Can a GM outright forbid a character that is otherwise legal?


GM Discussion

301 to 350 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Would it be too much to ask that the RP be taken to an RP thread?

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Eshleman wrote:
Would it be too much to ask that the RP be taken to an RP thread?

A rules discussion broke out into RP. This is so dog bites man it should be news.

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

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Would it be too much to ask that the RP be taken to an RP thread?

We tried that like 3 pages ago.

4/5

LazarX wrote:

Here's a problem I have as a PFS judge... the fact that your character WILL be so ineffective that it will hurt the team's performance in your chosen role, which is front line offense. I don't know why you want to wield a whip in a class that's so badly suited for it, but when coming up a character for a team effort, try to remember that it's not just about you.

As far as I'm concerned, making a character that's fatally ineffective to a table is borderline disruptive behavior.

That's a really good point, and one that can only be addressed table-by-table. If you're playing something fatally ineffectual with 5 optimized characters, I wouldn't call that even potentially disruptive. Even if you're subpar, everyone else at the table more than makes up for a weak link, so the only person who might suffer is you.

But the exact same ineffective PC at a table with 3 average or even slightly powerful PCs? Now you're drastically diminishing the chances of success.

Basically, 1 in an optimized 6 not pulling their weight probably isn't disruptive. But 1 in an average 4 not being up to snuff? That can snatch failure from the jaws of victory, and if the GM already knows that the scenario will be tough, or that an extreme weak link will damage the experience, then yeah, I'd say the GM could (if he thought it best) disallow the weak link under the auspice of disruption.

But even so, that's a disruption issue, not a "this PC is legal, but I don't like it so I won't seat it" issue.

I wish GMs could say "I won't allow <X> at might table because I don't like it." I'd see a lot fewer Gunslingers, tech builds, and Summoners. ;-)

5/5 5/55/55/5

Amanda Plageman wrote:
That's a really good point, and one that can only be addressed table-by-table. If you're playing something fatally ineffectual with 5 optimized characters, I wouldn't call that even potentially disruptive. Even if you're subpar, everyone else at the table more than makes up for a weak link, so the only person who might suffer is you.

But this is an example of exactly why a DM SHOULDN"T be able to make that call.

Whipmagus is not only a viable build, its downright nasty and is probably the magus build I've seen most often outside of the cookie cutter dervish dancing saranite scimitar wielder. A DM that may have never seen one, doesn't know how good they are, and doesn't know how they work has no way of evaluating how good they are. Banning one from the table would be incredibly arbitrary and can tick off a player and ruin their day as they may not be able to find another table.

4/5

Marculus wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:


If you take issue with a PC, first talk to the player. Most of us are accommodating to polite requests to tone it down or even play something else. But you cannot, as a PFS GM, ban a legal character. The PC described might need to be audited to validate everything is kosher, and that is within the right of a PFS GM.

I think the biggest issue is that there are sooooo many rules and splat books that it is nearly impossible to know if a character is legal without looking up a material for what seems like hours.

That brings up a point that I ran into awhile back. Yes, a GM can call for an audit any time, and the player must be able to produce legal sources etc. It can take a long time, even using shortcuts as like Archives of Nethys (which, while a fabulous resource isn't PFS official, and thus could open the door to other issues, but that's neither here nor there).

In a home game, maybe folks don't mind delaying the start time due to an audit. (And you should be pre-vetting PCs in a home game anyway.) But most public games and pretty much every con slot is tightly controlled for session length. Every minute that the GM spends auditing one person's character is less time for the scenario. And it gets worse with the need for multiple audits.

I've played in a couple of games where the GM called for an audit, and I fully supported his choice to do so. But it took so long that we didn't get to finish the scenario. (The GM wasn't dragging his feet- there was just that much that needed looking at.)

At what point does the GM look at the audit-worthy PC and say to the player, "This is too much to go into without shorting the rest of the table's play time, please play something else and we'll go over your PC afterwards."?

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amanda Plageman wrote:
At what point does the GM look at the audit-worthy PC and say to the player, "This is too much to go into without shorting the rest of the table's play time, please play something else and we'll go over your PC afterwards."?

When you're sure its not legal.

If you're worried about breaking the game, game breaking options are already legal. In the mean time there's usually 6 other players that want to get gaming and then either go home for bed or hit the pizza place between sessions at the con.

4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:


A DM that may have never seen one, doesn't know how good they are, and doesn't know how they work has no way of evaluating how good they are. Banning one from the table would be incredibly arbitrary and can tick off a player and ruin their day as they may not be able to find another table.

