|
So, I was recently on another site discussing a build that is by the rules 100% legal and it's legal with PFS as far as I can find too. However, one person was like "That wouldn't fly at my table in PFS." and so now I wonder, if your character follows all the rules, can a GM just outright say "I don't care if your character is valid and legal, I don't like it" or does that go beyond 'expect table variation'?
For reference, we were discussing how the whip is a one-handed slashing weapon, and is therefore a legal choice for a bladebound kensai magus. A bladebound kensai magus centered around the whip is going to be so pathetic for the first few levels, and even after that it's a very feat-intenstive build just to be half-way decent. But, it's legal.
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I am not mistaken, a character that is built without violating any of the rules for the Pathfinder Society Role Playing Guild cannot be denied the ability to be played. I would double check to insure that the character is 100% rules legal and you have all required resources. I have had several characters come to the table that I haven't liked but would never deny the player the ability to use that character.
If you check the character and it is 100% legal and the GM does not allow you to play it at the table, advise your Event Coordinator or local Venture-Officer.
|
|
Okay, thanks I've not made the character yet, I was discussing her on another site, and as far as everyone is able to tell, as weird as it is for a strip of leather to be a valid choice for BLADEbound, it is valid, since it's by the rules a one-handed slashing weapon regardless of the flavor of it being a 'black blade'
So, then this guy says he'd never allow that at his table, which made me wonder if a PFS GM can not allow a valid character.
Then I also made the comment that yeah, my 1d3 weapon that only deals nonlethal and provokes an attack of opportunity every time I use it until at least level 3 is really going to wreak havoc... I should just go with a 1d10 bastard sword instead. (I wouldn't be sarcastic like this at an actual PFS event)
|
|
Bladebound Magus with a whip is technically legal since it qualifies as as a one-handed slashing weapon, as described in the archetype. The requirements are very clear and you could petition a VO if the GM opts to ignore RAW.
That said, the larger question about forbidding things at the table can be the case if the ruling is ambiguous, meeting the guidelines for table variation. That happens from time to time (ex. I've had GMs rule multiple ways regarding the reach of my enlarged aberrant bloodline bloodrager). While that's never impacted the table eligibility of my character, the ruling has meant different strategies at times.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming a fairly unambiguous case:
There are several questions here.
Answers below are my interpretation, informed by prior discussions on the forum.
1. Can the GM refuse to allow your character?
A> No
2. Can the GM refuse to seat you if you bring a character that is genuinely disruptive?
A> Clearly Yes.
3. Is being a class, archtype, or implementation of an archetype that the GM detests (to the point of being unwilling to GM if you are seated) "genuinely disruptive"?
A> Situational. If it was something where the GM had legitimate emotional triggers (devout christian GM and demonologist PC for example. I have known some people who are fine with GM run demons, even if they are the ones running them, but who legitimately get squicked if the PCs are doing the summoning.) I could see an event organizer needing to make some concessions to everyone's mental health and asking you to play another character.
4. Should you do it?
A> If it really is going to really make the GM unhappy, game will suffer. And if the GM makes a ruling or tactical decision that permanently harms your character, the worry will always be there that it was because they didn't like your character. That sort of thing can get poisonous in a small gaming community. Save the character for GMs who will get a kick out of it.
I have had several characters and character concepts that I run past GMs (in my case because they silly ridiculous) before play, so that if it will make the GM really unhappy, I can play something else. Fortunately, I haven't had to do that recently, because they have all retired.
|
|
That happens from time to time (ex. I've had GMs rule multiple ways regarding the reach of my enlarged aberrant bloodline bloodrager). While that's never impacted the table eligibility of my character, the ruling has meant different strategies at times.
What grounds would they rule differently for this? I do not like you stacking reach bonuses so i decide they do not stack?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, okay so then in my example... If I brought a bladebound kensai whip magus to the table and the GM at a PFS event was like "WTF a whip is not a valid weapon for a bladebound magus, play another character or don't play at my table" the GM would be in the wrong?
I mean, I understand if it's disruptive it shouldn't be played (the Christian example, I agree), but is this a disruption, or is it the GM taking the blade part of the archetype literally so that a leather whip counting as a 'black blade' is silly and therefore not allowing it?
I mean, the point of making a character is to play it. Sure, you can technically run a pregen then apply the XP to the character after... but what's the fun in that?
