How to interpret the no PvP Rule


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

In a recent thread we had discussion on what PvP actually is, and how a GM or other players should handle those “fringe” cases where it isn’t technically PvP, but a savvy player could turn it into PvP and then try to explain it away is appropriate or good tactics.

This is certainly a concern where you have a wizard or alchemist with AOE spells/bombs that can capture other PC’s in the area. (Or even the Wild Rager Barbarian archetype if you buy the danger presented by some posters.)

I’m not really interested in having a debate amongst posters as to what exactly construes PvP and how to handle it during game play.

I’m more interested to hear from campaign staff on how they would like to see it handled.

I personally have a real problem with the concept of players having to meta-game casting AOE’s or what have you, because they might capture another PC in the area. I think it is way over thinking the no PvP rule, and it’s immediately assuming you are going to have jerk players who will try to do anything to get away with PvP. In this case, just use the “don’t be a jerk” rule.

Is it your intent that this is just game play and to let it ride… or are you expecting that players should be asking permission before using these spells or abilities? Or is this a table variation issue where it may or may not change by VC/Coordinator/GM?

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Around here, it's common to ask permission. And it's routine for people to grant it, lacking a good reason.

"I can take all these guys down, if I hit them with a lightning bolt. But I'll catch Erikol in the area. Is that all right?"

"Hang on! Erikol's still got that chest wound from the ogre. He'd probably drop even if he avoided the worst of the blast."

Under those circumstances, the GMs around here wouldn't allow the wizard to cast the spell.


I always ask permission before having my pyromaniac gnome alchemist blow folks up...

Shadow Lodge 4/5

At the tables I run if a PC (cater) wishes to target another PC (target)in an AoE the target PC must give their permission for this to be a valid action otherwise the caster PC must choose another location for the AoE or take a different action.

The problem with this approach is that sometimes the target PC feels pressured to take one for the team. I work to ensure that the targetted PC knows that they have a choice and what ever they choose is ok.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Don't get me wrong. Even in a home campaign I think it is good form (polite) to ask first.

But I think it is way out of the GM's jurisdiction to disallow the action under any circumstances other than the player has shown repetitive jerkiness in this area.

But again, I'd like to hear what the campaign staff have to say on this matter.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

In our local scene, we typically just ask. If the players are fine with it, even if the risk of death is there, I will let it fly. We always have a monk who wants to evade the fireball or a group of nuts that encourage the sorcerer to hit them with color spray.

If the players are all fine with it, then let it roll.

If it is an argument between players, take a quick bio-break, and discuss the issue with them. No pvp is allowed.

I remind them - "Lighten up Francis, it's just a game"

We have had little to no issue with this in the Denver area.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

I'm not sure we can have this discussion without trying to determine what is/not PvP.

In the case of home-play, there is really no reason for any formal discussion regarding PvP. I'm sure the players are all very aware of the other characters and their abilities/themes. When the wizo drops a Fireball or the druid hits the group with an Entangle, it's probably not a surprise.

However, we're talking about organized play with players who may have never met prior to the game. Not to mention one of the three primary rules of the society is cooperation. Combine that with the no PvP rules and I think the GM has to be very careful in allowing it to happen.

I have never seen a player object to being in the AoE, but I suppose it could happen. IMO, I have a duty to disallow the action if a player objects, especially if the action in question could directly cause the character's death.

If player #1 asked player #2 if they were okay being in the AoE, player #2 objects, and player #1 drops the bomb anyway, I would say that qualifies under the "being a jerk" clause.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The key for me is malicious intent when I GM and play. If the player is doing it for what I feel are malicious reasons, such as doing it to be a jerk, deliberate intent to kill another PC, or is being wholly reckless with other people’s characters, then I will put a stop to it. But if a player is doing it for strategically sounds reasons, and the other player is ok with the action, then I will give more leeway.

For example, during one scenario I was when I was playing a Wizard. Right after we had finished one encounter Bad Things happened and another encounter was cinematically triggered. Unfortunately, the party Alchemist had earlier drank a potion of Invisibility, and was right next to the new enemies. Given the party was already beaten up, and spread all over the place I wanted to do something drastic to even the odds, so I decided to drop an Empowered Fireball into the area. But given my character did not know the Alchemist was in that area due to his invisibility and my character had no reason to believe he was in the area he would most likely designate (he was off completing a Faction Mission during the last battle), the Alchemists was also going to get hit. I felt really bad about it, and apologized to the player, but he said he understood, and the GM allowed it. But if the player or the GM had objected I would not have done it. Both to not be a jerk, and to keep things friendly at the table. And I if I had ended up killing that PC, I would have been willing to pay whatever it took to bring him back.

