RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is an off-shoot from another thread that mentioned combining Pistollero and Mysterious Stranger archetypes for a Gunslinger PC.
Take your pick: combining archetypes in a way we understand to be illegal, or resulting from what we understand to be an illicit use of the rebuild rules, or exploting a combinations of rules we've seen ruled illegal in an FAQ post.
So, this isn't the same as a legal character without resources, or a player who sits down without Chronicle sheets or Inventory Tracking sheets. And it's not the same as a character who is using rules that are easily proven to be disallowed under Additional Resources. (I had a player sit down at my table last fall with a "Words of Power" wizard build. 4th level. None of his first 10 GMs had questioned him.)
The issue is: you're pretty sure that the PC is illegal, but without hauling out the FAQ print-outs right then and there, it's your word against the player's.
Do you let the player sit and play the illegal character?
Do you require the player to rebuild the character, using the Ultimate Campaign rules and Prestige costs, before the session begins?
Do you require the player rebuild the character, for free, before the session begins?
Do you just refuse to let the player run his character?
In that last case, are we building an environment where characters are legal at some tables but not others? ("I played Snakes in the Fold, part 1 under that GM, and she didn't have any problem. Are you saying I can't complete the arc because I don't have a PC?")
|
Was there somewhere that finally ruled about the Pistollero / Mysterious Stranger being illegal? I know John Compton, or Mike Brock said it would get changed, but it doesn't look like it did for Gen Con.
I'm curious to know if that's changed, because if it hasn't it's quite crappily still allowed in raw.
Also what is an illicit use of the rebuild rules?
Other than that, I whole heartidly approve of this subject. ^_^
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also what is an illicit use of the rebuild rules?
There's a thread about that, too. The issue there is using the rebuild rules to end up with a character that could not be made without them. (At 7th level, I'm going to swap out the class level I had gained at 3rd level for a prestige class that I currently qualify for, but didn't qualify for at 3rd level.) SKR has written "that's not what the design team intended', which some people equate to "that's illegal".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but until SKR FAQ's it, it doesn't matter, it's rules as written. It's up to the design team to officially and clearly write out that this is illegal, when his FAQ developer cap isn't on, he is still SKR, but an average joe.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is: you're pretty sure that the PC is illegal, but without hauling out the FAQ print-outs right then and there, it's your word against the player's.
Step 1: Determine how sure I really am. Can I access the rule/FAQ/etc in a reasonable amount of time? (Reasonable being variable based on the significance of the illegality.) Can I recall the relevant text verbatim, or do I just think I know how it works in general? Is the player's argument for legality something I've encountered before and subsequently done the research to determine with finality that it's illegal, or is it something I've not yet had a chance to investigate fully?
Step 2: If I'm sufficiently certain that the PC is illegal, then I'm not going to have it at my table. If the illegality is minor enough, I might let them play as though the illegal part is simply absent. But if it's big, the PC will not be participating in this scenario.
Step 3: Direct them to the appropriate VO(s) to determine the best way to correct the issue for the long term.
At least, that's my current thoughts on how to handle it. If instructed otherwise by Mike/Mark/John/my local VOs, I'll adjust accordingly.
|
|
uh well if this particular gunslinger character was a level 1, I would politely inform them that given the impending nature of a brock and/or skr smackdown they might want to rethink the build before they hit level 2
if it were a higher level character I would give them the same polite warning that the build may be going bye-bye very soon and that if it does, it will not be allowed at the table in future games
but other than those two options, the character is currently legal by RAW, correct? So how could you turn that player away or force them to play a pregen?
Other than that, if I see a character and I am prettttttttyy surrrrre that the build is illegal, but I do not know for sure, I'll take a small bit of time to try and confirm it. If I cannot confirm it, then I am most certainly not as a GM going to take any action against that player for that session
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sin, I'm really not trying to re-start any of those arguments. Take that to the appropriate thread, please.
Suffice it to say that GM has seen something that he understands to be persuasive on the boards. Maybe he's seen a post by Mike or John. Maybe he's read an FAQ post. He doesn't consider it a gray area. But he doesn't have the references at hand, at the table. And as the GM understands the rules, they completely invalidate the character.
Another example: player comes to the table with a cleric of Apsu. (Book says "no". James Jacobs says "yes".) Or a paladin of Asmodeus. (Book says "yes, but rare". James Jacobs says "no".) Or a non-dwarf paladin of Torag. (You get the idea ...)
