|
So after months of leveling and prepping a character in addition for months of searching for a game, I finally got to take my level 7 aasimar cleric into Bonekeep 1. Just to state this now, yes, I had read/heard many of the horror stories of Bonekeep here on these boards and off, so I came prepared as best as I could knowing it would be difficult. Yes, I did survive unscathed...except for a slightly guilty conscious.
Spoilers/issue to follow:
We were playing Tier 6-7. Our party consisted of the following:
Inquisitor/Rogue/??? (feint, trip, sneak attack with a whip build)
Paladin (Tank)
Fighter (Archer build)
Oradin (Paladin/Oracle)
Ranger (TWF finesse build)
Cleric (Tank/Support build)
Not the optimal, well-rounded group I would've liked. It's PFS though. Not the most optimized of characters either, but I digress.
Our party had finished dispatching the four constructs in the initial room with only having one weapon destroyed amongst us. I could only speculate as to why a lvl 5 paladin didn't have a magic weapon, but at least two of us (myself included) had adamantine weapons. We also managed to find the loot and hidden button that dropped the portcullis that barred the passage to the left. As a result, I think the group decided to go left first based on the assumption that if it's barred off, it had to be promising.
The next room, we discovered the skeleton lords and thought that maybe we could lure them into the entryway room, it would save alot of us from having to take 2d6 cold damage every turn. When it was later revealed that this plan wouldn't work, the ranger and myself with him leading the way. He quickly discovered that his TWF tactics stacked alot of Spiritual Weapon (4 in total). The ranger decides to stand his ground knowing that I was right there next to him while the majority of the party was ready to leave the room. To be honest, I was also considering the same.
Sadly, it isn't long before the ranger gets dropped into dying with so many attacks going against him in a turn. Stuck in a narrow corridor, I decided to call for help dragging him out while I stepped over him in his unconscious state as a stepped into his space to try to protect him. In order to grab the skeletons' attention, I cast Holy Smite.
Here's where the issue starts.
I targeted the spell in the room without really considering if character alignment would be a problem. To be completely honest, I was meeting all of these players and GM for the first time save for one, whom I had played with/GMed for a few times in recent past. The ranger player himself had leveled up the character through GM credit, so it literally was his first time playing it. However, he forgot to write down an alignment. As a result, the GM decided to rule it as if it was a "worst case scenario" and his alignment was true neutral.
In short, I inadvertently killed the ranger as ruled by the GM. I know the ranger wasn't happy about this and I certainly wasn't either. I had no intention whatsoever of killing a comrade. In fact, it was the exact opposite.
The spoilered incident happened with a VO GMing. I did go back and check out the Season 6 PFSOPG and did note that you can't voluntarily kill another character. At the time of the incident, I did state on the matter to no avail. That player left the table shortly afterwards clearly displeased, begrudgingly taking his death sheet as he left.
As a person, not only do I feel terrible, but I just flat out completely disagree with the way that this was handled altogether. Yes, there were alot of things that could've been done differently. So I put it out to the community, are there any references or statements in regards as how to handle friendly fire?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no PvP in pfs. You cannot place an aoe that will hit another player, unless you have that player's permission to do so. Generally the only way you can get friendly fire is from attacks that scatter on a miss (like alchemist fire).
So yeah, you should disagree with the way it was handled, your GM should have told you you can't target it there.
|
|
There is no PvP in pfs. You cannot place an aoe that will hit another player, unless you have that player's permission to do so. Generally the only way you can get friendly fire is from attacks that scatter on a miss (like alchemist fire).
So yeah, you should disagree with the way it was handled, your GM should have told you you can't target it there.
Pretty much my point. Unfortunately, we're down a VC since he stepped down back in March. As far as I'm aware, no replacement has been made. I'm honestly considering sending this matter up to Mr. Brock, since the VO claimed after the game that he had previously contacted him on the matter.
Call me skeptical or a rules lawyer, but I'm the kind that demands proof.
|
There is no PvP in pfs. You cannot place an aoe that will hit another player, unless you have that player's permission to do so. Generally the only way you can get friendly fire is from attacks that scatter on a miss (like alchemist fire).
So yeah, you should disagree with the way it was handled, your GM should have told you you can't target it there.Pretty much my point. Unfortunately, we're down a VC since he stepped down back in March. As far as I'm aware, no replacement has been made. I'm honestly considering sending this matter up to Mr. Brock, since the VO claimed after the game that he had previously contacted him on the matter.
Call me skeptical or a rules lawyer, but I'm the kind that demands proof.
