Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The general consensus is "This is a cooperative game. If your build is getting in the way of your party's enjoyment, then you may want to rethink it."
That said, depending on the table, those still may be very effective options and definitely welcomed. Just be able to operate without it. I've had an entire scenario where no one was hit because all of the PCs could deal with the Darkness cast by a PC, and NPCs could not.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM: I would not care in the least.*
As a Player: If all of the other players have a means of seeing in the dark or dealing with concealment, then awesome! (I've played in groups before consisting of aasimar, tiefling, dwarf, and half-orc; it was great.)
If they came to a table where their ability was negating the abilities of the other players at the table, I would ask them to either play another character or not use that ability. If they insisted, then I would probably walk away. Explore, Report, Cooperate.
|
Re read the rules about PVP^^
I suggest that many of those builds have the potential to make the game quite boring for other players.
Also the obscuring mist build seems to be quite reliant on a specific item... so sunder ? (kidding)
All the mist builds I've seen have a dip into oracle of flames or waves, and so no item is needed.
What they need is a partner bard who has the see in fog, mist, smoke performance from Advance Class Guide.
Someone like myself would just try to dispel the concealment affect if I had a caster.
Yes I would ask the other player to not use it so much first, but if not, oh well.
PS: Gust of Winds should also work on the fog spells.
|
* I actually don't care at all what legal build people are bringing to the tables I GM. Why should I?
If a players build relies on blinding the other characters you either have a PVP situation with the mister blinding people or you're going to have a PVP situation when the other characters want to do their thing.
|
|
* I actually don't care at all what legal build people are bringing to the tables I GM. Why should I?If a players build relies on blinding the other characters you either have a PVP situation with the mister blinding people or you're going to have a PVP situation when the other characters want to do their thing.
It's not really PvP because no damage is being caused. At least that's how it's been ruled in Ohio.
|
no. they can do that. Im just saying there are other things that can bring up pvp. Guess my examples would follow under the don't be a jerk.
If you want to put your fellow teammates in the mist or darkness, then that is ok.
But people need to think about how you are affecting your other party members 1rst.
Played in a game where 2 tieflings went in and used deeper darkness vs an encounter since they could still see in it. we informed them of consequences.
Rest of us said fine . we will just wait out here for you. Left them to deal with the encounter since they thought they were all that.
|
|
If your action could cause another pc to possibly become webbed, blinded, incapacitated, etc.. it's pvp and they must give you permission as well. pvp is not limited to just taking dam.
If you cause the terrain around them to become difficult, would not be pvp.
No status conditions are inflicted on anyone. It is an environmental affect.
|
|
no. they can do that. Im just saying there are other things that can bring up pvp. Guess my examples would follow under the don't be a jerk.
If you want to put your fellow teammates in the mist or darkness, then that is ok.
But people need to think about how you are affecting your other party members 1rst.
Played in a game where 2 tieflings went in and used deeper darkness vs an encounter since they could still see in it. we informed them of consequences.
Rest of us said fine . we will just wait out here for you. Left them to deal with the encounter since they thought they were all that.
The problem being "don't be a jerk" translates to "GM fiat" in most cases.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
If you unwillingly end up within an allies darkness or mist effect, it can have disastrous consequences:
- losing their dex bonus to AC against enemies not penalized by the effect, this can result on additional hits/sneak attacks and dead characters.
- healing a character in that sort of effect could be very hard, and prevent a dying player from getting healed.
- people getting stupid, if some players create mist/darkness and then charge on, others might just hit the area with aoe attacks. Is this pvp ? After all the players could argue, that they have no way to knowing that an ally is within the target area.
- If those tactics are used all the time, this could effectively neuter one or more player characters, and that in time could easily lead to conflict within the group:
"Lets say two tieflings charged into the darkness they created and got their butts handed to them. Now they are almost dead, while the human paladin tank didn't get to do anything. Now the tieflings are in somewhat dire need of healing (1 stable, 1 at 3 hp) and lack the skill to use their wands of CLW, or do not have their own healing resources.
