| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was recently running a table where someone had some multi-classed halfling melee type, that did nearly 50 points of damage per attack and had an armor class or 40 with a touch AC of 35. I don't know if this was legal or not but had I known this before I would have not allowed him to play that character. That character alone broke the scenario as he could essentially run it himself.
You aren't allowed to do this as a PFS DM unless the build actually isn't legal.
Given the halfling was multi-classed I'm guessing you were reasonably high leveled, in which case those kinds of numbers are not really unreasonable anyway.
As an unrelated player in your game, if I saw you ban another player's character for no reason other than because you didn't like the build, I would be vocally unhappy with you and probably attempt to report you up the PFS chain.
If the player was using that character to be actively disruptive, that's a player issue, not a character issue. Banning the character achieves nothing and makes one look petty.
|
I have run for players with characters that could solo everything... I have been lucky that those players have taken the position of playing support until the party greenlights the character to shutdown the encounter.
Some of us like playing support and hide in the background of the group.
Some of us like playing the diva and might need to be reminded occasionally that we're playing a team game.
-
In PFS, you cannot ban a legal character.
The GM and other Players are allowed to quit so as to not play with something they dislike. But that is generally not the best way to do it. Leads to bad blood...
The real problem is generally the player, not the build. We have sportsmanship rules in PFS... they can be grounds for disciplinary actions by the VOs. That also stands for problem GMs too.
-
Marculus, that would entitle the player report your violation of the PFS rules.
If you take issue with a PC, first talk to the player. Most of us are accommodating to polite requests to tone it down or even play something else. But you cannot, as a PFS GM, ban a legal character. The PC described might need to be audited to validate everything is kosher, and that is within the right of a PFS GM.
I think the biggest issue is that there are sooooo many rules and splat books that it is nearly impossible to know if a character is legal without looking up a material for what seems like hours.
|
|
I was recently running a table where someone had some multi-classed halfling melee type, that did nearly 50 points of damage per attack and had an armor class or 40 with a touch AC of 35. I don't know if this was legal or not but had I known this before I would have not allowed him to play that character. That character alone broke the scenario as he could essentially run it himself.You aren't allowed to do this as a PFS DM unless the build actually isn't legal.
Given the halfling was multi-classed I'm guessing you were reasonably high leveled, in which case those kinds of numbers are not really unreasonable anyway.
As an unrelated player in your game, if I saw you ban another player's character for no reason other than because you didn't like the build, I would be vocally unhappy with you and probably attempt to report you up the PFS chain.
If the player was using that character to be actively disruptive, that's a player issue, not a character issue. Banning the character achieves nothing and makes one look petty.
Sadly that one character was so overpowered that he made everyone else irrelevant. He wiped out a boss in one round by himself. It turned our session into a joke (legal or not).
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I think the biggest issue is that there are sooooo many rules and splat books that it is nearly impossible to know if a character is legal without looking up a material for what seems like hours.I have run for players with characters that could solo everything... I have been lucky that those players have taken the position of playing support until the party greenlights the character to shutdown the encounter.
Some of us like playing support and hide in the background of the group.
Some of us like playing the diva and might need to be reminded occasionally that we're playing a team game.
-
In PFS, you cannot ban a legal character.
The GM and other Players are allowed to quit so as to not play with something they dislike. But that is generally not the best way to do it. Leads to bad blood...
The real problem is generally the player, not the build. We have sportsmanship rules in PFS... they can be grounds for disciplinary actions by the VOs. That also stands for problem GMs too.
-
Marculus, that would entitle the player report your violation of the PFS rules.
If you take issue with a PC, first talk to the player. Most of us are accommodating to polite requests to tone it down or even play something else. But you cannot, as a PFS GM, ban a legal character. The PC described might need to be audited to validate everything is kosher, and that is within the right of a PFS GM.
Thats what Archive of Nethys is for. You can use it to quickly look up what is legal.
|
If it is legal, you could have requested he play a different character, but couldn't have forbidden the character. That's kind of the point of this thread.
Well, unless the game isn't publicly posted. If he's advertising to the community at large and someone shows up with that, than he is stuck with it, unless he chooses to bail on the table. If he is running a private game for people he specifically invites and one of them shows up with that character, he can absolutely tell someone not to play that character. Is it distasteful? Maybe, depending on your views. But it is an option if it is a private game.
