|
Nefreet, you're also welcome at my table any time - but flagging posts made by the (then) campaign coordinator doesn't really advance your cause.
Again, there will always be grey areas. It is why we have GMs. And, like it or not, the GM is the arbiter on those grey areas. If you disagree with the basic premise of this, then you disagree with the RPG format. The Adventure Card Game doesn't require such interpretations, for example.
I think what a lot of people forget, is that the campaign depends on volunteer GMs. There are now a HUGE number of rules interactions, most of which can't have been foreseen by the game designers and are discovered in play. If we are saying that only GMs who can rule perfectly on every player option should run games, you have just killed the campaign.
By the same token, GMs need to trust players to know their characters in general, and be willing to listen to reasoned explanation of the player's point of view. If a GM is using a grey-area interpretation to screw the PCs, those GMs should stop GMing. Unfortunately, policing this from the top down is impossible.
As I said, there is no "fix this particular game right now" solution. So, if as a player: you have a GM who is making incorrect and unfair rulings and won't listen to reason if when you provide text and forums posts to support your point of view: WALK. If, as a GM, you have a player who you think is wrong, stick to your guns, explain your position, and move on.
It is the only way to deal with this solution in the long term. Players and GMs who are exploiting grey areas will find they either have no players, or no GM will allow their shenanigans. Other players and GMs will learn rules, and learn how to resolve disagreements at the table without hostility. The latter group is the one we want in PFS.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...
Player walks up to a table and pull out his third level PC that has played Part 1 of a 3 part series. (A Crypt Breaker Alchemist. This Archetype swaps out Brew Potion to get Trapfinding.)
Judge A looks over the PCs and zeros in on a "problem" and says: "wow, you can't swap off Brew Potion twice! In PFS that is swapped for Extra Bombs! You'll need to correct this PC now - before we play!"
Alchemist Player: "wait, this is a legal Archetype, it swaps out Brew Potion before it's swapped off for..."
Judge A: "Not going to let you pull that at my table. You fix this PC right now."..."No, if you have a PC in the level range you aren't permitted to just run a Generic - you have to run your PC."
(20 minutes later, after having re-written this PC as a standard Alchemist)
Judge A: "now we can game. I'm going to keep my eye on you, trying to get away with things like that. And now everyone - Welcome to Part II!"
(Later that day, at the next table getting ready to play Part 3)
Judge B: (who ran Part 1 for the group): "Glad to see you guys again! I'm your judge for Part 3, you guys playing the same PCs? there's a boon for playing all three."
(after intros)
Judge B: "What's this? You're a Standard Alchemist now? Did you retrain? No way you had the PP to that... What are you trying to pull? You remove this unlawful re-write right now - you're not allowed to just write your PC up anyway you want. You need to switch this guy back to what he was before - right now, before we play. And I'll be watching you from now on..."
(20 minutes later, after having re-written this PC as a C.B. Alchemist...)
Sheeesh... this is looking to be great fun...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Judge A would (hopefully) simply state "Because Brew Potion is replaced by your archetype with Trapfinding, you don't gain the Extra Bombs feat as a bonus feat. You'll need to remove that feat and you'll be legal." Done. And notice it was done without all the excessive antagonistic attitude you attributed to both of those GMs. If one actually has a GM who acts like that, the player should simply request a Coordinator to come over and point out to the GM that they made a mistake.
|
|
Given the semi-recent thread about Blackblade whip legality, it's probably more likely than you think. We can all be hopeful about GM behavior, but it's always worth remembering that Pathfinder is an evolving game with roughly 7 years of its own material and many more of its predecessor. As a result, there is likely no single person who completely understands every rule decision that has been made over that time, devs/designers included. Misunderstandings are bound to occur.
Ultimately, the question comes down to how people choose to present information and how people choose to receive it. Most people are pretty chill about it on either side. Others have issues. That being the case, the ambiguity is simply an enabler of a type of behavior and it's fair to question whether there can be a satisfying resolution via campaign ruling.
|
Yeah, Judge A would (hopefully) simply state "Because Brew Potion is replaced by your archetype with Trapfinding, you don't gain the Extra Bombs feat as a bonus feat. You'll need to remove that feat and you'll be legal." Done. And notice it was done without all the excessive antagonistic attitude you attributed to both of those GMs. If one actually has a GM who acts like that, the player should simply request a Coordinator to come over and point out to the GM that they made a mistake.
