Handling ambiguously legal characters.


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are a *lot* of grey areas in PFS, and a lot of powers that can be read to read multiple ways. Usually this is a minor problem, and can be resolved at the table with a "Here is how it works at my table, if that gets you killed we can talk to someone about whether I was right later." (The last part is usually just implied.)

However, there is a very problematic grey area when the player believes an option is legal to take, and the GM disagrees.

Nefreet recently brought up probably the most clean cut example of this*:

Animal companions with INT 3+ can take any feat they are capable of using.
Improved grapple requires Improved unarmed strike.
Can a snake take improved unarmed strike?

There is absolutely no clear cut agreement one way or another on this. Assuming he committed to the Improved grapple chain, it also impacts pretty much every feat that AC has.

Andrew Christian and Nefreet have proposed two separate, mutually exclusive ways to deal with it.

Loosely Paraphrased:

Andrew wrote:
If you have an option the GM deems illegal, you must either permanently rebuild the character without that option, or you must simply not use this option at all while at the table for me.

So in this case, the snake would go from having a feat chain that is highly thematic, but some people feel it is not eligible for, including having equipment bought for that feet chain, to almost an entire rebuild that could never be put back, even if a forum clarification came out. Or would have to play an entire game without feats.

nefreet wrote:
If you have an option that some GMs deem illegal, you should come up with a replacement option, and use that at those tables.

I like this option, but I feel it could get taken too far. I mean, okay, you have swapped out IUS, but that also means you get to swap out several other feats that depend on it. You could wind up with two completely different builds. Do you then get to give them different equipment as well? I think that that at least would be clearly far beyond reasonable.

I want to make clear that I am not talking about the player who comes to the table with a drow, get told to change it, changes it, and then shows up to the next table with a drow. If something is clearly illegal, it needs to get changed and stay changed. I am talking about the grey space edge cases.

*Okay, this is actually a less clear cut example now, as I think the snake might qualify for the dirty fighting feat, and bypass all the ambiguity. But lets put that aside for now in favor of establishing a general policy.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Jared Thaler wrote:
I think the snake might qualify for the dirty fighting feat, and bypass all the ambiguity. But lets put that aside for now in favor of establishing a general policy.

Indeed. In my example the snake also has Snake Style, which doesn't work with Dirty Fighting.

5/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Once you pick a class, class feature or feat after leveling up, it is set in stone once you play that character until you spend the prescribed resources to rebuild/retrain it. Having multiple versions of a character to pick from goes against this campaign rule.

If there is an ambiguous Pathfinder RPG rule debate that the GM and player can't resolve at the table. The player should play with the questionable items inert for the session, or until an official ruling can be found during play.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

That is certainly one option.

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

Researching the debate gave me headache, I have my own opinion on the matter (but I play to many hunters to be impartial when it comes to this), regarding the debate, I think, it would be reasonable to give the player/animal companion a replacement feat for the duration of the session, if the GM comes to a conclusion that something doesn't work (but the issue anything but clear cut).

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or another PC/Pregen

Then review the questionable PC later.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What good is a review when you can have a different GM every other session, and/or there is no clear cut resolution or agreement about the rule? As I understand it a PFS GM can't enforce a rule at another GMs table.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

^ indeed, which prevents a policy of "permanently altering" a character from working. Your next GM might "permanently alter" it right back the way you had it initially.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not really a good reason Nefreet. This campaign largely works on an honor basis in most cases as is. Creating one more rule that expects folks to play by the rules is not a problem. Anyone who chooses to break the rule can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Using gray areas for your character, you are doing so with the understanding that there will be table variation. So having two different builds should not be an option.

3/5

What is the lesser of 2 evils? making someone not play or forcing them to play a pre-gen (with all the negative impact that has), or accepting a modified character?

And if the latter is the lesser evil, why should the player not be ready with a prepared alternative anticipating table variance?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because choosing a known gray area has drawbacks. Table variation. Making two different characters is not a viable option. Your character is what it is, and you take the risk of not being able to use some options if you choose to use a gray area.

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:

What is the lesser of 2 evils? making someone not play or forcing them to play a pre-gen (with all the negative impact that has), or accepting a modified character?

And if the latter is the lesser evil, why should the player not be ready with a prepared alternative anticipating table variance?