[/devil's advocate]|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
If it is legal, you could have requested he play a different character, but couldn't have forbidden the character. That's kind of the point of this thread.Well, unless the game isn't publicly posted. If he's advertising to the community at large and someone shows up with that, than he is stuck with it, unless he chooses to bail on the table. If he is running a private game for people he specifically invites and one of them shows up with that character, he can absolutely tell someone not to play that character. Is it distasteful? Maybe, depending on your views. But it is an option if it is a private game.
[/devil's advocate]
Granted.
But in that case, if he is going to do that, he should be vetting the characters before hand. Not waiting till everyone sits down to play, and then spring it on the player, who may not have another character in range.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
"Rukk is jealous of mighty THUNDERLIPS! And likely wants his own continual flamed schlong. Who is the mythical creature known as a 'GM' that would allow such a thing, and what sort of moron would deign fondle the obelisk of such a mighty man?"
'I bet the ladies do dig that... Maybe I can one up the fool... What clever spells can I use... ?'
WHAT?! No... Fire stays away from Rukk's man parts.
I've been burned before. Stupid lava.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
(...).
Some of my most frustrating gaming experiences have been the ones where the scenario and my PC were so perfectly aligned that I stepped up to do my thing... and the rest of the players left me up there in the light the whole time. Even after my "hey, I really didn't want to come play a one on one RP session with the GM, you guys want to do anything?", getting back a "nah, we're good" ....
I've had this happen with scenarios that I'd run myself shortly before. My PC was so much more a natural fit for all of it that other people kept trying to make me the Face. I didn't enjoy that game very much.
|
|
If it is legal, you could have requested he play a different character, but couldn't have forbidden the character. That's kind of the point of this thread.Well, unless the game isn't publicly posted. If he's advertising to the community at large and someone shows up with that, than he is stuck with it, unless he chooses to bail on the table. If he is running a private game for people he specifically invites and one of them shows up with that character, he can absolutely tell someone not to play that character. Is it distasteful? Maybe, depending on your views. But it is an option if it is a private game.
[/devil's advocate]Granted.
But in that case, if he is going to do that, he should be vetting the characters before hand. Not waiting till everyone sits down to play, and then spring it on the player, who may not have another character in range.
Eh, not necessarily. I run private games, and the only vetting I do is, "Hey what are you guys playing?" When I do that I'm just looking for class and level. I know that usually my players will try to figure out who's playing what before the table, but things can change come game day.
If it was me, and somebody showed up to a private game with that type of build, I would check it out first, then would deal with it the best I can and afterwards ask them to either dial it back in the future or play a different character.
Things are going to be different for each group, though, so all we're really doing right now if pontificating here on the boards. You know, how we do.
I think the biggest issue is that there are sooooo many rules and splat books that it is nearly impossible to know if a character is legal without looking up a material for what seems like hours.
By the rules you must allow a legit character into the game, but also by the rules that player must have every book for every ability he has, and he must be prepared to show them all to you.
The next time you have this character in your game, stop and say, "I need to see how this is built. Show me the abilities you're using and let me read it in the books." Then it is on HIM to show you that. It's not on you to spend "hours" looking things up. You request this of him, and then you sit there as he gets out books and shows you the relevant passages.
If he only has "I just used d20pfsrd.com" as an answer, then the answer is "No, you have to own the books and be prepared to reference abilities therein." If he wants to play that character, don't be "Mr. Nice Guy" who meekly says "I guess I gotta figure this out on my own." You don't. You can put that on the player to prove his character is legit.
You can't kick him out if he's legit. But you can demand that he validate his build.
A lot of the GM's use most of the rules that I have seen, but it is their game. The best way to approach this is to talk about it to the GM and if you are set on your character and the GM isn't, might be time to find another group. We all don't have to agree, but I want to give the GM as much grace as possible being it is a lot of work to host a game and make it fun to play.
|
|
Sadly that one character was so overpowered that he made everyone else irrelevant. He wiped out a boss in one round by himself. It turned our session into a joke (legal or not).