Whatever the issue is, what do you guys do?
And LazarX, the player honestly believes the character to be legal, and has the appropriate Additional Resources.
|
1) There are very few "corner" builds that are illegal by Mike's words alone. I think the Wildblooded/Crossblooded combination is the only combination that some folks were questioning the legality on, that Mike clarified that this combo is illegal (by the way the game works, not by the way PFS modified the game). His further comment about the Mysterious Stranger / Pistolero combination is a misprint and errata/FAQ should fix this, and warned folks that if they choose to have a character created of this combination (because its RAW) then don't whine to him when they don't get a rebuild and the character is simply illegal to play.
So I would say 99.9% of the time, illegality should be easy to determine based on Additional Resources and the rules on how the game works. If a player says there is some FAQ clarify their build is legal, and they don't have it, then its the same as not having the source for their character.
2) If you don't have time before a session starts to help them make changes, then they get to play a pregen or not play. If you do have time to help them, then I would go based on circumstances on how to deal with it. Illegal things needed to be corrected, and there really has been no campaign clarification on how this correction should happen (prior to the rebuild rules from Ultimate Campaign) other than just make the character legal and only change the things that are not legal. But if this is the 3rd time you've had to do this for the same player (either with the same character or different characters) then I would indicate the character is illegal and they can't change it. The character is basically retired. I'd send a note to the V-L/V-C/Mike Brock about marking the character as Dead and give them the gory details.
3) With the prevalence of GM's not doing audits, its is likely GM's have no idea how characters are built or get their powers. Perhaps we need to create an environment where enforcing audits does not have a stigma of thinking someone is cheating. I thought it might be a good idea to enforce an audit ever 10 XP. If you have your ITS marked with an Audit per a certain Chronicle, then the player needs to set up an appointment with their GM/VO/whatever to do another audit by the time they get another 10 XP. That means roughly 3 audits per character before level 12.
|
|
Another example: player comes to the table with a cleric of Apsu. (Book says "no". James Jacobs says "yes".)
I always thought this was legal. Where does the book say no?
Or a paladin of Asmodeus. (Book says "yes, but rare". James Jacobs says "no".)
Guide to Organized Play says no. So this isn't an issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what
this is getting confusing
I go by the additional resources and the FAQ
If a player is doing something that does not show up on either of those resources as "not allowed", then I am not going to take any action against them, in terms of disallowing the character, forcing them to make changes, or making them play a pregen
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with any of these arguments are, as much as you do not like it, until it is FAQ'd out. You do not have the power or authority to make those calls. That's the long and short of it.
It doesn't matter what your own personal opinion is on it, until it has been called to task, it isnt for any game master to say. "No you can't haz chezburger."
Until the rules are clarified to agree with your standing, than you're playing the "Don't be a jerk" card, by being a jerk.
I'm still a relatively new to judging for PFS person. But I keep pretty damn hard to the rules on what's allowed and what isnt, and when the option for GM discretion is included on spells it becomes my call, but other than that, I let people run as long as it's RAW, and so should five star GM's, and so should any venture officer.
|
|
The problem with any of these arguments are, as much as you do not like it, until it is FAQ'd out. You do not have the power or authority to make those calls. That's the long and short of it.
It doesn't matter what your own personal opinion is on it, until it has been called to task, it isnt for any game master to say. "No you can't haz chezburger."
Until the rules are clarified to agree with your standing, than you're playing the "Don't be a jerk" card, by being a jerk.I'm still a relatively new to judging for PFS person. But I keep pretty damn hard to the rules on what's allowed and what isnt, and when the option for GM discretion is included on spells it becomes my call, but other than that, I let people run as long as it's RAW, and so should five star GM's, and so should any venture officer.
This is not true.
There are ambiguous situations where players ride the gray line between legal and not legal with their builds.
Chris listed off a few. I could list off a few more (Agile Maneuvers and Fury's Fall doubling up Dex bonus to CMB).
If I interpret something to be illegal, when there is an ambiguous situation, I can disallow that ambiguity at my table should I wish to. I will not allow Fury's Fall and Agile Maneuvers to double up Dex Bonus to CMB for tripping. I won't make them rebuild that feat, because there is a certain level of ambiguity.
But if someone does bring a character that I deem a completely illegal build, I can't in good conscience allow it. It doesn't have to be FAQ'd or Errata'd or whatever. If my interpretation of the ambiguity is illegallity, then the player has a choice. Rebuild it, or don't play at my table.
|
|
There are ambiguous situations where players ride the gray line between legal and not legal with their builds.
