supposed to know what was coming, and now they didn't.
He's super loot oriented and is getting a legendary bow next week unless they don't go where they plan to so that should satisfy him for a bit
Spoiler: it won't
emotional manipulation is bullshit no matter what angle you choose to film it from
You realize that your rewarding bad behavior right?
The issue is that a player is cheating at a really basic level and using an incredibly horseshit excuse (It's who my character is!) to justify his actions.
Like, I would break out a whole arsenal of GM tools(tm) for dealing with this kind of protracted horse shit including:
1. Changing the module so that his omnicience doesn't work.
2. consistently making his skill checks fail.
3. Forgetting his turns.
4. inventing traps for him to fall into that don't work on others because of specific parameters that only he meets.
5. Changing the RP day without telling him.
These are point blank "GM is an angry dick" moves but when it comes to someone violating the trust compact between fellow players and the GM I get really vindictive until the player either rectifies their behavior or they quit.
But more importantly, the player is violating the unwritten contract that all the players consented to, that y'all were going to be playing a particular campaign. His deliberate and blatant attempts at trying to derail the campaign are not something anyone else involved in the game consented to, and I have a feeling none of them would consent to such an action, either.
Honestly, it's bad enough that I would talk to other players privately about it before the next session and do a full-on intervention for the player, where y'all come out and say his behavior at the table isn't someone anyone else here is enjoying and that if he doesn't want to participate in the collaborative game in good faith, then he should pack up his shit and leave, because last session provided a great way for his character to be removed from the game (you mentioned assassins, right?)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Oh, there absolutely is such a thing as badwrongfun.
People engage in it all the damn time.
none of these are good ideas because they fundamentally are all using in-game stuff to try and fix and out-of-game problem.
It's not tied to the behavior, it's a quest the party's had for weeks to go retrieve a legendary bow, they just decided to do it next session
Decided to save that character for later. Instead made a Ranger. Horizon Walker, Duelist, with long sword and a shield. My AC and damage output are very good, and I have spells! Looks fun to play. I chose human varient so I could take the Magic Initiate feat and get some cantips plus another spell. I'm sure there's a better fighting feat but that might be to mini maxy for this character.
What spells have you chosen for Magic Initiate?
I'd also argue Magic Initiate can be a very good feat for martials.
Eldritch Blast
Green-Flame Blade
Armor of Agathys
And not just that: it brings a new level of passive-aggresive fighting to the table. It solves nothing, just adds more problems to an evening that already sounds like a shitshow.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Where thesd good choices?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Sure, but is it a good choice for a ranger with the Magic Initiate feat? I mean, without the Invocations to juice it up, it does fair damage, but it's still just cantrip damage.
GFB is good for anyone who's swinging a sword or other melee weapon in a crowded room. Got to spread that burning love around a bit.
I think I would have gone with Shield instead of Armor of Agathys personally, but maybe that's choosing utility over flavor. Since you can only cast AoA at lvl 1 using the feat, it's only 5 temp HP. But shield is a straight +5 to AC for the round. The Armor is likely going to be obsolete before long, boosting your AC by +5 is going to be good for annoying the DM for forever.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Ranger casting stat is Wisdom.
Like, if I was running a melee ranger I might want it, but if that was the case I probably wouldn't be going for a Charisma cantrip when I could get something like thorn whip, sacred flame or produce fire since those complement my Wisdom casting stat.
It seemed that our GM was looking for ways to get us off the boat to slow our roll in the adventure a little (stopping to repair it had surprised him), so over the next few days we were attacked by giant octopi, a wild-necromatic animated Yuan-ti sketal abomination, a foursome of eel-people who tried to sabotage the ship, and eventually a fucking manticore flew out and destroyed the mast. This final one wasn't really a surprise; we'd been hearing roars from something huge from the coast every time we stopped for the night, but all it was really doing was making us more determined to stay in the water as long as possible to hopefully pass whatever the heck was making that noise.
Anyway, the manticore swoops in and perches on the mast, destroying the sail in the process, and we roll for initiative.
GM rolls a 1.
In the very first round, our team does over 60 damage to the thing. It gets in one multi-attack with its tail before we hammer it again, and with its next turn tries to flee, and our ranged users bring it down with their parting shots.
The experience has made me a little leery of my Cleric's damage output, since people are putting super arrow shots and Eldritch Blasts out into everything, and the best my guy can do without spending spell slots is 1d8 melee or Sacred Flame cantrips. I'd heard Clerics were supposed to be really tanky, but I'm not seeing it so far.
PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
Hit me up on BoardGameArena! User: Loaded D1
Melee Focus, I have Cure Wounds, Ensnaring Strike and Zephyr Strike.
Mostly so I can throw it while moving into melee range.
Thorn whip is way better for that since it drags targets to you. True, you don't have the same range but you will hit way more consistantly and it's not like rangers are plodding when it comes to movement speed.
Especially the horizon walker. That subclass eventually goes full night crawler.
Closing the gap isn't a problem for the horizon walker.
my current Pathfinder campaign is using a premade campaign module, but one of my players has been GMing it for another group so he knows about most of the stuff
so I've been making some drastic changes just to keep him on his toes! he's been doing his very best not to metagame things, but it's hilarious to have some significant change happen and he's completely thrown off his expectations for something