A lot of this is really situational. Both for strategic considerations at the table, who is at the table, and the specific situation. But I think intent is a big thing to consider, and anything malicious should not be tolerated at a table.

Liberty's Edge

Nicholas Gray wrote:
The key for me is malicious intent...

The key for me is consent. I don't care if a PvP attack is maliciously intended, a dumb decision, or even the best thing to do at the time. -- Just get my permission before you burn me, and if you don't get it, do something else.

2/5

Nicholas Gray wrote:
The key for me is malicious intent when I GM and play. If the player is doing it for what I feel are malicious reasons, such as doing it to be a jerk, deliberate intent to kill another PC, or is being wholly reckless with other people’s characters, then I will put a stop to it. But if a player is doing it for strategically sounds reasons, and the other player is ok with the action, then I will give more leeway.

+1

The times I've had AE hit me from a player, he asked. It wasn't a big deal.

Has anyone seen massive problems with players wanting to PVP? I haven't seen anything. I wonder why these discussions come up sometimes, besides wanting to talk about hypothetical circumstances.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Nicholas Gray wrote:
The key for me is malicious intent...

I would like to agree with you on this, Nicholas. It's how I would prefer to run things with players I know.

The problem is in PFS you have to consider that you will be gaming with people whom you have never met, and in the case of online play, that you might never see face-to-face. Those factors make it more difficult to gauge what a player's intent is.
It could be set up with different standards based on venue, but that is counter to the concept of Organized Play.

So for now, the common standard I have seen is the permission method. However, it is not in the Guide or FAQ yet, so is just a recommedation and subject to table variance.

Jason S wrote:
Has anyone seen massive problems with players wanting to PVP? I haven't seen anything. I wonder why these discussions come up sometimes, besides wanting to talk about hypothetical circumstances.

It's uncommon, but I've dealt with it. Actually, the most common form of PVP I've seen is deliberately trying to hose another player's Faction Mission.

Liberty's Edge

Jason S wrote:
Has anyone seen massive problems with players wanting to PVP? I haven't seen anything. I wonder why these discussions come up sometimes, besides wanting to talk about hypothetical circumstances.

"Wanting to"? No, or so it seemed at the time. Giggling about it days later? Yes.

- - - - -

But the most common problem situation is the AoE spell hurriedly lobbed onto a pile of minis, one of which turns out to be a PC: i.e., "I cast X!", and a pile of d6s spill and are quickly counted before the other player can even think to say a word.

If the DM is already rolling bad guy saves and pulling "dead" minis off the mat after a resounding success, heads then swivel to the player of the targeted PC in the expectation that he'll buck-up and make a reflex save, and not "rewind" the attack by withholding his consent to be blasted. That particular player may feel a lot of unwelcome peer-pressure at this point.

In my opinion, DMs in these exact situations should automatically render both attack and damage rolls void, quickly explaining: "It never happened, because your character..." (referring to the blaster) "...is more careful than you are!" -- This keeps the onus to think first and secure consent on the dealer of the mayhem. He is, of course, perfectly free, while then doing something else -- "I cast Y!" -- to in-character roleplay scowling and chastising the ally who is making it difficult from his point of view.


K Neil Shackleton wrote:


It's uncommon, but I've dealt with it. Actually, the most common form of PVP I've seen is deliberately trying to hose another player's Faction Mission.

I've seen a little bit of this. I've also seen the player accidentally hose another's faction mission, and the unfortunate player either believes it was intentional, or believes that this gives them leave to respond in kind.

Which is why I'm more a fan of "Hey guys, my faction leader wants me to try to find a book of magic curses. He also said that I shouldn't let you see me find the book. At some point, if I ask you all to turn your heads, I'd appreciate it. If you need anything similar accomplished, just let me know. I'm a good negotiator, and I speak a host of languages. Remember, we're Pathfinders first. Remember - Explore!Report!Cooperate."

Guide4.0 wrote:

Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another’s

claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering
a helping hand.


Jason S wrote:


Has anyone seen massive problems with players wanting to PVP? I haven't seen anything. I wonder why these discussions come up sometimes, besides wanting to talk about hypothetical circumstances.

