Rules question that I can't find the ruling for.

[Darth Signus]

So I have a player come up to the table with a 9int wizard, the rest of the table seeing this, decides it doesn't want to play.

Now that the table has 1 player [and 5 frustrated people] I as a GM can leave the table since it isn't legal to run for 1 person. If the players ask me to run a scenario for them some place else, as a private session and request that I not invite teh 9 int wizard I as a GM can do this yes, as long as its not at a Con or a Gameday for a store yes?

[Preston Hudson]

Before things get too drastic, do you know why this player has an 9 INT wizard? I can understand the other player frustrations when seeing a wizard that can't cast spells. I would have a chat with that player and find out why as well as the impact at the table.

[Darth Signus]

He wants to role play, that is the only reason I am given. His character is legal, my only option is to not run the gameday mod and run another which can be a private game session correct?

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Sounds like someone wants to play Rincewind, but honestly, ask the player and if necessary explain the class mechanics. And frankly, I can think of ways to make this "build" work.

Hell if I think about it, the main character of the anime Rune Soldier had problems in that area.

Could you post more details?

And regarding your question, ideally you and the other players should be able to talk about this at the table like adults. There has to be some middle ground here.

[Grey_Mage]

My guess he is attempting to channel the soul of Rincewind the Wizzard of Diskworld/Terry Pratchett fame. What level? I'm assuming 1.

Rincewind is a Wizard who couldn't cast spells but fate and luck always had other plans. Alternately, he can make it a 11 int wizard who can only cast expeditious retreat to the same effect. Not that is will assist the party all that much.

Otherwise you are correct with your options. Its not like he is going to bump the scenario tier up. They will be facing the same difficulties with or without him. The other players need to grow up rather than walk away, and run a private scenario going forward. He may just surprise everyone and do a rebuild before 2nd level. Personally, I wouldn't risk a built character in anything past lvl 2 with him though.

[Kadasbrass Loreweaver]

Tell him to play a bard, keep the 9int and have him tell every else he is a "Wizzzard"?

I'm fine with roleplaying but there does come a point where making choices like this violates the "Don't be a jerk" aspect of the game as you are seriously handicapping your fellow players for your own amusement. That is by definition being a dick.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

You certainly have the option not to run, no one is forcing you. If there is an event organizer, talk to him, if that doesn't work talk to the local VC.

And while I am loath to suggest this, the other players have quite a bit freedom here, it is a nasty suggestion, but players don't have heal that guy... nothing good comes from this line of thinking, but we don't force players to help people (they perceive as trolls) if they don't want to.

[Darth Signus]

He won't change his character and yes its level 1, the table is higher than 1 though, and plans on doing the entire role play bit to the hilt.
My question still remains, if the other players ask me to run something for them as a private session, and then report it, is this still legal for me to do by the rules.

He is using the stormwind fallacy, purposely making an unoptimzed character to force Role play

[Kadasbrass Loreweaver]

Rincewind could learn spells, but they (the spells) were too afraid of the other spell he once read if I recall. This, this isn't Rincewind, this is tomfoolery. If Rincewind is the route he was trying to go, there are other more suitable options out there. Consider Count Varian Jeggare from Prince of Wolves who is more than capable of preparing and casting spells but doesn't like to do so due to a medical issue and has figure out other means of casting spells outside the traditional sense.

[Talgeron]

If other players refuse to play with this individual, then he is actively harming the community. It could be because of his legal character build, or his also legal body odor and bad manners. Ultimately, it's up the organizer to handle problems such as this, preferably delicately. As a GM, you are never obligated to run a table. If you are ALSO the organizer, then it's up to you to do what's best for your community. If you're not, then kick the problem upstairs and make that guy make the tough call. That's why we make the big bucks.

[Talgeron]

Upon rereading my post, I want to clarify. In this situation, I have no recommendation. It would depend on a lot of things, such as the other players, whether I could seat this person at another (more tolerant) table, how this individual behaved, etc. I have never banned someone from playing, though I've had to come close with a few players that actively drove down attendance. Only once have I had to ask a player to leave, and that was due to incessantly arguing with the GM while drinking. Usually a good talk will fix the problem. However, not inviting a player back to game days IS an option that is available to the organizer, as a last resort.

[Kadasbrass Loreweaver]

Darth Signus wrote:

He is using the stormwind fallacy, purposely making an unoptimzed character to force Role play

Heck making a Wizard with a Int of 14 or 15 or anything below an 18 Int would be a slap in the face of the Stormwind Fallacy.

