For the purposes of this hypothetical let us assume both GMs are equally cute anime girls that smell equally good...

>over the top to serve beef stroganoff
Yes, but I have no idea why anyone would complain holy fuck what kind of GM serves goddamn proper meal food to their players?
Are you a mother?

>For the purposes of this hypothetical let us assume both GMs are equally cute anime girls that smell equally good
Clearly "Neither" is the only correct answer, because anime girls can't GM.

GM2, but I would still headpat GM1.

GM1, he sounds like a cool guy. Magic realming is fine, as long as he does not explain how the dick penetrated.

GM 2 sounds like my cup of tea.

...

Depends on the setting and system that they intend to run.

What's a RAWfag?

>but user, it doesn't say that you CAN'T do this...
>munchkinisms ensue
>game breaks
>gee I wonder what happened

"rules as written"

Like,
"I want to punch someone as a monk."
"That's a -4 penalty."
"Why?"
"You're wielding unarmed strike, which the monk doesn't have proficiency in. They've got proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling proficiency, but no proficiency in unarmed strike."

"That's dumb."
"That's rules as written."

Wait what?
Which edition/rules set is this?
Because in 3.5 Monks have Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level

When I've played at my friends' house, we've usually made dinner. Although normally with ingredients we bought together. Only once the GM made dinner for us from the stuff he had left over in the fridge.

Not him but I'm pretty sure that's 2e

Improved Unarmed Strike only removes the AoO you'd usually eat, not the non-proficiency penalty.

In case you're wondering, unarmed strike is a simple weapon, and monks are the only player class that doesn't have proficiency in simple weapons. Everyone else gets simple weapon proficiency, so don't suffer -4 to hit with their fists. Monk's list of proficiency is very specific about what weapons they can or cannot use.

Look it up on d20srd.org. This is 100% accurate.

They didn't fix this in pathfinder.

>Which edition/rules set is this?
>Because in 3.5 Monks have Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level
d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedUnarmedStrike

>Improved Unarmed Strike [General]
>Benefit
>You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

>In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

>Normal
Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

>Special
A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.

>A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Ctrl-f that and tell me where it says "Improved unarmed strike gains you unarmed proficiency".

Go on, tell me.

Thanks for your enlightenment.

Therefore I'd choose GM2. A DM who doesn't know the system but who insists on playing 100% by the rules is a pain in the ass. He will spend hours looking for rules in the rulebook and argue to make his point.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.
Unarmed strike is in a weird limbo between being a light weapon and a natural attack, but humanoids are not proficient with natural attacks.
What an odd oversight.

GM1 and play Risus

Autism must be pretty difficult to deal with on a day to day basis user

No. He makes a perfect point on why "rules as written" is autistic shit.

Agreed

Only for crunchfags. Playing some narrative or rules light game there is no problem playing 100% by the rules

GM 1
>completely new to the system
bad
>not very good at giving the party direction
bad
>hardcore RAWfag
bad
>will accept any character as long as they're within rules
arguable
>might forget the name of an NPCs if they haven't been used in a while
bad
>"Wait, you guys are going in from above? I didn't think of that give me a sec..."
bad
>will try to work in elements from character backstories
good
>50/50 chance of DMPC hogging the spotlight
bad
>tendency to magical realm
bad
>prepared homemade baked goods for a snack
good

GM 2
>knows the system inside and out
good
>tendency to railroad
bad
>fan of giving players bonuses for RP
good
>restricts char creation based on the campaign/plot they have in mind
good
>will take notes on every little thing, especially if it could have consequences for the party
good
>"Which tile did you step on? Which direction were you facing? Perfect~"
arguable
>will have the BBEG and lieutenants hold hostage and execute loved ones from character backstories
arguable
>will attach generic healbot to party if needed
arguable
>might encourage player's magical realm if bored
arguable
>will order pizza
good

Yeah, you see that sort of RAW autism crop up along when you stay on Veeky Forums too long. Fortunately I can get away from autism by closing the browser. I feel sorry for those who can't.

Cmon user we're all here forever

source?