I've played alongside one local player who has killed multiple characters doing this exact sort of thing. The player, unfortunately, is a very skilled arguer, and every single time he killed another PC, he justified it with an entirely sound strategic reason. One time in particular, he was stuck in a hallway fleeing from a group of enemies, the other PC was in the room surrounded by the enemies and barely propped up by temporary HP. The player fireballed the room against the wishes of THE ENTIRE TABLE OF PLAYERS, and the GM allowed it because, technically, he felt that it isn't in the GM's power to deny a player the right to perform an action. It killed the PC, and pretty much squashed interest in the rest of the scenario for everyone involved. No one wanted to play with such an awful player, or with a GM who wouldn't step in and protect the interests of the ENTIRE table against one rogue player.

That sort of scenario is the exact reason GMs are given elevated status over players, and why their word is law. While it may be uncomfortable to allow someone a small amount of power over you, it serves the greater purpose of protecting the interests of the community at large.

It's all well and good to want to keep every ounce of power in the hands of each individual, but we have elected leaders, and agreed-upon rules and guidelines, for a reason; that reason becomes apparent only when you confront a key situation such as the one described above, at which time it becomes glaringly obvious.


Mike Schneider wrote:
Pickguy, were these PFS?

Fortunately, no, this was a side-game we were playing to blow off extra steam. Had it been PFS, I am sure the offending player would have found the rest of the table waiting for him in the parking lot. That being said, I try to maintain the same rules mindset in side-games as I do in PFS, since it's a pretty solid setup. The player knew the expectations, and went over the top with them. And the GM was the type to fold like a wet paper sack in the face of arguments. PFS would not have protected our table from the combination of this player and this GM.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Mike Schneider wrote:
The key for me is consent. I don't care if a PvP attack is maliciously intended, a dumb decision, or even the best thing to do at the time. -- Just get my permission before you burn me, and if you don't get it, do something else.

I agree with you with a lot of what you said. I believe that not having consent would make it malicious intent in my book. It is generally bad form to fireball another PC without his/her permission.

Jason S wrote:
Has anyone seen massive problems with players wanting to PVP? I haven't seen anything. I wonder why these discussions come up sometimes, besides wanting to talk about hypothetical circumstances.

It has been very rare in my experiance. I think most cases are accidental, or when AoE come into play. I've had to put my foot down on a couple of cases where a player was going to completely hose the rest of the party with an AoE, and tell new players that PVP was illegal in PFS. But those incidents have in general been teh exception rather then the rule. A good GM should be able to handle these problems without too much trouble for the most part.

I agree with Neil about some players trying to ruin other people's Faction missions sometimes being an issue. Though I have only seen it happen a couple of time where I thought it was intentional.

K Neil Shackleton wrote:

I would like to agree with you on this, Nicholas. It's how I would prefer to run things with players I know.

The problem is in PFS you have to consider that you will be gaming with people whom you have never met, and in the case of online play, that you might never see face-to-face. Those factors make it more difficult to gauge what a player's intent is.
It could be set up with different standards based on venue, but that is counter to the concept of Organized Play.

So for now, the common standard I have seen is the permission method. However, it is not in the Guide or FAQ yet, so is just a recommedation and subject to table variance.

I am essentually in agreement with you. My "malicious intent" standard is highly situational, and the permission method is generally the dealbreaker in most situations for me. I would judge slightly differently based on if I was running a group I am familiar with, a new group of players, players at a convention, or an online game. I think you have a good point there.

Now just because a player consents does not Always mean I should approve of something that could be considered PVP. A GM needs to look at a situation, and see what is best for creating a fun experiance for everyone at the table when it comes to something like this. A shy or new player might be reluctant to tell another player no, and let them hit them with an AoE that would have very bad results for them. Espeically if that player is very good at arguing, overbearing, loud, or any number of factors. This type of situation is pretty rare, but it can happen, and I think a GM needs to show good judgement for when this comes up and know when to step in for the good of the game as things seem to stand now.

Grand Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pickguy wrote:


I've played alongside one local player who has killed multiple characters doing this exact sort of thing. The player, unfortunately, is a very skilled arguer, and every single time he killed another PC, he justified it with an entirely sound strategic reason. One time in particular, he was stuck in a hallway fleeing from a group of enemies, the other PC was in the room surrounded by the enemies and barely propped up by temporary HP. The player fireballed the room against the wishes of THE ENTIRE TABLE OF PLAYERS, and the GM allowed it because, technically, he felt that it isn't in the GM's power to deny a player the right to perform an action. It killed the PC, and pretty much squashed interest in the rest of the scenario for everyone involved. No one wanted to play with such an awful player, or with a GM who wouldn't step in and protect the interests of the ENTIRE table against one rogue player.