Chris listed off a few. I could list off a few more (Agile Maneuvers and Fury's Fall doubling up Dex bonus to CMB).
Tangent:
AM says replace your STR with DEX. Fury's Fall says add your DEX. It's clear, to me at least, that Fury's Fall adds your DEX to your CMB no matter what base stat you're using for CMB.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My short answers:
- If it's an easy and quick fix, spend the time to fix it.
- If it's a complicated fix that's likely to take away from the experience of everyone else at the table, offer the option of a pregen to the player. They then have the choice to play this slot or go fix their character.
Agree with Baird and Brittain. Also it's important that as much time as we spend on these forums, the player in question might not. Honest mistakes happen.
At my table last night I had a Witch cast a spell I'd never heard of before -- gloomblind bolts. It's a 3rd level spell that fires multiple bolts (like Scorching ray) that deal negative energy. They also have a chance to blind the target for a round. Not overpowered, but pretty cool. Given that we'd never heard of it before, myself and another player were skeptical, so I had that player research it as we continued to play.
As the round progressed, the other player discovered the source of the spell was the ARG, and that it was a Fetchling spell. Rather than have the witch retake her turn, I informed her that she was able to cast this bizarre spell a single time, and now must learn a new one in it's place.
No harm, no foul.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sin-- I don't carry a print-out of all the FAQ with me to a convention. Pick your favorite character concept that was made illegal in a FAQ. A player comes to your table -- perhaps in good faith, never having seen the FAQ in question -- with a character you know, but can't prove, to be illegal.
And by "know", I mean -- "haven't seen any more recent FAQ entry that would reverse that decision".
Kyle -- Fix it with gold and prestige expense, or fix it free?
Once fixed, can the player revert the character to the version he had before and play at the next table (fix it, just for me) or is the change permanent (fix it, for every GM)?
--
My concern here is a player from having two versions of the same character, one to play at tables where the GM allows some combination or tom-foolery, and another at those tables where the GM does not. I think that's a bad situation.
Another example: before Mike ruled that draconic / efreet cross-blooded sorcerers could qualify for Dragon Disciple, the legality of that build was an open question. I wasn't allowing them at my table. If you were to have walked up with a Sorcerer (draconic/efreet) / Dragon Disciple at my table, should I have required you to fix that character?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chris - fix for free. If they made a mistake, so what? I would, of course, like to oversee the mistake and I would not allow a major rebuild. If it was something so serious that they would have to tear the character down to the studs, I would involve a VC and make them handle it. ;-)
*quite honestly, I don't care if they do a full rebuild for free. At the end of the day, what does it matter?
|
|
There are ambiguous situations where players ride the gray line between legal and not legal with their builds.
Chris listed off a few. I could list off a few more (Agile Maneuvers and Fury's Fall doubling up Dex bonus to CMB).
Tangent:
AM says replace your STR with DEX. Fury's Fall says add your DEX. It's clear, to me at least, that Fury's Fall adds your DEX to your CMB no matter what base stat you're using for CMB.
I interpret the rules to say that you can't stack the same bonus on the same ability. Ability modifiers are considered bonuses, and their type is the ability that creates the modifier.
While these ability modifier bonuses are not specifically listed in the list of bonus types (e.g. dodge, circumstance, luck, et. al.) it is still a typed bonus. For reference, the core rules don't list "trait" as a bonus type either, however because the APG introduced trait bonuses, we still don't allow two trait bonuses to stack.
|
|
wait what
Walter Sheppard your example is clearly covered under the Additional Resources listing, it is not a grey area
but anyways, Eric Brittain, Kyle Baird and Jiggy have been the wind beneath my wings already, as usual
He didn't say it was a gray area.
He just didn't want to break game flow to retcon an entire round of combat to wait for the witch to find a different spell to know.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
It's two feats. That's pretty expense to get a decent bonus to one maneuver. If they're taking those feats, they're not taking the Improved Trip chain. And if they're taking all those feats, so what? They'll end up having so high a CMB for trip that some of those feats are likely wasted ("I got a 63 on my CMB!" "Congrats, you needed a 31...")
|
|
Another example: player comes to the table with a cleric of Apsu. (Book says "no". James Jacobs says "yes".)
