Rules Lawyering?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

It's story time!

I was at a game last night at my FLGS. My paladin approaches a reach weapon wielding BBEG, takes the first hit, ow, but he's standing, I continue the approach. The GM announces he gets another AoO. Huh? I mentioned I'm pretty sure that you don't get two AoOs like that on approaching someone. He says he has combat reflexes and is sure that's how it works.

I feel that's pretty certain to not be the case, but the table is running late, so I let it drop. My Paladin is whallopped with the second crit, missing death by two points.

Luck is with us past that, and we beat the BBEG, yay!

I go home. I check up on the rule, and consult the forum here, yep, bad call. I send an email to the event coordinator(Who had supported the bad call, and is the owner of the store and thus there every week) letting him know, hey, the rule works this way, for the future.

He calls me a rules lawyer, and says GMs have the right to bend the rules to make for more exciting play, and to never correct him ever again, and that I wasn't cut out for PFS play.

Did I do bad?

Names withheld to protect the innocent, and people who aren't on the board.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd recommend emailing your local Venture Captain / Lt, or if it's a VO, Mike Brock, rather than posting anything on the boards, even semi-anonymously.

Grand Lodge

I was more interesting in hearing if I had handled this badly, as a player, rather than seeking punishment or correction for the coordinator.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern

Ah!

Personally, based on what you've posted, I don't think you did anything wrong at all.


Nuku wrote:
GMs have the right to bend the rules to make for more exciting play

Well, I've seen that statement go wrong dozens of times in my life. Not just in PFS either. I don't think you did wrong by checking up on it. Maybe it was the way you spoke to the cordinator? Maybe he took it more offensively than we know? Its hard to say without being there. Two sides to every story blah blah blah.

I don't think you did bad by checking up on it, but going out of your way to say "hey this is how this works!" could easily be taken as more insulting than helpful, even if you only had the purest intent.

Now the name calling on the other side was pretty meh. No idea what you said but its never neccesary to go that far.

Dark Archive 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a question how big was the BBEG? As for the actions of the co-coordinator, bending the rules to support trying to kill PCs is not in the interest of exciting plays. Also saying to never correct him and that someone isn't sut out for PFS is not only rude but perhaps a sign that maybe he is the one not cut out for running such events however that is just my feelings on it. If this happens again I suggest emailing your local VL or VC about it.

On side note though, I could suggest other things but without knowing their side then I don't feel it would contribute anything constructive.

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

No. Citing a clear cut rule is NOT rules lawyering. Rules lawyering is when you try to take advantage of unclear rules or finagle an argument into something its clearly not meant to do: like staying standing while unconscious (aint no rule against it), using handle animal on a dire badger thats trying to eat you, or a diviner using a party member as a mount to give them their initiative bonus; or at best trying to argue something that's genuinely unclear (darkness rules)

"making things more interesting" by getting the PCs killed through cheating is blatantly,specifically and categorically against the organized campaign. Its him that may not be suited for an organized play environment.

Grand Lodge

The BBEG was a medium sized bugbear with a spiked chain.


Spiked chain doesn't have reach anymore... With lunge maybe.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

He only gets one AoO. You move into the first square at 10' and are safe - but when you step 5' closer you eat one as you close the range. he might have had a readied action to smack you as you arrived at the reach range, and THEN AoO as you closed, however.

Grand Lodge

Apparently, he shouldn't have had reach, oops.

If he had readied, and his initiative adjusted, I would have had no complaints, heck, that would have been really solid tactics on his part, and every bit of pain on my part would have been deserved.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Nuku wrote:

Apparently, he shouldn't have had reach, oops.

If he had readied, and his initiative adjusted, I would have had no complaints, heck, that would have been really solid tactics on his part, and every bit of pain on my part would have been deserved.

Not quite. If he doesn't have reach, then he isn't likely to get an AoO as you approach, because you don't need to leave a threatened square. He can have a readied attack for when you get into range, but that's still only one attack (and not even one AoO, let alone two).