That would be the *ideal* situation. This doesn't happen all the time, and I've seen variation all the way from this above comment to the more extreme version mentioned further above.
I've seen a GM who has run Pathfinder for years (their numbers are triple digits) and with due respect to them say that things that are in the Advanced Player's Guide (like blunt arrows) are illegal, and that my character shouldn't have them.
And then when the book was pulled out they said 'Oh, they can do non-lethal only, okay.'
...when they do Bludgeoning instead of Piercing with an *option* to do non-lethal (albeit at a -4 penalty).
It didn't come up in the scenario, thankfully, but I was sweating bullets that the only ranged attack my character would have against certain types of undead was just invalidated...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I'm certainly no expert in this matter, but Toaster has got me to think about at least one thing.
What if a GM says "Your (legal) character is illegal, you need to rebuild"?
As a player and GM, I don't think a person should have to "scrap" a legal character, and having to "walk" away from a game is simply not fair either if you spent time (not to mention resources) to get there.
I believe that if both sides show their "evidence" as to why their explanation would work then one of two things should happen:
1) The GM folds to the player (assuming his explanation is not detrimental to the overall flow of the game) and let's him do "whatever". I do this all the time because I am certainly not going to hold up a table to just bash a player for being mistaken, or to be bashed for being mistaken.
2) The GM states he's not comfortable with the player's ruling and question if it would be okay for it to run "this way" instead. If the player is okay (enough) with it, then great! If not, suggest that he find another table or just put up with the ruling anyways. This sticking to the guns method typically should only be used if that interpretation would be detrimental.
I was at a convention before and experienced my worst run of "The Confirmation" because the GM said we couldn't damage a swarm of vipers with weapons. I mentioned that swarms made of tiny or larger creatures can be harmed at 50% damage, and even showed the section of the bestiary that held it. He grabbed someone else who also said that "all swarms are immune to weapon damage" and our table had to struggle beating the thing up with burning sticks.
The message behind this story is that even if you know the other person is wrong, if that person isn't bending, just roll with it for the time. You can "report" them later.
But I don't believe a player should EVER be FORCED to rebuild a character that is LEGAL. They should just have to work through the scenario (maybe with a handicap due to an ability "not being allowed")
|
Well, your Judge B should look at the Chronicle, where Judge A signed off on the "mistake" being fixed, and not say what you have him saying.
Wrong. If I'm Judge A then that character change was illegal and its my DUTY to disallow it.
Or are you saying that any character rebuild is legal if some GM signs off on it? Didn't think so.
|
|
The gray area of that is when a GM doesn't think something qualifies them for something that actually changes their build, such as the Bladebound Magus and Whip thing. Do they actually need to permanently change their weapon for the one GM who doesn't agree with how it is written? I don't agree with that.
|
|
Well, your Judge B should look at the Chronicle, where Judge A signed off on the "mistake" being fixed, and not say what you have him saying.Wrong. If I'm Judge A then that character change was illegal and its my DUTY to disallow it.
Or are you saying that any character rebuild is legal if some GM signs off on it? Didn't think so.
Can we drop the antagonism, please.
Actually, if a player has a mistake on their character sheet, it is totally legal to fix it, and when we fix it, then I as GM absolutely sign off on it. Unless you are suggesting that the punishment for making a mistake in PFS is the irrevocable loss of that PC forever?
|
|
But I don't believe a player should EVER be FORCED to rebuild a character that is LEGAL. They should just have to work through the scenario (maybe with a handicap due to an ability "not being allowed")
This is the only part of your suggestion I have trouble with - the rest is a good way to compromise. The very issue is whether the character is legal or not - they player thinks so, the GM thinks not. Why do you assume it is the GM who is in the wrong?