If the GM doesn't know how something works, and the player can't readily explain and/or provide the source material so that the GM can see how it works, then it shouldn't be at the table in the first place. The GM is expected to have a basic understanding of the classes, how they usually work, etc. No one can be expected to know how every tiny wrinkle of every tiny mechanic works. There's too much material out there for that.

If the player can't provide the source material upon request and a concise explanation, then that's on the player, not the GM.

And as far as ruining the 1 player's day for not being able to play their snowflake, what about ruining all the other player's days by the snowflake costing them an enjoyable experience?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

But Amanda, that's the point. A GM can't tell a player he can't play a character simply on the merits of what they personally think about the character.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Amanda Plageman wrote:

Quote:
And as far as ruining the 1 player's day for not being able to play their snowflake, what about ruining all the other player's days by the snowflake costing them an enjoyable experience?

This tells me all I need to know. Good day.

4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
But Amanda, that's the point. A GM can't tell a player he can't play a character simply on the merits of what they personally think about the character.

And that's why we keep having these threads every few weeks/months. You're right. A GM can't tell a player not to play simply because they don't like the character. But they can tell them not to play disruptive characters, leading to endless discussions of what constitutes 'disruptive'- including things that impact the enjoyment of others, both player and GM.

There isn't a balanced answer. I'm not sure there ever will be. But these threads will keep happening until there is a balanced answer.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Amanda Plageman wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
But Amanda, that's the point. A GM can't tell a player he can't play a character simply on the merits of what they personally think about the character.

And that's why we keep having these threads every few weeks/months. You're right. A GM can't tell a player not to play simply because they don't like the character. But they can tell them not to play disruptive characters, leading to endless discussions of what constitutes 'disruptive'- including things that impact the enjoyment of others, both player and GM.

There isn't a balanced answer. I'm not sure there ever will be. But these threads will keep happening until there is a balanced answer.

There is a balanced answer. Eric Britain posted a wonderful way to handle this.

I'll see if I can paraphrase:

1) Make sure it really is a problem, by asking the other players.
2) Discuss problem with player of said character and let them know what the problem is, what they can do to fix it, and the consequences if they don't.
3) If they don't, follow through on the consequences.

Players dominating a table and causing everyone else at the table not to have fun is a problem with the player, not the character. I've seen extremely OP characters played by fun players. And those fun players don't disrupt play with the OP characters.

And our GMs, organizers, and VOs need to feel empowered to take action that is best for our community. But we can't just start to ban characters we "think" will disrupt play. Or that "we" think disrupts play. We need to first make sure that the other players at that table and in our community feel that said player is being disruptive to play.

If the community feels there is a problem, then you deal directly with the player and tell them what the problem is, and why its a problem. Don't allow them to turn it into an argument. Tell them what they can do to fix it (usually its as simple as, "hey, there are complaints of you dominating the table, so can you let others shine once in awhile? If you don't, I'm going to have to disinvite you from playing at our game day.")

That's the balanced and adult way to handle things.

Silver Crusade 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I don't know if this has happened before, but not only do I agree with Andy Christian and BNW, but I agree with them both in the same thread! Sorry guys, I'm calling it. Internet's closed, everyone off.

4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


Players dominating a table and causing everyone else at the table not to have fun is a problem with the player, not the character.

Agreed. 100%. The terms 'player' and 'character' get used indiscriminately all too often.

Andrew Christian wrote:
And our GMs, organizers, and VOs need to feel empowered to take action that is best for our community. But we can't just start to ban characters we "think" will disrupt play. Or that "we" think disrupts play.

Agreed. But we also need to learn from past experience. When a player regularly brings disruptive play to a table, regardless of what character is in use, it's a problem, and should be handled in the manner you noted. Even when the player is hiding behind the tired "It's what my character would do, I'm just playing my character" lines, thus blurring the 'bad character' vs 'disruptive player' line even further.

But this thread has drifted waaay away from the original. There's really no debate that a GM cannot refuse a slot to a legal PC on the basis of not liking it, which was the original question.

I'm out until the next time this thread comes up. ;-)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UndeadMitch wrote:
Well, I don't know if this has happened before, but not only do I agree with Andy Christian and BNW, but I agree with them both in the same thread! Sorry guys, I'm calling it. Internet's closed, everyone off.

Hey, there are actually odds of being struck by lightning 7 times.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Amanda Plageman wrote:


Agreed. But we also need to learn from past experience. When a player regularly brings disruptive play to a table, regardless of what character is in use, it's a problem, and should be handled in the manner you noted. Even when the player is hiding behind the tired "It's what my character would do, I'm just playing my character" lines, thus blurring the 'bad character' vs 'disruptive player' line even further.