Now the paladin either has to decide, use his own healing spells and abilities/charges to heal them, or leave them in this state.
This is a lose/lose scenario for the paladin.
I can understand the reasoning "You prevented me from having fun for half an hour, and I see no reason to support that kind of BS."
This isn't my definition of cooperation.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
So what happens if a player uses a tactic like this against the wishes of his team, or without asking them and well:
"Tiefling uses darkness to engages blinded enemies in the darkness. A human caster isn't willing to accept the dangers of standing on darkness, and uses dispel magic to end the effect.
Tiefling gets killed by the enemies since they can now see...."
PVP or not ? Who is the jerk here, you could argue that the wizard was using his action for self defense (since that darkness could have resulted in his death, if some of the enemies were able to deal with the darkness and attack him).
My advise would be to stop this situation from happening, and discuss tactics with the other players, but I think we are all assuming that cooperation is already in use.
|
|
That's not pvp at all. Again, things go wrong in battle. Players should not get any special protection from these positive actions, just as they don't get protection from negative actions such as a cleric choosing not to channel or a wizard choosing not to haste. Bad groups should fail, as to give credence to the importance of good groups. It has happened to me yet, but I fully expect to lose a PC permanently due to deaths playing season 4+ material.
|
|
PvP as written only talks about killing.
This is a common misconception, but it is completely false. The section is titled, "No Player-versus-Player Combat", and imposing an unwelcome negative combat condition on another player, IN COMBAT, certainly violates it.
RAW arguments on the exact limits of how much you can mess with other players at the table? Really? "Congratulations, you proved you can win Pathfinder, now go play solitaire in the corner, because the rest of us are on the same team, and actually know what that means."
|
|
If you didn't bring enough goz masks for the entire class then you can't obscuring mists your own party.
I've actually used Blessings of the Mole and darkness together....
and when we all had goz masks in EotT our judge asked us to stop using them with the Eversmoking Bottle - it wasn't much fun for him...
|
|
..."don't be a jerk", which is extremely subjective.
Emphasis mine.
I don't mean to pick on one poster, but this phrase also gets bandied about by a lot of folks, and I'd hate for people to believe it's true.
Doing something that the rest of the table has asked you to stop doing is the very definition of "being a jerk". If someone really need this spelled out, I usually suggest that perhaps a less collaborative game is more suited to their interests.
|
|
RAW arguments on the exact limits of how much you can mess with other players at the table? Really? "Congratulations, you proved you can win Pathfinder, now go play solitaire in the corner, because the rest of us are on the same team, and actually know what that means."
Thats a bit insulting for people that have a different opinion than you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that different opinion violates the rules and the spirit of the game and destroys the social contract of the game, then action needs to be taken. I tend to think that 6 people having fun is better than 1 person having fun and six people not having fun. The only time I've had to do this, the person got a free Chronicle sheet and was quite happy with just getting the loot without needing to risk anything or spend resources. Quite telling, that.
|
and when we all had goz masks in EotT our judge asked us to stop using them with the Eversmoking Bottle - it wasn't much fun for him...
See, I don't get this.
The entire party committed to a strategy. They should be rewarded for it. As a GM, I would find it fun--I have no personal stakes in the monsters winning, but I'd do my darndest to give a challenge (since it's EoTT). It would be up to the PCs to stop using that tactic if they found all the fights repetitious and boring.
|
|
Giamo raises a different issue: why doesn't the GM have fun if the players are winning? That is a totally separate thing. Players, as a group, are SUPPOSED to win. If PCs can nullify combat, there is more time for me to roleplay the NPCs are build atmosphere or insert more lore. This is even more useful in Eyes of the Ten.
|
|
and when we all had goz masks in EotT our judge asked us to stop using them with the Eversmoking Bottle - it wasn't much fun for him...See, I don't get this.