I don't usually make overly optimized characters myself but I do like them to be solid and I do like them to be useful in combat and out of combat. With only one skill point and no spells he is being dead weight at the expense of everyone else.

PFS Season 6 Guide to Organized Play, pg 19 under Do Not Bully Other Players wrote:

We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between PCs can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing
everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and may be asked to leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior. GMs should work with their event coordinators to resolve any out-of-game conflicts. If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table.[/b]

This falls under dysfunctional play that could be viewed as trying to hinder the party intentionally. I'm all in favor of role play, not every character needs to be useful in combat. Heck specialize in enchantment or divination for crying out load if you want to avoid combat use.

The Enchantment spec does give social skill bonus, combined with the skill points of a wizard with decent int, grab some traits to get 2 social skills as class skills, and heck since he wants to make an unoptimized character, make Charisma 12 or 14 for those social skills. And there he has achieved his goal and still functions usefully in game and very useful in those roleplay situations.

[Belafon]

Darth Signus wrote:

He won't change his character and yes its level 1, the table is higher than 1 though, and plans on doing the entire role play bit to the hilt.

My question still remains, if the other players ask me to run something for them as a private session, and then report it, is this still legal for me to do by the rules.

So to answer the question, Yes. you can run it as a private session.

Be prepared for the one player to complain, possibly to the VC or Campaign Organizer. Make sure you have documented exactly why this is being done. There will be drama.

We don't know the exact situation of course but there does seem to be some room for the other players to be at fault as well. Without seeing how this player is acting the question of whether he is truly disruptive or simply (extremely) unoptimized remains open.

edit: After thinking on it a bit, I would probably say (assuming friendly/non-jerk play from the wizard) the other players are the ones on the wrong side of the issue UNLESS the presence of the wizard in the party is forcing them into a higher tier or 6-player adjustment. If neither of those change, the scenario isn't going to be any more difficult for them with the wizard than playing without the wizard.

[GM Lamplighter]

Sounds like a great character in a home game, but PFS has a shared expectation, and the rest of the players' opinions matter, too. If they won't change, see the organizer and let them make the call, but I would side both with the majority of players *and* against the one who is trying to hijack a PFS game and turn it into a solo novel. Remember, book characters have an author looking out for them, PCs don't!

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Darth Signus wrote:

He won't change his character and yes its level 1, the table is higher than 1 though, and plans on doing the entire role play bit to the hilt.

My question still remains, if the other players ask me to run something for them as a private session, and then report it, is this still legal for me to do by the rules.

He is using the stormwind fallacy, purposely making an unoptimzed character to force Role play

Let them play and motivate your other players to play as murderhobos, if only just this time, that should be a lesson, one player can't force group behavior.

EDIT: I really wonder if that character has some way to contribute to the adventure, in any case the other players have to right not to play with "that guy".

[Pink Dragon]

Darth Signus wrote:

So I have a player come up to the table with a 9int wizard, the rest of the table seeing this, decides it doesn't want to play.

Now that the table has 1 player [and 5 frustrated people] I as a GM can leave the table since it isn't legal to run for 1 person. If the players ask me to run a scenario for them some place else, as a private session and request that I not invite teh 9 int wizard I as a GM can do this yes, as long as its not at a Con or a Gameday for a store yes?

To answer the original question, you can run a private PFS game in a private setting with invited players only.

[Secane]

Doesn't the "Don't be a Jerk" rule covers this situation?

1) Don't be a Jerk and make a character that is a liability to the party.

1a) Don't be a Jerk and make a character that clearly won't/don't want to be a Pathfinder.

1aa) Don't be a Jerk and make a a character that clearly won't/don't want to be a Pathfinder AND ask WHY is your character here, why is your character a pathfinder, or doing a mission, etc.

2) Don't be a Jerk and start excluding people base on a criteria, be it their sex, race, sexuality, disabilities, etc.

2a) Don't be a Jerk and come to the table with a bad mood, anger, body odor, or a liability character, etc. And expects everyone to be happy with you.

[Belafon]

The problem here is that in the situation described both sides are potentially violating the "Don't be a Jerk" rule.

-The wizard player has deliberately created a character that will be incapable of meaningfully mechanically contributing to the scenario (1 skill point/level, no spells, 1/2 BAB, no armor proficiency and d6 HP per level is not a useful character. Aristocrats and Experts are both far better in a party than this character.) So he's deliberately not contributing anything except - potentially - roleplaying.

-The other players are excluding a character that won't mechanically change what they are facing. We've been told that there are five of them, and that the wizard is level one but the scenario is not. That means those five have the same difficulty encounters whether or not the wizard is along. So they are refusing to play with someone who isn't really impacting them.