Yeah, I am with you on this. You must have the players permission to target the area they are in with a hostile spell cast by another player. If you do not have their permission, the spell can not be placed where the spell will affect them. I have not seen anything that modifies that.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Central Europe
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure the alignment should automatically default to true neutral in that case, there is nothing in the rules or the guide that says so.
But regardless of that in the moment the other player would be killed by your spell, the GM should have not allowed you to cast it. The guide is quite clear regarding to this.
In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another
character—ever.
In my opinion this is one of the rare cases the death of a player should be overruled, since it happend in a clear breach of the rules.
|
I would not default to neutral but had rolled a dice for random ruling and than have him choose afterwards. As for the death. Does not silence constitute consent. The player has the right to say no, but what if they sit there and wait till after the fact and than want to complain? You said he built it from GM credit so he has enough experience to know the AoE rule. Besides, it is his character and up to him to seek a reversal if he wants one.
|
|
The ranger player himself had leveled up the character through GM credit, so it literally was his first time playing it. However, he forgot to write down an alignment. As a result, the GM decided to rule it as if it was a "worst case scenario" and his alignment was true neutral.
I would have asked the ranger, "what's you alignment" or rolled, or ruled based on his behavior so far in the scenario (provided you had social interaction to go on). Defaulting to the "worst possible scenario" in a friendly fire incident strikes me possibly as a GM who who gets his kicks out of killing characters or views the GMing experience as an 'us vs them' excercise.
The first job of GMing is to provide an enjoyable experience. Providing a game where a character dies because of a very minor oversight that can be ruled in many ways and ruling in the favor of the 'worst case scenario' seems like something that should not be the default position.
And I do recomend bringing it to Mr. Brocks attention for review, and if everything is as you say it is, it should be overturned.
And if the VO in question, whose job in part is to set the tone for his area has a history of egotistical behavior that negitively effects enjoyment of players, there should be a conversation and possibly action behind closed doors.
|
The OP clearly didn't intend to kill the Ranger, so the rule about no intentional PvP doesn't apply. You can, everyone should agree, accidentally get each other killed by action or inaction.
As for the 'default alignment' going to neutral, if the Ranger in question was human, that sounds perfectly appropriate. Most humans ARE neutral, and allowing the player to pick his alignment AFTER an alignment-dependent effect is seen to affect his character is actually what's not fair.
|
|
This was not an accident, and there is no default alignment.
And yet you have to have one. It was the ranger's player's fault he didn't write one down. It was the ranger's player who put the GM in the position of having to adjucate an "impossible" situation.
You didn't pick? Are you human? You get the alignment most humans have. True Neutral.
That's 100% reasonable.
The situation was only illegal if the ranger's player said "No, don't cast Holy Smite with me in the AoE" and the GM let the player do it anyway. But that doesn't appear to be the situation in the OP.
|
That's 100% reasonable.
The situation was only illegal if the ranger's player said "No, don't cast Holy Smite with me in the AoE" and the GM let the player do it anyway. But that doesn't appear to be the situation in the OP.
That still doesn't mean there is a default alignment. And the player not speaking up does not make the act legal.
|
|
That still doesn't mean there is a default alignment.That's 100% reasonable.
The situation was only illegal if the ranger's player said "No, don't cast Holy Smite with me in the AoE" and the GM let the player do it anyway. But that doesn't appear to be the situation in the OP.
You'll note that in my post when I said 'default alignment' I used those quotes. I KNOW there's no such thing. I'm not arguing that there is. I'm saying the GM had to resolve something no GM should have to: an alignmentless PC.
I don't mean to impugn the integrity of the original poster, but remember that he considers himself an aggrieved party, complaining on the internet about what somebody else did. There is, at the very least, another side to this tale (the GM's). In my posts I've been saying that there is, perhaps, another explanation for the GM's decision to peg the Ranger's alignment to neutral other than "making the worst case scenario".
So, the Ranger has to have an alignment. His player didn't pick one. Whether the GM was being malicious or not I have no knowledge, nor do I pretend to have it. However, the outcome, where the Ranger was decreed to have a Neutral alignment, is very fair. Even if it is unfortunate for the ranger's player and the OP.
And the player not speaking up does not make the act legal.
No, that does make all the difference. Intentional PvP is what's illegal. If my character attacks a cloaker wrapped around your head, and neither of us knew 1/2 my damage would go to your head and I kill you, it's not retroactively undone because "I PvP'd you". It's only illegal if you warn me first "don't do it, I'll take damage.."
|
|
Intentional PvP is what's illegal. You may AND can accidentally kill each other.And this was not an accident. He deliberately targeted it where it would hit the ranger. It doesn't matter if he does or does not know it will hurt him.