At the difficulty of adventuring the Ten sees fit to send me out and deal with I regularly wipe out groups of opponents before combat starts. Just the other week I blew up two groups of mummies in a single fireball, resilient sphered a summoned devourer before they got off a shot, and dismissed a shadow creature of some sort. This was well before those slow blade wielding types even got into the way to take a hit. I'm nothing but a freakin' hero! I probably saved the group, prevented mummy rot, and a bunch of energy drain. You should all be thanking ME! If you want me to not do my job, I'll gladly just reverse gravity whatever you're trying to fight and draw the whole thing out. Stupid fighters and their inability to fly.
Par for the course is what I say...
|
A lot of the GM's use most of the rules that I have seen, but it is their game. The best way to approach this is to talk about it to the GM and if you are set on your character and the GM isn't, might be time to find another group. We all don't have to agree, but I want to give the GM as much grace as possible being it is a lot of work to host a game and make it fun to play.
We're talking PFS. Technically the "GM" is the Campaign Coordinator and they've already set the rules that the GMs must abide by.
But as we established, there's no current Campaign Coordinator, so everything is legal and I'll be showing up to the table with my Half Red Dragon, Half Troll, Half Daemon Paladin of Calistra tomorrow.
Toz clarified it's true. I swear!
|
|
But as we established, there's no current Campaign Coordinator, so everything is legal and I'll be showing up to the table with my Half Red Dragon, Half Troll, Half Daemon Paladin of Calistria tomorrow.
Toz clarified it's true. I swear!
That's three halves. My Taldan Math tells me that is one half too many.
And Calistria has paladins?
|
|
We're talking PFS. Technically the "GM" is the Campaign Coordinator and they've already set the rules that the GMs must abide by.
But as we established, there's no current Campaign Coordinator, so everything is legal and I'll be showing up to the table with my Half Red Dragon, Half Troll, Half Daemon Paladin of Calistra tomorrow.
And here we have a perfect example of conflicting statements that do not logically follow. Notice how in the first premise the poster establishes that the rules have been set, only to immediately claim that the rules have no longer been set in the second premise. From there, a faulty conclusion is drawn. A textbook example of what not to do.
|
|
And here we have a perfect example of conflicting statements that do not logically follow. Notice how in the first premise the poster establishes that the rules have been set, only to immediately claim that the rules have no longer been set in the second premise. From there, a faulty conclusion is drawn. A textbook example of what not to do.
I know it's said you're a nice guy and super smart so I would never offend.
But that argument is just dumb.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
If it is legal, you could have requested he play a different character, but couldn't have forbidden the character. That's kind of the point of this thread.Well, unless the game isn't publicly posted. If he's advertising to the community at large and someone shows up with that, than he is stuck with it, unless he chooses to bail on the table. If he is running a private game for people he specifically invites and one of them shows up with that character, he can absolutely tell someone not to play that character. Is it distasteful? Maybe, depending on your views. But it is an option if it is a private game.
[/devil's advocate]Granted.
But in that case, if he is going to do that, he should be vetting the characters before hand. Not waiting till everyone sits down to play, and then spring it on the player, who may not have another character in range.
Eh, not necessarily. I run private games, and the only vetting I do is, "Hey what are you guys playing?" When I do that I'm just looking for class and level. I know that usually my players will try to figure out who's playing what before the table, but things can change come game day.
If it was me, and somebody showed up to a private game with that type of build, I would check it out first, then would deal with it the best I can and afterwards ask them to either dial it back in the future or play a different character.
Things are going to be different for each group, though, so all we're really doing right now if pontificating here on the boards. You know, how we do.
That's my point, you don't surprise ban characters. In your case you let them play this time, then ask them to bring something different next time. Sorry if it wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that all private GMs should vet, just that if you are going to ban people the day of game, you owe it to them to check the character in advance and let them know not to waste their time driving out there.
|
|
Regardless of the truth to this statement, you Taldans suck at math. Leave things to the REAL merchants.That's three halves. My Taldan Math tells me that is one half too many.
And Calistria has paladins?
Regardless of how poor the peasants are at math, my brother has it right. 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 3/2
So that creature would be a worse abomination than we could imagine.
And, Ethan Snide, are you going to take that slight of Taldor?
|
|
Regarding the OP. I don't see an issue with a GM denying that a whip fails to qualify as a 'Black Blade' per the RAW- barring any official clarifications to the contrary.
From the Black Blade description (second paragraph):
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane. The magus chooses the blade’s type upon gaining the blade, and once chosen, it can’t be changed. As a bladebound magus increases in level, his black blade gains power.