So I'd call the wizard "inconsequential" instead of "dead weight." At worst he's standing where someone else wants to be. At best he's 6-10 hit points to throw at an enemy.

I do believe that the wizard has the potential to be far more disruptive and I personally wouldn't want to play with a character that gets "dragged along" earning rewards without doing anything. The roleplaying may be great and might be enough to make the character worthwhile in a home game with the same players, but not in a public venue where party members constantly change. The other players have a legitimate complaint, especially if there were others who could have signed up but didn't because the slot was taken. I would definitely lay down a rule that he is not allowed to sign this character up in advance for any public games. But in this particular situation, the wizard has a legitimate complaint about being excluded when he isn't hurting anyone.

My fears are:

1. That the wizard will insist on constantly hogging the spotlight with his roleplaying to prove that he actually "belongs" at the table.
2. It will turn into a game of "how do we kill the character without PVP?" for the others. ("I cast hide from undead. . . on everyone but the wizard.")

It's just not a good situation

[LazarX]

There actually is a ruling that at some point the Society WILL retire a Pathfinder when they are at the point where they can no longer function due to crippling curses, ability drain, etc. In other words when they can no longer reasonably be expected to operate or survive on a mission.

A wizard who's an idiot and doesn't have the least in spell capacity and not even make up for it in skills essentially is someone who never would have passed his Confirmation.... never would have been commissioned as a field agent in the first place.

A player who is trying to make this sort of character clearly has no interest in playing the spirit of the campaign itself.

A Pathfinder has to be able to Explore, Cooperate, and Report. This idiot of a noncaster isn't capable of either of the three mandates.

[Mystic Lemur]

I'm sorry, but a wizard who can't cast spells isn't a wizard. He's a commoner with a few extra weapon proficiencies. The (In game) Pathfinder Society would never let such pass through training. Aram Zey's reaction alone would probably scar the poor fool for life...

If he doesn't affect the sub-tier, then sure. Let him tag along. Maybe he can find some way to be useful. But, if his "character concept" is to be useless, then don't ever invite him back. I promise you not even Drendle Drang would send him on a second mission.

[Belafon]

I agree with you Lazar and I definitely wouldn't let this player sign up the character for future games. But the five players trying to exclude one player because the character is terrible is little different than trying to exclude a brand new player who shows up with pregen Harsk and has no idea how combat, skills, movement, or really anything in Pathfinder works.

So for this specific situation, right at the moment it happens, I think the five players need to let the player sit down. I think the wizard player needs to rebuild the wizard or be forcefully asked to accept that PFS is not for him.

My cynical self says the easiest way to resolve this is to get the other players to all whip up 7 STR, 18 DEX, 7 CON, 8 INT, 7 WIS, 20 CHA monks in heavy load with tower shields using light hammers (it's a very unique monastery) real quick and play The Confirmation.

[wraithstrike]

Darth Signus wrote:

He won't change his character and yes its level 1, the table is higher than 1 though, and plans on doing the entire role play bit to the hilt.

My question still remains, if the other players ask me to run something for them as a private session, and then report it, is this still legal for me to do by the rules.

He is using the stormwind fallacy, purposely making an unoptimzed character to force Role play

I would run it. I would not go after him(the character) out of spite, but I would not try to save him either. Just don't run it at a higher tier if you have extra players. That way they don't suffer for his character. If the other players insist on not playing with him then run the game at a time/place when he wont be around.

[The Fox]

Here's a novel idea: I will play my character, you can play your character.

[Meadow lark]

I am sorry but seriously? you are telling people they cannot play a character and build it how they like?

So what now, this is min/max group only?

If someone wants to roll a 9 int wizard at my tables I am fine with that. TBH if someone has a idea that idea should be rewarded, just like how PFS is all about welcoming everyone!

I have been at tables where people have rediculas multiclass tables that make the rest of the party useless, others that have a group of barely competently built characters, this is all part of the game.

To those GM's who say "I would not run this" or "I would run this but would not help him" or hell some who almost imply they would go out of their way to end the character, you make me very sad to be associated with PFS.

I would like to point out, these comments in themselves violate the don't be a dick rule.

[Meadow lark]

Further to my post the bolded comment

Quote:

I would definitely lay down a rule that he is not allowed to sign this character up in advance for any public games.

Seriously, it's a public game, and I am once again disgusted, My Bard does not add much to the party..combat wise! he is a face.