And other books say yes. I think someone can point to enough books to make it a legal resource, including the inner sea world guide and champions of purity
Apsu: Non-dragon adherents of Apsu are usually
humans obsessed with dragonkind. They live to serve
or emulate metallic dragons, protecting the lands and
people under their care.
Dragon Subdomain
Associated Domain: Scalykind
Associated Deities: Apsu
Seems more than a little weird to have that info in there if you're not supposed to be able to follow him.
edit: Normally I wouldn't use James Jacobs as a trump card in a rule argument, but if the character is being disallowed on the grounds that it doesn't fit campaign continuity and the person that's in charge of campaign continuity says they are allowed...
|
|
** spoiler omitted **It's two feats. That's pretty expense to get a decent bonus to one maneuver. If they're taking those feats, they're not taking the Improved Trip chain. And if they're taking all those feats, so what? They'll end up having so high a CMB for trip that some of those feats are likely wasted ("I got a 63 on my CMB!" "Congrats, you needed a 31...")
Still, breaks the rule of doubling up on the same bonus. That, by rule, is not ok.
|
|
Another example: player comes to the table with a cleric of Apsu. (Book says "no". James Jacobs says "yes".)And other books say yes. I think someone can point to enough books to make it a legal resource, including the inner sea world guide and champions of purity
Apsu: Non-dragon adherents of Apsu are usually
humans obsessed with dragonkind. They live to serve
or emulate metallic dragons, protecting the lands and
people under their care.Dragon Subdomain
Associated Domain: Scalykind
Associated Deities: ApsuSeems more than a little weird to have that info in there if you're not supposed to be able to follow him.
Apparently Faith's of Purity says that Apsu doesn't grant spells to non-dragons.
But I don't think we can enforce a splat book on something like that, when you aren't required to own a splat book to worship Apsu.
|
|
On Fury's Fall Subtangent...
when you get to higher levels as a Dex-based (any stat-based) tripmonkey, every point matters. I'm +29 to trip, and have met in my high levels MANY creatures who can conceivably put me onto the ground if I nat 1. I've had to face CMD 42s. With my 26 Dex, Fury's Fall would put me to a nice even +37, which I would spend a feat on in a heartbeat.
Having said that, I believe the FAQ is pretty clear you can't apply the same stat twice.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm really having a hard time getting people to avoid solving individual issues.
The scenario I'd like to focus on:
- Player build a character, believing it's legal. Other GMs either concur explicitly or just haven't noticed any problem.
- Player brings character to your table. You remember reading a ruling or FAQ that it's not legal, or else you just understand from the plain reading of the rules that the PC doesn't work the way the player thinks it does.
- Neither of you thinks it's a gray area.
- Neither of you is Mark Moreland, Mike Brock, nor John Compton. Either you or the player might actually be wrong.
--
I think it's certainly a reasonable position for the GM to require the player to put away the problematic PC and play another character or a pre-gen. That option doesn't require either party to prove it's right.
But let's say that the player has a strong reason to play that character in that scenario. (Continuing a PC into "Rats of Round Mountain, Part 2", say, or "Devil We Know, part 3," or it's just a really good fit for the PC...)
If the GM requires the player to "fix" the character ("get rid of that prestige class; I don't think a race's spell-like abilities qualify as prerequisites") ("change out those rage powers; I don't think your barbarian can take rage powers from more than one totem"); then is that rebuild permanent? Can the player go back to using the original character at the next table?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're at a convention, you might be able to call over a VO (or even Mike Brock Himself) to provide input.
But, if you're in a game store, and you're "the guy", it's a conundrum. What I might do is make a judgement as to how big a difference it really makes. I might let the character go if it's not that big a deal, but put him on warning that the combination may well be illegal, and he needs to look into it. Then, if that same character shows up at my table again and hasn't been rebuilt (or hasn't proven to me that in fact it is legal), forbid it.
On the other hand, if this really does make the character a lot more effective than he otherwise would be, and I really am sure that it's not legal, I'd say go ahead and run the pregen. If we figure out after the game that I made the wrong call, I'd apologize and hope that I don't get chucked out of PFS for it.
|
|
I'm really having a hard time getting people to avoid solving individual issues.
The scenario I'd like to focus on:
- Player build a character, believing it's legal. Other GMs either concur explicitly or just haven't noticed any problem.
- Player brings character to your table. You remember reading a ruling or FAQ that it's not legal, or else you just understand from the plain reading of the rules that the PC doesn't work the way the player thinks it does.