Especially when as I've pointed out... a whip is only a 1d3 weapon, even with all the whip feats it's not as effective as other weapons in actually hurting the NPCs. If I really wanted to be 'disruptive' I'd be making a Bladebound Kensai Magus with a bastard sword and taking down major NPCs in a single attack.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the Christian example.
In PFS, the GM's devoutness should not be a factor in PC legitimacy.
The player should be polite about the issue and perhaps downplay the less savory aspects, maybe even using neutral nomenclature such as "my outsider" or "the spiky monster". And as per PFS the PC shouldn't be doing evil deeds anyway, nor intentionally disrupt.
But it's unreasonable to call it "disruptive" for a person to play a demon-themed fantasy character in a high fantasy world, one that's rife with unholy villains and the grotesque imagery that comes with it.
PFS is PG-13.
|
|
What is 'completely legal' can vary greatly from GM to GM.
Just cause you read something one way, and thus sure its 100% legal.
Does not mean the GM might read it another way, and be equally sure its not.Thus table variation!
So, how can a GM read a legal pair of archetypes, that legally can be stacked, and a legal weapon with the correct damage type, as not legal?
I have a Blade bound Kensai Magus who was originally going to be a whip wielder, but it was just so wimpy during First Steps Part 3 that I rebuilt him to wield a scimitar. So, yes, I went from a fairly unusual build to one of the standard builds. Sigh. Currently Magus 8, IIRC.
I also have a Lore Warden fighter who wields the whip, and always has. In recent levels, he has taken levels of Kensai Magus, so I retrained a couple of feats that were duplicated by the Kensai. At this level, even though he doesn't have much in the way of his own magic, he is still ugly/awesome using the whip for reach attacks and combat maneuvers. Currently Fighter 8/Magus 4, IIRC.
|
|
That happens from time to time (ex. I've had GMs rule multiple ways regarding the reach of my enlarged aberrant bloodline bloodrager). While that's never impacted the table eligibility of my character, the ruling has meant different strategies at times.What grounds would they rule differently for this? I do not like you stacking reach bonuses so i decide they do not stack?
It was a while ago and it was the difference between 25' and 30'. It was such a minimal impact that I was willing to accept the ruling.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The timing of things matter too.
If you spring some weird thing in the middle of combat, especially something not crucial to your build, the GM is perfectly within their rights to say "uh, no. I haven't time to look at this now, so right now you can't do that. We can discuss it later".
If you follow enough threads, you'll also realize that just about literally NOTHING is 100% clearly legal.
Note: both comments above are general comments NOT talking about a whip bladebound kensai magus.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
Contributor
|
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"...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the Christian example.
In PFS, the GM's devoutness should not be a factor in PC legitimacy.
I am not a Christian. However, even as a not-Christian, I understand that some of them will interpret the Bible and the teachings of their church to mean that the laws of God and the laws of good are far more important than anything else. They will use that to justify breaking laws in the real world, if their faith has convicted them that God as ultimate authority has overruled that governmental law.
We see this in issues like abortion. It may be legal, but that doesn't stop some Christians from dealing with it in controversial ways, or treating it as if it violates some other set of laws (holy laws) which they uphold as more valuable and more viable than the laws of man.
So while I do not believe in that stuff, I understand that the teachings may compel them to decide that something "in this world" is less important than following God's laws. If they decide that the game is less important than following God's laws, then they will not run the game if you press the issue. You can disagree with them, and tell them they have to accept it or whatever. It won't stop them from standing up and walking away from the table. And again, although I don't believe in that stuff, I can't fault them for behaving in accordance with what they've learned and committed to.
So this kind of thing is a balancing act. Do you as a player wish to push your character so hard that you end up canceling the game for everyone? Are you willing to then step up and fill in the GM's shoes? As well, do you as a GM wish to jeopardize your ability to run games in PFS by putting your beliefs over something as trivial and silly as a game? Maybe you do. Maybe you should. But you may find your VC asks you to never sign up to run games again. I suppose if it became a big enough issue, you could even be asked to not play again.
So on both sides, you have to make decisions about how unbending you wish to be. If you won't bend because you're a jerk or because you have a religious belief, well, you won't bend and no one can make you... but other people will react to your behavior, and that'll probably not always work in your favor. Just gotta weigh those odds.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Well, okay so then in my example... If I brought a bladebound kensai whip magus to the table and the GM at a PFS event was like "WTF a whip is not a valid weapon for a bladebound magus, play another character or don't play at my table" the GM would be in the wrong?