I am so sorry, but this is not cool and is not keeping with the spirit of PFS. Seriously, let the guy play, be cool, if the toon does not work, at level 2 he can rebuild, but in the mean time,
don't be a dick

[Tsriel]

...Mind legitimately blown over here.

Is this player there to troll or just simply doesn't know any better?

LazarX wrote:

There actually is a ruling that at some point the Society WILL retire a Pathfinder when they are at the point where they can no longer function due to crippling curses, ability drain, etc. In other words when they can no longer reasonably be expected to operate or survive on a mission.

A wizard who's an idiot and doesn't have the least in spell capacity and not even make up for it in skills essentially is someone who never would have passed his Confirmation.... never would have been commissioned as a field agent in the first place.

Lazar does make a good point, how the heck would that character, who claims to be a wizard, make it through their Confirmation without being able to cast spells?

For this player, regrettably, fails to comprehend that game mechanics won't always match up with conceptual ideas.

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Sounds like a great character in a home game, but PFS has a shared expectation, and the rest of the players' opinions matter, too. If they won't change, see the organizer and let them make the call, but I would side both with the majority of players *and* against the one who is trying to hijack a PFS game and turn it into a solo novel. Remember, book characters have an author looking out for them, PCs don't!

Grey_Mage wrote:

My guess he is attempting to channel the soul of Rincewind the Wizzard of Diskworld/Terry Pratchett fame.

To be fair though, this sounds like exactly something I would've done when I first discovered D&D. I'm inclined to err towards the argument that this player just doesn't know any better from lack of experience with the ruleset. However, if that's not the case then there needs to be a serious talk with this individual about player expectations regarding both ruleset and table etiquette standards.

[Jeffrey Fox]

If a player has a character build that causes five other players to leave the table, and because of that cancels a 4-5 hour game session for 7 people then that is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Not seeing the character build fully or knowing the player, I can't judge the player's intent. Intentionally build a Wizard who can't cast spells in order to roleplay seems to me to fall into the don't be a jerk territory because I don't know what the character brings to the table that is a positive. All we know is a negative.

Using roleplay as an excuse for bad behavior is against the rules.

Pathfinder Society is a team game. The goal is for everyone to have fun, but all or nothing situations isn't the answer. I would talk to the player and explain to him why his character is causing such turmoil and to try to find out what the positives the character brings are.

Who knows maybe the character isn't even a wizard, and the player just doesn't want to admit that.

[havoc xiii]

Meadow lark wrote:

Further to my post the bolded comment

Quote:

I would definitely lay down a rule that he is not allowed to sign this character up in advance for any public games.

Seriously, it's a public game, and I am once again disgusted, My Bard does not add much to the party..combat wise! he is a face.

I am so sorry, but this is not cool and is not keeping with the spirit of PFS. Seriously, let the guy play, be cool, if the toon does not work, at level 2 he can rebuild, but in the mean time,
don't be a dick

There is a differance between a social bard with little to no combat skill and a wizard with no casting skill. One is useful when you need to talk out a situation instead of bash out a situation. The other is useful if the orc barbarian tribe need a virginal sacrifice.

[Matthew Downie]

Meadow lark wrote:

I am sorry but seriously? you are telling people they cannot play a character and build it how they like?

The general rule for RPGs is that you can play the character you like, how you like, but you have a responsibility to make a character that the rest of the party would be willing to team up with. If you make a PC who's a clear liability, who sabotages your efforts, who acts too evil, then it's bad role-playing for them to allow you to be in the group.

Personally I'd allow it in this situation - if the rest of the group is tough enough to be able to do the adventure without any further help, they can afford to have a barely competent comic-relief sidekick following them around.

[Meadow lark]

Ok then, hows this I know a player who has a mist based toon, that is only deadly when it has cast obscuring mist? this character literally screws over all others to do it's best.

now this could be called "being a dick" but the build is awesome and even as a wizard I was somewhat stuffed by this character, but who cares!

Guys, I am going to say this, it is a game, use it for socialising and do not take it so seriously, it's a concept, let the concept play out, I have built toons that are terrible on paper, but hey they rock cause they are designed for other purposes!

Oh and one more thing, what the hell is with the idea of even floating the concept of banning someone, work with it, don't be a dick simple.

[Belafon]

I don't think you are considering this from all the points of view.

Let's flip the scenario a bit: I show up with my level 3.0 sorcerer and five other players show up with my hypothetical monks from above. (FYI their stats work out to 15 AC, 8 HP, -14 to hit for 1d4-2 damage.) They have got this great story about why their monastery churns out such oddly built monks and they roleplay amazingly. However let's face it. As soon as we get into a fight we're all either going to die or have to flee. There's no way my level 3 sorcerer is going to basically solo a scenario. I'm not going to get to experience the story. I'm going to be pretty ticked off at these five friends who thought this would be a fun lark and didn't really care that their characters were going to die.