- Neither of you thinks it's a gray area.
- Neither of you is Mark Moreland, Mike Brock, nor John Compton. Either you or the player might actually be wrong.
--
I think it's certainly a reasonable position for the GM to require the player to put away the problematic PC and play another character or a pre-gen. That option doesn't require either party to prove it's right.
But let's say that the player has a strong reason to play that character in that scenario. (Continuing a PC into "Rats of Round Mountain, Part 2", say, or "Devil We Know, part 3," or it's just a really good fit for the PC...)
If the GM requires the player to "fix" the character ("get rid of that prestige class; I don't think a race's spell-like abilities qualify as prerequisites") ("change out those rage powers; I don't think your barbarian can take rage powers from more than one totem"); then is that rebuild permanent? Can the player go back to using the original character at the next table?
1) If you aren't 100% sure, and you feel that you might be wrong or might have read the stuff wrongly. Then its a non-issue. Just indicate to the player that they should probably research the issue a bit, and that they might receive some push back from other GMs. Then go and research it yourself after the session. But I get the feeling this isn't what you are asking.
2) If you feel 100% sure that you are right on the legality of something, then you have to handle it the best way you see fit. If you don't have the wherewithal or the time to find the FAQ or message board post that proves you are correct, then offer the player a pregen. Then go do your research and email the player or show him the next time you see him. But don't enforce a rebuild if you can't prove it.
3) If #2 happens, and the player really has a strong reason to play that character in that session, then I'd tend to do the following:
a) Allow them to play the character as is, after making it quite clear that I thought I was correct. That they should do their research.
b) make a note on their chronicle sheet detailing my concerns about their build.
c) follow up by doing my research and emailing the player or show them the next time I see them.
Ultimately, if they choose to go your route, and do a rebuild, then the rebuild should be permanent. I'd note the changes made, and why, on the ITS and Chronicle sheet.
If the player goes back to their old build after doing a rebuild, that's cheating (unless they got special dispensation to do so upon learning that the GM who "forced" the rebuild was actually incorrect.) Special dispensation could come from a V-O or Mike Brock.
|
|
I'm really having a hard time getting people to avoid solving individual issues.
hehe. sorry. Forget the trees, this is a group that tends to focus on the bark.
The scenario I'd like to focus on:
- Player build a character, believing it's legal. Other GMs either concur explicitly or just haven't noticed any problem.
- Player brings character to your table. You remember reading a ruling or FAQ that it's not legal, or else you just understand from the plain reading of the rules that the PC doesn't work the way the player thinks it does.
- Neither of you thinks it's a gray area.
- Neither of you is Mark Moreland, Mike Brock, nor John Compton. Either you or the player might actually be wrong.
A few things to consider:
How sure am I that I'm right? You're talking about overriding a players right to play THEIR (possibly legal) character. If I'm not sure I'm not going to insist on anything. I might say "hey, I'm not entirely sure about X, take it to the forums and see if it works".
How broken/powerful is it: An aesthetic choice with no game effects really doesn't NEED my intervention the same way something that will let a character roflcopter a scneario with one hand tied behind their back will.
How easy is it to fix? If the character thinks they have a +12 bonus and you think they have a +10 well then they just have a +10 till you can sort things out. If on the other hand there's some rube goldberg esque contraption that requires every single part or it doesn't work then you might try to get them into a pregen or another character.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Chris, use this as an example.
I have a level 6 Ki Mystic Monk. I say that I have two ki pools. One granted at level 3 by the ability Ki Mystic and another granted at level 4 by the ability Ki Pool. Effectively, I have quite a lot of Ki. I use it to effectively get hasted every round and am quite overpowered compared to other players.
You recall reading that there was some discussion about whether or not the Ki Mystic pool was in addition to the other pool or replaced, and that no real consensus was reached. You think that they shouldn't stack, as that seems quite overpowered, and believe that one replaces the other. I disagree, as having two pools was the basis for my build. Also, I point out you can't point me to a official post that backs your claim up.
What do you do?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chris, use this as an example.
I have a level 6 Ki Mystic Monk. I say that I have two ki pools. One granted at level 3 by the ability Ki Mystic and another granted at level 4 by the ability Ki Pool. Effectively, I have quite a lot of Ki. I use it to effectively get hasted every round and am quite overpowered compared to other players.