Yes, they would be in the wrong. Whether there is much you can do about it is another matter.
a. You can take it up with the Event Organizer / Venture Officer. But unless they are there, that is not an immediate solution, and may produce friction long term.
b. You can find a thread in the rules forum or on here that clearly concludes that it is legal, and have it on hand (bookmark it or whatever.) And show it to them.
c. Find the local rules lawyer. (In the store I game in that usually means me or Nefreet) and ask them to validate that it is legal. This will sometimes have enough weight (if they are well respected) to convince the GM that it is legal. I usually try to bounce questionable builds off Nefreet and then run they by my VC so that when a GM questions them I can point out that Nefreet and my VC were both cool with it. (I usually bounce them off the forum too.)
d. Play another character and just make a mental note (or physical note) that that GM is not okay with that character and avoid them in future.
e. Have a paper copy of the rule, possibly with the questionable bit highlighted, so that they can see it does not specify "weapon from the fighter blades group" but just says "one handed slashing weapon."
f. ??? Anyone else have sugguestions ???
I will say that with Magus in particular (and barbarians) weapon dice at some point stop being really important at some point, as the add on spell (or strength) damage starts to swamp them, and what really matters is the crit range and reach. (I don't know if either of those two archtypes change that general rule, and this is just my impression from the outside, never having played a magus.) But that may be why people freak out about bladebound whip masters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
> Situational. If it was something where the GM had legitimate emotional triggers (devout christian GM and demonologist PC for example. I have known some people who are fine with GM run demons, even if they are the ones running them, but who legitimately get squicked if the PCs are doing the summoning.) I could see an event organizer needing to make some concessions to everyone's mental health and asking you to play another character.
Yeah.. no. PFS is not generally set up to handle that kind of thing for public games without having a really big group.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I am not a Christian. However, even as a not-Christian, I understand that some of them will interpret the Bible and the teachings of their church to mean that the laws of God and the laws of good are far more important than anything else. They will use that justify breaking laws in the real world, if their faith has convicted them that God as ultimate authority has overruled that governmental law.I disagree with the Christian example.
In PFS, the GM's devoutness should not be a factor in PC legitimacy.
Actually the devoutness is not directly the issue. And the person in question (who shall remain nameless) is a firm believer in seperation of church and state.
It is that the person in question was raised within a faith that views demons and devils as real as Jesus and God. And as a result they have a reflexive reaction to players summoning demons and devils that is strong enough that it will make them want to leave. Not that they think the players actually are, but that it triggers emotional responses that are highly unpleasant. (Note I said it squicked them, not that it offended their religion.)
(I tried coming up with other examples of triggers, and while I could think of several that were related to character activities, (slavery, torture (which is banned in PFS), Nazi clones) that was the only one I could think of where it was integral to someones build and mechanics. So I am sorry if it was not a very good example.)
Anyway, back on topic.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
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"
|
Contributor
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 wan 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. When I made my magus, I did my best to make sure that she would always contribute round to round no matter what the circumstances. So in addition to her blackblade, she equipped herself with a composite longbow, so she'd always be able to shoot at something beyond spell range. This helped turned the battle in at least one scenario.
As far as I'm concerned, making a character that's fatally ineffective to a table is borderline disruptive behavior.
This is the attitude that kept me out of PFS for years.
The idea that my character concepts would be policed. That if I wasn't optimized to others' satisfaction, I would be excluded or treated poorly. That If I dared to play something that wasn't "good enough", I wouldn't be allowed to play.
Denying others the right to play legal characters because you don't think they're optimized enough is at least as disruptive a behavior, if not more.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think someone who is triggered by a player summoning fiends is not well-suited to being a GM at a public organized play event, since there's no way to control what others may bring to the table. It's like someone with a dangerous peanut allergy serving food at a Thai restaurant.
There are few rules that are so unambiguous that no idiot will misinterpret them, and in PFS pretty much any idiot can be a GM.