My choices are to play the game (and either die or get a 0XP/0 fame chronicle after one combat encounter) or to leave the game I just drove an hour to get to.

So at what point does having "useless" characters violate the being a jerk rule? One is OK but not five? How about two? Three?

It's not about someone with low player skill or who isn't min-maxed. It's about someone who has deliberately built a character who cannot meaningfully contribute to the group. It's about one (or more) players who are preventing others from getting the experience they came for. That's why I would not allow him to sign up this character again. A major requirement of being part of a public organization is realizing how your actions impact others in the group. If that player isn't willing to make a change simply to avoid having a negative impact he needs to find a venue other than public PFS games to attend.

I did explain above that after considering it fully I think he should be allowed to play in this particular instance. But the chances of him negatively impacting other players to have a bad experience are more likely than this particular case occurring again.

Obscuring Mist:

Every 3-6 months we seem to have a player show up at one of our local game days who has just discovered the mist/gaze of flames combo. The first time he or she does it, everyone else groans and complains. I've never seen it done a second time because the player quickly understands that even though it is cool for her, it is not the least bit fun for the other players.

[CathalFM]

Meadow lark wrote:

Ok then, hows this I know a player who has a mist based toon, that is only deadly when it has cast obscuring mist? this character literally screws over all others to do it's best.

now this could be called "being a dick" but the build is awesome and even as a wizard I was somewhat stuffed by this character, but who cares!

Guys, I am going to say this, it is a game, use it for socialising and do not take it so seriously, it's a concept, let the concept play out, I have built toons that are terrible on paper, but hey they rock cause they are designed for other purposes!

I personally would let the player play (though I would warn them about the dangers of their character in case it was a mistake), but I would ensure a) they didn't try and "hog the spotlight" to make up for their disastrous build and b) that they didnt OOC bully other players into keeping them alive. IMO if the other players feel they arent pulling their weight and decide not to waste the healing I would have no problem with that.

Meadow lark wrote:

Oh and one more thing, what the hell is with the idea of even floating the concept of banning someone, work with it, don't be a dick simple.

The idea would be that floating the concept of banning someone is just as allowable as someone creating a terrible wizard, which is to say everyone can do whatever they want (and float whatever they want) it's only an issue if they try and impose it or if it has a net negative penalty on peoples enjoyment of the game. Insinuating someone is a "dick" for suggesting a course of action is hardly any better.

[Jason Wu]

In a home game, feel free to do whatever you want.

PFS is a different beast. You are playing with potentially complete strangers who may have spent considerable resources to be sitting at the table. There is an implicit social contract to be able to work in a group and not waste everybody else's time.

Characters need to be built such that they can contribute SOMETHING mechanically significant to the table.

This is not a particularly onerous task.

If a character is so inept or incapable that in game adventuters would simply walk away from him rather than deal with the headache of babysitting, it's probably not a good fit for PFS.

-j

[Mistwalker]

If the addition of the Int 9 wizard didn't change the sub-tier, I would ask that the other players give it a shot, as others have mentioned, it won't change the opposition if that wizard is there or not.

Meadow lark wrote:

To those GM's who say "I would run this but would not help him", you make me very sad to be associated with PFS.

I am not understanding why you are upset about the above - the GM said that they would run the adventure, and that they weren't going to treat the Int 9 wizard with kid gloves - if they are a legitimate target by an enemy, they would be attacked. Unless you are suggesting that the Int 9 wizard should get special treatment because they are role playing?

Meadow lark wrote:

I would like to point out, these comments in themselves violate the don't be a dick rule.

Several have expressed the opinion that they believe that the Int 9 wizard may/probably be in violation of the don't be a jerk rule - saying that is being a jerk?

[nosig]

Darth Signus wrote:

...snipping out non-question parts...

If the players ask me to run a scenario for them some place else, as a private session and request that I not invite ...(someone)... I as a GM can do this yes, as long as its not at a Con or a Gameday for a store yes?

Yes.

You can form a home group and run a PFS game in someones home.

[andreww]

nosig wrote:

Darth Signus wrote:

...snipping out non-question parts...

If the players ask me to run a scenario for them some place else, as a private session and request that I not invite ...(someone)... I as a GM can do this yes, as long as its not at a Con or a Gameday for a store yes?