The important word is in the second sentence- it specifically states upon receiving the blade. A whip is not a blade and thus if a particular GM feels it falls outside the RAW- that is fine.
In reference to the original post. If you have an official FAQ that explains why your selection is valid, then be sure to bring it with you. If you show up to a game with no printed support or research on your position, this is not a clear cut case of the GM being wrong. For example- per the RAW, the weapon can not be a short sword or star knife either.
|
|
Regarding the OP. I don't see an issue with a GM denying that a whip fails to qualify as a 'Black Blade' per the RAW- barring any official clarifications to the contrary.
From the Black Blade description (second paragraph):
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane. The magus chooses the blade’s type upon gaining the blade, and once chosen, it can’t be changed. As a bladebound magus increases in level, his black blade gains power.
The important word is in the second sentence- it specifically states upon receiving the blade. A whip is not a blade and thus if a particular GM feels it falls outside the RAW- that is fine.
In reference to the original post. If you have an official FAQ that explains why your selection is valid, then be sure to bring it with you. If you show up to a game with no printed support or research on your position, this is not a clear cut case of the GM being wrong. For example- per the RAW, the weapon can not be a short sword or star knife either.
What is a whip? It is a one-handed slashing weapon, so it undeniably qualifies to be a black blade.
Otherwise, you get into weird zones, since a rapier is not a blade, as it does not have an edge, so it wouldn't normally qualify as a black blade.
Remember, blade is a generic term, not something saying only bladed weapons can be slashing.
|
|
The important word is in the second sentence- it specifically states upon receiving the blade. A whip is not a blade and thus if a particular GM feels it falls outside the RAW- that is fine.
You need a better argument than that for banning a pc from the table. "The blade" pretty clearly refers to the black blade.
|
|
Kinevon- you are only partially correct. The second sentence states a blade, which is my point. By way of clarification, the term should have been weapon, but 'blade' has a specific definition in the English language.
BTW, I am not saying that you are incorrect as I am aware of an official FAQ which backs your assertion, but my point was reading the RAW (and without further clarification being made), the GM described in the original post was not obviously incorrect in his/her interpretation (or grossly so). You may want to argue that he/she is, but that is an argument we can discuss as a virtue of technical/legal writing at another time.
My point was that the original poster had a duty to bring the appropriate source material with them in order to clarify their assertion. A GM is under no obligation to know every rule and corresponding FAQ.
And by the way, a rapier is any single or double edged weapon designed primary to used with thrusting attacks- in fact many do in fact have one or more keen edges while some (rarely) have no edges at all.
|
|
My point was that the original poster had a duty to bring the appropriate source material with them in order to clarify their assertion. A GM is under no obligation to know every rule and corresponding FAQ.
While I can (barely) see your point about RAW it would have never occurred to me to interpret the text that way.
It is unreasonable to expect a player to bring documentation backing every darn thing that somebody somewhere found ambiguous in some obscure thread.
It is flat out wrong for a GM to enforce an obviously extreme interpretation of RAW without warning because "the player failed to bring documentation"
And by the way, a rapier is any single or double edged weapon designed primary to used with thrusting attacks- in fact many do in fact have one or more keen edges while some (rarely) have no edges at all.
Says who? I don't see that definition in the CRB. If you're arguing from history then beware of the fact that the same name was used for often quite different things at different times and places. That definition is also bizarre since it means daggers and spears are rapiers.
Edit: I also find it strange that a whip actually qualifies for a bladebound magus. My original reaction very possibly might have been "what? A whip isn't a blade!" But when the player pointed out the text and the fact that the whip is a one handed slashing weapon I'd yield the point until I could check online.
|
From the Black Blade description (second paragraph):
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane. The magus chooses the blade’s type upon gaining the blade, and once chosen, it can’t be changed. As a bladebound magus increases in level, his black blade gains power.
As we do with Pathfinder, we have to separate 'rules' from 'fluff'. I believe the first sentence is rules - the 'blade' (noun describing the weapon of a Bladebound Magus, not a specific weapon type) will be one of the following types of weapons: <list>. The 'blade' (using the newly defined noun 'blade' for this archytype) has the following description.
I think it's a cool concept that fits within the pervue of the rules. 'Blade' in this context takes on a specific meaning for this archetype, based on the title. And it's better than calling it a 'Slashing-Weaponbound Magus'.