Or accepting a questionably legal character for the game- that HAS to be an option. The flexibility can't all come from the player.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

I think that if the player is willing to go to all the work of
1) researching the rule in question enough to show that it is truly a grey area
2) having a second version of the character made up

then they absolutely should receive the reward of being able to play the version that is legal at that table.

I'd like for this to be limited to the truly grey areas, though. Not to the cases where the rule is 99% clear but there is enough ambiguity that some insanely convoluted argument can be made. Unfortunately, I see no practical way to distinguish the cases.

I agree that altering equipment goes a bit too far.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A GM needs to have the authority and right to just say no depending on thier interpretation of the circumstances. Have I ever allowed questionable things I felt were illegal? Yes, when I knew that my interpretation was decidedly not a consensus. I'm more lenient at non local conventions as well.

That all being said, the authority at the table is the GM, and they should be able to reserve the right to make whatever decision they feel is the best for the circumstances. Of course considering a plethora of issues before just saying no.

But if I really feel strongly about the legality of something, and I don't feel it's a legit gray area, in going to ask the player to make thier character legal, permanently, mark it on thier chronicle that I did so, or ask them to play a pregen. Thus type of action should be extremely rare though.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Paul Jackson wrote:

I think that if the player is willing to go to all the work of

1) researching the rule in question enough to show that it is truly a grey area
2) having a second version of the character made up

then they absolutely should receive the reward of being able to play the version that is legal at that table.

I'd like for this to be limited to the truly grey areas, though. Not to the cases where the rule is 99% clear but there is enough ambiguity that some insanely convoluted argument can be made. Unfortunately, I see no practical way to distinguish the cases.

I agree that altering equipment goes a bit too far.

I completely and utterly disagree that having two builds for the same character based on GM decision on gray areas is legit.

When you base a build on a legit gray area, you take that risk. I would not allow them to pull out another build.

4/5

As someone who has made adjustments mid-game on numerous items because of GM interpretation (I tend not to argue at the table unless I have a clear citation immediately available, but I won't hesitate to disagree and prove my case if I have one), I will say that my first response would be to use a different legal character if able to address the challenge. In some cases, I've had weird interpretations sprung on me by reputable sources, which has resulted in me making on-the-fly adjustments to playstyle until I could research it later. For example, I was once told that my hunter with a dead companion could not switch the "permanent" Animal Focus after the companion died and, because I wasn't prepared to deal with that ruling, the GM ruled that I had to use whatever the last Animal Focus was from my companion. For that scenario, I did. I then researched it and found that this interpretation is not correct, so I'm now prepared to rebut this claim if it's made again as I know exactly what sentence in the Animal Focus ability to reference.

As a GM, my first question would be "how do you think it works?" If I deem that it's both (a) a reasonable reading and (b) not disruptive to the table, I'm more than willing to run with that. The best course of action is to inform me before the table starts, mind you, because I would VERY MUCH like to look into questionable things before I have to make a table ruling. It is my opinion that part of GMing is ensuring the least amount of disruption possible. If I'm concerned afterwards, I'm likely to discuss the character with the player or recommend a VO audit. This almost never happens at my tables, mind you.

There are obvious examples of "go get a pregen" out there - a new guy comes with a character that had "killer stat rolls" or there's a blatantly illegal character choice. It sucks to be the bearer of bad news to those folks, but it's unfair to the table to ignore that responsibility.

IUS on snakes derail:
In the specific example brought up in the OP, a reasonable response would be "explain how a snake is not capable of performing a headbutt if trained." If the answer is "But realism!," there's no argument to be had and you may as well say that a snake is definitely lacking arms (PUNS!). The snake won't prefer it (as the FAQ indicates, he'd still prefer his natural weapons), but just like training an unintuitive Handle Animal trick like Perform, the snake could perform a headbutt on command if it had the IUS feat.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Having a backup character, animal companion, eidolon, whatever gives the GM another option as well. This was actually the option that GMs proposed to me, and I've adapted it as part of my practice since.