Yes.

You can form a home group and run a PFS game in someones home.

Is there any reason why your "home group" cannot play elsewhere, like your FLGS? If the owner is happy for you to do so then I couldnt see any basis for complaining.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

I'd like to know why you had to bring this argument from facebook to the forums?

[Nefreet]

nosig wrote:

Darth Signus wrote:

If the players ask me to run a scenario for them some place else, as a private session and request that I not invite ...(someone)... I as a GM can do this yes, as long as its not at a Con or a Gameday for a store yes?

Yes.

You can form a home group and run a PFS game in someones home.

I have created more than a few events titled "Late Night @ Denny's".

Home games are distinctly lacking in $2 French Toast.

[Belafon]

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

I'd like to know why you had to bring this argument from facebook to the forums?

The rising light illuminates the situation better. Behind you is a trail of bodies and hurt feelings. The east and west appear to have entrances but the paths quickly narrow. To the north is a labyrinth. You have seen it before. You know that no matter how well you map it, how many marks you leave to chart your progress, how far you travel, you will always end up back here at the beginning.

> groan in comprehension

Command not recognized.

> exit thread

[Meadow lark]

hmm that explains abit a facebook argument brought here!

I agree with the whole "run it" but the tone of various posts, including the one I quoted implied that the usual GM discretion would not be followed.

I agree a toon for PFS (or any RPG) should be able to contribute, but hey if someone wants to make a weird and cooky toon like a wizard with 9 int, I say go for it.

Also do we absolutly know it was a wiz with 9 int. I have a guy who is playing a Dwarf Barbarian...but the thing is it's actually a Human Rogue....sure he did not live long, but the flavour was a dwarf barbarian, he had done up other sheets etc as the toon believed him to be a dwarf barbarian.....

I saw if it's a public game we have very very limited options, if you are going to behave rudely then sure kick em, if they are going to run a broken toon, then be a good gm and let the scenario run, and be fair to all. if the tier gets stepped up, fudge a few rolls if the scenario is getting too much, or play down teir, there are 1 billion other options before you even go to (as so many did) not letting him play!

There have been some immensly valuable and sound posts here, but there are alot who have just wanted to kick the poor guy without in my view, just cause.

Oh and Belafon, you tried exiting, but got eaten by a gru :P

[The Fox]

Challenge accepted!

To build and play a wizard with Int 9 who is still a valued member of the party.

Here is my first stab at it. Bruce the Dull went to wizards college, but really he just wants to hit things over the head. The only thing he learned in school was how to bully his fellow students.

Bruce the Dull
N human male wizard 1
Init +2
———
AC 16, touch 12, flat-footed 14
hp 11
Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +3
———
Speed 30 ft., BAB +0, CMB/D +2/14
Melee quarterstaff +2 (1d6+3)
Ranged light crossbow +2 (1d8/19-20)
———
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 14
Feats Toughness
Traits Reactionary, Omen
Skills Knowledge (dungeoneering) +3, Intimidate +7
Equipment quarterstaff, chain shirt, light crossbow, misc.

[nosig]

The Fox wrote:

Challenge accepted!

To build and play a wizard with Int 9 who is still a valued member of the party.

Here is my first stab at it. Bruce the Dull went to wizards college, but really he just wants to hit things over the head. The only thing he learned in school was how to bully his fellow students.

Bruce the Dull
N human male wizard 1
Init +2
———
AC 16, touch 12, flat-footed 14
hp 11
Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +3
———
Speed 30 ft., BAB +0, CMB/D +2/14
Melee quarterstaff +2 (1d6+3)
Ranged light crossbow +2 (1d8/19-20)
———
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 14
Feats Toughness
Traits Reactionary, Omen
Skills Knowledge (dungeoneering) +3, Intimidate +7
Equipment quarterstaff, chain shirt, light crossbow, misc.

Be sure and pick up wands as you level (like starting with a wand of infernal healing)

But heck Fox, if you sat at a table and the other 5 players all got up to leave...and then asked the Judge to follow them to Denny's to run a different game (even the same scenario), I wouldn't think it was your PC build that did it... Got to be some other history here we aren't seeing.

Oh! and you get another feat (maybe Power Attack? or Armor Prof.?), and I would think you should have a different Trait than "Reactionary" ... maybe "Bully"?

[andreww]

The Fox wrote:

Challenge accepted!

To build and play a wizard with Int 9 who is still a valued member of the party.

Here is my first stab at it. Bruce the Dull went to wizards college, but really he just wants to hit things over the head. The only thing he learned in school was how to bully his fellow students.

