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


GM Discussion

101 to 150 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Does this mean you also believe I should not be allowed to play this character? Would someone be justified to say, "Sorry, I don't like your character. Play something else or don't play at all."

I will allow any player to play any legal build, unless I have specific personal reasons that I would prefer not to game with that player. I will not, however, force other players to play with you if they don't want to. I also will not pull any punches (nor will I specifically target you, as some have said in this thread).

But, if you are so inept that you get other characters killed, I will be the first to suggest that they speak to the Venture Officer to try to get the deaths overturned. Your choices affect more than your own character.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

for the reference to 3b

http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Room_3b

Silver Crusade 2/5

Meadow lark wrote:

for the reference to 3b

http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Room_3b

Linkified

Sczarni 4/5

From a roleplay perspective, it makes no sense for a character to be a "wizard" class with 9 Int. He would most likely be a simple commoner or fighter for that matter, and there is no sense, from a roleplay perspective, to make such character a "wizard".

That on side, the rules are simple. You can play with whoever you wish to play. There is a limit in social behavior and if individuals mean to bully/force other opinions, you already know which "side" will PFS/GMs pick.

Adam

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

1) How effective or optimized a build is, has no effect on roleplay.

Nobody will ever convince me of the absolute fallacy, that is otherwise.

2) A disruptive PC, is a disruptive PC. Whether it's the made to be useless 9 Int Wizard, or "Barry the Rapist Rogue", you are still breaking the social contract of organized play.

3) There is a big difference between underpowered PCs, and PCs designed with the purpose of being useless. One is a challenge, and the other is a dick move. Nobody is going to believe you built a 7 Strength, 9 Dexterity, 5 Constitution Elf Fighter, because you are just "roleplay focused". You did that on purpose.

There are times, when that "flavor" card cannot be played.

Dog crap has a lot of "flavor", but you can't force people to eat it, just because say so.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

1) How effective or optimized a build is, has no effect on roleplay.

Nobody will ever convince me of the absolute fallacy, that is otherwise.

2) A disruptive PC, is a disruptive PC. Whether it's the made to be useless 9 Int Wizard, or "Barry the Rapist Rogue", you are still breaking the social contract of organized play.

3) There is a big difference between underpowered PCs, and PCs designed with the purpose of being useless. One is a challenge, and the other is a dick move. Nobody is going to believe you built a 7 Strength, 9 Dexterity, 5 Constitution Elf Fighter, because you are just "roleplay focused". You did that on purpose.

There are times, when that "flavor" card cannot be played.

Dog crap has a lot of "flavor", but you can't force people to eat it, just because say so.

Regarding your first point, I could see a possible argument regarding ludonarrative dissonance. If a character with no ranks in diplomacy and 5 charisma is roleplayed as some mixture of Niccolò Machiavelli and Henry Kissinger.... well I would argue that this is a little wrong and that in this case the stats should affect it.

Sovereign Court

I like to think that social skills would fix issues like this the majority of the time.

We had a trio of players (nice guys that are fun to hang out and play with) that built monks with 7 strength and 7 con and wanted to sit in a scheduled game at our lodge. When they were politely informed by several others that nobody was interested in playing in a game with those characters as it would jeopardize their own, they abandoned the idea.

But what if there's a lack of social cognizance and an extreme case of a player insisting on playing a useless character to troll? That's VO territory. You risk alienating groups of players when you allow that behavior from an individual.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Regarding your first point, I could see a possible argument regarding ludonarrative dissonance. If a character with no ranks in diplomacy and 5 charisma is roleplayed as some mixture of Niccolò Machiavelli and Henry Kissinger.... well I would argue that this is a little wrong and that in this case the stats should affect it.

That could effect how you want to roleplay, but not the ability to roleplay.

Optimized, and unoptimized builds can both be roleplayed well, or badly.

Neither build makes you a better roleplayer.