And if you're the type to not allow backup versions, then the character is back to square one anyways. Nothing's changed.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

IUS derail, continued:
Most people don't realize that snakes making unarmed strikes isn't the issue. Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't actually grant you the ability to perform an unarmed strike. The snake can naturally do that without the feat. All the feat allows is for you to choose between lethal and nonlethal damage, which is certainly something that can be taught (police dogs do it every day).

Headbutting shouldn't have to enter the discussion, but it does often.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

What is the lesser of 2 evils? making someone not play or forcing them to play a pre-gen (with all the negative impact that has), or accepting a modified character?

And if the latter is the lesser evil, why should the player not be ready with a prepared alternative anticipating table variance?

Or accepting a questionably legal character for the game- that HAS to be an option. The flexibility can't all come from the player.

Some people are unable (for some reason) to trust, and must control all options. Type One gamers.

3/5

Some DMs are antagonistic and stretch rules so everything they do not like is grey.

Some examples I have seen.

A bad guy was casting enervation right next to me, casted defensively. I said I still get an AoO for the ranged attack. He said no because he casted defensively. I showed the FAQ saying I do. He said since the FAq does not include casting defensively he decided I do not get one.

A downed ally was next to a bad guy that radiated damage next to them. I was right there and wanted to the drag maneuver to save the player. The VC DM said that downed player would provoke being dragged. I said I reposition then, same answer. I showed him the rules. He said monsters and PCs work differently and the rules are written for PCs not monsters.

Now I have recently seem other stretch rules just as bad.

Always expect variation. If you get an antagonistic DM. Leave the table and do not play with them. Edit tell the organizer and PFS chain of command too. These types of Dms not only scare people away they chase them with a pitch fork.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

But that is way not the norm.

3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
But that is way not the norm.

Every Convention I go to I see one silly rule shattered by being stretched so thin. Would you prefer I go on?

Barbarian uncanny dodge is different han rogue uncanny dodge, and you can not take AoOs before you act if you are barbarian uncanny dodge.

Clear spindel slotted is worthless because prot evil only works if cast on you after evil mind effects take place.

Want more?

Scarab Sages 2/5

To be honest Andrew, the boards here do not represent the norm as standard. We typically argue about the 1 and .1%. But you're right, most of the time GMs are reasonable people. More often than not, so are players.
The issues we are talking about here are just plain rare. But they do happen. I don't believe there is much to be done for a GM who refuses to bend his ruling in the face of a FAQ that says opposite of his judgement.
But, we can do something about those who say 'snakes can't take IUS' because snakes don't have arms, but are willing to listen if a FAQ comes down about it.

I think it is unhelpful to speak about the first type of GM merely because the only recourse is to walk away from the table and go above their heads about the situation.

But the second situation is manageable and it would be nice to have a decent work around for the grey areas which have been in the game for years and are 'answered as obvious' or not answered at all. Especially since those grey areas tend to be more like grey provinces.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules work on the social contract theory.

The social contract theory in simple terms means we all agree sitting down to share the same sets of rules.

Now I can show you a plethora of posts about DMs sayign they do not like XYZ and can they ban those from their table. Now those are the people that are brave or stupid enough to post what the community as a whole should know is wrong.

There are groups of people that feel that way and do not want to have certain elements in their game. Even if they are not involved. Some even enjoy it. Point in case. a father and son who only play together shared an ulimate combat book. The 5 Star DM said they each would need their own book, or one not use it. The PFS FAQ says they can share. That DM seemed not care and I watched as he smiled smuggly as they left his table rightfully feeling cheated. This is horrible and appalled me greatly.

I see the same with animal companions. Gunslingers, what are considered OP Builds. Infact I can find posts from regional coordinators with admonishing posts for builds they consider are too powerful.

So the fact people have such strong feelings on bending the game how they feel and ambushing people as they come to your table with your set of rules, and either they PERMANENTLY confirm to how your table works, play a pregen, or leave for money and time they spent coming. Well that makes me sick.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am staying out of the policy discussion because I recognize that I have some biases, and I want to hear what the community thinks the solution should be, not argue with people about what I think the solution should be.

But I would very much appreciate it if the discussion would stay on the topic of what should be done when a player comes to the table with a grey area. So far that discussion has been productive, civil, and illuminating.

I am not interested in a discussion of what to do when a PC comes to the table with a blatantly illegal build, and I appreciate that people have recognised that as off topic and not digressed onto it.