That said, the whip being a one-handed slashing weapon, and therefore eligible to be a 'blackblade' is pretty much unambiguous. You could pick a cat-o-nine tails, a battleaxe, a sibat, a terbutje, or anything else that doesn't seem like a traditional 'blade' while still being in the category, and therefore legal. That doesn't mean some GMs won't squint at the rule and see it in a cockeyed fashion. I've had GMs make some seriously nonsensical rulings while playing before.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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"
Yes, I know. I'm on your side.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can truestrike whip trip can't you? Thats far from ineffective thats outright nasty.So you spend a first level spell slot to give yourself a +20 to hit for 1d3 non lethal damage? That's still not going to help you with your rather pathetic CMB roll if tripping is what you're looking to do.
It will, in fact. Combat maneuver checks are attack rolls. CRB, page 199.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the Christian example.
In PFS, the GM's devoutness should not be a factor in PC legitimacy.I am not a Christian. However, even as a not-Christian, I understand that some of them will interpret the Bible and the teachings of their church to mean that the laws of God and the laws of good are far more important than anything else. They will use that to justify breaking laws in the real world, if their faith has convicted them that God as ultimate authority has overruled that governmental law.
We see this in issues like abortion. It may be legal, but that doesn't stop some Christians from dealing with it in controversial ways, or treating it as if it violates some other set of laws (holy laws) which they uphold as more valuable and more viable than the laws of man.
So while I do not believe in that stuff, I understand that the teachings may compel them to decide that something "in this world" is less important than following God's laws. If they decide that the game is less important than following God's laws, then they will not run the game if you press the issue. You can disagree with them, and tell them they have to accept it or whatever. It won't stop them from standing up and walking away from the table. And again, although I don't believe in that stuff, I can't fault them for behaving in accordance with what they've learned and committed to.
I'm sorry, but anyone who has that big a problem with demons and devils in a game shouldn't be playing Pathfinder. Period. There are plenty of role playing games that don't have that aspect. Play those instead.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It will, in fact. Combat maneuver checks are attack rolls. CRB, page 199.You can truestrike whip trip can't you? Thats far from ineffective thats outright nasty.So you spend a first level spell slot to give yourself a +20 to hit for 1d3 non lethal damage? That's still not going to help you with your rather pathetic CMB roll if tripping is what you're looking to do.
You know, I knew all the pieces of that, but I didn't really appreciate them...
ETA: shoot. Looks like I can't. So sad. "Spells cast in this way must come from the summoner spell list. "
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 wan 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. When I made my magus, I did my best to make sure that she would always contribute round to round no matter what the circumstances. So in addition to her blackblade, she equipped herself with a composite longbow, so she'd always be able to shoot at something beyond spell range. This helped turned the battle in at least one scenario.
As far as I'm concerned, making a character that's fatally ineffective to a table is borderline disruptive behavior.
This is the attitude that kept me out of PFS for years.
The idea that my character concepts would be policed. That if I wasn't optimized to others' satisfaction, I would be excluded or treated poorly. That If I dared to play something that wasn't "good enough", I wouldn't be allowed to play.
Denying others the right to play legal characters because you don't think they're optimized enough is at least as disruptive a behavior, if not more.
I've played a fair bit of PFS and I've seen my share of poorly optimized characters. None of them were turned away or even criticized for their character choices. All of them were at least functional, however. There were sword-and-board Paladins whose first-level feat was 'Presuasive' who tried to talk the enemies down all the time. Hey, it didn't work most of the time, and when diplomacy failed, they could still two-hand a longsword and do decent damage. There were monks who played being a cook who happened to know how to hit things with their pots and pans very well (monk of the empty hand archetype). Wasn't super effective, but they still got in there and did some good against the foes.
I disagree with LazarX completely. A whip Magus ISN'T a front-liner. It's like a short-distance ranged character. From 15 feet away (or 20 if the character is able to get a Longarm cast) they can trip, disarm, or deliver debuff spells. Yes, they're ineffective front-liners. So are archer bards, or low-strength Life Oracles.
If you get to the table and the only remotely melee-capable character is going to be your whip magus, well, someone ought to be willing to play something else, or the game won't be very successful. Doesn't necessarily have to be you, but a group can't all play unarmored casters and make it through a combat-heavy scenario without problems. (I suppose at higher levels wizards might be able to deal with the lack of a frontliner with spells, but there's gotta be someone to keep the big nasties from chewing on the crunchy spellcasters.)
Some people make completely ineffectual characters for, I guess, s@@!s and giggles. 12 Intelligence Wizards, for example.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 wan 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. When I made my magus, I did my best to make sure that she would always contribute round to round no matter what the circumstances. So in addition to her blackblade, she equipped herself with a composite longbow, so she'd always be able to shoot at something beyond spell range. This helped turned the battle in at least one scenario.