The entire party committed to a strategy. They should be rewarded for it. As a GM, I would find it fun--I have no personal stakes in the monsters winning, but I'd do my darndest to give a challenge (since it's EoTT). It would be up to the PCs to stop using that tactic if they found all the fights repetitious and boring.
got to keep the judge happy too...
so we kept the stopper in the bottle for most of the rest of the scenarios...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would the GM be unhappy that the party is using legal, coordinated tactics?
I tell my high level PFS players 3 things when we do a Mod or Sanctioned AP: 1) I hope we have fun, 2) If I have to look up a rule but it takes more than a minute to resolve, I'll make a decision to keep things moving and we'll look it up during a break, 3) I don't care if they omg-high-level-PC-curbstomp every encounter because it's just a game and I don't take it personally. Then I reiterate 1) I hope we have fun.
|
|
Doing something that the rest of the table has asked you to stop doing is the very definition of "being a jerk".
That definition could be applied to any character that destroys encounters before the rest of the group can contribute. Should I tell optimized archers they are being jerks? How many cold iron/blanched arrows per round should I restrict them too before they cross the line?
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I think tactics like this raise a valid point about tactics:
If the players face reasonably intelligent enemies, would it be reasonable for them to run away (further into the dungeon if possible) to fetch someone who can deal with this?
After all, if you are in a situation, where you have no realistic chance to survive, isn't retreat a valid option.
Of course this could result in a much bigger encounter, but is this so much different than using a fear effect to "cause the mob, to pull the next group of mobs"?
|
|
After all, if you are in a situation, where you have no realistic chance to survive, isn't retreat a valid option.
Of course this could result in a much bigger encounter, but is this so much different than using a fear effect to "cause the mob, to pull the next group of mobs"?
A lot of encounters specify, "fights to the death."
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Doing something that the rest of the table has asked you to stop doing is the very definition of "being a jerk".That definition could be applied to any character that destroys encounters before the rest of the group can contribute. Should I tell optimized archers they are being jerks? How many cold iron/blanched arrows per round should I restrict them too per round before they cross the line?
Depending on the encounter archers are completely useless, a wind wall or similar effect neutralizes their effect on combat completely. The same is true for narrow twisted corridors.
The burden to challenge a variety of players and playstyles is however laid on the scenario writers, not the GMs.
However, I can understand that there are encounters, where monsters have no chance to counter. Imagine the outcry if a couple of flame oracles were trying this trick on the players, you could argue that players have the resources to negate that advantage, but it could end badly.
Edit: Slumber hex is a great example here, I actually consider not taking it with my magus, since it is so very scenario breaking.
|
|
Doing something that the rest of the table has asked you to stop doing is the very definition of "being a jerk".That definition could be applied to any character that destroys encounters before the rest of the group can contribute. Should I tell optimized archers they are being jerks? How many cold iron/blanched arrows per round should I restrict them too before they cross the line?
You should if they're soloing encounters and any of the other players seems upset. It's not terribly difficult to make a game-breaking character. I personally don't see a difference between a Witch dropping the BBEG with Slumber vs. an archer dropping it with a single full attack. Either is fine or a problem depending on whether it is making the other players feel marginalized.
Why would the GM be unhappy that the party is using legal, coordinated tactics?
I tell my high level PFS players 3 things when we do a Mod or Sanctioned AP: 1) I hope we have fun, 2) If I have to look up a rule but it takes more than a minute to resolve, I'll make a decision to keep things moving and we'll look it up during a break, 3) I don't care if they omg-high-level-PC-curbstomp every encounter because it's just a game and I don't take it personally. Then I reiterate 1) I hope we have fun.
I tend to agree, but as a GM I'd appreciate a heads up if the party is planning to do something like the eversmoking goz mask strategy. It would save me hours of prep if I can just scrub any encounter that can't deal with total concealment.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
A lot of encounters specify, "fights to the death."After all, if you are in a situation, where you have no realistic chance to survive, isn't retreat a valid option.