I am also not interested in a discussion of what to do when a GM makes blatantly illegal calls. Firstly, because no matter what policy or community standard we come up with those GMs will ignore it, and secondly because it is completely off topic.

Findlanderboy. You seem to have had a series of negative experiences. I am sorry to hear that. But please take it to it's own thread. The point of this thread is how to set things up so that reasonable players and reasonable GMs can play together without needless friction or crippling characters.

3/5

Jared Thaler wrote:

I am staying out of the policy discussion because I recognize that I have some biases, and I want to hear what the community thinks the solution should be, not argue with people about what I think the solution should be.

But I would very much appreciate it if the discussion would stay on the topic of what should be done when a player comes to the table with a grey area. So far that discussion has been productive, civil, and illuminating.

I am not interested in a discussion of what to do when a PC comes to the table with a blatantly illegal build, and I appreciate that people have recognised that as off topic and not digressed onto it.

I am also not interested in a discussion of what to do when a GM makes blatantly illegal calls. Firstly, because no matter what policy or community standard we come up with those GMs will ignore it, and secondly because it is completely off topic.

Findlanderboy. You seem to have had a series of negative experiences. I am sorry to hear that. But please take it to it's own thread. The point of this thread is how to set things up so that reasonable players and reasonable GMs can play together without needless friction or crippling characters.

I disagree. What you consider grey others consider clear cut. What you call as illegal others call grey. I can find you thread posts where DMs say fudging dice rolls is legal and NO PFS staff refute.

I would say this solution. If you make rules against players characters do your full job and audit them before hand. You are meant to do it anyway. So if you get caught with a means a reasonable player understands a rule it is your fault for not noticing before the game starts. After your audit if the player is not happy with playing with your types of ruling. Help them find another game. We are reasonable happy people and if we disagree why can not we make a solution that works for everyone.

As my local VC can attest, I have stepped out of a game I very much wanted to play as apart of a sequence of adventures. I stepped out to DM a game so new people could also play. I do this because I want everyone that comes to a game day to have fun. Reasonable people should be able to do this too. Even if they disagree.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I completely and utterly disagree that having two builds for the same character based on GM decision on gray areas is legit.

It's actually inevitable. For character options that can't be changed after selection (and are of legitimately arguable legality):

GM A rules that <option> possessed by a player is illegal. Player replaces the option.
GM B considers <option> legal. Since said option was legal, the player was not actually legally able to change it (sans retraining costs or whatever), and thus must change it back.

This outcome is, of course, ridiculous. Table variation on legality of options that can't be changed if they are legal just doesn't work. If there's a legitimate gray area on that sort of thing, I don't feel the GM has the authority to force a change that can't be undone. Just run with it and wait for the leadership to make a ruling.

(Test for "legitimate gray area": you think the player is actually arguing in bad faith. But I emphasize this is only for rulings that can't be reversed - if the ruling won't apply at the next GM's table then just rule as you see fit.)

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something to consider is not all people are aware that something is a "Grey area" issue.
One that comes to mind is the price of Mithral barding.
Personally I didn't know that mithral not being lighter for somethings was an issue, and eventually the FAQ said I was incorrect. But if I hadn't searched the boards and asked/saw it being discussed I'd have never thought it was an ambiguous issue.
So it's not that people with "grey builds" knowingly used a "grey issue"

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
But that is way not the norm.

Every Convention I go to I see one silly rule shattered by being stretched so thin. Would you prefer I go on?

Barbarian uncanny dodge is different han rogue uncanny dodge, and you can not take AoOs before you act if you are barbarian uncanny dodge.

Clear spindel slotted is worthless because prot evil only works if cast on you after evil mind effects take place.

Want more?

Uncanny dodge does not allow one to take AoO before you act no matter if it's Rogue or Barbarian.

And not sure how you can make that assertion about protection from evil. That's clearly patently false.

Just because a GM misinterpreting a rule, does not tgen make it table variation. It makes it a mistaken GM. And if they refuse to use the correct rules when pointed out (after the game) then the same procedures are in place to correct that as are in place for players who won't follow the rules.