The extension of this: if someone has an illegal character, are they allowed to just shop around until they find a GM who either lets them play anyway or doesn't check? If I find a half-drow character, I will make the change there and then. If I find something questionable, I will note it, look it up later, and let the player know the status so they at least know of the controversial nature of their selected option.
As many players will tell you, one slight mechanical change to their PC and it's no fun anymore, so either the GM has the right to require a change or they don't.
|
Well, your Judge B should look at the Chronicle, where Judge A signed off on the "mistake" being fixed, and not say what you have him saying.Wrong. If I'm Judge A then that character change was illegal and its my DUTY to disallow it.
Or are you saying that any character rebuild is legal if some GM signs off on it? Didn't think so.
I don't think that's what he said at all.
Assuming GM A helped get a character legal legitimately, then it would be best to sign off on the change. Getting a character legal costs nothing.
GM B would not be correct at all.
In the above scenario, neither would GM B.
Forcing permanent rebuilds is not a good option, unless it's an obvious error or illegality. (E.g. 30 point buy, drow, etc.)
The right way to handle the above, if the GM is positive the character should not get extra bombs, is just disallow that feat. And the player gets to play thier character. Then suggest player does some research on how to deal with that situation.
There is no need to create an adversarial situation at the table.
|
|
Nefreet, you really do not have a leg to stand on here. You are willfully breaking the rules of the campaign. I don't know what better word you would call that kind of activity, but I don't think you're going to win this one with flags on people calling a duck a duck.So what are you supposed to do when the DM tells you a character doesn't work or can't have an option and they're wrong? (Recent example: Animal companions taking bestiary feats listed in the CRB.) Perfectly legal but a DM doesn't like it. So.. now what?
If the GM doesn't like it, and is unwilling to budge on the matter, then you (as a player) have the right to do two (reasonable) things:
1) You ask him if you could just play and "not use" those feats. I realize that this is less fun for you, but now you know to just avoid that GM.2) Walk to another table. This could prove to be difficult, but is the best choice if either of you refuse to budge or if the GM is going to try and force you to change your legal character.
In both scenarios, I advise going up the chain and inform them that the GM is not letting legal options fly.
|
|
But I don't believe a player should EVER be FORCED to rebuild a character that is LEGAL. They should just have to work through the scenario (maybe with a handicap due to an ability "not being allowed")This is the only part of your suggestion I have trouble with - the rest is a good way to compromise. The very issue is whether the character is legal or not - they player thinks so, the GM thinks not. Why do you assume it is the GM who is in the wrong?
The extension of this: if someone has an illegal character, are they allowed to just shop around until they find a GM who either lets them play anyway or doesn't check? If I find a half-drow character, I will make the change there and then. If I find something questionable, I will note it, look it up later, and let the player know the status so they at least know of the controversial nature of their selected option.
I am not assuming the GM is wrong, I am just stating that GM's are not perfect. I believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty". The player is not playing anything illegal until the GM proves that it is not.
In your example, Drows are not legal (and in extension, half drows), and would be perfectly acceptable to inform them that they need to change their character. But if there is any doubt that they could be playing a legal character, then they should not be penalized because one GM is not perfect.
|
Given the semi-recent thread about Blackblade whip legality, it's probably more likely than you think. We can all be hopeful about GM behavior, but it's always worth remembering that Pathfinder is an evolving game with roughly 7 years of its own material and many more of its predecessor. As a result, there is likely no single person who completely understands every rule decision that has been made over that time, devs/designers included. Misunderstandings are bound to occur.
Ultimately, the question comes down to how people choose to present information and how people choose to receive it. Most people are pretty chill about it on either side. Others have issues. That being the case, the ambiguity is simply an enabler of a type of behavior and it's fair to question whether there can be a satisfying resolution via campaign ruling.
Not sure why anyone would think a blackblade can be a whip. The archtype specifically states which types of weapons can be a blackblade. I'll give a hint, they're all swords. I'll give another hint, none of them were sword-whips. Which makes sense. How can a weapon be a blackblade if it's not a bladed weapon?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's just not assume that the GM is trying to screw the players and won't listen to reason. I've meet one GM like that in five years of PFS, including at regional and international cons.