GM 1
>Newbie

GM 2
>Dedicated Vet
Is it really a choice? If railroady and CC restriction is the only thing. That's really not a problem. Lots of games break because there is no direction and everyone flounders in the chat room

Under the sections of weapons, under "unarmed strike" are the words "everyone is profiecient in unarmed strikes". So PF did in fact fix this problem. 3.5 never did.

>GM 1
>completely new to the system
>not very good at giving the party direction
>might forget the name of an NPCs if they haven't been used in a while
>"Wait, you guys are going in from above? I didn't think of that give me a sec..."
>will try to work in elements from character backstories
>prepared homemade baked goods for a snack
Ore no GM1 ga Konnani Kawaii Wake ga Nai !

There were no proficiency penalties for punching people in 2e.

>They didn't fix this in pathfinder.
Under Weapons, page 141: All characters are considered proficient in unarmed strikes.

What is their stance on coasters? This is important.

GM1 is far better. I'll always take a slightly boring vanilla experience over somebody who thinks the players are actors in a movie he's directing.

Why does any of these matter when they're both equally cute anime girls that smell equally good?

The one on the left is obviously cuter.

The one on the right will suck your dick without persuasion.

Sluts are best therefore the one on the right wins

That's a negative, not a positive.

...

You're a negative.

I'm not the one who thinks a slut is a positive, so no.

You're mom's a negative.

last I checked for 3X and beyond unarmed strikes didn't incur proficiency penalties

You're the one with the Madonna-Whore complex, so yes.

Slut lover, please go.

Okay

GM2 is literally me. In my defense, elves and dwarves don't fit so good in a devil survivor campaign

GM1, otherwise:
>I will genetically combine eggs from each one and forcibly impregnate them and breed the perfect GM.
YES!

Also, a bit of railroading may be good.
So, GM 2.

But the one on the left will probably suck your dick with persuasion.

She doesn't know what she's doing.

Are you so incompetent you can't teach a little girl how to suck cock?

Quite frankly, she looks like the kind of person who bites their lollipop.

Do I need to repeat myself?

>Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons
>Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of mainly simple weapons and possibly also some martial or even exotic weapons. A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Unarmed strike is a simple weapon, and there's nothing about unarmed strike not incurring proficiency penalties.

I'm not gonna train her. You go first.

Well then, she's mine forever. Soon, I will have the biggest collection of lolis in the world.

Literally a cuckold. Neck yourself.

And one of them is guaranteed to bite your dick off.
It's not cuckoldry, it's sharing.

>literally
>cuckold
You literally have no idea what either of these words mean.

Because you are always proficient in your unarmed strikes. The attack of opportunity is not from being non proficient, it's from an unarmed attack, it's a special caveat to that kind of attack.
Non proficiency has never given an opponent an aoo in 3.X.

How dare you. I'll have you know I'm an excellent teacher.

I see you are a man with fine taste.

GM2

>Because you are always proficient in your unarmed strikes.
Mind providing a page number or an SRD link for that?

>The attack of opportunity is not from being non proficient
Nobody said it was. The -4 to hit are from being non-proficient.

>Non proficiency has never given an opponent an aoo in 3.X.
Again, that's not the issue.

I take GM1, since she's still learning and I can help her unfuck her mistakes as she goes along. GM2 is already set in her ways as a filthy "GM vs. players" asshole.

there is any tag in hentai where the father is cuckolded by the daughter
i mean his daughter fucks with other guys without the father knowing or with the father watching?

That's called life

but with hentai
i want to fap

>Because you are always proficient in your unarmed strikes
It says that nowhere in the game.

In fact, here.
d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack
Tell me where under unarmed strike it says you are proficient in unarmed strikes.

d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#unarmedStrike

Tell me where it says you're always proficient in unarmed strikes.

An unarmed strike is a simple weapon, and characters proficient in simple weapons are therefore proficient in unarmed.

Monk is not one of them.

>Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons
>Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of mainly simple weapons and possibly also some martial or even exotic weapons. A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls

Please, tell me where it says all characters are proficient.