4/5 5/55/55/55/5

I'm just assuming he had some Criss Angel Mindfreak thing going on and he did have reach of course.

Grand Lodge

Right. I looked up the scenario(Something I try to avoid doing unless running for obvious reasons!), nope, no lunge, no nothing, just a spiked chain.

This is a bit of a chronic problem at this location. They're all old 3.5ers and cling to their 3.5sms tenaciously. Ah well. Thanks all for your replies.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Shifty wrote:
I'm just assuming he had some Criss Angel Mindfreak thing going on and he did have reach of course.

Yep - with a reach weapon the tactics you outline work just fine.

I don't believe that having lunge (and a non-reach weapon) would help - lunge only works on your regular attack, not on increasing your threat range for AoOs. So with a non-reach weapon you would get attacked as you closed to 10' if the opponent had a readied attack, but you wouldn't provoke an AoO as you closed from 10' to 5'.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd put money on the spiked chain with reach being a 3.5ism.

Grand Lodge

Yep: Wiki link

In 3.5, they had reach. I won't blame them on that, caught me just as well.

Silver Crusade 3/5

As a consummate rules lawyer, I must say that I fully support your actions. Especially if you were polite and courteous during both discussions.

I am pretty understanding when we get into corner-cases, but it is exceptionally irritating when GMs do not know the basic rules.

I GM as much as I play, possibly more. So my expectations might be skewed. But I expect that GMs should know ALL of the rules for Skills, and ALL of the rules for Combat. Everything else, I believe, is on the players.

When I am GMing, and a player uses a class ability or casts a spell, I often ask "how does that work?" or "what is the effect?" or "what is the range?" or "what type of action is that?" The onus is on the player to provide the GM with that information.

I think part of the problem stems from too many similar systems, namely D&D 3.5 and 4e. Too many times have I heard players (and GMs!) refer to a 5-ft. step as a Shift. I have heard, while playing Pathfinder, that there is no penalty for firing a ranged weapon at a character engaged in melee because "they got rid of that." When I asked "who got rid of that?" the player responded "4th edition."

In any case, I too find it infuriating when GMs don't know the basic rules of the game and are completely closed off to hearing otherwise. Strangely, these are often the GMs who only misremember the rules in favor of the antagonists.

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

No. Citing a clear cut rule is NOT rules lawyering. Rules lawyering is when you try to take advantage of unclear rules or finagle an argument into something its clearly not meant to do: like staying standing while unconscious (aint no rule against it), using handle animal on a dire badger thats trying to eat you, or a diviner using a party member as a mount to give them their initiative bonus; or at best trying to argue something that's genuinely unclear (darkness rules)

"making things more interesting" by getting the PCs killed through cheating is blatantly,specifically and categorically against the organized campaign. Its him that may not be suited for an organized play environment.

THIS!!!!

Amen BNW, finally something we emphatically agree on.

Sczarni 5/5

From what you have said, you did the right thing. You let it go, found the rules, informed them after the game when it wasn't hindering progression of the game.

Next time they tell you movement through threatened squares provokes more than once per movement per threatening creature, calmly reach into your bag pull out the book, and show them where it doesn't.

I hope that's the end of it. If it is not, send it to your Venture Officer and let them deal with it. List of Regional Coordinators.

Good luck in your PFS Career.


It sounds like you were 100% in the right, both on the rules issue and in your handling of it,
you graciously acceded to the GM's ruling in the game itself, and simply shared what the rules said afterwards.
The GM and coordinator involved sound like they have the problem in terms of fulfilling the expectations of PFS,
they don't know how a basic combat rules works, they aren't aware of the actual stats of spiked chain,
and they were just very rude to somebody who was in the right and was attempting to resolve the issue
so that at least in the future the rules would be correctly followed,
only for them to tell you that you are in the wrong and directly dissuade you from playing PFS.