1) Let us also not assume that the player is trying to 'get one over' on the GM by playing a gray area character. I haven't met a lot of players like that either. Most issues I have encountered with questionable/illegal builds involves players simply misunderstanding the rules.
2) I have not met any GMs in PFS that are just trying to screw the players over and won't listen to reason. What I have met on several occasions are adversarial GMs whose knee jerk response to any rules question is to rule against the players. You eventually can get them to listen to reason, but this frequently require 5-10 minutes of arguments and rules presentations that most players won't want to deal with. Essentially, the GM is starting with an attitude of Hostile or Unfriendly and you have to make a Diplomacy check to change it to at least Indifferent. Ideally I think a GMs starting attitude should be Friendly.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why anyone would think a blackblade can be a whip. The archtype specifically states which types of weapons can be a blackblade. I'll give a hint, they're all swords. I'll give another hint, none of them were sword-whips. Which makes sense. How can a weapon be a blackblade if it's not a bladed weapon?Given the semi-recent thread about Blackblade whip legality, it's probably more likely than you think. We can all be hopeful about GM behavior, but it's always worth remembering that Pathfinder is an evolving game with roughly 7 years of its own material and many more of its predecessor. As a result, there is likely no single person who completely understands every rule decision that has been made over that time, devs/designers included. Misunderstandings are bound to occur.
Ultimately, the question comes down to how people choose to present information and how people choose to receive it. Most people are pretty chill about it on either side. Others have issues. That being the case, the ambiguity is simply an enabler of a type of behavior and it's fair to question whether there can be a satisfying resolution via campaign ruling.
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane.
A whip is a one-handed slashing weapon. Similarly, you could have a battleaxe, klar, or terbutje black blade.
|
|
The gray area of that is when a GM doesn't think something qualifies them for something that actually changes their build, such as the Bladebound Magus and Whip thing. Do they actually need to permanently change their weapon for the one GM who doesn't agree with how it is written? I don't agree with that.
In most cases, unless it's an egregious error, a GM shouldn't be forcing a permanent rebuild. There are lots of things that are obviously illegal though. I've had people try to argue something as legal with some really ludicrous justificstions. The most recent was Vestigial Arms getting extra attacks because they also have racial claw attacks and Feral Mutagen.
In most cases of legit table variation issues, a player and GM should discuss it civilly and try to find common ground for that session. Personally, I do my best not to disallow common table variation issues unless I feel really strongly about it, or I feel the designation of gray area is a dubious one at best.
What is currently off rhetoric table is bringing two builds for the same character based on how a GM rules the table variation issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why anyone would think a blackblade can be a whip. The archtype specifically states which types of weapons can be a blackblade. I'll give a hint, they're all swords. I'll give another hint, none of them were sword-whips. Which makes sense. How can a weapon be a blackblade if it's not a bladed weapon?
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon
A whip is a one-handed slashing weapon.
Thus a whip meets the qualifications to be a blackblade. That why you can use a whip as your blackblade.
|
|
Not sure why anyone would think a blackblade can be a whip. The archtype specifically states which types of weapons can be a blackblade. I'll give a hint, they're all swords. I'll give another hint, none of them were sword-whips. Which makes sense. How can a weapon be a blackblade if it's not a bladed weapon?Given the semi-recent thread about Blackblade whip legality, it's probably more likely than you think. We can all be hopeful about GM behavior, but it's always worth remembering that Pathfinder is an evolving game with roughly 7 years of its own material and many more of its predecessor. As a result, there is likely no single person who completely understands every rule decision that has been made over that time, devs/designers included. Misunderstandings are bound to occur.
Ultimately, the question comes down to how people choose to present information and how people choose to receive it. Most people are pretty chill about it on either side. Others have issues. That being the case, the ambiguity is simply an enabler of a type of behavior and it's fair to question whether there can be a satisfying resolution via campaign ruling.
Actually I believe the archetype says any slashing weapon. Which a whip is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure why anyone would think a blackblade can be a whip. The archtype specifically states which types of weapons can be a blackblade. I'll give a hint, they're all swords. I'll give another hint, none of them were sword-whips. Which makes sense. How can a weapon be a blackblade if it's not a bladed weapon?
