|
Quick thought experiment: How would the OP (or anyone for that matter) feel about having his lawful cleric in the zone of a Chaos Hammer my cleric of <insert chaotic deity> sets off?
I haven't done the research, but I'm sure good and evil have their equivalents as well. Personally, I'd get formal consent from any player who's effected character was in the radius before setting off any of these.
If it was handled in the form of healthy rivalry, it could be fine to have the chaotic and lawful clerics bashing each other from time to time. Again, they shouldn't be trying kill each other, but minor harassment back and forth should be fine as long as the players do so in good spirits.
In character, the PCs might be pissed, but that's an in character thing. I do think both teamwork and consent are things that need to be addressed in character.
I will note that WILL is the save against these spells, which is the stronger save for clerics. Clerics are not the main concern here, it would be things like barbarians, fighters and rogues, things that may have the alignment in question, but lack the will save to resist.
I will also note that the ban on PVP should not be used in a passive aggressive manner. Your PC is not able to deny my use of blast weapons by deliberately putting yourself in harms way - especially if you refuse attempted safeguards (like spell immunity).
|
Or, you could aim the spell so it doesn't hit your teammates. Including your teammates in an AoE effect wold be considered PvP, and should only be done with your teammates permission, or be prepared to have a GM disallow your action because of PvP.I did ask my local group. They defined PVP as actively trying to kill allies. They do not consider AoE to be inherently PVP, even if you hit allies.
That depends on how you interpret the guide.
No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide
an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible.
Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While
killing another character might seem like fun to you, it
certainly won’t be for the other character’s player. Even if
you feel that killing another PC is in character for your PC
at this particular moment, just figure out some other way
for your character to express herself. In short, you can never
voluntarily use your character to kill another character—
without their consent. Note that this does not apply to
situations where your character is mind-controlled by an
NPC and is forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
The header is "no pvp combat" but the body of the section merely says "you can't voluntarily kill other players". So is the header the rule? or is the body of the description the rule? It does clearly say "no pvp combat" in the title.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I am pretty sure the intent was to prevent table strife by preventing players from harming other player's characters without that player being okay with it. Dropping a fireball on a party member who is in the middle of a bunch nasty fire resistant creatures may not kill him directly but may greatly increase the chance of him getting killed when the fire resistant monsters take their turn. So unless the target PC said it was okay, that would be a violation of the don't be a jerk rule. Players being jerks to other players is the main reason for NO PVP rule in the first place. If you find yourself trying to parse the wording of the No PVP rule so that you can get away with being a jerk, just remember there is a Don't Be A Jerk rule also.
|
|
@trollbill: Agree, don't be a jerk in PFS.
That is kinda the point of the thread, as I was trying to figure out how to use a domain spell without being a jerk. The responses help solidify my stance, so I have more clear idea how to handle it in game.
As for my actual solution, I plan to wait a few months for that book that has Alseta's Defic Obedience, then plan from there. She is my favorite deity in the PFS setting.
Meanwhile, I'm going to play a druid...(probably Erastil for my deity)
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I don't see a real difference between AoE alignment spells that hurt PCs, and fireballs that hurt PCs.
In both cases, I think the sane course of action is to get informed consent from the player whose PC might get hurt.
I say informed consent because while a PC might easily shrug off a normal NPC's blast, the optimized blast of a fellow PC might surprise the player with its high DC and damage.
Another description of the Law/Chaos axis is in Babylon 5
Law = Vorlon -- They don't like change.
Chaos = Shadows -- They promote change.
/cevah
|
|
I don't see a real difference between AoE alignment spells that hurt PCs, and fireballs that hurt PCs.
...Fireball saves against reflex and many classes can reduce successful reflex saves to zero damage. Fire resistance is also both common and easy to acquire.
The mentioned alignment spells save against willpower. Defenses to boost willpower are uncommon with the typical classes that would be in melee with the enemy. Damage is untyped, so very few classes will have resistances.
The secondary effect (daze, blinded, sickened, or slow) are all highly unappealing effects to be hit with.
Though, all the reasons a PC wouldn't want to be hit are all the same reasons the party would want to have the spell against their enemies.
|
|
The other issue is that the spells could be argued non-lethal, as the spell really doesn't do any damage to those of the "right" alignment. Plus, the typical character with access to these spells is likely one inherently opposed to the alignment it damages. So even with good-aligned characters roleplaying superbly, it's hard to justify (in game) not using Holy Smite because you might hurt your evil/neutral allies.