Here, even take this search function to look at each and every page where it says "unarmed strike" and "proficient" on the same page.
d20srd.org/search.htm?q="unarmed strike" proficient

They SHOULD all be proficient, but it doesn't say that, rules as written.

GM2 sounds a better off the bat, but GM1 sounds easier to adjust over time.

Here you go
Nowhere does it speak of proficiency, it says it is a melee attack similar to a weapon with the following exceptions.
By saying like it means it is not, well combat refrences melee weapon attacks unarmed strikes are explicitly not weapon attacks.

>Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
>Attacks of Opportunity
>Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
>An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).
>"Armed" Unarmed Attacks
Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.
>Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)
Unarmed Strike Damage
>An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). >A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
>Dealing Lethal Damage
>You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

>By saying like it means it is not, well combat refrences melee weapon attacks unarmed strikes are explicitly not weapon attacks.

>Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

So, you're attacking with much like with a weapon, except for the following (AoO). IE, it's exactly the same as attacking with a weapon, except for that one rule that you get AoO'd.

When you attack with a weapon, if you're nonproficient, you take -4 to hit.

When you attack with your fists, much like when you attack with a weapon, if you're nonproficient, you take -4 to hit.

Monks are explicitly not proficient with unarmed strike, as their proficiency list is very specifically laid out. Unarmed strike is a simple weapon, which monks don't have a proficiency with. And, much like a weapon, if you're not proficient in something much like a weapon, you take a -4 to hit.

Weapons also call out unarmed strikes as not a weapon.
>Unarmed Strike
>A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
>An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

I'm failing to see where it says "unarmed strikes are not weapons".

I'm seeing that it says
>"unarmed strikes are always considered light weapons",

ie they're light, and they're also weapons.

And
>The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage
because it's hitting someone with a weapon, with the exception of you getting AoO'd in the face if you're not a monk or have IUS.

Isn't that literally the opposite of what you're saying? Where does it say that unarmed strikes are not weapons?

It's just badly worded shit that RAW is fucked up. We both know what they meant, but they just didn't realise anyone would be stupid enough to argue that you should take a -4 penalty on top of eating an AoO attack.

Advantages (or in bad cases eg. magical realm, which is preferable)

GM 1
>"Wait, you guys are going in from above? I didn't think of that give me a sec..."
>will try to work in elements from character backstories
>tendency to magical realm
>prepared homemade baked goods for a snack

GM 2
>knows the system inside and out
>tendency to railroad
>fan of giving players bonuses for RP
>restricts char creation based on the campaign/plot they have in mind
>will take notes on every little thing, especially if it could have consequences for the party
>will attach generic healbot to party if needed

GM 2 wins 6 to 4.

The second. I can handle some railroading and character restrictions if they're actually putting in the effort to tie things into play. Holding hostage loved ones also implies there's a chance to save them.

It sounds a lot better than wandering aimlessly with a DM who is completely new, can't handle it, and enforces RAW so it isn't even very freeform.

GM 1

also applies to

Under weapons they are listed as an unarmed strike, which is also not a weapon.
>they just didn't realise anyone would be stupid enough to argue
Admission is the first step to recovery.

No, it's a simple weapon. That's why it's listed in the Table: Weapons under simple weapons.

>under the weapons category, is the item "unarmed strike"
>Weapon Categories
>Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories.
>Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons

>unarmed strike is under the simple weapons category, when it says weapons are grouped in these categories

>it-it's not a weapon and doesn't count under nonproficiency rules h-honest I say it isn't

just say you're a filthly Rules As Intended person like the rest of us

A teacher should know better than to stick his dick in a loli.

The second one. I specifically mention things from my characters backstories so that the GM can fuck with it. GM 1 doesn't sound too bad, but I would like a GM with more experience.

GM2.

I would choose DM 1 any time. They clearly are just getting the ropes for the system, and probably DMing too by the sound of it. Sounds like the easier case of the two to guide towards better DMing.

Storyfags are shit tho

RAWfags: literally the worst since forever

>devil survivor
Please expand user. I am a fan of the game.

shit rules = shit game