This is exactly why I suggest that you deal with the person and not the PC they are playing. When you give specific examples, that are confirmed to be a problem, in as kind a manner as you can muster then the dodging is much less.

If the player attempts to change the subject focus them back on the specific problem issue (example "we are not talking about what your character would do but rather about what you did <reference specific incident> <highlight why that specific incident is a problem>").

If the issue is stated in terms of what the person is doing then trying to divert it onto the character they play is much less likely to work.

5/5

Amanda Plageman wrote:
That's a really good point, and one that can only be addressed table-by-table. If you're playing something fatally ineffectual with 5 optimized characters, I wouldn't call that even potentially disruptive. Even if you're subpar, everyone else at the table more than makes up for a weak link, so the only person who might suffer is you.

Even worse when there are 4 average PCs and the 5th player brings their monk/oracle/bard, Not only can they not contribute by removing the 4 player adjustment they have made the game harder for the other players.

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

tlotig, you are thinking of PFS as a combat simulator... That Monk/Oracle/Bard should be providing awesome support in combat and even better in the Non-Combat... It is not a Tank, but it is meant to be...

I might have to look into a Monk/Oracle/Bard build now... and a way to play it at a table your running... to prove it's value...

3/5

tlotig wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:
That's a really good point, and one that can only be addressed table-by-table. If you're playing something fatally ineffectual with 5 optimized characters, I wouldn't call that even potentially disruptive. Even if you're subpar, everyone else at the table more than makes up for a weak link, so the only person who might suffer is you.
Even worse when there are 4 average PCs and the 5th player brings their monk/oracle/bard, Not only can they not contribute by removing the 4 player adjustment they have made the game harder for the other players.

A character is never worthless. A player can play any character in a worthless manner.

This is a game and using the rules a worthless character can provide great strength to those around them.

I always bring OP characters to the games I play, but I almost always hold back so the other players can get their game on. I have to find creative ways to help while maintaining my character and not dominating the game.

My 7 strength oracle was helping a player fight a monster. I came up behind the monster and aided his attack while providing flank. There I gave that character a +4 to their attack role.

I frequently cast guidance on those door fights where one plyaer can get at things.

I have never done this but read from another player that uses a whip, use it to re-position allies around the board. Moving wounded allies to the back and front liners to the front.

So again it is the player not the character. Ban disruptive player, not characters.

Just because someone brings that crazy 8 shots a round gunslinger does not mean they will use it every chance. Talk to the player and let them know what you want from your game.

The beauty of PFS is that you get to game with players you might never get to and learn and share ideas of the game.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

2 people marked this as a favorite.
tlotig wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:
That's a really good point, and one that can only be addressed table-by-table. If you're playing something fatally ineffectual with 5 optimized characters, I wouldn't call that even potentially disruptive. Even if you're subpar, everyone else at the table more than makes up for a weak link, so the only person who might suffer is you.
Even worse when there are 4 average PCs and the 5th player brings their monk/oracle/bard, Not only can they not contribute by removing the 4 player adjustment they have made the game harder for the other players.

Bard gets you Saving Finale, Oracle Misfortune and Ill Omen. With some Monk in the mix he's not going to fail saving throws against anything he's likely to face in his own tier or even playing up. Meanwhile PCs will be rerolling failed saves and enemies will be rerolling crit threats and succesful saves.

That character could drive GMs to tears by how effective he is.

Sovereign Court 5/5

tlotig wrote:
Even worse when there are 4 average PCs and the 5th player brings their monk/oracle/bard, Not only can they not contribute by removing the 4 player adjustment they have made the game harder for the other players.

I agree, adventuring with me is an exercise in depression. My sword has found its way out of its sheath once in my adventures. I've yet to swing a weapon in anger. I'm not well armored, and I can't stand in the front ranks. All I do stand in the back ranks and tell depressing tales of everybody's eventual demise.

It's like I define your issue.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5

Marženek Koliadnko wrote:
tlotig wrote:
Even worse when there are 4 average PCs and the 5th player brings their monk/oracle/bard, Not only can they not contribute by removing the 4 player adjustment they have made the game harder for the other players.

I agree, adventuring with me is an exercise in depression. My sword has found its way out of its sheath once in my adventures. I've yet to swing a weapon in anger. I'm not well armored, and I can't stand in the front ranks. All I do stand in the back ranks and tell depressing tales of everybody's eventual demise.

It's like I define your issue.

It's true. I've seen him in... action. If there was ever a dude who really needed to get la-, I mean lighten up, it is Marženek.

5/5

Tempest_Knight wrote:

tlotig, you are thinking of PFS as a combat simulator... That Monk/Oracle/Bard should be providing awesome support in combat and even better in the Non-Combat... It is not a Tank, but it is meant to be...