As far as I'm concerned, making a character that's fatally ineffective to a table is borderline disruptive behavior.
This is the attitude that kept me out of PFS for years.
The idea that my character concepts would be policed. That if I wasn't optimized to others' satisfaction, I would be excluded or treated poorly. That If I dared to play something that wasn't "good enough", I wouldn't be allowed to play.
Denying others the right to play legal characters because you don't think they're optimized enough is at least as disruptive a behavior, if not more.
I've played a fair bit of PFS and I've seen my share of poorly optimized characters. None of them were turned away or even criticized for their character choices. All of them were at least functional, however. There were sword-and-board Paladins whose first-level feat was 'Presuasive' who tried to talk the enemies down all the time. Hey, it didn't work most of the time, and when diplomacy failed, they could still two-hand a longsword and do decent damage. There were monks who played being a cook who happened to know how to hit things with their pots and pans very well (monk of the empty hand archetype). Wasn't super effective, but they still got in there and did some good against the foes.
I disagree with LazarX completely. A whip Magus ISN'T a front-liner. It's like a short-distance ranged character. From 15 feet away (or 20 if the character is able to get a Longarm cast) they can trip, disarm, or deliver debuff spells. Yes, they're ineffective front-liners. So are archer bards, or low-strength Life Oracles.
If you get to the table and the only remotely melee-capable character is going to be your whip magus, well, someone ought to be willing to play something else, or the game won't be very successful. Doesn't necessarily have to be you, but a group can't all play unarmored casters and make it through a combat-heavy scenario without problems. (I suppose at higher levels wizards might be able to deal with the lack of a frontliner with spells, but there's gotta be someone to keep the big nasties from chewing on the crunchy spellcasters.)
Some people make completely ineffectual characters for, I guess, s#$*s and giggles. 12 Intelligence Wizards, for example.
I just started playing PFS recently. It's been a lot of fun! And my questionable characters are pretty average for the local scene.
Like I said, though, I didn't start playing for years because of how things came across here.
|
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just started playing PFS recently. It's been a lot of fun! And my questionable characters are pretty average for the local scene.
Like I said, though, I didn't start playing for years because of how things came across here.
Your mistake there was assuming that these forums reflect actual play. Obviously, they don't.
As I think I've mentioned around here before, these forums aren't even about PFS. They actually exist for people whose hobby is arguing about things on the internet.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I just started playing PFS recently. It's been a lot of fun! And my questionable characters are pretty average for the local scene.
Like I said, though, I didn't start playing for years because of how things came across here.
Your mistake there was assuming that these forums reflect actual play. Obviously, they don't.
As I think I've mentioned around here before, these forums aren't even about PFS. They actually exist for people whose hobby is arguing about things on the internet.
That is a bit of exaggeration. The arguments on these forums do influence my in play rulings (and in some cases have caused me to reverse my stance on rules issues), and the tone set by the campaign coordinator influences how I run.
That said, One of my friends just came back from Gen Con, and one of their con stories was "I played at a table where So-and-So was GMing, and their GM personality is completely different from their Forum Personality"
|
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: Play what you want to play. Don't listen to people telling you that your character is not good enough (or the flip side, that it's too good). They are full of it.
As long as you are a fun, cooperative player who plays well with others, you will find that PFS is actually pretty welcoming.
Regarding your particular build, it is perfectly legal. If the GM isn't going to allow it, get up and walk away. You aren't missing out on anything; that GM is likely going to be giving you and the rest of the players grief no matter what character you play.
Explore, Report, Cooperate!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I was recently on another site discussing a build that is by the rules 100% legal and it's legal with PFS as far as I can find too. However, one person was like "That wouldn't fly at my table in PFS." and so now I wonder, if your character follows all the rules, can a GM just outright say "I don't care if your character is valid and legal, I don't like it" or does that go beyond 'expect table variation'?
For reference, we were discussing how the whip is a one-handed slashing weapon, and is therefore a legal choice for a bladebound kensai magus. A bladebound kensai magus centered around the whip is going to be so pathetic for the first few levels, and even after that it's a very feat-intenstive build just to be half-way decent. But, it's legal.