I would forward any emails you have onto the area Venture Captain/Lieutenant, along with your explanation of what happened.
You shouldn't have had to endure such a response, even if your understanding of the rules was in the wrong.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Assuming it was exactly as you described (which we must, as that is the only info we have), it sounds to me like you mostly handled it right (no table argument, consult later in private) but I would have talked to the GM rather than the store owner, as the owner may have thought you were trying to bigfoot the GM by going to him to complain, hence the reaction from him.

Grand Lodge

I'm pretty sure the severe reaction was, in part, spurred by the fact that they said several, entirely incorrect, things. This was one correction of several.

Like:

All [evil] descriptor spells are banned from PFS! You'd better get rid of that infernal healing you love so much.

And:

Flyby attack totally defeats all attacks of opportunity!

Edit: This was the store owner saying this, not the game's GM, though he is considered the 'elder GM' of the store, so whenever a GM is unsure, he's the guy they look to for a call.


It sounds like the coordinator had supported the GM call on the spot in the game, they were already involved and their decision had been the final one in the game itself, so following up with them seems reasonable. Certainly if the coordinator would support that ruling in any game, going to them to inform them of the clear and uncontroversial RAW and intent of the rules would prevent them from erroneously ruling in other games. Perhaps also contacting the GM (if you had their details) could be productive, but just dealing with the single coordinator (who it's reasonable to expect would then contact the original GM to update them as to the rules) seems fine to me here (even if un-necessarily 'going over somebody's head' may not be advised in other situations).

Silver Crusade 3/5

Ugh! Sorry, dude.

If his emails were hostile, then you definitely need to contact the VC.

Otherwise I might ask to sit down and talk with the him (the store owner). Explain to him that you really do want to participate in PFS, but you want to play by the Pathfinder rules. It really is unfair to the players to have the GM change the rules at their whim. If it is an honest misunderstanding of the rules, then there is no need for them to be defensive when the corrections are pointed out.

With your one star, I assume that you are volunteering to GM at this store.

I don't know what else to tell you. I feel for you.

Grand Lodge 5/5

If the situation does not improve after asking your local VO to speak with them, you might want to find another venue in which to play PFS.

5/5 ** Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West

Thinking back on it, I think I know which scenario is in question.

If it is, here's the breakdown on the BBEG:

Spoiler:
I believe that BBEG is a Hobgoblin, not a Bugbear. He has the Lunge feat, which he uses to attack people on approach, and use his "Stand Still" feat to hold people from getting past him. The situation in the scenario makes people want to rush past him to save some hostages.

Liberty's Edge

David Montgomery wrote:

Thinking back on it, I think I know which scenario is in question.

If it is, here's the breakdown on the BBEG:

** spoiler omitted **

And if this is the case, it is a perfect example of "Sometimes the GM knows stuff you don't know"

5/5 *

David Montgomery wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

In this case, it still bears note that (#1) Lunge only applies on our turn. It does not carry over until your next turn (a-la-power attack). Also (#2) Stand Still doesn't trigger with reach weapons, only when moving through adjacent squares.

5/5 ** Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West

CRobledo wrote:
David Montgomery wrote:
** spoiler omitted **
In this case, it still bears note that (#1) Lunge only applies on our turn. It does not carry over to your next turn (a-la-power attack). Also (#2) Stand Still doesn't trigger with reach weapons, only when moving through adjacent squares.

Yes, those should be two separate clauses, not one. He 1) uses Lunge to attack at distance, and 2) uses Stand Still to stop people from moving past him.


And Lunge increases Reach "until the end of your turn" not an entire round, so it isn't relevant for your AoO's at all.
(except those taken during your own turn, such as if an enemy provokes when performing a readied action or AoO during your turn)
Readied actions would work though, since you are spending a Standard Action on your new Init.

Liberty's Edge

At the end of the day, the player lived, the BBEG died...

We are entering into "SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!" phase


ciretose wrote:
And if this is the case, it is a perfect example of "Sometimes the GM knows stuff you don't know"

It's not the case, and the player here stated that they never even contested that the spiked chain had reach (either based on a false understanding of Lunge works with AoOs/off-turn, or based on 3.xisms no longer part of Pathfinder) even though that is a further error of the GM/coordinator which would also conflict with their ruling.