This in no way impacts a GM from being able to deny true gray area or table variation issues. Let's not conflate GMS being wrong with table variation here.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Expecting folks to play by the rules, making an informed choice as a GM on a gray area, and disallowing either illegal builds or gray area items is certainly not badwrongfun.

Table variation is part of the game.

And I do not think it unreasonable to expect a player to bring a single build per character and just accept that when they use known gray areas for thier character, that sometimes they may not be able to use those items at some tables.

I'm a reasonable person though. I have to feel really strongly about something that is gray before I disallow it entirely. If it really doesn't matter for game balance issues, I usually let it go. If the player and I disagree on whether it's a gray area or not, the same standard applies. But just because a player tries to claim it as a gray area, does not make it so. You've already shown where in your experience GMs can flat out get things wrong. So can olayers. We aren't discussing those times. Those are irrelevant to the OP query.

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there is any one answer to this. You may have different solutions depending on

1) HOW illegal is the character? You can let a 19 point character build slide for a session , the 40 point " i rolled all 18s" vampire monk not so much

2) How integral is it to someone's build? If someone's entire character relies on an ambiguity thats a lot different than say, a swashbuckler using a buckler who can just take it off and drop an AC point or three.

3) How powerful is the option. There's no point in arguing with a yellow tengu. If someone has rules lawyered their way to instadecapitation thats something you need to address.

4) How gray/technical is the ruling? For example, Elemental spell technically doesn't change the descriptor. Someone may have chosen their elemental focus based on that technicality, or they may have decided that a wall of cold is actually a [cold] spell.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't think there is any one answer to this. You may have different solutions depending on

1) HOW illegal is the character? You can let a 19 point character build slide for a session , the 40 point " i rolled all 18s" vampire monk not so much

2) How integral is it to someone's build? If someone's entire character relies on an ambiguity thats a lot different than say, a swashbuckler using a buckler who can just take it off and drop an AC point or three.

3) How powerful is the option. There's no point in arguing with a yellow tengu. If someone has rules lawyered their way to instadecapitation thats something you need to address.

4) How gray/technical is the ruling? For example, Elemental spell technically doesn't change the descriptor. Someone may have chosen their elemental focus based on that technicality, or they may have decided that a wall of cold is actually a [cold] spell.

Exactly.

I once had a new player bring a 30+ point buy Drow to my table. They tried to argue, "But the book lists several options for rolling stats and doesn't say I can't be a drow." That's obviously not a gray area even though they tried to argue that.

Being reasonable is a two way street. I like to be rrasonable, compromise, and have fun. But there are sometimes circumstances that require me to just say, No, here is a pregen."

4/5

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Just gonna say this just in case certain people are listening: I'm not entirely sure if I would want an official ruling on this issue.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've actually been pretty happy with the official rulings lately. They have been reasonable, nuanced, and left room for GM judgement. I think a one size fits all ruling could be very problematic, but something along the lines of the recent "Here is the range of options open to you when someone leaves the table" which opened up new options we didn't have before, would be nice. Or something along the lines of John Compton's ruling that "Yeah, if you have a good story line reason to need to tape a bunch of alchemical weapons together, the GM can rule they do extra damage, just don't rely on it to work with every GM or every situation."

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I agree, that a firm ruling from on high is not a good idea. Anytime you get a binary ruling, it always screws over outlier circumstances.

I'd much prefer leave this in the GMs hands.

But one such decision I'm going to make, is that you can't have two versions of the same character. You either take the risk of not being able to use gray area issues or you don't. I'm fairly adamant on that point.

I am however not going to say never. Because there may come a day and a special set of circumstances, where I will feel its ok to allow such.

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP: here's the issue as I see it. The game runs on trust, and trust is easily lost. Findlanderboy has lots of examples of bad GMs, many more than I have seen. On the other hand, I (and I expect many GMs) have seen lots of players who look for grey areas to exploit (yes, carefully chosen word). So, there are bad apples on both sides. You don't make rules for the reasonable people, but for the unreasonable ones who can't play nice without them.

So what do we do? Certify GMs so only those who can be trusted to adjudicate fairly get to run games? Ban all grey-area character options? Neither of those will work for PFS.