Given that chaos/law/evil/good alignments are mostly metagaming concepts, my PC would probably require 4 different alignment detection spells to actually know if the spell would be lethal or not to my fellow party members. And those Detection spells are both slow and inexact to determine alignments of allies. And even there, Neutral PCs can be damaged by these spells, while there are no spells to actually detect neutrality...(might be wrong here).
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Dazed is the most underrated debuff in the game: missing a turn, unable to take ANY actions will get you dead faster than losing half your hitpoints.
Along side stun: Miss a turn, *and* drop everything you are holding. So, functionally, miss 1.5 - 2 turns and take 1 - 2 AoO
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a real difference between AoE alignment spells that hurt PCs, and fireballs that hurt PCs....Fireball saves against reflex and many classes can reduce successful reflex saves to zero damage. Fire resistance is also both common and easy to acquire.
The mentioned alignment spells save against willpower. Defenses to boost willpower are uncommon with the typical classes that would be in melee with the enemy. Damage is untyped, so very few classes will have resistances.
The secondary effect (daze, blinded, sickened, or slow) are all highly unappealing effects to be hit with.
Though, all the reasons a PC wouldn't want to be hit are all the same reasons the party would want to have the spell against their enemies.
You need different countermeasures, but apparently I wasn't clear earlier. In both cases you're area-blasting and it's just not cool to hit fellow PCs without their OK.
The whole "oh, you really should be resistant to X/have alignment Y" angle is a distraction. That's telling people what to play so that you can do what you want without a second thought. Not okay.
So the mechanical differences between them aren't really important, the main principle is about playing nice together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Along side stun: Miss a turn, *and* drop everything you are holding. So, functionally, miss 1.5 - 2 turns and take 1 - 2 AoOFortunately, stun is uncommon by comparison to blinded or dazed.
Not as uncommon as all that. Color Spray, for one common example, will apply at least one round of stun, at a minimum, if the target fails its Will save, no matter what level the target is.
And Color Spray, as well, is an AoE spell.
5 or more HD: The creature is stunned for 1 round.
|
|
In both cases you're area-blasting and it's just not cool to hit fellow PCs without their OK.
If your PC knows I want to blast something, so you move in harms way to prevent me, that's not cool.
Telling people they can't play blasters because you don't want to exercise reasonable caution or play as part of a team, is unreasonable.
|
|
iTelling people they can't play blasters because you don't want to exercise reasonable caution or play as part of a team, is unreasonable.
No, its not. Some characters just are not effective at range (I have one character that needs to be inside an enemies square to do anything for example, although he's happy to evade any fireballs tossed his way) Stay on the sidelines and let the casters handle this is not a cool attitude.
PFS tends to be crawling with melee. Melee WILL rush right in and hit things. As a blaster you have to prepare for that.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
In both cases you're area-blasting and it's just not cool to hit fellow PCs without their OK.
If your PC knows I want to blast something, so you move in harms way to prevent me, that's not cool.
Telling people they can't play blasters because you don't want to exercise reasonable caution or play as part of a team, is unreasonable.
Who is talking about moving into the target zone "in order to prevent you?" People are talking about being involved and in optimal places for their characters. I play a blaster. I drop a whole lot of area effect and I don't carry a rod of selective spell (I need too many rods already, and even with my tiefling tail that would push me into the realm of needing levels in juggler bard to keep up.)
I have only rarely run into a situation where I couldn't drop a blast on multiple bad guys (well, except when there is only one) and for those situations, I have the whole rest of my spell list to fall back on.
Side note on the "If you don't want to get hurt, you should be lawful." Very few lawful folk are so extremely totalitarian as to believe that theirs is the only moral way to live, and just being neutral is grounds for having lethal force used on you. "I killed him because he wasn't lawful" is certainly not a morally good motive, and it verges dangerously close to "killing without provocation" and solidly violates the explore part of "explore, report, cooperate"
Just based on that last one, any character that holds the in character belief "if you don't want me to hurt you, you should change your religion" does not belong in the in character PFS, and based on the first half of that, any character that feels that way in character has no business in organized play.
|
|
No, its not. Some characters just are not effective at range (I have one character that needs to be inside an enemies square to do anything for example, although he's happy to evade any fireballs tossed his way) Stay on the sidelines and let the casters handle this is not a cool attitude.
