(This is my first post in this forum, so forgive me if I got any of the acronyms wrong) My issue is this (Note: I am not the DM for this game):
A recent addition to my group seems to be a very 'RAW' player but our group has most been a 'RAI' group. Our group has always sort of overlooked the size issue on loot (meaning, if it would be an upgrade, use it, and it does damage appropriate for your size), and ignored encumbrance (unless it was a grossly inappropriate amount of stuff). Mainly to make the game a little more enjoyable and so that nobody is 'penalized' for wanting to play a small character, but it's important to note that we had not yet officially called either a "house rule"
This is causing some minor issues between the above mentioned 'RAW' player and another (Player 1 and Player 2 as I shall call them, respectively). Specifically in regards to those two issues. Player 2 talked to me about it after our most recent game for advice on how to approach it, and even I am not 100% how I'd handle it. So, I'm turning to all of you for some input.
Player 2 is the only player to play a small character in this campaign, and also handles the bookkeeping of our community pot. Three sessions ago, that character got his first piece of serious loot since Player 1 joined us - a +1 Longsword - immediately after the loot was disclosed, Player 1 interrupts Player 2 and to ask if it's sized for a small character. This then proceeds to derail the rest of our game as Player 2 questions the need for the question, citing the first of the two 'house rules' from the second paragraph. Player 1 then proceeds to try and find this rule in any Pathfinder online source and then proceeds to tell Player 1 "Well, it's one of the drawbacks to being a small race". Our DM then states it is a small item, and then officially makes it a house rule that magic items resize to the user.
Player 1 is silenced, and player 2 is happy and asks to continue, but the DM calls it for the night instead.
Now, you'd think that's be the end of it, but no, Player 1 proceeds to force his 'RAW' approach on the group in the last two sessions. Every piece of loot Player 2 writes into our community pot that size matters for is followed by Player 1 asking "What sized character is it for?". I've noticed that a few times he's been looking at Player 2 rather than at the DM, when asking this question.
Last session that character bought a Bag of Holding (he plays the character as a bit of a hoarder of small objects), and Player 1 immediately asks him what his STR score is (12), then asks him what he's carrying on his person (IE: not in the BoH), and then calculate all of the weight and declare him over-encumbered. Our DM ignored it, and kept on playing. However, I'm not sure if that is because the DM didn't hear it, or didn't care. But, Player 1 did not press the matter with the DM, for what that's worth.
Shortly after this is when Player 2 talked to me about it. He doesn't want to quit, but is thinking of scraping the character (which i would personally hate to see as this player has always made unique characters with interesting stories and motivations - this one being no exception) and making a medium sized character of the same class.
I crunched the numbers, and with a STR of 12, a small character can carry 32.25 pounds. This character has the following items contributing to encumbrance (everything else in the BoH Type I): Leaf Armor - 10 lbs, Longsword - 2 lbs, Dagger - .5 lbs, Shortbow - 1 lb, Quiver - 1.5 lbs, Bag of Holding Type I - 15 lbs, and a Traveler's Outfit - 1.25 lbs.
10 + 2 + .5 + 1 + 1.5 + 15 + 1.25 = 31.25
Correct me unless my calculations are wrong (all weights sized for a small creature) but this character is not over-encumbered, albeit he's only under by just 1 pound.
So, my question comes down to these options, I'm thinking of the following options:
1 - Spell out my findings and detail the math for Player 1 to prove him wrong, and leave it at that, hoping he will shut up.
2 - Spell out my findings and detail the math for the whole group to prove Player 1 wrong, and explain to the DM why it was neccessary, hoping that it will shut Player 1 up, or at least make the DM more aware so he can shut Player 1 up when needed.
3 - Tell Player 2 to scrap his small character in favor of a medium and not tell the DM the real reason why. (Although in this case, I think the DM would still know)
4 - Tell Player 2 to talk to the DM about it, provide my findings to him, and keep myself out of it further.