We also have to remember a Dwarven Waraxe and a Klar both qualify for this, upon looking again. Definitely non-traditional 'blades'.
|
|
From the Black Blade description (second paragraph):
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane. The magus chooses the blade’s type upon gaining the blade, and once chosen, it can’t be changed. As a bladebound magus increases in level, his black blade gains power.
As we do with Pathfinder, we have to separate 'rules' from 'fluff'. I believe the first sentence is rules - the 'blade' (noun describing the weapon of a Bladebound Magus, not a specific weapon type) will be one of the following types of weapons: <list>. The 'blade' (using the newly defined noun 'blade' for this archytype) has the following description.
I think it's a cool concept that fits within the pervue of the rules. 'Blade' in this context takes on a specific meaning for this archetype, based on the title. And it's better than calling it a 'Slashing-Weaponbound Magus'.
We also have to remember a Dwarven Waraxe and a Klar both qualify for this, upon looking again. Definitely non-traditional 'blades'.
And as a dwarven bladebound magus, I use me hand-forged waraxe :)
|
|
And, Ethan Snide, are you going to take that slight of Taldor?
Blah Blah Blah.
I know she's an idiot. But you continuously calling my name like a parrot doesn't make me just come out of the walls like I'm some kind of abnormally intelligent Beetlejuice. Her slight to Taldor is expected, she's a Qadiran. But since she's a Qadiran, it should also be simply ignored for the background noise it is.
|
I know she's an idiot. But you continuously calling my name like a parrot doesn't make me just come out of the walls like I'm some kind of abnormally intelligent Beetlejuice. Her slight to Taldor is expected, she's a Qadiran. But since she's a Qadiran, it should also be simply ignored for the background noise it is.
Don't make me cut out your tongue you loudmouthed fool. You squawk more like a parrot than Lady Natalia Landros does, and it's loud, offensive, and telling of the Taldan nobility if you ask me.
|
|
"Squawk like a parrot, you Qadiran tart?
"Of course, Ethan, as I see it, she's probably spent too much time out in the sun, which has baked her brains. Happens to all of them down there, I am sure of it. Something about their worship of the Dawnflower makes them want to be closer to her. Good thing we banned her worship in Taldor.
"Aroden is the only true patron of humanity."
|
|
"Squawk like a parrot, you Qadiran tart?
"Of course, Ethan, as I see it, she's probably spent too much time out in the sun, which has baked her brains. Happens to all of them down there, I am sure of it. Something about their worship of the Dawnflower makes them want to be closer to her. Good thing we banned her worship in Taldor.
"Aroden is the only true patron of humanity."
I worship Abadar and the almighty gold coin, not the Dawnflower. So while I appreciate you trying very hard to grasp at something you think you can hold over me, you'll have to try harder.
Although I suppose, since my god watches over at least part of your god's pantheon, and my god is still alive, I suppose that makes me closer to Aroden than you.
|
|
"Aroden LIVES, you heartless b#@~&! It is he that has granted me my abilities, he that has made him HIS Paladin. For those not as strong in their faith as I, which sadly even includes my brother, Magnus, The Lord of the First Vault is a fine patron. But The Last Azlanti is the Scion of Humanity, the Protector of us all!' The usually calm Lady Landros appears to be working up a good froth of fervor, he hand barely being held back from her dull grey blade.
|
|
"Aroden LIVES, you heartless b*+%@! It is he that has granted me my abilities, he that has made him HIS Paladin. For those not as strong in their faith as I, which sadly even includes my brother, Magnus, The Lord of the First Vault is a fine patron. But The Last Azlanti is the Scion of Humanity, the Protector of us all!' The usually calm Lady Landros appears to be working up a good froth of fervor, he hand barely being held back from her dull grey blade.
Yes! Exactly what I have been telling people all along! "Dead god" indeed! Chusynd greets Lady Natalia warmly. You and I are going to be good friends.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have concerns about a character, ask the player. Most are glad to show how they made the build (and brag about it). If they have no idea how they got x and y to do z, take a deeper look. One convention I was at had a husband and wife team and one of the players had no idea where to find the basic information on their character (Saves, BAB, etc) That is a red flag. A new player with a 1st level character might have that issue, a 5th level one should not.