Hammer pants don't make me a better dancer, and a nice suit doesn't make me a nicer person.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Regarding your first point, I could see a possible argument regarding ludonarrative dissonance. If a character with no ranks in diplomacy and 5 charisma is roleplayed as some mixture of Niccolò Machiavelli and Henry Kissinger.... well I would argue that this is a little wrong and that in this case the stats should affect it.

That could effect how you want to roleplay, but not the ability to roleplay.

Optimized, and unoptimized builds can both be roleplayed well, or badly.

Neither build makes you a better roleplayer.

I can live with having made the distinction, neither good nor bad characters prevent or guarantees a great roleplaying experience.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Hammer pants don't make me a better dancer, and a nice suit doesn't make me a nicer person.

It will, if you believe in yourself ^^

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

In the end, if you are a player, please do not do this.

Not worth it.

Liberty's Edge

Seems like the 5 drop outs are violating the "don't be a jerk rule".

Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa aka Mistwalker

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rambone wrote:
Seems like the 5 drop outs are violating the "don't be a jerk rule".

How so?

They did not want their character to die because someone else deliberately brought in a very weak character. How is stepping away from the table in that situation being a jerk?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rambone wrote:
Seems like the 5 drop outs are violating the "don't be a jerk rule".

The "don't be a jerk" rule can't force people to play. That's absurd.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rambone wrote:
Seems like the 5 drop outs are violating the "don't be a jerk rule".

Oh?

The "I made a PC to troll others" player is totally innocent?

What if they, you know, wanted to have fun?

Do all the players, and the DM, need to sacrifice their fun, for one player?

What makes this one player so more important than everyone else?

Silver Crusade

I don't build super strong PCs, but even my WORST PC is much better than this example. That's not good.


Rambone wrote:
Seems like the 5 drop outs are violating the "don't be a jerk rule".

So I can make other player play with me now?

Leaving a table is being a jerk?

This is one of the most horrible things i read on these boards

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Fox wrote:
Here's a novel idea: I will play my character, you can play your character.

Here's the problem Fox. This isn't a single player game. If you're making a character that can not pull their weight, but is actually by all measurements an extreme liability, you actually are impinging on others room to play their characters.

If you deliberately create a character that breaks immersion as much as this one does, than you're limiting the ability of other players to immerse themselves with the game world.

It's not just about you. It's not just about any other player. It's about the whole group's ability to function and enjoy the game session.

Shadow Lodge

At the end of the day, here are the options if you bring a character that the whole table has problems with:

1) concede to the majority's preferences and use a backup character
2) concede that the character may have build problems and let them help you rebuild it
3) find a new set of players who are happy to play with your character

You can't expect to say "I'm using this character for roleplay and you're all going to sit down and play". That's never going to happen.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is now a bad time to admit I made an oracle with 9 charisma?
(Though strangely no one has complained about his effectiveness.)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

What's the catch?


FLite wrote:

Is now a bad time to admit I made an oracle with 9 charisma?

(Though strangely no one has complained about his effectiveness.)
Muser wrote:
What's the catch?

Hmm... You could still do a battle oracle version with a 9 charisma, focusing mainly on physical stats and still be effective enough to play it off. This would probably do just fine until you start getting into higher levels, when you'll need your spells to act as your combat utility belt. Otherwise you'll just be a seriously gimped fighter with the ability to use divine wands and scrolls without having to use UMD.

Maybe that oracle is using something else other than charisma as a casting stat? I do not know the oracle well enough to know if that's even an option.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Muser wrote:
What's the catch?

His other 8 levels are barbarian :)

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't read the whole thread, but is there a reason why this person can't play an entirely different, non-spellcasting class (fighter, rogue, etc.), use traits to get training in Spellcraft and the ability to cast a cantrip or two, and just role play him as a wizard who can't access his power? That way he can be a fully-contributing member of the party while exploring the concept. Surely this sort of subtle customization is one reason traits -- minor non-class related mechanics which don't warrant a feat choice -- exist?