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. When I made my magus, I did my best to make sure that she would always contribute round to round no matter what the circumstances. So in addition to her blackblade, she equipped herself with a composite longbow, so she'd always be able to shoot at something beyond spell range. This helped turned the battle in at least one scenario.
As far as I'm concerned, making a character that's fatally ineffective to a table is borderline disruptive behavior.
Just because Zelda is making a magus that is different from yours doesn't make it bad or ineffective. Please be a bit more respectful to other posters when voicing your opinion. Spellstriking from 15-ft seems like it could be pretty handy, especially after GM'ing the season 6 scenario that has a whip a whole bunch of times.
Edit: Toned down the post.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: Play what you want to play. Don't listen to people telling you that your character is not good enough (or the flip side, that it's too good). They are full of it.
Indeed. I have a 5 Slayer/3 Cleric that's pretty much tanktastic, though initially he was started as a flanking buddy. Wouldn't've found it without experimentation.
As long as you are a fun, cooperative player who plays well with others, you will find that PFS is actually pretty welcoming.
Regarding your particular build, it is perfectly legal. If the GM isn't going to allow it, get up and walk away. You aren't missing out on anything; that GM is likely going to be giving you and the rest of the players grief no matter what character you play.
Explore, Report, Cooperate!
If you do get up and walk away, though, don't throw a fit about it, though the temptation to do so might be strong. Quietly and respectfully pack up your things and either move to another table or leave. Don't linger, don't attempt to argue with the GM -- who may be attempting to figure out if the tier of the table shifted with your departure or if he even has enough people to run the scenario.
We had someone at a local convention that got really upset that the GM asked one simple question regarding one simple aspect of an overly elaborate combat build, and the player blew up, insisting that the very simple thing would 'never' come up and it was irrelevant. Blew up enough that they took someone else away from the table with them when they left in their fit -- and it was disruptive enough to bring play at three other tables to a brief standstill.
Thankfully, we still had three after that departure... so we picked up Seoni, the Intern.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played a fair bit of PFS and I've seen my share of poorly optimized characters. None of them were turned away or even criticized for their character choices. All of them were at least functional, however.As far as I'm concerned, making a character that's fatally ineffective to a table is borderline disruptive behavior.This is the attitude that kept me out of PFS for years.
So, without linking to it, I will mention a series of blog posts about a PFS convention last year. These blog posts lambasted PFS for being miserably unfriendly to newbies, having nothing but combat, and having ridiculously min/max'd characters that unbalanced the game and made it un-fun for others. In particular, one of the blog posts singled out a certain player who was totally overpowered and "ruined it" for everyone else. The blogger was very upset that he and others were criticized. So it does happen.
However, here's the thing. I knew that overpowered player, and I knew the session in question. It was a tier 1-2, with every single player being completely new to PFS except for one player (Mr. Overpowered). Two players showed up to the game with no weapons at all because they apparently thought PFS was about puzzles and politics. A spellcaster showed up with no offensive spells at all. The blogger in question was doing minimal damage (1d3-1 I think?) with only a +1 to hit. Now, a +1 at first level is meh, whatever. But the character was a martial type with 3/4 BAB if I remember correctly, so doing +1 on attack and 1d3-1 on damage was not particularly good for that class. And since that's pretty much all the character had to contribute, I think it's reasonable to hope that it would be better at what it does.
So that min/maxer guy was pretty bummed to be sitting at a table that was essentially courting death. I think there might have been something to his objections. Maybe he could have worded it more nicely (I didn't hear him speak, so I'm not sure how smooth he was), but I don't think he should bite his tongue if a whole group of players are so behind-the-curve that things are in jeopardy.
Also, Mr. Overpowered himself? He was playing a healing oracle, but he had a 16 str and a mace as a backup. That's all he had for "optimization." All he wanted to do was heal people, but since literally every player came to the game with a chronic inability to deal damage, he had to step up and swing.
If you think a healer with a mace is overpowered, then eh, you might be operating on a level that PFS cannot cater to. If I had been at that table, I surely would have tried to be friendly and teach them and help them, but I certainly would not be like "It's cool that nobody can handle anything and we're all going to die!"
I guess this is all just to say that holding people to a minimal standard might not be that awful.
Actually the devoutness is not directly the issue. And the person in question (who shall remain nameless) is a firm believer in seperation of church and state.
It is that the person in question was raised within a faith that views demons and devils as real as Jesus and God. And as a result they have a reflexive reaction to players summoning demons and devils that is strong enough that it will make them want to leave.