Telling people they can't play blasters because you don't want to exercise reasonable caution or play as part of a team, is unreasonable.
No, it's not what?
Not using teamwork is reasonable? Not exercising reasonable caution is reasonable?
What does your quote of me have to do with what you responded with?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
No, its not. Some characters just are not effective at range (I have one character that needs to be inside an enemies square to do anything for example, although he's happy to evade any fireballs tossed his way) Stay on the sidelines and let the casters handle this is not a cool attitude.
Telling people they can't play blasters because you don't want to exercise reasonable caution or play as part of a team, is unreasonable.
No, it's not what?
Not using teamwork is reasonable? Not exercising reasonable caution is reasonable?
What does your quote of me have to do with what you responded with?
"You need to stay out of this combat so I can hit them with spells" isn't really how a team works.
Teamwork is the melee people doing their best to heard the NPCs into a tight cluster, and you dropping your spells such that your teammates are outside the edge. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it means you have to hit between hitting the big bad and one minion vs hitting 3 minions. Sometimes the room is so small that anything you throw is going to hit at least one team mate, at which point you use a different spell, and save the AoE for the next fight.
|
|
Side note on the "If you don't want to get hurt, you should be lawful." Very few lawful folk are so extremely totalitarian as to believe that theirs is the only moral way to live, and just being neutral is grounds for having lethal force used on you. "I killed him because he wasn't lawful" is certainly not a morally good motive, and it verges dangerously close to "killing without provocation" and solidly violates the explore part of "explore, report, cooperate"
You know, I thought I made it pretty clear that that was the "in character" view from the standpoint of a cleric of the Law Domain. That is in the OP.
Out of character, as I've mentioned a few times, such an attitude is unreasonable. But when role playing, using a spell that only hurts "bad" people, seems pretty reasonable.
And, as I've mentioned before, if the killing is the issue, I can always use a merciful version. Doesn't solve the PVP end of it, but it solves any killing potential of the spell. Main point of the spell is for dealing with chaotic outsiders (like demons), so non-lethal is kinda iffy. Most of the time, it would be more viable to swap it for a cure spell, but it's very strong against some opponents which are often very troubling for the party.
And, on a side point, PC's can take race/class traits that make them take damage/heal as if undead. I've certainly seen the common, "If you don't want to get hurt, you should be living."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In both cases you're area-blasting and it's just not cool to hit fellow PCs without their OK.
If your PC knows I want to blast something, so you move in harms way to prevent me, that's not cool.
Telling people they can't play blasters because you don't want to exercise reasonable caution or play as part of a team, is unreasonable.
I had this exact situation.
I won initiative and readied and action to color spray the bad guy as he was coming at my character specifically.
Another player a ninja used vanish scored a crazy high stealth and stood in front of my action where I declared i would color spray.
The bad guy moves forward I announce to the ninja is it a DC 19 color spray. He said there is no PVP in PFS and thus my action was canceled. I spoke with the DM that my character has no intention of hitting a teammate but I have no idea he was there and he purposely moved into my action. The DM agreed. He failed his save. He threw a tantrum at the table.(this guy i would later learn has the worst traits you would ever want from a player at the table)
The funny thing after the fact is we left his invisible colorsprayed body there and continued our romp through the city and the Dm made him do checks to find us, and he missed the next encounter too.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Side note on the "If you don't want to get hurt, you should be lawful." Very few lawful folk are so extremely totalitarian as to believe that theirs is the only moral way to live, and just being neutral is grounds for having lethal force used on you. "I killed him because he wasn't lawful" is certainly not a morally good motive, and it verges dangerously close to "killing without provocation" and solidly violates the explore part of "explore, report, cooperate"You know, I thought I made it pretty clear that that was the "in character" view from the standpoint of a cleric of the Law Domain. That is in the OP.
Out of character, as I've mentioned a few times, such an attitude is unreasonable. But when role playing, using a spell that only hurts "bad" people, seems pretty reasonable.