I might have to look into a Monk/Oracle/Bard build now... and a way to play it at a table your running... to prove it's value...

PFS is not a combat simulator, I much prefer talking my way through encounters. My sorcerer has 1 whole rank in diplomacy =)

I would be interested to see how you would build one, given the support strength of pure bard.

3/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

A DM laughed and said my monk/rogue/inquisitor build was the most pathetic buiuld he ever saw. Then when four guys jumped us I flurried and punched them each once and gave them all the frighted state. He then told me it was the most broken character he ever GMed for.

Silver Crusade

I'll give you a basic mechanical concept for one right now.

It's relatively easy if you go full melee. Go mainly oracle and grab a mystery that gives you one of the 1 hour/oracle level armor abilities (to synergize well with monk). Just dip Archaeologist bard and monk.

With divine favor (and later divine power) and archaologist's luck you can have luck bonuses to hit and damage whenever you want. Could take two levels of archaeologist for uncanny dodge. You also get useful first level spells like feather step, another spell list to cast scrolls and use wands from, and a bunch of class skills (including UMD). Take two levels of unchained monk for proficiency with all monk weapons and/or unarmed strike and evasion. Alternatively, go two levels of MoMS monk for the ability to use dragon and pummeling style together, and rely on the new hit bonus from MoMS to make up for the loss of BAB.

I have a brawler/bard/monk myself that has similar mechanics (which stumbled into because I was multiclassing to get the right combo of abilities to make the concept work), and she has done great all the way to level 8 thus far :)

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

I'm thinking aasimar(dual talent human would work just as well); Sensei Monk/Enlightened Philosopher Oracle of Lore/Bard (or Archivist Bard); Str 10, Dex 12, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 18; probably take Oracle level 1 and get Cha for knowledge skills, then Bard level 2 for Bardic Knowledge and Inspire Courage, then Monk for another pool of Inspire Courage rounds...

The build will suck at direct participation in combat, but will help elevate the party to greater efficiency and effect. Never underestimate the value of Monster Knowledge checks...

Mind you I'm still poking at the build...

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed some back and forth posts. Flag and move on folks. If you feel there's an issue, you can also tell us community@paizo.com.

The Exchange 5/5

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some back and forth posts. Flag and move on folks. If you feel there's an issue, you can also tell us community@paizo.com.

thank you Chris.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
Well, okay so then in my example... If I brought a bladebound kensai whip magus to the table [sic]

'Bladebound', and 'Kensai', are two different Magus archetypes. I looked and don't think they replace any of same abilities, but maybe your GM was thinking of the combining of two archetypes like that; but I think that's legal like I said. Unless he specifically said he didn't 'like' the "whip", deal.... then it's just prejudice.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
tlotig wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:
That's a really good point, and one that can only be addressed table-by-table. If you're playing something fatally ineffectual with 5 optimized characters, I wouldn't call that even potentially disruptive. Even if you're subpar, everyone else at the table more than makes up for a weak link, so the only person who might suffer is you.
Even worse when there are 4 average PCs and the 5th player brings their monk/oracle/bard, Not only can they not contribute by removing the 4 player adjustment they have made the game harder for the other players.

A character is never worthless. A player can play any character in a worthless manner.

[sic]

I am from Pathfinder Lodge of Jacksonville Fl, and I have had players turn to me in play and say "your character is **&^%$ worthless"- for this exact reason: they all want to play ... is it 'OP' - over powered- and I play for fun and flavor, or a theme, etc. And yes, our group is now awful to play with. This is off-topic from original question re. whip, but our Lodge has VO's doing whatever they want, anyway (like 'banning' deal of original post thread)--- and that is a people problem, not a PFS rule problem. Unfortunately, you can't force people to be fair. You may want to find personal friends and start your own game if you can't find a fun game within your lodge, if you're playing Organized Play... Best of LUck.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Kitten, if there are problems you can always report them to the Venture Officers assigned to your area.

If you have a problem with a VO, please bring it up with them. If you don't feel safe doing this, or if the problems is with a VO, please bring the issue to the attention of the person above them in the organization even taking this to the level of the campaign coordinator.

Life is far to short to have to endure bad gaming situations. If it gets reported there is a chance we could do something about it. However to do something about it we need to know that something is going on.