The PvP aspect was completely accidental. Hence, no intentional PvP.
Just like if I attacked the cloaker wrapped around your head, that was completely intentional. If I didn't know about the rule where you'll take damage too, your damage is UNINTENTIONAL despite my intentional action.
Reiterating:
It doesn't matter if he does or does not know it will hurt him.
That statement is 100% untrue. Your knowledge or lack thereof of something bad happening to an ally completely makes the difference between intentionality and unintentionality.
|
|
No, it was not. Your example in no way relates to the OPs situation. You can't throw a harmful area effect on a fellow player.
You can't throw a harmful area effect of a fellow player without his permission. (You are, in fact, completely free to fireball/negative channel/etc the entire party in PFS, if each and every player who's PC will be affected gives you explicit permission beforehand.)
Now, the OP leaves that part out. I think we're presuming the ranger's player did not say "no don't do it". If he did, and the OP did it anyway, and the GM let it happen, sure. We have an issue.
But, given the posts, I don't think that's the situation.
|
|
No, it was not. Your example in no way relates to the OPs situation. You can't throw a harmful area effect on a fellow player.
Just curious, but where exactly does it say that?
I know the PFS guide under no PvP says repeatedly that you cannot KILL a fellow character, but I have not seen where it is officially written that you can never place an AoE in an area with a player. I have seen people post that that is their interpretation of the rule, but I haven't found anything official.
I am assuming of course you mean on a fellow character, because obviously placing harmful effects on a fellow player should never happen! ;)
|
|
No, it was not. Your example in no way relates to the OPs situation. You can't throw a harmful area effect on a fellow player.You can't throw a harmful area effect of a fellow player without his permission. (You are, in fact, completely free to fireball/negative channel/etc the entire party in PFS, if each and every player who's PC will be affected gives you explicit permission beforehand.)
You know, I see this come up a lot (I even used it myself yesterday while playing my Oracle of Flame with a fire-based Sorcerer) but have never seen a citation allowing it.
|
There is no PvP in pfs. You cannot place an aoe that will hit another player, unless you have that player's permission to do so. Generally the only way you can get friendly fire is from attacks that scatter on a miss (like alchemist fire).
So yeah, you should disagree with the way it was handled, your GM should have told you you can't target it there.
I have to say this is not a universal thought - I have had GMs who have allowed players to catch PCs in the edges of spells as long as the intent was to hit a lot of bad guys - even without player consent.
Not something I allow, I don't limit the prohibition to damage - color spraying or entangling a friend by intentionally placing the area that will catch PCs too or using charm or dominate person on fellow PCs - is still Pvp in my mind - though technically it might not be since no damage was done.
|
|
Well, walk down the implications of "no harmful effects can ever be applied to fellow party members. Even their own permission does not make this possible." You'll arrive at a very awkward, and essentially unplayable game. Even if you could definitively define what is "harmful", which you can't.
Also consider passive PvP. If I'm not allowed to PvP under any circumstances ever, is it considered PvP to not heal or not rescue someone who "needs it", when I think (however rightly or wrongly) that some other action is better for me or for the party?
"No PvP ever under any circumstances. Period." is not only not the rule, it'd be unplayable if it were.
"No intentionally harming each other" is not only the rule, it conforms to K.I.S.S.
|
|
Yeah, I was going to throw a glitterdust on an enemy where I couldn't avoid the party members in one game, thinking they could make the save. The GM had me retract the action when the other players complained.
And that's the essence of it in PFS. Had they not complained or been fine with it, you could have and should have been allowed to do that glitterdust on the enemy that somewhat overlapped PCs.
|
|
Because I'm right.
Going back to this, you're right at your table. At mine, you'd be dead wrong.
Well, walk down the implications of "no harmful effects can never be applied to fellow party members. Even their own permission does not make this possible." You'll arrive at a very awkward, and essentially unplayable game. Even if you could definitively define what is "harmful", which you can't.
|
|
If that ends the disagreement, all the better. That post is 100% support for not only what I've been saying, but also what the GM did in the OP.
Since the GM allowed the Holy Smite to go off with the Ranger in the AoE, it means that for whatever reason, he didn't view it as intentional PvP. And all the complaining about it being an "illegal kill" is groundless.
|
|
Because I'm right.Going back to this, you're right at your table. At mine, you'd be dead wrong.
Well, let's go into this table variation thing then.
What would YOU have done if you were the GM in the original post? Undo the Holy Smite? Allow the Ranger to pick his alignment after seeing he'll be killed by the Holy Smite so that he's unharmed?
That's fine for your table. Seriously, not snarky. If you want to run it one of those ways, then more power to you.