5 - Speak to the DM with Player 2, confirming what I've seen and let the DM do as he deems fit.
**Important note - Player 1 is a long-time friend of the DM and of our fourth player. However, this does not lead me to think it would skew the DM's approach to the matter, but I figure it worth noting regardless.**
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is about having fun. If it's more fun for your group to conveniently ignore certain rules, then that's what you should do.
I would talk to the GM first. Ask if he wants the help, or if he would rather just run it himself, without aid from the " rules lawyer".
If your GM is fine without this guy's help, talk to Player 1 and explain to him that the group prefers an immersive, role-playing style game rather than a rules-focused mechanical war game. Let him know gently that piping up about rules corrections is breaking immersion and damaging the game experience for other players.
Best of luck!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your DM needs to talk to player 1, as he's disrupting the game. Apparently, though, you, or player 2, or both (I'd favor the latter) need to point this out to the DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5 sounds best to me.
If these are policies your game had been using problem free until the arrival of this player, then it'll be up to the DM to explain that this game operates by those rules. Nearly every DM has some custom rules they use, if this DM wants to do things that way, then what the book says on the matter isn't important.
It will be up to the DM to let the new player know. Of course it doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, confrontational. Just letting the new player know how things work in this game.
Barring the possibility that the DM might decide that they'd rather abandon the way it had been done, and stick to the rules, which is a risk with unwritten/unofficial custom rules. To that end, I'd suggest a written set of altered rules before the next campaign, so that everybody knows the score, and new players can be given a quick idea of what's different.
Definitely 5.
Player 1 obviously wants to play a different sort of game than your GM is running. Instead of privately talking to the GM to ask about other characters and what sorts of things that do and do not happen at the gaming table, he's being a douchecanoe and pointing out discrepancies in other peoples' characters at the gaming table, attempting to either draw attention to other players' "cheating" or to the GM's "inability to run a game" the way he expects it to be run.
Speak to the GM. Everyone should be on the same page so that this does not continue to happen.
Best wishes!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
small characters actually tend to be able to carry more because small sized items weigh less as well. small sized characters have 3/4 encumbrance/carry capacity, while items weigh half as much.
Get a pack mule to carry gear. If you are wearing a backpack in combat remember that it is a viable target for sunder and that small characters may ride medium mounts. Honestly, small characters have both good and bad characteristics and if pointing them out ruins the game then tough luck. If P2 wants to play a character they should be familiar with their non-combat statistics and P1 should learn not to be so heavy-handed and address this before or after the game session so as not to interrupt play.
Your group's consensus on rules trumps the newcomers claims - even if he is right per RAW. He is joining the community that is your group, and if he wants to be part of the community he must keep with the status quo. Of course, if he were to point out where you are doing it "wrong" at the beginning or end of the session, the community could talk it out and make a decision. The groups I have been in have always been pretty RAW, but I know there have always been a couple of things we just play a certain way that we are all used to. It's not a big deal and only a fool would make it huge deal about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, it seems like your real problem is that the tacit agreement you all had has stopped working.
Step one: figure out what they were, and write down all of the ways in which your groups house rules differ from the written rules.
Step two: announce the problem. Let everyone know that having everyone use slightly different rule sets is causing friction. Let everyone know that consensus is best, and this would really help, even if not everyone gets their way on everything.
Step three: talk it out. Discuss each change as a group, and make some decisions.
You'll invest a whole session on this, but it's worth it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an avid rules lawyer myself I will point out rules even if detrimental but will not continue to press if it's something that's been overruled. That's just an other tool in my box for that game. I'll also bring up simple alternatives because the groups fun and success is paramount to all. I do believe you can find most solutions to in game rules problens in game, like the pack mule idea.
As for player 1, he needs to be set straight by the DM.
The player should have also asked about how rules are handled as well as a list of house rules. If he's a rules he shouldn't be unprepared especially if it could impact his fun. An unprepared lawyer is just a pushy jerk trying to have fun at other's expense.