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

This whole thing is reminding me of a 1E character I had. I rolled up some really good stats including an 18 Strength, 16 Dexterity and 17 Intelligence. I wanted to play a Magic-User, but didn't want to waist the 18 Strength, especially when you only could get 18 percentile strength if you were a Fighter. So I came up with an idea of a Fighter who was born to a long line of famous Fighters and had been sent to Fighter school as was family tradition. But he secretly always dreamed of being a Magic-User. So when he left Fighter school and started his adventuring career, he donned wizards robes, picked up a quarter staff and billed himself as a powerful wizard. He had his magic missile (a strength adjusted sling), his fireball (a bag full of oil flasks he would light on fire and throw) and his staff of striking (quarter staff specialization). The goal was to play him to level 4 as a Fighter then use the dual-class rules to switch over to Magic-User. By the time he got there, however, he had spent so much time duping people into thinking he was a powerful wizard that he decided it fit more for him to become an Illusionist.

Of course, the difference here was that even though he was initially an ineffective wizard, he was not an ineffective character.

Scarab Sages

Tsriel wrote:
Hmm... You could still do a battle oracle version with a 9 charisma, focusing mainly on physical stats and still be effective enough to play it off. This would probably do just fine until you start getting into higher levels, when you'll need your spells to act as your combat utility belt. Otherwise you'll just be a seriously gimped fighter with the ability to use divine wands and scrolls without having to use UMD.

Wands, he'd be fine with, but scrolls, no.

He'd still be required to pass some difficult UMD checks, to fake the requisite ability scores.

Use Magic Device wrote:
Emulate an Ability Score: To cast a spell from a scroll, you need a high score in the appropriate ability (Intelligence for wizard spells, Wisdom for divine spells, or Charisma for sorcerer or bard spells). Your effective ability score (appropriate to the class you're emulating when you try to cast the spell from the scroll) is your Use Magic Device check result minus 15. If you already have a high enough score in the appropriate ability, you don't need to make this check.

(note that text was written before there were any non-Wis divine casters. That strongly implies a person could sub Int or Cha for a scroll on the S/W list. The Devs have implied that many of the cleric spells should be read as subbing Cha for Wis, eg Spiritual Weapon.)

If he had a decent Wis score, he'd be OK for a while, but if he did that, why not just be a cleric?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

FLite wrote:
Muser wrote:
What's the catch?
His other 8 levels are barbarian :)

Freakin' knew it! I was thinking paladin actually.

Reminds me of my "bard". My 30 Str score bard.


Snorter wrote:


Wands, he'd be fine with, but scrolls, no.
He'd still be required to pass some difficult UMD checks, to fake the requisite ability scores.

Right, but you're jumping ahead. Normally, if a spell is on your class's spell list you can activate it with at most a pretty easy caster level check. There are three criteria for that: It must be on your class's spell list, it must be the correct type (arcane or divine, PFS handwaves this requirement), and you need to have the requisite ability score.

But, since you don't meet the ability score requirement, you've got to resort to UMDing it instead of activating it normally. This isn't necessarily obvious or well known, so I thought I would point it out.

The relevant rules are in the Scroll section of the Magic Item chapter:

Activating Scrolls wrote:


Activate the Spell: Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll. Activating a scroll spell requires no material components or focus. (The creator of the scroll provided these when scribing the scroll.) Note that some spells are effective only when cast on an item or items. In such a case, the scroll user must provide the item when activating the spell. Activating a scroll spell is subject to disruption just as casting a normally prepared spell would be. Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance.

To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.


  • The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
  • The user must have the spell on her class list.
  • The user must have the requisite ability score.

If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.

The Exchange 5/5

I'm no libel... liabli... I make groups I'm in stronger!


As a GM I'd probably just break the rules. First time it happens I'd suggest he play but we calculate APL as if he wasn't there. He gets to play a non-contributing character, everyone else doesn't have to face increased threats to satisfy his idiosyncrasy.

Second time it happens we have a better idea of if he actually *is* useless. If he's not, great. Calculate APL normally. If he is, great. Calculate APL accordingly.

Really what's going on here is just an extreme case of a more general problem. Optimization or lack of it means that level isn't a great measure of power level. A level 5 wizard, optimized to the teeth, is way more powerful than a level 7 rogue with a haphazard build. APL is an approximation of power level but it's just an approximation.