The player was solely contesting based on the EXPLICITLY stated rule that "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent". Regardless, if a player is trying to follow-up on a rule issue, the GM should share the basis of their ruling (i.e., "share the stuff the player doesn't know"), rather than rudely insult the player and discourage them from participating in PFS. Doing otherwise is just being a jerk. If a player cannot be satisfied by the GM's explanation, they should refer them to somebody else or the boards here, not tell them not to play PFS.

Grand Lodge

Hey, sometimes there is secret stuff in scenarios, and that's cool. There are many reasons I didn't argue it at the table and let it go, even if it meant a dead character(close!).

I did fact checking afterwards, at home. The enemy has no lunge at the tier we played(1-2), and even if he had, as others pointed out, wouldn't have helped.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
At the end of the day, the player lived, the BBEG died...

...said the synthesist to the rest of the table.

I'd wager that the vast majority of un-fun and un-fair experiences involve an alive PC and a dead BBEG.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:
At the end of the day, the player lived, the BBEG died...

...said the synthesist to the rest of the table.

I'd wager that the vast majority of un-fun and un-fair experiences in the eyes of the GMs involve an alive PC and a dead BBEG.

There corrected that for you. Wouldn't want to be in trouble with the "GM uber alles" squad.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

You lost me.

4/5 5/5

Most of the un-fun/un-fair experiences I've had as a player involved one PC who could have loaded the rest of us in a cart, pulled said cart behind him and accomplished the mission with us throwing bones for gold behind his back.

Yes, we lived. Yes, the BBEG was vanquished. No, not fun.

I'd never presume to speak for Jiggy, but that's how I read his comment.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
You lost me.

What he is saying is that if the GM was "cheating" then the outcome wouldn't be a live PC and dead BBEG.

Let us step back and look at what happened.

The GM made a table ruling. The PC thought it was wrong, and it probably was, but the player did the right thing and let it go so as not to disrupt the table. Kudos. If only all players were so considerate, the world would be a better place. And it worked out to more or less a non-issue in the end, as the player lived and the BBEG died.

And it could have ended there, with the player being the uber-good guy who took the high ground.

After the game, he looked up the rule he thought applied (which we are now finding may or may not have been the correct rule...) and e-mailed the owner of the store, ostensibly the GM's "Boss". While there was almost certainly no ill intention, if someone e-mailed your supervisor "complaining" about you...which is how it sounds like the owner of the store took it.

The player was told by the store owner to let it go. Perhaps rudely, but definitively.

At this point, the players character is alive in fake life, and he has irritated the owner of his FLGS, and possibly the GM.

He is perhaps not wrong (the post above adds some grey area) but he is clearly not doing much that is moving toward his goals, and is now in a lesser position with the owner of the store than he was when he walked out of the store last time he played.

He probably should have let it go. At most, he should have e-mailed the GM politely. Going to the owner was clearly to much for this social dynamic.

And now he's on the messageboard, where there is a good chance everyone involved will read this...and that will help how?

The OP sounds like a good guy. He definately was a good guy day of the game. But he is digging a hole at this point...

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
The GM made a table ruling. The PC thought it was wrong, and it probably was, but the player did the right thing and let it go so as not to disrupt the table. Kudos. If only all players were so considerate, the world would be a better place. And it worked out to more or less a non-issue in the end, as the player lived and the BBEG died.

I couldn't more strongly disagree with your attitude. The biggest threat to Organized Play are GM's who not only can't read, but don't know the rules and get hostile when players (who may know more than their GM's) point out the correct rules and the GM ignores them.

There's a reason why both Mike Brock and Mark Moreland say that if a GM can't play the scenario as written then they shouldn't be GMing PFS games. A GM that refuses to follow the rules and kills players is a far bigger threat to the game than a player who challenges said GM.

You know what would make this world a better place? If all GM's had the integrity to admit when they were wrong and follow the rules. If things are as Nuku described them, then he should avoid playing with these jokers again.