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

"Kitten" wrote:


I am from Pathfinder Lodge of Jacksonville Fl, and I have had players turn to me in play and say "your character is **&^%$ worthless"- for this exact reason: they all want to play ... is it 'OP' - over powered- and I play for fun and flavor, or a theme, etc. And yes, our group is now awful to play with. This is off-topic from original question re. whip, but our Lodge has VO's doing whatever they want, anyway (like 'banning' deal of original post thread)--- and that is a people problem, not a PFS rule problem. Unfortunately, you can't force people to be fair. You may want to find personal friends and start your own game if you can't find a fun game within your lodge, if you're playing Organized Play... Best of LUck.

Wow, nexc time I vist family in Florida I'll definitely have to come play at your table. I think you'd get along with a lot of my PCs. :-)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Amanda Plageman wrote:
And that's why we keep having these threads every few weeks/months. You're right. A GM can't tell a player not to play simply because they don't like the character. But they can tell them not to play disruptive characters, leading to endless discussions of what constitutes 'disruptive'- including things that impact the enjoyment of others, both player and GM.

Sometimes its hard to determine who is being disruptive. When a necromancer specializing in animating undead comes to the take with an inquisitor of Pharasma determined to destroy all undead, who is the disruptive one. The consensus seems to be that we wand to be inclusive, so telling them both to play something else is not supporting their individual choices. And then there is the other four players at the table.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:
And that's why we keep having these threads every few weeks/months. You're right. A GM can't tell a player not to play simply because they don't like the character. But they can tell them not to play disruptive characters, leading to endless discussions of what constitutes 'disruptive'- including things that impact the enjoyment of others, both player and GM.
Sometimes its hard to determine who is being disruptive. When a necromancer specializing in animating undead comes to the take with an inquisitor of Pharasma determined to destroy all undead, who is the disruptive one. The consensus seems to be that we wand to be inclusive, so telling them both to play something else is not supporting their individual choices. And then there is the other four players at the table.

Or the DM , telling the pharasmin they're going to fall for going on the adventure.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why would the inquisitor fall? and where would they fall to?

Silver Crusade 5/5

Is there a bridge? A cliff? Something high up? Did the balcony not have rails? Somebody should really make sure that balcony is safe.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I'll have to rail against the architect of this place!

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

Maybe they're in Book 2 of Carrion Crown. That castle is not OSHA-compliant.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Neither is The Fallen Fortress.

2/5

Kalindlara wrote:
FLite wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Even if you're otherwise in the right, I WOULD take this person's opposition as a sign that maybe you've veered too far onto the wrong side of "RAW versus RAI" - you are supposed to apply your own ethics and common sense rather than relying on "RAW lets me get away with it, so there must be nothing wrong with it." This is a game of imagination, not just following rules by the book.
I believe this is for PFS, which leans far more heavily toward "run it by the book"...

Except the GM is encouraged to use their judgement in how they apply the rules.

I am still in agreement that this build is legal, but I am about 3 posts away from just posting the "GM's should use their judgement" language from the guide to every single thread where people say "it's PFS, run as written"

sigh

Yes, I know. I'm on your side.

Same.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 **

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Characters aren't disruptive: their players sometimes are. A player can always choose to be disruptive or to be part of the team, and said player can choose to be either with a build that is perfectly legal.

I run tables where classes I don't care for show up, because that's what I agreed to do. If the player disrupts the table, I'll take him or her aside. If that player attempts to do all the things (tm), then the next time he or she tries something, I will often say, "Okay, maybe we could see if one of the other characters wants to try something first."

But, do I think a GM has a right to outright ban a character which is legal? No, but only unless or until the player demonstrates that he or she should not be at the table.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
But, do I think a GM has a right to outright ban a character which is legal? No, but only unless or until the player demonstrates that he or she should not be at the table.

Ban the player not the class.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 **

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:
But, do I think a GM has a right to outright ban a character which is legal? No, but only unless or until the player demonstrates that he or she should not be at the table.
Ban the player not the class.

Correct.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

While as a PFS GM you do not have a right to ban players from your table, you always have the right to simply not run any table.

This might not make you popular with your local organizer but as I said before, life is too short for bad gaming.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 **

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Eric Brittain wrote:
While as a PFS GM you do not have a right to ban players from your table, you always have the right to simply not run any table.

I am pretty sure table GMs can send away a disruptive player from a specific table or game, correct?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Mark Stratton wrote:
Eric Brittain wrote:
While as a PFS GM you do not have a right to ban players from your table, you always have the right to simply not run any table.
I am pretty sure table GMs can send away a disruptive player from a specific table or game, correct?

Yes. But only after he has demonstrated his is disruptive. Banning them because they have a legal but potentially disruptive build before play even begins should not be acceptable. Especially since any build has the potential for being disruptive in one way or another.

301 to 350 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Can a GM outright forbid a character that is otherwise legal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.