And I thought I was clear that the fact that the belief is in character is the problem. Character who hold beliefs that are incompatible with cooperating with others of different back grounds are not suitable as pathfinders, whose prime duty is "explore, cooperate, report" (Okay, somehow I grabbed explore up above when I meant cooperate.) Characters who are willing to kill others without provocation are unsuitable for organized play.
The merciful metamagic will help with keeping you in OP, but won't help make your character a good pathfinder. The IC/OOC disconnect you are talking about is because you are taking a character who would inately be a bad pathfinder, and trying to play him as a good one.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
In both cases you're area-blasting and it's just not cool to hit fellow PCs without their OK.
If your PC knows I want to blast something, so you move in harms way to prevent me, that's not cool.
Telling people they can't play blasters because you don't want to exercise reasonable caution or play as part of a team, is unreasonable.
I had this exact situation.
I won initiative and readied and action to color spray the bad guy as he was coming at my character specifically.
Another player a ninja used vanish scored a crazy high stealth and stood in front of my action where I declared i would color spray.
The bad guy moves forward I announce to the ninja is it a DC 19 color spray. He said there is no PVP in PFS and thus my action was canceled. I spoke with the DM that my character has no intention of hitting a teammate but I have no idea he was there and he purposely moved into my action. The DM agreed. He failed his save. He threw a tantrum at the table.(this guy i would later learn has the worst traits you would ever want from a player at the table)
The funny thing after the fact is we left his invisible colorsprayed body there and continued our romp through the city and the Dm made him do checks to find us, and he missed the next encounter too.
Yes, but this is clearly an exception where you were trying not to hit anyone.
|
|
No, it's not what?No, its not. Some characters just are not effective at range (I have one character that needs to be inside an enemies square to do anything for example, although he's happy to evade any fireballs tossed his way) Stay on the sidelines and let the casters handle this is not a cool attitude.
Telling people they can't play blasters because you don't want to exercise reasonable caution or play as part of a team, is unreasonable.
No, its not unreasonable to tell you that you can't blast because someone didn't exercise what you consider to be reasonable caution. This is different than telling you that you can't play a blaster: you can, but your party members are going to have the right of way against your fireballs or lawballs or colorsprays. You consider it a blast zone. They consider it the melee zone. Their meleeing makes your blasting less effective but is required for their meleeing. Thats allowed. Your blasting can easily be PVP whichis not.
There are ways of dealing with this. Hand out resist __energy i'm going to use___, pump your initiative, get selective spell, pump your initiative, but you cannot respond to what you consider the poor tactics of your party by aoeing them. This is your typical pathfinder party. Plan accordingly.
|
|
I hope you do not include me as one of those "guys". I put that example to agree with you.Do you read nothing? This is what I'm talking about too, and you guys seem to assume a vicious agenda that I lack.
Yes, but this is clearly an exception where you were trying not to hit anyone.
You were fine. Most of the people in thread are fine. Just the last few by Jared and Norse do not seem to reflect what I'm actually saying.
You started this whole thing with "my character doesn't see any reason not to hit his team mates with a spell that will do tremendous damage and leave them dazed, if they don't want to get hurt, they should change their moral beliefs to match mine."
I think you may have a mix up in what I'm addressing. I'm not asking permission to blast my allies. I'm asking how to roleplay a PFS legal lawful alignment character that has spells which only harm "bad guys."
The Lawful alignments are as opposed to chaotic alignments as good alignments are opposed to evil ones. Pretending this isn't case seems to be your main issue here.
Having a spell that only harms your enemies should be pretty reasonable in most PC's eyes. That's the very concept of selective spell: harm only the enemies. Order's wrath has an in-built selective spell. A merciful version, or using spell immunity in advance, is reasonable compromise. In-game conversation between PCs would result in better teamwork, but chaotic characters are typically opposed to teamwork (a trait of the alignment).
As for the in-character attitude that characters should follow the rules, should be law abiding, should be honorable, yeah, that seems like a pretty reasonable thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In both cases you're area-blasting and it's just not cool to hit fellow PCs without their OK.
If your PC knows I want to blast something, so you move in harms way to prevent me, that's not cool.
Telling people they can't play blasters because you don't want to exercise reasonable caution or play as part of a team, is unreasonable.
I had this exact situation.