More generally I'd like groups to have more options to play up if they've got optimized characters looking for a challenge or play down if they've got a fluffy group who might get stomped if challenged at their nominal level.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
As a GM I'd probably just break the rules.

Please reconsider either your stance, or your willingness to GM. The system can't be fixed if people aren't using it correctly to know what's broken, and breaking rules from the outset sets a bad precedent for future GMs.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread and some of the commenters are exactly why I very rarely play or run public games anymore. The signal to noise ratio between people who are fun to game with is way too favored to noise. Players like the INT 9 Wizard and his supporters can have all the public games they want. I'll come and cherry pick the best of the lot and we'll have excellent Pathfinder adventures together while the special snowflakes can have all the tomfoolery they want.


Mystic Lemur wrote:

Please reconsider either your stance, or your willingness to GM. The system can't be fixed if people aren't using it correctly to know what's broken, and breaking rules from the outset sets

a bad precedent for future GMs.

I take your point, I really do, but what if applying the rules as written breaks the game?

Not "synthesist summoners are really powerful" broken, but this case where it is "five players walk away, so there can be no game" broken? Broken as in literally unplayable.

As soon as the issue comes up we know what the issue is, can report it, can have discussions like this one about how to address it in future, but in the moment I've got to choose between breaking the rules and breaking the whole game. Running RAW in this case means no game for anyone, breaking a rule means 6 people have a good game. Would you really say "Ok, no game tonight"?

The Exchange 5/5

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Please reconsider either your stance, or your willingness to GM. The system can't be fixed if people aren't using it correctly to know what's broken, and breaking rules from the outset sets

a bad precedent for future GMs.

I take your point, I really do, but what if applying the rules as written breaks the game?

Not "synthesist summoners are really powerful" broken, but this case where it is "five players walk away, so there can be no game" broken? Broken as in literally unplayable.

As soon as the issue comes up we know what the issue is, can report it, can have discussions like this one about how to address it in future, but in the moment I've got to choose between breaking the rules and breaking the whole game. Running RAW in this case means no game for anyone, breaking a rule means 6 people have a good game. Would you really say "Ok, no game tonight"?

please give an example....

are we saying if 5 players show up with PCs created at 10th level with 25 point buys - do we go ahead and run them in a Tier 10-11 game because to do it by RAW (and disally these PCs) means "no game tonight"?

Or what?

Liberty's Edge

I would slip back into my days before I was medicated into a calm, relaxed person and this player would not come near PFS again. Even IF he doesn't know any better and even IF he is new, he should of read the CRB cover to cover, the PRD atleast eighty times and looked over the levels of the character.

Seriously, I am not a mean person, but this is the kind of thing that brings my inner barbarian to the surface and causes me to become one hell of a bad person. Its just how my brain works. I get mad when someone does something this dumb.

Grand Lodge 2/5

As a min/max PC builder and someone who cannot verbally express myself without stumbling over my words... I still would have no problem playing with a Int 9 wizard... but I would reserve my right to cast expeditious retreat with my travel domain Inquisitor and leave the wizard behind.


nosig wrote:
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Please reconsider either your stance, or your willingness to GM. The system can't be fixed if people aren't using it correctly to know what's broken, and breaking rules from the outset sets

a bad precedent for future GMs.

I take your point, I really do, but what if applying the rules as written breaks the game?

Not "synthesist summoners are really powerful" broken, but this case where it is "five players walk away, so there can be no game" broken? Broken as in literally unplayable.

As soon as the issue comes up we know what the issue is, can report it, can have discussions like this one about how to address it in future, but in the moment I've got to choose between breaking the rules and breaking the whole game. Running RAW in this case means no game for anyone, breaking a rule means 6 people have a good game. Would you really say "Ok, no game tonight"?

please give an example....

are we saying if 5 players show up with PCs created at 10th level with 25 point buys - do we go ahead and run them in a Tier 10-11 game because to do it by RAW (and disally these PCs) means "no game tonight"?