Bruce the Dull
N human male wizard 1
Init +2
———
AC 16, touch 12, flat-footed 14
hp 11
Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +3
———
Speed 30 ft., BAB +0, CMB/D +2/14
Melee quarterstaff +2 (1d6+3)
Ranged light crossbow +2 (1d8/19-20)
———
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 14
Feats Toughness
Traits Reactionary, Omen
Skills Knowledge (dungeoneering) +3, Intimidate +7
Equipment quarterstaff, chain shirt, light crossbow, misc.

Sure that might work at level 1. What are you going to do at level 5 when entering something like The Golemworks. I don't imagine many in your team are going to be terribly impressed with the level 5 wizard who can, maybe, cast cantrips.

[Darth Signus]

This was brought to the pathfinder boards specifically to find out what is legal and what is not since, I have actually been in this situation before and was bullied into running because it would be reported as breaking the rules of the game if I decided to run the game as a home group.

I have gotten my answer and thank everyone who answered the question to their best knowledge.

On the boards, I can expect to get an answer on legality, as well as get opinions, on facebook, I can't really get credible answers on legality.

The other more important reason, I am running another sessions Thursday at the local college, and if he came back to play I wanted to know my options.

As far as I have been able to gather, he is breaking the rules by having a character that is an example of extreme forms of dysfuntional play, I won't have to move the game or what not because of him. Since my local VO isn't at the campus and is instead at the local game shop, telling him to go up the ladder for answers is also a way to deal with this. One which I hadn't thought to use before.
This is my first player that has caused problems so I really did not know what to do.

[Jeffrey Fox]

The Fox wrote:

Challenge accepted!

To build and play a wizard with Int 9 who is still a valued member of the party.

Here is my first stab at it. Bruce the Dull went to wizards college, but really he just wants to hit things over the head. The only thing he learned in school was how to bully his fellow students.

Bruce the Dull
N human male wizard 1
Init +2
———
AC 16, touch 12, flat-footed 14
hp 11
Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +3
———
Speed 30 ft., BAB +0, CMB/D +2/14
Melee quarterstaff +2 (1d6+3)
Ranged light crossbow +2 (1d8/19-20)
———
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 14
Feats Toughness
Traits Reactionary, Omen
Skills Knowledge (dungeoneering) +3, Intimidate +7
Equipment quarterstaff, chain shirt, light crossbow, misc.

You're not adding the armor check penalty to your attack rolls for not being proficient so your attack rolls are at +0.

[nosig]

Jeffrey Fox wrote:

The Fox wrote:

Challenge accepted!

To build and play a wizard with Int 9 who is still a valued member of the party.

Here is my first stab at it. Bruce the Dull went to wizards college, but really he just wants to hit things over the head. The only thing he learned in school was how to bully his fellow students.

Bruce the Dull
N human male wizard 1
Init +2
———
AC 16, touch 12, flat-footed 14
hp 11
Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +3
———
Speed 30 ft., BAB +0, CMB/D +2/14
Melee quarterstaff +2 (1d6+3)
Ranged light crossbow +2 (1d8/19-20)
———
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 14
Feats Toughness
Traits Reactionary, Omen
Skills Knowledge (dungeoneering) +3, Intimidate +7
Equipment quarterstaff, chain shirt, light crossbow, misc.

You're not adding the armor check penalty to your attack rolls for not being proficient so your attack rolls are at +0.

Or just add in the feat Light Armor Prof. (or switch the trait to that one that reduces it by 1 - Armor Expert I think?).

[Acedio]

Am I the only one picturing the kid from Rockstar's "Bully" when I read Bruce the Dull's stat block?

[Acedio]

Darth Signus wrote:

This was brought to the pathfinder boards specifically to find out what is legal and what is not since, I have actually been in this situation before and was bullied into running because it would be reported as breaking the rules of the game if I decided to run the game as a home group.

There is no rule anywhere that says that you have to run a public game. You always have the option of running a game for a private group if that would be more fun for you. So long as the group follows the PFS rules you guys will be eligible to receive credit as normal.

If you choose to run a scenario in a homebrew game with your own custom rules though then no PFS credit then.

[Zach Klopfleisch]

OK, here's what I got:

1.) The whole question of "home" or "private" verses "public" PFS games is, as far as I understand, determined mainly by whether or not you check the "Event is Public" box when you're creating it. You can run a private PFS game at a game store, even at a con, no problems. (Though if you're running it a public location and advertising it openly, you're really are running a public game and should follow those rules.)

This is mostly important for event coordinators, not so much individual GMs who are just showing up and running games.