However, the way the GM did it in the OP, that's ALSO perfectly fine. Even if you wouldn't have done it that way, yourself.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Central Europe
|
"No PvP ever under any circumstances. Period." is not only not the rule, it'd be unplayable if it were.
Actually it is in the rules, page 19 of the guide.
It is even the header of the chapter and saysNo Play-vs-Player Combat
And nowhere in the chapter is anything about "you can do it, if the other player consents/does not protest". And please don't start about "accidents". That is a can of worms i'd rather not open. Because then you get all kinds of " I accidently included the guy i don't like in my fireball ".
|
|
"No PvP ever under any circumstances. Period." is not only not the rule, it'd be unplayable if it were.
Actually it is in the rules, page 19 of the guide.
It is even the header of the chapter and says
No Play-vs-Player CombatAnd nowhere in the chapter is anything about "you can do it, if the other player consents/does not protest". And please don't start about "accidents". That is a can of worms i'd rather not open. Because then you get all kinds of " I accidently included the guy i don't like in my fireball ".
There are plenty of players (and GMs) in PFS that would insist that not only does the specific rule including "intentional" in the prohibitation against PvP overrides the title of the section that generally describes said prohibitation. Furthermore, I'd safely wager that there are even more players and GMs than THAT that would allow an AoE to occur when the only PC(s) to be affected by it expressly say "go ahead, nuke the bastards.. I can take it!" A GM that points to the PFS guide and refuse to allow the AoE to occur despite a unanimous agreement from the party is not going to look like a fairminded GM..
No, he'll look the opposite. He'll look like he's trying to screw the party over on a technicality to protect the bad guys from that AoE.
|
|
Your way is the ONLY right way, then?Going back to this, you're right at your table. At mine, you'd be dead wrong.
You, me, and TriOmegaZero all agree that TriOmegaZero can do what he wants at his table with regards to understanding what is and what is not "intentional PvP".
I'm just pointing out that the unnamed GM in the OP should be extended that same allowance to decide for himself what is and what is not "intentional PvP" and he hasn't been by posters like TriOmegaZero and some others.
|
|
I'm just pointing out that the unnamed GM in the OP should be extended that same allowance to decide for himself what is and what is not "intentional PvP" and he hasn't been by posters like TriOmegaZero and some others.See also here.
What of it? You going to say that the part in parenthesis supports your view that no harm can befall any PC at the hands of any other PC at not just your table but any other?
I'd say that AGAIN you've dug up a post that directly supports everything I've been saying. The rogue in the post not only PvPd those fools to death through his inaction, it wasn't even done with their consent AND support for it all was expressed.
|
|
You should stop putting words in my mouth. Perhaps return to this thread later with a different mindset.
It's not so much a deliberate misunderstanding of your words but sincerely just not getting what you're trying to say.
Perhaps, for my own benefit, you'd be willing to indulge me a minor courtesy. Would you clarify whether your opposition to what the GM did in the OP based on not his not retroactively undoing the Holy Smite, or assigning the Ranger's alignment to Neutral? Or Both?
|
|
Opposition? I don't understand exactly, but it's to allowing the Holy Smite to go through.
When a player performs an action based on information his character doesn't have, or based on a misperception his character WOULDN'T have, I allow retractions. His character would have know the ranger was in harms way and thus would have been allowed to chose a different option.
|
|
What does or does not constitute Player versus Player is somewhat of a gray area, as has been alluded to. Even non-damaging AE spells can be questionably PvP; I once played in a game where another player using Obscuring Mist almost got the entire party killed due to poor tactics.
"Friendly Fire" is one area where I think it's completely acceptable (and even required) to allow for a small degree of meta-gaming. As long as it's consensual, I'm fine allowing a player to use an ability or spell that negatively impacts another player, including AE effects. Unintentionally killing another player's character, however, is probably against the spirit of the "don't be a jerk" and "no PvP" rules.
I don't want to second guess the GM too much; especially given that they were in the middle of a very tough scenario with a time limit. However, I personally would have allowed you to retract your action upon learning that you would be doing damage (especially killing) another PC or required you to target another area that didn't include them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this situation is all 3 people - the OP, the ranger and the GM should have been making each other aware that the ranger was in his rights to invoke the PvP rule, even if he hadn't yet chosen an alignment.
Generally the only way you can get friendly fire is from attacks that scatter on a miss (like alchemist fire).
This is correct, another way is if you're under a charm/compulsion, and in this case, the PvP rule doesn't apply. It's a different story if the player is throwing a bomb at an opponent while a player is adjacent to that opponent, or the GM has let the player play his own mind-controlled character to everyone else's detriment.