Or what?

How about this one?

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?

The Exchange 5/5

how is this example braking the RAW?

The game failed to make. Not enough players (after the fourth one got up to leave in fact). (seems like RAW)

Judge leaves the table... and in fact goes "some place else" and runs a private session. (still RAW).

and doesn't invite the guy no one else wants there. (heck, I often don't invite people ONE of my regular players doesn't want to play with. If it's at my house, I wont even invite people my wife doesn't want in the apartment - even if she is running a different table!). (I don't see how this brakes the RAW either).

so again I need to ask for an example of a game where "...applyiing the rules as writen breaks the game...".


I suggest you reread the post. You seem to be missing something.

The Exchange 5/5

Ok, re-reading the post in question.... Bolding is mine....

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
nosig wrote:
Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Please reconsider either your stance, or your willingness to GM. The system can't be fixed if people aren't using it correctly to know what's broken, and breaking rules from the outset sets

a bad precedent for future GMs.

I take your point, I really do, but what if applying the rules as written breaks the game?

Not "synthesist summoners are really powerful" broken, but this case where it is "five players walk away, so there can be no game" broken? Broken as in literally unplayable.

As soon as the issue comes up we know what the issue is, can report it, can have discussions like this one about how to address it in future, but in the moment I've got to choose between breaking the rules and breaking the whole game. Running RAW in this case means no game for anyone, breaking a rule means 6 people have a good game. Would you really say "Ok, no game tonight"?

please give an example....

are we saying if 5 players show up with PCs created at 10th level with 25 point buys - do we go ahead and run them in a Tier 10-11 game because to do it by RAW (and disally these PCs) means "no game tonight"?

Or what?

How about this one?

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?

I am asking for an example of where running the RAW brakes the game?

The example given in the OP ("5 frustrated people" leaving one player behind that they do not wish to play with) is not an example of RAW. It's an example of human nature. Some people (in this case 5 of the players) do not wish to play at the same table as one player (in this case the guy with the wizard). There are no RAW covering this... so it is not an example of where running the RAW brakes the game.


I believe the point was allowing the 9 INT wizard (which is RAW) resulted in "five players walk away, so there can be no game."

The Exchange 5/5

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I believe the point was allowing the 9 INT wizard (which is RAW) resulted in "five players walk away, so there can be no game."

and how does this break RAW?

and more important, what's the RAW fix?

Surely we cannot be suggesting that all six players must sit down together and play a game together? Five players would rather walk then play with the 6th.... and likely would feel that way whatever he showed up with. (that last is just my opinion and could be wrong).

Edit: and in fact the original question in the OP was....

"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?"

so it looks like there IS going to be a game, just not a 6 player one. A 5 player game ... which is likely going to be at a different location, and reported as a different event.


I feel like you missed most of the thread.

The Exchange 5/5

Now if we have a 3 player event, where one of the players wants to bring a Summoner (or even a Druid) and a different player wont play at a table with Eidalons (or animal companions) and says he will leave if the player "is allowed to play that PC"... then maybe we can count that as RAW braking a table....

Player A is allowed by RAW to play a Summoner (or Druid).

Player C will not play at a table with a Summoner (Or AC), but is needed for the table to make.

But I do not see that as RAW braking the table. I see that as Player C braking the table because he doesn't want to play with all the legal options....

so, I'm still looking for an example of where running RAW brakes a game.

The Exchange 5/5

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I feel like you missed most of the thread.

sorry you feel that way. I have read it all (and even posted early in (first page, about half way down. I tried to answer the OPs question....

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.

(Nosig's answer) You can form a home group and run a PFS game in someones home.

The Exchange 5/5

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I believe the point was allowing the 9 INT wizard (which is RAW) resulted in "five players walk away, so there can be no game."

I am sure if I ran a PC wizard with 9 INT (I have actually run a Bard with an 8 CHA back in LG/3.0 days - but that was a special case) that many people I play with would not leave the table.