There was a guy who joined our group years ago and only stayed for a couple months. He was really bothered that he had to spend an action picking up his weapon after he was knocked unconscious. His argument was that the rules didn't say that an unconscious character dropped his weapon. Well, not one of us lifted a finger to look up the rule. We just informed him that he was going to have to spend an action retrieving it. End of story. There were some other subtle disagreements like this, and one day he simply stopped showing up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. RAI is rules as intended, not playing loose with the rules.<---I am just making a correction. I am not saying the playstyle is invalid.
2. The group needs to come to a concensus on how tightly they are going to follow the rules. Are you not following certain rules because you did not know the rule, or because you dont care to follow those specific rules?
3. Once that is decided that should help take care of it. If the new player wants things to be tracked more tightly he can suck it up or find another group if the GM does not want to enforce certain rules. In the future however it is probably good for a GM to put certain things in writing so a new player will know what to expect before joining.
Personally I dont really track weight unless you are really far over it so I can understand ignoring it.
The player might also not care what the rule is, but he may want some consistency. Talk it out. At the least talk to the GM, and let him handle it.
there are two rules in RPGs that I hold sacred,
1.) Stay In your character
2.) Stay away from another's character... unless you're in character.
DON'T COMPROMISE THESE IDEALS
The only time you should have questions about another character is when you're trying to be like "Is he here? is he armed?"
In no way should your character know the feats of another character, or even the classes/traits, hell all he should know is your general power source(Assuming the correct checks have been made) and your in game profession.
Sometimes I find using terms to be kind of overreaching... I once referred to all arcane casters as Arcanists (Til that blasted class came out), all diety based divine casters (Cleric/pali/inquis) as priests and all nature based casters as shaman, including rangers, All martials were warriors, all casters overall were mages, other general terms such a necromancers/elementalists/summonors/spellswords/ ect to express a specialty, only compromising this when it comes to prestige classes.
That helps keep the mood in place, I never ask about a rule at the table, and unless something is absurdly disruptive i don't bring it up to the DM. This is all about keeping things flowing smoothly. I don't know how player X is carrying 40000 lbs of weight with one hand, maybe in character I'll ask and will get a vaguely relavant to the situation type answer, without game rule terms, or maybe i'll enquire as to how strong the last fireball was.. and sometimes the answer might be hilariously metagamey "Oh yeah I thought i'd empower it as much as I could, to maximize it" "Wow that sounds hard, that like some high tier stuff" "Well I Have long lineage of people who liked to modify spells, and i have a pretty good knack for it too"
For your situation, try suggesting that to your new member, remember to bring up fun before the rest of it. When the games take place at my house i don't allow any discussion of the rules outside of a 1 player and 1 dm conversation, with no unrequested input from other players, because it complicates crap.
And the players can only ask questions pertaining to their own characters.
Hope that's helpful, it helped with a lot of issues at my table when we consolidated two groups.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, it seems like your real problem is that the tacit agreement you all had has stopped working.
Step one: figure out what they were, and write down all of the ways in which your groups house rules differ from the written rules.
Step two: announce the problem. Let everyone know that having everyone use slightly different rule sets is causing friction. Let everyone know that consensus is best, and this would really help, even if not everyone gets their way on everything.
Step three: talk it out. Discuss each change as a group, and make some decisions.
You'll invest a whole session on this, but it's worth it.
Hey there. While this is good and well-intended, I wanted to add that following the "write down everything" guidelines too far can cause a worse issue when in this case what is important is the spirit of the game. Your "spirit of the game" isn't to pin down everything and interpret it to the nth degree no matter what.
Discuss as the poster said, yet focus more on outlining your house rules in general, then follow with a conversation about how to interpret rules in the future (RAI versus RAW, etc.). It will likely require more than one conversation before he "gets" it. However, and this is important: ensure that the player knows he will not be screwed over. ...and that you encourage discussion, but that railroading the game into a rules argument that takes over an entire session is not just bad behavior, it's unwelcome at the table.