You recall reading that there was some discussion about whether or not the Ki Mystic pool was in addition to the other pool or replaced, and that no real consensus was reached. You think that they shouldn't stack, as that seems quite overpowered, and believe that one replaces the other. I disagree, as having two pools was the basis for my build. Also, I point out you can't point me to a official post that backs your claim up.
What do you do?
"This is how it works at my table, since there is not a definitive ruling from Paizo. You might also want to reconsider this build as other GMs may take the same stance. Expect table variation, but don't be surprised if a future ruling invalidates your build as it seems to me that it violates the intent of the rules."
EDIT: Changed "seem overly powerful to me" to "seems to me that it violates the intent of the rules."
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Chris, use this as an example.
I have a level 6 Ki Mystic Monk. I say that I have two ki pools. One granted at level 3 by the ability Ki Mystic and another granted at level 4 by the ability Ki Pool. Effectively, I have quite a lot of Ki. I use it to effectively get hasted every round and am quite overpowered compared to other players.
You recall reading that there was some discussion about whether or not the Ki Mystic pool was in addition to the other pool or replaced, and that no real consensus was reached. You think that they shouldn't stack, as that seems quite overpowered, and believe that one replaces the other. I disagree, as having two pools was the basis for my build. Also, I point out you can't point me to a official post that backs your claim up.
What do you do?
Keeping in mind that the whole point of the game is to have fun, I would try to accommodate that as much as possible. In the case of your specific example, I would probably say, "Well, I'm the GM and my ruling at this time is that they don't stack. If you want, you can play your existing character without the extra ki. Or, you can use this pregen. Either way, you are welcome to take it up with a VO if you don't agree." I would also make a note on the player's chronicle sheet, so that any future GMs who notice this would be able to tell that another GM had brought up the issue as well.
In the general sense, I would try to allow the character to be played (possibly omitting the illegal parts of the build) and just get on with the session. I would try to avoid sending the player home if at all possible -- after all, the whole reason we all do this is to play the game!
|
I'm really having a hard time getting people to avoid solving individual issues.
The scenario I'd like to focus on:
- Player build a character, believing it's legal. Other GMs either concur explicitly or just haven't noticed any problem.
- Player brings character to your table. You remember reading a ruling or FAQ that it's not legal, or else you just understand from the plain reading of the rules that the PC doesn't work the way the player thinks it does.
- Neither of you thinks it's a gray area.
- Neither of you is Mark Moreland, Mike Brock, nor John Compton. Either you or the player might actually be wrong.
--
I think it's certainly a reasonable position for the GM to require the player to put away the problematic PC and play another character or a pre-gen. That option doesn't require either party to prove it's right.
But let's say that the player has a strong reason to play that character in that scenario. (Continuing a PC into "Rats of Round Mountain, Part 2", say, or "Devil We Know, part 3," or it's just a really good fit for the PC...)
If the GM requires the player to "fix" the character ("get rid of that prestige class; I don't think a race's spell-like abilities qualify as prerequisites") ("change out those rage powers; I don't think your barbarian can take rage powers from more than one totem"); then is that rebuild permanent? Can the player go back to using the original character at the next table?
1). The very first thing I would do is re-read the FAQ entry, M/M/J post, or the rule in the book causing the issue in question, even if I already know with 100% certainty I am correct. I do this as a courtesy to the player, because mistakes can happen, and if I am about to give him some bad news about his character I want to be damn sure I am right.
2). If it is a clear rules violation, regardless of how it came to be, I will either ask them to correct it or help them to correct it if they require assistance. No harm, no foul, no charge.
3). If it is a gray area that is not clearly written (a good example of this for me was abilities that affected "allies", and whether that included the employer of said ability or not, prior to that getting a much needed FAQ update), I may choose to disallow it's use at my table, but I would not call for a rebuild.
The reason I would not call for a rebuild is because, until grey areas are addressed, they are matters of discretion, and not necessarily correct ruling. So keep it on your sheet, and feel free to see how your next GM feels about it.
4). If it turns out to be an uncertainty all around, I will let it fly for that session until I have time to verify so as long it doesn't disrupt game play or grossly imbalance encounters. I prefer to let players play their own characters whenever possible. I have not personally encountered uncertainty of this kind since the ally/self issue, however.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Lormyr, Your first step would be great, if there is access to the relevant FAQ or -- heaven's mercy -- forum post in question. This thread is predicated on the assumption that the GM is at a game store or convention without such access.
Otherwise, I find your post filled with wisdom.