Of course this could result in a much bigger encounter, but is this so much different than using a fear effect to "cause the mob, to pull the next group of mobs"?
A tactical retreat into another room (maybe just to get out of the are of the darkness/mist effect, seems reasonable even then.
|
|
As a gm I am just the story teller, moderator. It's up to the party as to what they do and handle things. If they find a way to make most or all the encounters last 1 min real time/ 1 rd game time then so be it.
Not fun for me and does suck since I put in lots of time prepping.
But it's their game. Creative solutions. I would think it to get boring for them fast if they just cake walk thru the mod in 2 1/2 hrs.
If 1 or more players are doing things to hamper/ hinder other pcs, then I would say it falls on them 1rst to hash it out. If not, then I will step in to enlighten the "offenders" as to how their actions are ruining the game and need to desist such activities.
I want players every wk and not have players stop coming due to "jerks" wrecking it for them.
If you have an obscuring mist/ darkness, etc..... strategy I would highly recommend bringing it up before the game starts so to squash future problems that might arise in the game.
environmental effects can cause serious and even fatal harm to your fellow pcs.
|
|
I have a Sylph Sky Druid with the Weather Domain and Cloud Gazer feat, so I get Obscuring Mist and Fog Cloud as domain spells and can see through them (mostly) right from level 1 - no Goz Mask needed.
The whole point is that as a squishy, casting focused druid, I'm going to hide in the back, more than 20 feet from the front line, and cast things at the bad guys who can't see me, because I'll be 10+ feet into the cloud. But the front line will be outside the fog, so I don't interfere with my allies. Obviously, this won't work in really close quarters, but it's also not a dedicated strategy that I intend to use every battle. If my allies want, I can prepare extras of Obscuring Mist and cast it in more fights per day, but I'll coordinate with the team before the adventure.
I've actually only played this PC once so far, and didn't cast Obscuring Mist at all in that one. I actually tried to, for the more traditional reason of the party getting creamed and needing the cover, but I failed a concentration check (the BBEG was right next to me).
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so, where do you draw the line on tactics like this?
if 5 of the 6 players have Darkvision, is it ok for the Tiefling to drop a darkness when the monsters DON'T have Darkvision?
just a couple weeks ago, I was running a game where the PCs are ambushed by a bunch of halflings (no darkvision). It happened outside, during daylight hours... The party is 2 Dwarvs, a tiefling, an aasimar, a Sylph, and a human (I think)... so the tiefling dropped a darkness.
Dim light - so no sneak dice ("all halflings are rogues right?"), and the human has a 20% miss chance... so - is this enough for it to be PvP?
How about if it had been night and he would have blinded the human (and the bad guys)?
What if only 4 of 6 the PCs had darkvision? 3 of 6? where does it get to be an issue?
It gets to be an issue once not everybody in the group is ok with the tactic. If the players without darkvision don't mind that they will have problem, there is a meeting of the minds, and thus no conflict.
These problems can be solved just by talking to the others players.
|
|
Why would the GM be unhappy that the party is using legal, coordinated tactics?
I tell my high level PFS players 3 things when we do a Mod or Sanctioned AP: 1) I hope we have fun, 2) If I have to look up a rule but it takes more than a minute to resolve, I'll make a decision to keep things moving and we'll look it up during a break, 3) I don't care if they omg-high-level-PC-curbstomp every encounter because it's just a game and I don't take it personally. Then I reiterate 1) I hope we have fun.
I agree. I take every tactical advantage I think the monsters are capable of. Why would I expect the PCs to do less?
As a DM I enjoy 2 things and they are deeply related. One is I am vicarious, if the PCs have fun, I have more fun. I also enjoy telling the PCs the awesomeness the author put into the scenario and translating that to the players.
|
|
Doing something that the rest of the table has asked you to stop doing is the very definition of "being a jerk".That definition could be applied to any character that destroys encounters before the rest of the group can contribute. Should I tell optimized archers they are being jerks? How many cold iron/blanched arrows per round should I restrict them too before they cross the line?You should if they're soloing encounters and any of the other players seems upset. It's not terribly difficult to make a game-breaking character. I personally don't see a difference between a Witch dropping the BBEG with Slumber vs. an archer dropping it with a single full attack. Either is fine or a problem depending on whether it is making the other players feel marginalized.