How you respond should be within the spirit and intent of how you intend to play.
Just be sure he isn't punished for not knowing...and that he understands your group's expectation of behaviour at the table.
I would probably also set a limit to how objections are handled, as well as lawyering. That is, it may be brought up once in session and must be brought up politely. Details are reviewed after session whenever possible, and if the DM says no, accept it and move on, or find another table.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a bit of a reputation as a "rules advocate" myself, and I'd like to present the situation as it might look from the perspective of player 1.
He's new to the group, he's trying to fit in, and he's trying to play fair. Nobody told him that some parts of the rules weren't really being used all that much, so he's probably worked out his own encumbrance in detail. Then he sees someone else playing fast and loose with it and he asks what's up with that. I don't think he's trying to nab loot, I think he's just got an overdeveloped sense of fairness that gets in the way of actually getting along. Likewise, he's not trying to punish someone for being small, but maybe he thought about making a small PC himself and decided not to due to the disadvantages he knew about, like carrying capacity. And then he sees someone else playing a small character and "ignoring" those disadvantages, and that feels unfair.
This might surprise you, but for many RAW enthusiasts, it's not so much about scraping advantage. Rather, it's about playing scrupulously fair yourself, and then being surprised that other people seem to be rather casual about it. We'll invoke a rule if it's to our advantage, or point out an advantage that a fellow player has. But if there's a rule that's to our disadvantage or that's gonna screw someone else, we won't be quiet and hope the GM forgot it; that feels like cheating by omission. If I discover I was wrong about a rule I'll admit it and fix my mistakes, even if nobody else knows I used to be in error.
I used to have a lot of trouble with GMs with house rules, because I really like to know where I stand. I'm okay with there being house rules, but I have a hard time with vague house rules. How can I keep within the rules if I don't know what they are exactly? Likewise, if a house rule gives me an advantage, I don't really dare rely on it if I don't really know what it does.
---
Obviously, being so RAW-focused leads to friction, and Player 1 needs to relax a bit; it'll do him good in every group he plays in, because every group will do something different from RAW.
I think you should sit down with him at a nice non-stressful moment and take the time to talk with him. Find out how the situation looks to him. Explain how it looks to you; help him understand what's going on. Because he's probably also frustrated because he doesn't know what happened to the rules he was expecting to be using.
Obviously he needs to learn a bit about rules etiquette. Calculating someone else's encumbrance is just rude. Asking someone "you seem to have a lot of stuff. Aren't you encumbered?" is much nicer.
But sometimes he'll have legitimate rules concerns, and I think you should give him the opportunity to make his case, at a good moment. (Maybe not in the middle of a deep RP scene, but after the game.) A lot of rules exist the way they do for good reasons, and sometimes the RAW really is better than the way people have been doing all along. So give him the chance to contribute with the things he's good at, but in a nicer way.
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that pain.
You work hard to be good at certain things, double check rules, and math, and then the guy next to you just does it, without any RAW support, and everybody just sort of shrugs, and says it is cool.
You look at all that time, and effort, you just don't care anymore.
Suddenly, you want to tell the other players, and the DM, you are immune to damage, "because it's cool".
You don't, because you are not a jerk.
Then, you come up with something cool to do, and maybe it isn't exactly RAW, but you figure the fast and loose players, and DM will be alright with it.
That's when everyone starts in with the heavy rules, and maybe, they even scoff.
Sometimes, it is not "Rule of Cool", it's "Rule of who is cool".
Unfortunately, who's cool, isn't always you.
|
|
Easy solution, the next time you all get together to play take 10 minutes to sit down like adults and work this out.
This situation really isn't that big of a deal, I can almost guarantee that there isn't a group that runs their game 100% by the rules. They might get close, but not 100%.