The idea that players should simply tolerate this type of GMing and similar shenanigans is ridiculous. I wish Brock would issue an edict that when stuff like this happens, players are free to get up and leave the table with no penalty.

Liberty's Edge

N N 959 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
The GM made a table ruling. The PC thought it was wrong, and it probably was, but the player did the right thing and let it go so as not to disrupt the table. Kudos. If only all players were so considerate, the world would be a better place. And it worked out to more or less a non-issue in the end, as the player lived and the BBEG died.

I couldn't more strongly disagree with you attitude. The biggest threat to Organized Play are GM's who not only can't read, but don't know the rules and get hostile when players (who may know more than their GM's) point out the corrects and the GM ignores them.

There's a reason why both Mike Brock and Mark Moreland say that if GM can't play the scenario as written then they shouldn't be GMing PFS games. A GM that refuses to follow the rules and kills player is a far bigger threat to the game than a player who challenges said GM.

You know what would make this world a better place? If all GM's had the integrity to admit when they were wrong and follow the rules. If things are as Nuku described them, then he should avoid playing with these jokers again.

The idea that players should simply tolerate this type of GMing and similar shenanigans is ridiculous. I wish Brock would issue an edict that when stuff like this happens, players are free to get up and leave the table with no penalty.

When GM's achieve omnipotence, that might make sense.

Until then, there are about 4 other people at the table who would like to play the game more than they would like to watch you argue with the GM.

1/5

Then you should go play a homebrew game where the GM can do what he or she wants. PFS isn't homebrew. Every player has a right to expect the rules to be followed.

But go ahead and turn your head and find fault with the player when the GM is the problem. Perhaps if you stood up for said player, you might make things better in the long run.

What's more, how does that work out for you when one player unfairly dies and that leads to the rest of the group TPK or the failure of the mission?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not ultimately about them making a wrong rules call. Anybody can do that.
Being a PFS GM does mean you need to be open to hearing what the rules actually do say though.
It's not ultimately about the coordinator taking offense, real or imagined, at the OP's email.
PFS GMs should aim to keep their discussion of the game productive rather than issuing bully-style ultimatus like 'never contradict me again'.
(this for a player who politely acceded to on-the-spot rulings in interest of gameplay for all)
Worst case, with a player obstinantly not accepting a GM's explanation of the rules,
they can be referred to other PFS venture liutenants or simply the Paizo boards here,
if a GM doesn't feel like they can deal with the issue further personally.
It IS ultimately about that the coordinator directly dissuaded the OP from playing in PFS in general.
That pretty much looks like they are putting the interests of PFS beneath their own ego issues.
And it sounds like they're pretty crappy GMs to boot. Single AoO provocation for movement is BASIC rules.

The Exchange 5/5

Guys - take a deap breath here.
.
the OP said: "...The GM announces he gets another AoO. Huh? I mentioned I'm pretty sure that you don't get two AoOs like that on approaching someone. He says he has combat reflexes and is sure that's how it works."

that appears to have been the judges only interaction with this. The OP should have talked to the Judge - not the Store Owner (or the Store Owner only if he couldn't get to talk to the Judge). That would "look nicer". you know, kind of like...

After the game, maybe the next day or the next week..."Jake, that call you made about combat reflexes - I don't think it works that way, got time to check it with me?" and pull the books then.

For all we know the judge went home that evening and checked it himself, and the next time he sees the player he'll say something like "Hay, you know that Combat Reflexes call I made...."

Let's not assume the judge is a jerk. Let's not assume the player is either, or even the store owner.

All judges make bad calls (even me!). In the middle of the game, a minute or two would be fine, but if it takes longer, shift it to the end of the game. If the two of you can't work it out, then go to the Coordinator, etc. But first, check it with the judge, in a friendly fashion. We're all friends here (or I hope so). Fighting with your friends is not cool... it's no-fun.

Liberty's Edge

What we know.