I tend to agree, but as a GM I'd appreciate a heads up if the party is planning to do something like the eversmoking goz mask strategy. It would save me hours of prep if I can just scrub any encounter that can't deal with total concealment.Why would the GM be unhappy that the party is using legal, coordinated tactics?
I tell my high level PFS players 3 things when we do a Mod or Sanctioned AP: 1) I hope we have fun, 2) If I have to look up a rule but it takes more than a minute to resolve, I'll make a decision to keep things moving and we'll look it up during a break, 3) I don't care if they omg-high-level-PC-curbstomp every encounter because it's just a game and I don't take it personally. Then I reiterate 1) I hope we have fun.
Before doing this tactic in EotT we discussed it with the judge. He seemed to be fine with it. It was only after the first two scenarios that he started to look for things like penilities for "fighting/breathing in smoke" or "prolonged exposure to smoke" - so we asked him why he was looking for something bad to effect us (realizing that we were countering with Airbubble spells and that sort of thing)... it was turning the game into the judge presenting issues and us finding counters - when all he wanted was for us to stop doing something. So we stopped.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Before doing this tactic in EotT we discussed it with the judge. He seemed to be fine with it. It was only after the first two scenarios that he started to look for things like penilities for "fighting/breathing in smoke" or "prolonged exposure to smoke" - so we asked him why he was looking for something bad to effect us (realizing that we were countering with Airbubble spells and that sort of...Doing something that the rest of the table has asked you to stop doing is the very definition of "being a jerk".That definition could be applied to any character that destroys encounters before the rest of the group can contribute. Should I tell optimized archers they are being jerks? How many cold iron/blanched arrows per round should I restrict them too before they cross the line?You should if they're soloing encounters and any of the other players seems upset. It's not terribly difficult to make a game-breaking character. I personally don't see a difference between a Witch dropping the BBEG with Slumber vs. an archer dropping it with a single full attack. Either is fine or a problem depending on whether it is making the other players feel marginalized.
I tend to agree, but as a GM I'd appreciate a heads up if the party is planning to do something like the eversmoking goz mask strategy. It would save me hours of prep if I can just scrub any encounter that can't deal with total concealment.Why would the GM be unhappy that the party is using legal, coordinated tactics?
I tell my high level PFS players 3 things when we do a Mod or Sanctioned AP: 1) I hope we have fun, 2) If I have to look up a rule but it takes more than a minute to resolve, I'll make a decision to keep things moving and we'll look it up during a break, 3) I don't care if they omg-high-level-PC-curbstomp every encounter because it's just a game and I don't take it personally. Then I reiterate 1) I hope we have fun.
I applaud you maturity in handling this situation, making sure everybody has fun is the duty of every persona at the table. As a GM I am often worried, that my players will get bored with lackluster encounters, so I can understand your GM.
|
|
I believe this thread has effectively demonstrated the non-efficacy of the "don't be a jerk" rule. I don't feel picked out because I stand by my statement that "don't be a jerk" is EXTREMELY subjective. One person's jerk is another person's saviour.
"This is a common misconception, but it is completely false. The section is titled, "No Player-versus-Player Combat", and imposing an unwelcome negative combat condition on another player, IN COMBAT, certainly violates it."
Really? I don't see that written anywhere. Maybe they should rewrite that section if that's what they mean.
" the spirit of the game and destroys the social contract of the game"
Again, subjective terms. Not everyone is going to agree on these items. It creates chaos.
"RAW arguments on the exact limits of how much you can mess with other players at the table? Really?"
Yes, really. Because most PCs aren't telepathically linked and be on different pages in a combat. It can happen inadvertently, and that's usually what I see.