Some people would... but then I am sure that some people will leave the table if I'm sitting at it playing anything (most of my Casters will have a 20 in their primary casting stat).

But people I play with often would likely want to sit in to see "...what the heck is nosig doing!".

I do not beleave that allowing the 9 INT wizard was what broke the table in the OP. It was the 6th player and the history he had with the other players.

Grand Lodge

I agree with nosig in that one player sitting down at a table with no context or a positive experience in whatever setting and a poorly constructed character doesn't in and of itself make 5 players leave. There was likely some history there.

What if I argued that all 6 players violated the "don't be a jerk" rule. The wizard in making what appears to be a troll character (I can't judge this but it seems that way), and the other 5 players for leaving and not allowing a table to run.

Any of them could have played pre-gens instead, including the wizard or the 5 players. Or they could have all played and carried the wizard through. Or even said ok wizard since you have no spells obviously you're a front liner and had him go everywhere first. Or any number of solutions.

That being said RAW if there weren't enough players to make a legal table for whatever reason, I believe you'd be free to do whatever you like. Whether that be going home and watching TV or even GMing the very session you were supposed to at another location with different players (or 5/6 players). If there is a feeling of guilt about doing so, maybe it's because as a community gamers should be inclusive not exclusive as we depend on others to even play.


Meadow lark wrote:

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!

No. Not every idea is of equal value or should be equally supported. If you really want to say that every idea should be rewarded then consider your argument Godwin'ed because you have committed false equivalency logical fallacy.

Quote:


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.

No they don't. You are allowed to say you simply won't play with an useless character. There is even rules in place saying you don't have too. As such stating you will follow the rules is fair game.

You don't owe it to the player to help them, especially if they bring this to the table and helping them is anything other than offering to help them rebuild or to a pregen character. You do owe a fair game to everyone. It is not a fair game to the other players if you are allowing this sort of character to the table.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

Mattastrophic wrote:

This thread makes me wonder whether I would get kicked out of several of the posters' groups for showing up with one of my typical characters.

-Matt

I for one am eagerly awaiting the next time I get to have a PC of yours grace one of my tables.

Paizocon 2015?

Shadow Lodge 3/5

Lets look at this in reverse... 5 level 1 players show up to a tier 1-5 game... then a 6th player shows up with a level 5 barbarian maxed out... they will be playing tier 1-2 and nobody will get to do anything as he starts every encounter with "i rage and charge" ... in all likelyhood nobody will die but... nobody will have fun watching the barbarian kill everything...

Even worse scenario there are only 3 all brand new 1st level in a 1-7 and the 4th player is the level 7 barbarian now they are playing tier 3-4 and it is likely one or more of the level ones would die.

The Exchange 5/5

Shea Hoarfoot wrote:

Lets look at this in reverse... 5 level 1 players show up to a tier 1-5 game... then a 6th player shows up with a level 5 barbarian maxed out... they will be playing tier 1-2 and nobody will get to do anything as he starts every encounter with "i rage and charge" ... in all likelyhood nobody will die but... nobody will have fun watching the barbarian kill everything...

Even worse scenario there are only 3 all brand new 1st level in a 1-7 and the 4th player is the level 7 barbarian now they are playing tier 3-4 and it is likely one or more of the level ones would die.

LOL! Try Library of the Lion with the first example...

but seriously, this is a Player issue. IMHO - The high level guy should switch off to a different PC - even if he has to play an Iconic. Though I have seen someone play your examples where he made it a lot of fun for the other players. A high level Ranger in a game with 4 low levels, and the player played it up as he was a "teacher/nurse-maid" trying to "get the green-horns thru this alive". In one encounter he stood and spent his actions handing the 1st level Ranger blunt arrows (he had them, but the "newbie" hadn't bought them, and they had encountered Skeletons...). "Yeah kid, now wait till after Kera channels and see if she drops them all. If not, go for the damaged ones first...". In another encounter he walked around to give the Rogue a flank, all the while "coaching the kids"...

101 to 150 of 154 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Rules question that I can't find the ruling for. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.