Hmm. Interesting. I didn't realize your example was based in a real-world experience. I assumed it was hypothetical.
In any case, it doesn't change my point. Trying to force someone to accept something will not always work even if you have the rules on your side, because the person can always walk away from the table. So it's a balancing act -- people have to be considerate, or games end. I suppose that was probably your point too, but I'm not 100% sure.
I had to make a decision about this recently. I have learned that at Gen Con, it was decided that any pre-gen character is legit in a Core-only game. So you can't play an alchemist or kineticist in a Core-only game, unless you bring a pre-gen alchemist or kineticist. Then, by the rules, you have to allow that character in. That's a PFS management decision that I don't agree with. I think it might be the first case where I would say "Thanks but even though this is rules-legit, I don't want to run a Core game like this. I got into Core games so I only had to deal with Core classes. I'm sorry, but no." I'm not 100% sure I have the cojones to walk away from that, but if anything were going to be "my thing" where I drew a line in the sand, that'd probably be it.
So yeah, in a case like that, the player and GM both have to decide how much they want the game to happen. If neither party will back down, then it doesn't matter that the rules are on someone's side; the game ends.
I'm sorry, but anyone who has that big a problem with demons and devils in a game shouldn't be playing Pathfinder. Period. There are plenty of role playing games that don't have that aspect. Play those instead.
You might be right from an intellectual "does this make sense" perspective, but obviously if Paizo had "no Christians" as official policy, it would be a PR disaster of epic proportions. I think all we can do is decide if something actually caused disruption or not, and decide if we are OK with that or not.
It would not surprise me to learn that some parts of the Bible belt have not just GMs who would object to evil demonic stuff, but probably a VC or two out there would back that GM up. Only in the Bible belt, I'm sure, but a VC saying that a GM could act on his conscience? Yep, I believe there are VCs who will not fault a GM for that. Just a few.
For me, if my choice is "your convictions are not OK, so let's end this game" or "I understand you're different and I want to game, so let's compromise and keep playing," then maybe a compromise is OK. I suppose it depends on certain factors. I don't want to make blanket statements about something like religion or even my own issue of refusing to run a kineticist through a Core-only game. I would really hope a player would see using a class like that in a game like that as "rules legal but rules douchey" and agree to play something else to keep the game going for everyone. Some people don't have empathy, or don't understand why they might compromise even though rules are on their side. If so, well, maybe the game does need to end, and people can head home and watch TV or something.
If my VC told me "your convictions are ruining PFS for everyone, stay at home and never come back," then I suppose I would. I might certainly object if that was the first time I heard of the issue, though. I expect VCs to give lots of warnings to GMs, just like I expect GMs to give lots of warnings to paladins who are about to have an alignment infraction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your mistake there was assuming that these forums reflect actual play. Obviously, they don't.That is a bit of exaggeration. The arguments on these forums do influence my in play rulings (and in some cases have caused me to reverse my stance on rules issues), and the tone set by the campaign coordinator influences how I run.
That said, One of my friends just came back from Gen Con, and one of their con stories was "I played at a table where So-and-So was GMing, and their GM personality is completely different from their Forum Personality"
I know several people who default to writing their forum posts with the view that they WILL be referenced out of context in 5 years and need to represent a viewpoint that is consistent with policy now and the policy goals of the community as they understand them.
It makes some of their on-board positions quite rigid, irrespective of their relaxed friendliness when the time comes to play the game.
I know that I personally always come at the forums with the angle that I am in a worst-case scenario, and need to understand how to defend myself. In other words, if I am about to run a game and there is an NPC using reach on a corner square, I will assume that the player is going to object and cite rules about special cases with corner/edge squares in a reach situation, and I'll ask for help dealing with that.
Because of this, I constantly portray PFS as "us vs. them" even though it is not. It's an inadvertent side-effect of me doing defensive posting, and trying to get myself into the best position possible for knowing the rules and defending my rulings. If you always assume that players will hate everything you do and challenge all of it right up to your Venture Captain, then you will never be surprised when they actually do that, and you can nip it in the bud with a choice rule quote. The fact that it never happens and people are generally really pleased with your games, and give you compliments instead of complaints? That part generally doesn't appear here on the forums, because that part's not a problem. I come here only to resolve problems. So it looks like there are a lot of problems. The fact that I'm just proactive is sometimes lost in the forums.