Avoid taking the passive aggresive route and just talk it out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don’t you simply talk to the GM about declaring what you have been doing a house rule. This is exactly the type of thing that house rules are supposed to be used for. Being a RAW kind of person myself, I find prefer that any changes from the game be declared upfront. You don’t have to actually write up an actual rule just let him know that you are not using those rules.
What Ascalaphus, and Blackbloodtroll are saying is also very true. The rules give us a structure that allows the game to be played. When you start randomly ignoring rules it often leads to favoritism and confusion. If rule A is not enforced what about rule B? It really helps if the group spells out what rules are going to be used.
Also consider the fact that having items change size to automatically fit the wielder may seem a little immersive breaking and may be giving him some problems. I think the idea of a Halfling using the sword that you looted off the ogre is little absurd, but if that is the way your group plays that’s fine.
small characters actually tend to be able to carry more because small sized items weigh less as well. small sized characters have 3/4 encumbrance/carry capacity, while items weigh half as much.
Actually not all weigh half. Some weigh 1/4, some 3/4 and some are not called out as existing. If there are small sized bags of holding, do they hold the same amount as medium ones? If so, why would anyone use a medium sized one instead of using a small one as belt-pouch?
|
|
Every piece of loot Player 2 writes into our community pot that size matters for is followed by Player 1 asking "What sized character is it for?". I've noticed that a few times he's been looking at Player 2 rather than at the DM, when asking this question.
It's hard to tell - I'm not there - but I think you may be reading too much into this.
Are the items he's asking about magic? If so - it may still matter when he's thinking about encumberance if no one's actually using it. If not - then it's totally relevant.
Also - why wouldn't he be looking at player 2? Player 2 is the one writing this stuff down.
As wraithstrike has said this is a house rules issue and not a RAI issue.
On the longsword issue, did anyone provided player 1 with a list of the house rules before he made his character?
On the encumbrance issue, are you sure that this is everything the character of player 2 is carrying?
On the whole small PCs and loot issue:
First of all, only magic weapons, armors and shields don't resize, rings and wondrous items do resize (i don't remember what happens with rods and staves).
Yeah this is more of a bug than a feature, especially in APs and modules, and the small race martials are getting the short end of the stick all the time and it's a good house rule that medium sized magic weapons, armors and shields can be resized for small at no cost. The issue is, i don't think, that you should make a blanket house rule that magical weapons, armors and shields resize because that can lead to some other issues (especially for APs and modules), for example when the writter gives his giants NPCs magical gear he can be sure that the players won't be able to use that gear so he can do things that he might not be able to do out of concern that this gear will later end up on the hands of the PCs and/or be sure about the wealth that the PCs will gain from that gear.
The issue is, i don't think, that you should make a blanket house rule that magical weapons, armors and shields resize because that can lead to some other issues (especially for APs and modules), for example when the writter gives his giants NPCs magical gear he can be sure that the players won't be able to use that gear so he can do things that he might not be able to do out of concern that this gear will later end up on the hands of the PCs and/or be sure about the wealth that the PCs will gain from that gear.
Then the GM simply changes the gear. Problem solved.
The issue is, i don't think, that you should make a blanket house rule that magical weapons, armors and shields resize because that can lead to some other issues (especially for APs and modules), for example when the writter gives his giants NPCs magical gear he can be sure that the players won't be able to use that gear so he can do things that he might not be able to do out of concern that this gear will later end up on the hands of the PCs and/or be sure about the wealth that the PCs will gain from that gear.Then the GM simply changes the gear. Problem solved.
Easier said than done. A giant with a huge magical weapon and huge armor of plot is still a giant with a huge magical weapon that will resize itself to the fighter's grip and a huge suit of armor of plot that will fit like a made-to-measure tuxedo.
No, pretty easily done. Broken special ability? Remove it, or put some restriction on it like 'only works for humanoid(giant) types' or a time/charge limit or whatever.
I have to alter most treasure in adventures to account for my house rules and such. It really isn't difficult at all, especially if you're not anal about WBL/item pricing.