So, and I could be wrong on this, but I don't know of any PFS-specific rule that says a GM cannot grab 5 players and put together his own "private" PFS session at the same time and location as a public game day. The location and/or coordinator setting up the game day might have issues with that, but you're not going to get your PFS license taken away, as far as I know.

2.) In this case, I think that is not the right course of action.

I don't know the whole story, only a paragraph or so from the OP, so I really cannot say what I would do in his situation. But here are some things that I would be asking myself:

--You are within your rights to remove (or ask the event coordinator to remove) a disruptive player from the table. Anyone whose mere presence has instigated five players to choose to not play sounds pretty disruptive. I don't know the person involved, but I can certainly see some people I know playing such a character to intentionally be disruptive. So that option is open to you. It's more confrontational, but sometimes you need to step up and confront bad behavior, no matter how much you dislike confrontation. (Speaking from experience here.)

--A level 1 character at a 6 player table will not mathematically increase the danger level for the other players. He cannot bump them up to a higher tier than they would play if he weren't at the table. That being the case, if I didn't think the guy was trying to be a jerk, I would consider telling the other players to suck it up and just play the game. (Though he might be able to bump them down to a lower tier, which might qualify for the "don't be a jerk" rule.)

--I do not like playing with people aggressively RPing low Int PCs. It's a pet peeve. If I were set at a table with this person at one of the very few games I get to actually play in, it would very likely be a very negative experience for me. Even if the other player is a nice guy, his character is almost certain to be detrimental to my enjoyment. I empathise with the players who don't want to play with him.

--Talk to the event coordinator. Bring the player along and lay out your observations. Handling personality conflicts is part of the job you take on when you schedule that event. But, even if the event coordinator doesn't make the call, it can help to hash it out with a (hopefully) neutral third party as a referee. If you are the event coordinator, you've taken the responsibility to make those calls on yourself (unless you can find someone else to pawn it off onto, like a venture officer) and you're going to have to make the tough decision of telling someone to either suck it up and be a team player or go home. Just try to do so in nicer words than that. =)

Those are the big things that I think of from what I know of this situation. I don't know if any of it is applicable to the OP, but he does have options.

3.)

Kadasbrass Loreweaver wrote:

This falls under dysfunctional play that could be viewed as trying to hinder the party intentionally. I'm all in favor of role play, not every character needs to be useful in combat. Heck specialize in enchantment or divination for crying out load if you want to avoid combat use.

The Enchantment spec does give social skill bonus, combined with the skill points of a wizard with decent int, grab some traits to get 2 social skills as class skills, and heck since he wants to make an unoptimized character, make Charisma 12 or 14 for those social skills. And there he has achieved his goal and still functions usefully in game and very useful in those roleplay situations.

>.> ... <.< ... >.> ... ^.^;;

My Harrower has 5 levels of Divination Wizard, Cha 14, Bluff and Sense Motive 12 (8 Diplomacy, can only max out so many skills) at 6th level... And +13 initiative, no save lower than 5 (+11 verses Charms and Compulsions), 22 Int, casts all the same spells at +/- 1 DC as the God Wizard in the guide. He's a monster in combat, and is still "unoptimized" by what you're suggesting. I must be doing something wrong. =P

Wizards need so little for optimization that you have no excuse to not make him competent. Really, all you need is a decent (16-18+) Int and the rest is your playground.

[JohnF]

Zach Klopfleisch wrote:

A level 1 character at a 6 player table will not mathematically increase the danger level for the other players. He cannot bump them up to a higher tier than they would play if he weren't at the table.

That depends on what season adventure they were playing. For an early-season scenario (prior to season 4) if the APL both with and without the additional character falls between tiers, then increasing the party size from 5 to 6 means the party will play in the high subtier if the additional level 1 character is present, but in the low subtier if that character is absent.

Example: if the original five player party had 15, 16 or 17 total character levels between them, this would be an APL of 3.0, 3.2 or 3.4, which would mean they played the low subtier. Adding the sixth character, increasing the total number of character levels by one, yields an APL of 2.67, 2.83 or 3.0, so they would play the high subtier*. If the original part had 14 character levels between them then adding a 1st-level character would give them the option to play the higher subtier if they chose to do so, but it wouldn't force them to play in the higher subtier against their will.

[For season 4 or later scenarios the same kind of thing can happen if the party size is increased from 4 to 5, rather than from 5 to 6]

* If the original party consisted of five level 3 characters they could still choose to play the low subtier. But if any of the original characters is level 4 or 5 that option would not be available.