All of this is to say that I really don't think the forums represent reality. They represent GMs hashing out difficult rules so that when they game, the game runs smoothly. Hopefully, all that the players see in the real world is the smooth running game.
(Or at least I wish that was what they saw.)
|
I have learned that at Gen Con, it was decided that any pre-gen character is legit in a Core-only game. So you can't play an alchemist or kineticist in a Core-only game, unless you bring a pre-gen alchemist or kineticist. Then, by the rules, you have to allow that character in. That's a PFS management decision that I don't agree with. I think it might be the first case where I would say "Thanks but even though this is rules-legit, I don't want to run a Core game like this. I got into Core games so I only had to deal with Core classes. I'm sorry, but no." I'm not 100% sure I have the cojones to walk away from that, but if anything were going to be "my thing" where I drew a line in the sand, that'd probably be it.
I don't know if something has been changed in the meantime, but Mike specifically ruled otherwise in the comments on the Core Campaign blog post.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I had to make a decision about this recently. I have learned that at Gen Con, it was decided that any pre-gen character is legit in a Core-only game.
Minor Derail.
Who told you that?To further clarify, the pregens that are available for Core mode are the classes found in the CRB. We don't have plans to update them at this time as we still need the APG and Occult Adventures pregens created. If the current pregens have a few items that are outside the CRB, we will live with it for the time being.
The only other thing I can find on Pregens is that you can play We Be Goblins in Core as a special case.
ETA: ninjaed
I don't know if something has been changed in the meantime, but Mike specifically ruled otherwise in the comments on the Core Campaign blog post.
You're right, he did. But that was in January, and I'm talking about Gen Con just a few weeks ago.
Minor Derail.
Who told you that?
A handful of players & GMs who returned from Gen Con 3 weeks ago. There were some grumpy "Well we'll see about that" type of replies and everyone sorta said, "Not at my table, no sir," and then we played a bunch of Core games with Core characters and moved on.
I would love for them to be wrong. I have not looked into it, which is partly why I said I'm still mulling it over and not sure I have the wherewithal to object to it. I'm going to wait and see if that rears its ugly head in any games I run.
Hopefully everyone was wrong and I have nothing to worry about. I've not looked into it enough to know what posts have been made about it in the days since Gen Con.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to chime in and say a friend of mine plays a tripping whip magus at the local store. True Striking combat maneuvers is extremely effective and he does all the damage you would expect from a magus (a lot of damage). To even suggest this build is ineffective just shows a lack of experience.
I can guarantee the bladebound whip magus would be extremely good. Bladebound already gets your weapon up to a +5 bonus for free.
As for GMs running games where they don't like a certain theme of character.. such as the demonic theme.. I can only imagine how much a pain running season 5 is.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
I'm talking about Gen Con just a few weeks ago.
I was at GenCon and I can assure you this wasn't announced in any shape or form.
The pregens were in special booklets with all available pregens in there, but on a CORE table you would only be allowed to choose one of the CORE classes. Maybe that's were the confusion came from.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the great assets of PFS is the uniformity of the rules. I've played in campaigns with a GM who knee-jerk banned a lot of things and I hated it. (He got better at this after he got some PFS experience himself.)
I love the way that in PFS you're fairly free of someone else's arbitrary likes or dislikes; as long as what you're doing is clearly by all the rules, you're good to go. Most of the time you don't have to negotiate the rules of the game before you can start playing.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
I just started playing PFS recently. It's been a lot of fun! And my questionable characters are pretty average for the local scene.
Like I said, though, I didn't start playing for years because of how things came across here.
Your mistake there was assuming that these forums reflect actual play. Obviously, they don't.
As I think I've mentioned around here before, these forums aren't even about PFS. They actually exist for people whose hobby is arguing about things on the internet.
I've missed you Fromper :)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just started playing PFS recently. It's been a lot of fun! And my questionable characters are pretty average for the local scene.
Like I said, though, I didn't start playing for years because of how things came across here.
Your mistake there was assuming that these forums reflect actual play. Obviously, they don't.
As I think I've mentioned around here before, these forums aren't even about PFS. They actually exist for people whose hobby is arguing about things on the internet.
*chuckle*
Trying to get better about that. But I will say that i would rather have a fight come up 10 times on the internet than once at the table. I'm very glad that I ran into certain schools of dming here so that I wasn't completely blindsided by it at the table.