I won initiative and readied and action to color spray the bad guy as he was coming at my character specifically.
Another player a ninja used vanish scored a crazy high stealth and stood in front of my action where I declared i would color spray.
The bad guy moves forward I announce to the ninja is it a DC 19 color spray. He said there is no PVP in PFS and thus my action was canceled. I spoke with the DM that my character has no intention of hitting a teammate but I have no idea he was there and he purposely moved into my action. The DM agreed. He failed his save. He threw a tantrum at the table.(this guy i would later learn has the worst traits you would ever want from a player at the table)
The funny thing after the fact is we left his invisible colorsprayed body there and continued our romp through the city and the Dm made him do checks to find us, and he missed the next encounter too.
As a blaster, I specifically aim my fireballs to not hit teammates, since, if they fail they catch fire (yes I burn alchemist fire to do so.) I even use a rod of selective metamagic to shield out allies. One time, I had a situation, an invisible rogue was preventing me from getting anyone. The GM said I couldn't target him with the selective because I couldn't see him. He said "Cast it I'll stop drop and roll if I fail" I cast he saved (thankfully) and all the bad guys were "stop dropping and rolling."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Norse:
Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear in the OP that I (out of character) think that this spell is definitely problematic and, potentially PVP.
I'm looking for an understanding of how to "roleplay" this so that in-character it makes sense on why I'm not attacking these criminals.
I'm not looking for an excuse to attack allies, it's the opposite. I'm trying to find a way to meld the lawful alignment so it fits within the PFS setting without metagaming. I want to be able to play a lawful character that fits in PFS without creating issues. That is the point of the thread.
In particular, I like the Law Domain, which features this particular Order's Wrath at 4th level.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Norse:
Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear in the OP that I (out of character) think that this spell is definitely problematic and, potentially PVP.
I'm looking for an understanding of how to "roleplay" this so that in-character it makes sense on why I'm not attacking these criminals.
I'm not looking for an excuse to attack allies, it's the opposite. I'm trying to find a way to meld the lawful alignment so it fits within the PFS setting without metagaming. I want to be able to play a lawful character that fits in PFS without creating issues. That is the point of the thread.
In particular, I like the Law Domain, which features this particular Order's Wrath at 4th level.
As a pathifnder you swear an oath to explore report and cooperate. Blasting them with lawball would violate that oath, something lawful types don't usually do.
Blasting other people with the power of law is a bad public relations move from a representative of your god. Showing the power of friendship cooperation by blasting the people you're cooperating with is a little hypocritical.
The god in particular would probably have additional reasons
There is usually something worse than the pathfinders to blast. As a utilitarian measure, the pathfinders are usually better than the things you're fighting. Usually. Barely. On most days. Except holidays.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Norse:
Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear in the OP that I (out of character) think that this spell is definitely problematic and, potentially PVP.
I'm looking for an understanding of how to "roleplay" this so that in-character it makes sense on why I'm not attacking these criminals.
Because your character signed a contract with the Society? Cooperate with your allies. Hurt them without their consent and you (your PC) may be fired (out of a cannon).
There problem solved, question answered. Now to give my liver the time off it so richly deserves.
|
|
In a particular scenario, we had a Mad Bomber What Bombs At Midnight in our party.
In the middle of a discussion with an NPC (which *every other character was participating in*) they attempted to throw an explosive at said NPC.
In that particular situation, my character ran up to provide 'cover' for the NPC (having won initiative and making the Perception check to see the activity by the Mad Bomber).
Niche case, but the Mad Bomber was being the disruptive one, and it actually *earned* us a few points with the NPC we were talking to.
Please don't ride the thin edge.
It doesn't work well, and what may seem cool to one more than likely does NOT seem cool to the rest of the party.
|
|
As a pathifnder you swear an oath to explore report and cooperate. Blasting them with lawball would violate that oath, something lawful types don't usually do.
Blasting other people with the power of law is a bad public relations move from a representative of your god. Showing the power of
friendshipcooperation by blasting the people you're cooperating with is a little hypocritical.The god in particular would probably have additional reasons
There is usually something worse than the pathfinders to blast. As a utilitarian measure, the pathfinders are usually better than the things you're fighting. Usually. Barely. On most days. Except holidays.
Great stuff, where is this information found? This is exactly what I'm looking for.