It's not that the ability is broken, It's that it could give more wealth than you wanted. A giant with twice as much wealth for gear as he gives is better than a giant with as much gear as he gives. If things resize you have to worry about them just keeping the gear instead of selling it.
It's not that the ability is broken, It's that it could give more wealth than you wanted. A giant with twice as much wealth for gear as he gives is better than a giant with as much gear as he gives. If things resize you have to worry about them just keeping the gear instead of selling it.
How is that a worry? Isn't this the same thing you go through with all magical loot, 'Is it worth keeping, or should we sell it?'
Right, but if it doesn't resize the GM can be sure it's going to be sold instead of kept since they couldn't use it.
It's not that the ability is broken, It's that it could give more wealth than you wanted. A giant with twice as much wealth for gear as he gives is better than a giant with as much gear as he gives. If things resize you have to worry about them just keeping the gear instead of selling it.How is that a worry? Isn't this the same thing you go through with all magical loot, 'Is it worth keeping, or should we sell it?'
Typically, finding a buyer for Huge-sized items is going to be next to impossible. Your GM is pretty lenient if he justs let's you sell a Huge +1 earthbreaker to Ye Olde Magic Shoppe, even at half price.
Right, but if it doesn't resize the GM can be sure it's going to be sold instead of kept since they couldn't use it.
Still not seeing the problem.
If you resize your stuff, you just don't include anything you don't want the PCs to get their hands on. It's that simple.
Typically, finding a buyer for Huge-sized items is going to be next to impossible. Your GM is pretty lenient if he justs let's you sell a Huge +1 earthbreaker to Ye Olde Magic Shoppe, even at half price.It's not that the ability is broken, It's that it could give more wealth than you wanted. A giant with twice as much wealth for gear as he gives is better than a giant with as much gear as he gives. If things resize you have to worry about them just keeping the gear instead of selling it.How is that a worry? Isn't this the same thing you go through with all magical loot, 'Is it worth keeping, or should we sell it?'
And if you resize stuff, the PCs just keep it, and everybody's happy.
Easier said than done. A giant with a huge magical weapon and huge armor of plot is still a giant with a huge magical weapon that will resize itself to the fighter's grip and a huge suit of armor of plot that will fit like a made-to-measure tuxedo.The issue is, i don't think, that you should make a blanket house rule that magical weapons, armors and shields resize because that can lead to some other issues (especially for APs and modules), for example when the writter gives his giants NPCs magical gear he can be sure that the players won't be able to use that gear so he can do things that he might not be able to do out of concern that this gear will later end up on the hands of the PCs and/or be sure about the wealth that the PCs will gain from that gear.Then the GM simply changes the gear. Problem solved.
Just strip the enchantments from the equipment and give the giant untyped bonuses that mimic what those enchantments do. Problem solved.
Just strip the enchantments from the equipment and give the giant untyped bonuses that mimic what those enchantments do. Problem solved.Easier said than done. A giant with a huge magical weapon and huge armor of plot is still a giant with a huge magical weapon that will resize itself to the fighter's grip and a huge suit of armor of plot that will fit like a made-to-measure tuxedo.The issue is, i don't think, that you should make a blanket house rule that magical weapons, armors and shields resize because that can lead to some other issues (especially for APs and modules), for example when the writter gives his giants NPCs magical gear he can be sure that the players won't be able to use that gear so he can do things that he might not be able to do out of concern that this gear will later end up on the hands of the PCs and/or be sure about the wealth that the PCs will gain from that gear.Then the GM simply changes the gear. Problem solved.
And thereby eliminating Sunder, Disarm, grease &c. as possible techniques in the upcoming fight.
As I said, "easier said than done."
Right, but if it doesn't resize the GM can be sure it's going to be sold instead of kept since they couldn't use it.Still not seeing the problem.
If you resize your stuff, you just don't include anything you don't want the PCs to get their hands on. It's that simple.
