|
I had one of these situations come up at a table I GMed once.
Today, the Additional Resources for Blood of Fiends says that all tieflings in Society play have to be half-human. But before the Additional Resources was changed to say that, a player showed up at my table with a halfling-tiefling. I had just read on the forums a day or two earlier that the Paizo staff were planning to put that clarification in the Additional Resources page, so I knew this guy's character was illegal. Apparently, this was always the intent, but the original wording on the Additional Resources page was vague enough that some people thought that part of Blood of Fiends was legal in Society, because it wasn't mentioned as being illegal, or something like that.
So I told the guy that he couldn't play a small sized tiefling. He argued with me about it being in Blood of Fiends, and actually started pulling up the Additional Resources on his phone to show me. Because it wasn't a big advantage for the character (no pun intended), I let him just play the PC as small for the one session. But I told him I had read on the forums that they were going to clarify that soon, so he should check the Additional Resources again in a week, because his PC would be illegal.
If the small size had been key to the PC, like if he were a cavalier on a riding dog, then it would have been a bigger issue (again, no pun intended). But in this case, he was just a spellcaster who hid in the back and wanted the +1 size bonus to AC and ranged attack rolls in exchange for giving up some speed, so I decided it didn't matter enough to fight with him.
|
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.
Touche, sir. That being the case, I would make a note to myself to verify the matter later when able, and then attempt to contact that player if changes are necessary.
If I was unable to contact that player again, perhaps because he was a random at a con, then I would feel comfortable leaving the matter in the hands of the next GM to run for him.
Player's who make honest mistakes are the ones we can help. Player's determined to cheat will do so regardless, so that is of less concern to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
I think the "fix" would be permanent unless you can prove that the DM was wrong about whatever they didn't like about the character. Even in that case though it would likely be a huge hassle to deal with reverting it officially, so I would never make any changes before talking about the character with a VO and a rulebook.
Since I am an experienced player and when I make borderline or wacky characters in PFS where I cannot just negotiate with the DM I double and triple check that everything works the way that I think it does. Therefore if a DM took exception to one of my characters and could not provide any proof I'd probably walk from the table because a)I usually have a specific character I want to play each scenario with based on the theme of the scenario and b)I would be afraid that the kind of DM who nitpicks apart people's characters based on a half-remembered forum post would also be the kind of DM who screws me because they think I am "pulling a fast one" or some such nonsense. In either case I am not wasting my one chance to play a scenario at that person's table.
If I were the DM I would be fine with a player walking if I could not prove my side of the argument immidiatley. I would probably ask the player to just pick a different character, I would never force a change right on the spot. That said, the correct time to deal with these things is between slots, since even in PFS there is a little bit of meaningful DM-player discussion that can happen. Therefore the most important part of the proper response I think is to offer to help the player out after the session.
|
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.
If you have a tablet, copy paste all the FAQ's into PDF's and update them as necessary
I've kept copies of all FAQ's with me ever since I had a similar rules dispute the the VC in my area. I really should build a consolidation of the forum posts as well, just in case.
I've had a few cases since then where having documentation on hand has helped resolve disputes involving other people's characters.
|
I have little sympathy for players who know they're running a grey build, and have been depending on lax GM enforcement to get them where they are.
In the past I've thought that too, but I've been in the same position repeatedly where it's so difficult to get an official ruling, and I know I'm not the only one.
Players who play it grey already suffer from playing between GMs who may or may not allow those parts of their character to work, so I'm usually inclined to have more sympathy.
Considering that, it's usually better to determine if it's a fun build or a broken build by your own judgement rather than going by RAW that aren't being made clear.
|
I have little sympathy for players who know they're running a grey build, and have been depending on lax GM enforcement to get them where they are.In the past I've thought that too, but I've been in the same position repeatedly where it's so difficult to get an official ruling, and I know I'm not the only one.
Players who play it grey already suffer from playing between GMs who may or may not allow those parts of their character to work, so I'm usually inclined to have more sympathy.
Considering that, it's usually better to determine if it's a fun build or a broken build by your own judgement rather than going by RAW that aren't being made clear.
There are literally almost an infinite number of possibilities without building in the gray.
So having trouble getting official rulings on something is really not an excuse to have sympathy for those who knowingly build in the gray.
If you have to get an official ruling on something, its best not to build there. And if you knowingly do, then you also take the responsibility upon yourself for potential table variation.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
Still, breaks the rule of doubling up on the same bonus. That, by rule, is not ok.** 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...")
They are of the same type. Untyped. Just like dodge bonuses, untyped bonuses specifically stack with other untyped bonuses.
Trait bonuses aren't in the CRB, but they are specifically called out and given a type, so by RAW they won't stack with other trait bonuses.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I think my first response to err on the side of fun. If the error isn't game-breaking, if it won't cause other players to have less fun at the table, then I'd allow it for the session, and afterwards take the player aside and explain my concerns. I'd let them know that I would look into it, get their contact info and follow up with them. I'd try to be as non-confrontational as possible, ie not accusing them of intentionally doing wrong, and try to stress that we'll see, if it turns out to be illegal, if we can find them a solution that is both legal and preserves the flavor of the character they want to play.
|
|
Still, breaks the rule of doubling up on the same bonus. That, by rule, is not ok.** 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...")They are of the same type. Untyped. Just like dodge bonuses, untyped bonuses specifically stack with other untyped bonuses.
Trait bonuses aren't in the CRB, but they are specifically called out and given a type, so by RAW they won't stack with other trait bonuses.
Ability bonuses are certainly not untyped. Dodge bonuses are not untyped. They are just specifically called out as being able to stack.