A black blade is always a one-handed slashing weapon, a rapier, or a sword cane. The magus chooses the blade’s type upon gaining the blade, and once chosen, it can’t be changed. As a bladebound magus increases in level, his black blade gains power.
A whip is a one handed slashing weapon. Its a legal choice. Its an odd, counter intuitive choice, and not really thematic choice (like a pick for a swashbuckler) but its a legal
|
|
Let's just not assume that the GM is trying to screw the players and won't listen to reason. I've meet one GM like that in five years of PFS, including at regional and international cons.1) Let us also not assume that the player is trying to 'get one over' on the GM by playing a gray area character. I haven't met a lot of players like that either. Most issues I have encountered with questionable/illegal builds involves players simply misunderstanding the rules.
2) I have not met any GMs in PFS that are just trying to screw the players over and won't listen to reason. What I have met on several occasions are adversarial GMs whose knee jerk response to any rules question is to rule against the players. You eventually can get them to listen to reason, but this frequently require 5-10 minutes of arguments and rules presentations that most players won't want to deal with. Essentially, the GM is starting with an attitude of Hostile or Unfriendly and you have to make a Diplomacy check to change it to at least Indifferent. Ideally I think a GMs starting attitude should be Friendly.
Agreed, and generally that's how I try to approach tables.
|
|
I actually really like table variation and other judgments on the fly by GM's. Sure they can cause some issues from time to time, but on the whole, the more a GM can do to make a game fun, the better off the game can be. Yeah, a GM can be a petty butthead who decides to use these powers for evil, but I really believe most of these people will use the freedom to make the game more fun.
At a certain point, with no more ambiguity, we end up playing a video game with a few dice rolls. Those grey areas are what can make a GM really shine. Already, "Run as Written" can be exceptionally shackling when it comes to running against optimized groups. Giving a challenge based on spell choice or different tactics can help quite a bit, but that's a discussion for another time.
Overall, I tend to trust players, and the groups are pretty well self policing. We all know each other in our local lodge, and anyone who has something wonky usually gets the "c'mon man that's lame" treatment.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really like table variation and other judgments on the fly by GM's. Sure they can cause some issues from time to time, but on the whole, the more a GM can do to make a game fun, the better off the game can be. Yeah, a GM can be a petty butthead who decides to use these powers for evil, but I really believe most of these people will use the freedom to make the game more fun.
At a certain point, with no more ambiguity, we end up playing a video game with a few dice rolls. Those grey areas are what can make a GM really shine. Already, "Run as Written" can be exceptionally shackling when it comes to running against optimized groups. Giving a challenge based on spell choice or different tactics can help quite a bit, but that's a discussion for another time.
Overall, I tend to trust players, and the groups are pretty well self policing. We all know each other in our local lodge, and anyone who has something wonky usually gets the "c'mon man that's lame" treatment.
I think there is a difference between what you are talking about and actual table variation. GMs in home games have to make rulings on ambiguities all the time. It is the nature of the game that such things are necessary as the possibilities in TTRPGs are so open ended that it is impossible for any rule set to cover all possible options. But when a GM makes a ruling on those ambiguities, the ruling is usually going to be consistent, i.e. the GM will not rule against a whip wielding blackblade in the first session, then rule for it in the second session, and against it again in the third session. Thus there is consistency in that particular GM's ruling since he is likely the only GM for that particular home game, and thus the players can build their characters accordingly.
True table variation involves the inconsistency caused by multiple GMs that prevents players from building their character accordingly. Nefreet's suggestion of having two slightly different character sheets actually does allow the player to build accordingly (at least when they know something is gray area).
|
|
True table variation involves the inconsistency caused by multiple GMs that prevents players from building their character accordingly. Nefreet's suggestion of having two slightly different character sheets actually does allow the player to build accordingly (at least when they know something is gray area).
There is some merit in the idea. And, if it is suggested to campaign managment and they make it a legal option then it would mean some of the more ambiguous/contested builds could be built.
But, as of now, it is not legal. Which is what is important first. Second importance is deciding if it's worth the campaign adopting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