1. The GM made a call.
2. The person above the GM (the store owner) was called over and confirmed the call.
3. The player got on the forums and then e-mailed the store owner he was wrong.
4. The store owner told him if he was going to be a rules lawyer, he didn't need to come back.

We are starting with full benefit of the doubt to the player that what he described is accurate. We don't know if he stopped play, (although now that I read it again, if a the owner of the store had to come over to check the ruling it seems he did stop play) and that irritated other players at the table, or if the player has a history with the store, or anything else other than what is described.

What we do know is that the Store Owner would rather this players buisness go away rather than keep having the player continue coming to the store if the player coninues this.

He is very likely right in his judging of a single rule in a 4 hour long session in one game. And if his being right about a single rule in a 4 hour session in one game that did not effect the outcome of the game is more important to him than being able to continue playing at that particular store...I hope there is some prize he gets that is of greater or equal value to what he is losing.

This isn't saying the GM is right. This isn't saying the store owner is right. This is saying that at a certain point it stops being about the ruling.

The game is over. As far as I can tell, you lost nothing in the outcome of the game. You are probably "correct" but it is very unclear if you are "right".

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
And it worked out to more or less a non-issue in the end, as the player lived and the BBEG died.

Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but your statement makes it sound like nothing is a real "issue" unless it results in a PC death/BBEG victory. (If that's not what you meant, feel free to disregard the following.)

I can't agree with that stance.

I've GM'd about 25-ish PFS tables, and played at far more. I've encountered lots of un-fun situations (as a player myself, or in the experience of a fellow player or a player at a table I ran). Only a small minority of them involved a PC death or mission failure.

Some of these un-fun situations include (but are not limited to):
• PC focused on a non-damage tactic (combat maneuvers, control spells, etc) is artificially blocked by the GM, letting only the damage-dealers and healers contribute.
• Player solos the scenario, leaving everyone else twiddling their thumbs.
• GM gets a rule wrong in such a way as to require the use of PC resources far beyond what they should have had to expend in order to survive.
• GM is unprepared, making it hard to follow what's going on, both in and out of combat.
• Scenario has too much/too little combat/RP/whatever.
• GM artificially inflates monster stats until the PCs are on the ropes, then artificially lowers their stats to force a PC win (leaving one or more players realizing afterwards that nothing they did mattered one way or the other).

The list goes on. There were also some un-fun situations involving deaths, but those are few and far between. A lack of PC deaths does not equate to a "non-issue".

1/5

I agree Quandary.

I want to drive home the point that he environment in which the game is played and the community ethos is very important to me. GMs are judges because the player voluntarily agree to acknowledge them as such. When GMs abuses their power then they surrender that authority. The 4.3 guides states in black and white that GM's are not given authority to contradict the rules.

The main reason why I play at cons and local game stores is fear of running into GM's like Nuku's. That means lost revenue as I'm sure I would have purchased more material to support said local store.

If there is one thing I'd ask of Mike Brock & Co is to continually strive to eliminate this type of attitude in PFS GM's.


Jiggy wrote:
The list goes on. There were also some un-fun situations involving deaths, but those are few and far between. A lack of PC deaths does not equate to a "non-issue".

I'd have to agree. I've had a lot of days where I've come in and won. Not many scenarios really chewed me up, but the number of times I didn't have fun was actually ridiculously often. My fault sometimes, but not always. Many times entirely avoidable.

That said, we don't know what happened. We weren't there. No need to call either side names or infer the worst, nor the best.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

An example in the opposite direction.

Bad guy using flaming sphere. Something doesn't sound right to me as a player, so I look up the spell. It's save for none, not for half, like the GM was thinking.

I pointed it out, GM says 'D'oh' and Small but Mighty gets to live another day. It could have broken into an argument as we (meaning GM and players) had all made the mistake, and there had been a couple 'save for half' rolls and I doubt anyone remembered how much fire damage people had taken in error. (I had no/little dog in the fight in that Ksenia was far enough away, and could retreat)

*that's* how to handle it at the table, IMHO.

Ego needs to be checked at the door.

1 to 50 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Rules Lawyering? All Messageboards