That's the exact point that this is coming from. you want to give your giant some gear worth 100,000. If the PC's can't keep it you're giving them 50,000. Now if it can resize, and you still only want to give them 50,000 then the Giant can only have gear worth 50,000, because that's the amount if they keep it all. But now your Giant is weaker and doesn't have all the stuff you'd like him to have, and the players have less if they sell it all and now you need to compensate them later for having less gold.
It's not that it's impossible to do, but it is a lot of decisions and planning and work for the GM, because you wanted the enemies to have something that the players can't. How do you get the EXACT same effect as that gear without "including anything you don't want the PCs to get their hands on"?
Maybe the intent was simply for medium to resize to small, and small to resize to medium as needed, not all sizes resize to whatever is needed?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about PCs who want to wield larger weapons?
The iconic Amiri, wielding a Large Bastard Sword, can never get a magic weapon, because if she does, it shrinks, and does less damage?
Is twisting the rules to favor a small PCs a common thing, or does twisting the rules, only happen for one Player?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about PCs who want to wield larger weapons?
The iconic Amiri, wielding a Large Bastard Sword, can never get a magic weapon, because if she does, it shrinks, and does less damage?
Is twisting the rules to favor a small PCs a common thing, or does twisting the rules, only happen for one Player?
Pretty much this. The group is happy to ignore rules because they just don't want to deal with the minutiae. The problem is they are playing pathfinder, a game deeply rooted in minutiae. But the biggest issue is they are advertising a pathfinder game to new players and they are playing with some interesting and major house rules.
What about PCs who want to wield larger weapons?
The iconic Amiri, wielding a Large Bastard Sword, can never get a magic weapon, because if she does, it shrinks, and does less damage?
Is twisting the rules to favor a small PCs a common thing, or does twisting the rules, only happen for one Player?
There is at least one AP where I would have been very happy if small weapons and armor would have resized to medium. We had to sell a very big part of our loot because no one could use it.
In other words: Resizing weapons does not always favor small PCs.And if the party needs oversized weapon cheese it would be a small thing to resize weapon to the desired size instead of the wielder's actual size.
I don't have a lot to add to this for the most part. I mean, I'm with P1 on this, it's one of those thing that breaks my immersion if I have to use those words. Ultimately option #5 should be your only choice. An open dialog about a problem is 100% always the best option.
More to the point of why I decided to post, this is not an RAI issue. Title is misleading. RAI (or Rules as Intended) is very clear that they wanted small character to feel small. Small weapons, lower carry blah blah blah
And if the party needs oversized weapon cheese it would be a small thing to resize weapon to the desired size instead of the wielder's actual size.Amiri is "cheese"?
That is really adding some unnecessary accusations.
Please don't do that.
+1 die size increase at the cost of a -2 to attack rolls? Truly a game-breaking exploit!
After all, the iconics are well known for their hyper-optimized builds, right?
it's not like there is an archetype build on that concept...
An archetype most of the oversized weapon fans claim doesn't work RAW because it doesn't allow to break the rules for what weapon size one can wield.
But yes, I should have been more diplomatic but now I can't edit the post.
|
This game is about enjoying yourselves as a group.
Assuming you all invited the new player, there's probably good incentive to resolve this situation calmly. Speak to the entire group about it and get it sorted.
A new player really needs to know the expectations of the group and be happy with them before playing. If the game style and house rules have been explained, then he has no room for acting like that.
If he wasn't informed, now is the time to set it straight and let him decide how he wants to roll. He'll either accept it go on, or reject it. If he rejects it, then he needs to leave.
If a group has been playing happily together for some time, it is the height of rudeness for someone new to come in and expect things to change for them. However, discussing reasons why he prefers RAW and requesting the group opens up the idea of changing some things by vote is fine. As long he abides by the vote.
Players need to remember that the GM is the arbiter of all rules in the game, even to the point where he can change or remove some. As long as those are equally applied to all players and the GM, this is not a problem. If the DM doesn't have an issue with how someone is running their character, then no one else should either.