I think there is a solution, but it's not going to be popular. If your GM rules in a way that is (to you) unfair, then either report it to the coordinator/VO/regional VO, or find another table. Both result in you not getting to play that game that day, which sucks; both also start to address the long-term issues, which is more important than any one game. GMs who are trying to screw players with unreasonable interpretation will get reported or weeded out since no one will sit at their table; players who make unreasonable grey-area exploitations will find no tables they can sit at. Everyone else will learn which parts they are doing "right"/closest to reasonable consensus and which part they are being extreme on.

(Note that if you are one of these killer GMs or one of these "exploit the loopholes" players, you will hate this solution because it's designed to change your behaviour.)

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

Andrew Christian wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:

I think that if the player is willing to go to all the work of

1) researching the rule in question enough to show that it is truly a grey area
2) having a second version of the character made up

then they absolutely should receive the reward of being able to play the version that is legal at that table.

I'd like for this to be limited to the truly grey areas, though. Not to the cases where the rule is 99% clear but there is enough ambiguity that some insanely convoluted argument can be made. Unfortunately, I see no practical way to distinguish the cases.

I agree that altering equipment goes a bit too far.

I completely and utterly disagree that having two builds for the same character based on GM decision on gray areas is legit.

When you base a build on a legit gray area, you take that risk. I would not allow them to pull out another build.

Personally I try to avoid gray areas in PFS, but I have to ask. Players in a home game do not have to worry about gray areas. So why do we have to in PFS if there is a potential solution. How does it benefit PFS to force people who play gray area characters to not have an optional solution?

5/5 5/55/55/5

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Or something you have no idea is a gray area until you sit at the table.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

trollbill wrote:
[Personally I try to avoid gray areas in PFS, but I have to ask. Players in a home game do not have to worry about gray areas. So why do we have to in PFS if there is a potential solution. How does it benefit PFS to force people who play gray area characters to not have an optional solution?

Because the situation never arises in a home game; if the GM and player disagree about a character build it will be thrashed out the first time the discrepancy is noticed, and from that time both sides will always know how that particular thing works; there is no table variation.

There is an optional solution in PFS, and one that has been approved by campaign management: features and abilities that the GM feels are not supported by the rules may not work at that table.

What has not been approved (and, in my opinion, should never be approved) is having two variants of the build with alternate abilities, and choosing between then at the table. Free rebuilds are only legal at level one.

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

John Francis wrote:
trollbill wrote:
[Personally I try to avoid gray areas in PFS, but I have to ask. Players in a home game do not have to worry about gray areas. So why do we have to in PFS if there is a potential solution. How does it benefit PFS to force people who play gray area characters to not have an optional solution?

Because the situation never arises in a home game; if the GM and player disagree about a character build it will be thrashed out the first time the discrepancy is noticed, and from that time both sides will always know how that particular thing works; there is no table variation.

There is an optional solution in PFS, and one that has been approved by campaign management: features and abilities that the GM feels are not supported by the rules may not work at that table.

What has not been approved (and, in my opinion, should never be approved) is having two variants of the build with alternate abilities, and choosing between then at the table. Free rebuilds are only legal at level one.

You are missing my point. It doesn't matter why I don't have to worry about gray areas in a home game. The point is that I don't. So why do I have to in PFS if there are viable solutions? Having the GM being able to say that my character doesn't work at its expected full efficacy/intension doesn't stop me from worrying about a gray area character. It's what causes me to worry about a gray area character, i.e. its not the solution, its the problem. Organized play campaigns should always do their best to minimize table variation. Or at least minimize the worry caused by table variation.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the people exclaiming "one version only/no free rebuilds", what is the practical and philosophical difference between rebuilding a (what you personally believe to be) illegal character into something (that you personally believe to be) legal, versus that player already having the (what you personally believe to be) legal version as a backup?

In your mind, the option was never legal to begin with, so the player effectively sits down with an option (their backup) that has always been legal, in your mind. All that transpired was a quick clarification of what you personally believe to be legal, and a player sitting down with a character that fits your personal belief.

This hard-line stance of "not at my table" is splitting hairs and benefitting nobody. Not only that, but you're actively discouraging players from talking to their GMs about their character builds before the game, which will only force these issues to interrupt the game later.

As I recently learned regarding the whole HeroLab issue, Campaign Leadership doesn't like GMs making calls such as this.

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Handling ambiguously legal characters. All Messageboards