This player is falling under the "Jerk" rule and should be put on notice by your local VC or game coordinator. If he killed a PC in mistake, that is one thing. But it clearly sounds like it has happened multiple times and that is unacceptable.

The GM in your example is clearly wrong as well. It is well within the DM's power to deny a player a right to perform an action. Afterall, the DM is the moderator of the game. I wasn't there and am only hearing one side of the story, but it sounds to me like the DM was afraid to get into an argument with the player because that particular player is very good at arguing. Perhaps I am wrong but that is how i read it.

The fact that the DM failed to nip it in the bud is the exact reason no PVP is in place. Per your own account, it killed the PC, and pretty much squashed interest in the rest of the scenario for everyone involved. No one wanted to play with such an awful player, or with a GM who wouldn't step in and protect the interests of the ENTIRE table against one rogue player.

Squashing interests and making people not want to play is counter to everything that Organized Play is set up for.

The Exchange 5/5

I'm going to have to agree with Nick here, I generally go by the "malicious intent" clause for PvP. Just this last weekend I was GMing a table where the wizard cast burning hands twice through the rogue to hit multiple monsters. It worked wonderfully the first time and from my estimation, the rogue was great with the idea. I generally don't stop the action unless it will outright kill a PC in question or unless someone involved pipes up and says no. Of course as a GM my job is to read the table and see if there's a newbie or a shy person, and I can and will make that decision for the affected PC as well.

Regardless, this past weekend the second time the burning hands went through the wizard had forgotten that the rogue was stunned at the time. The rogue took full damage, the two monks took no damage. In the end it was a comical moment, as the PCs reaction to the declaration that he was being burning hands was to lay back in his chair with his tongue sticking out, implying his stunned-ness.

P.S. Karma did later get the wizard as a future mob crit him with a greatclub and killed him. Sometimes open rolling can be pretty deadly...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Is it possible for a particular player to consistently not give permission, even when his PC wouldn't die from the blast (or even come close), just to be a jerk?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Anything is possible. Is it probable? Probably not. I think you have to handle both on a case by case basis.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Andrew, if a character is repeatedly running into the middle of a group of enemies and then denying the party's sorcerer a chance to attack with area of effect spells, then the player might be running afoul of the "don't be a doofus" rule.

If a melee character is running into a group of enemies, then on one level she's doing her job. It's also possible that she -- or her player -- might honestly think that being caught in some area explosion is much more dangerous than it actually is.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, California—Sacramento

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have no issue with the bit of interpretation being left up to the GM, I would live without a call from Mark.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
I have no issue with the bit of interpretation being left up to the GM, I would live without a call from Mark.

Sure, I can deal with table variation. And by and large I don’t see many players playing spell casters that would choose to cast a spell that would capture many if any of their fellow PCs on a regular basis. The idea is to try and target it so as to catch no other PC’s typically. At least that’s my idea of typically good strategy (circumstances may cause variance).

I also think it is good form to make sure everyone is ok before casting the spell, even in a home game (conversely if someone is adamantly against the spell being cast when they are in the area, it is kinda jerky to cast it anyways). All that being said, I don’t feel it is within the GM’s purview to tell a player they can or cannot take an action that is supported by the RAW. This isn’t an issue of PvP, but rather an issue of whether or not you are a jerk.

PvP is player vs. player combat. It is not a namby pamby, oh no, I gotta give permission for him to use his class abilities against the enemy. Seriously. Are we playing powder puff girls roleplaying, or Pathfinder?

This is why I'd like to hear from Mark, because I think this kind of thing is necessary to more clearly define so that GM's don't make subjective decisions based on overzealous interpretations of the rule (see all the threads and some 600+ posts on declaring a PC evil and therefore non-playable).

If an action goes against RAW, the GM should disallow the action.

If an action is based on an ambiguous rule that invites table variation, then the GM should adjudicate said action as he interprets said rule.

If an action is completely legal by RAW, and the only thing the GM may have to go on to disallow it, would be the no-PvP rule, then the GM is most likely overstepping their bounds by not allowing said action. This is of course assuming the PvP is not blatant. I mean a Paladin attacking the rogue because they are looting dead bodies is blatant. A sorcerer casting fireball to kill the enemies while the rogue who has a 5% chance of not evading said fireball damage completely is in the AOE is not even close to PvP and should not be considered as such.

The Exchange 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
A sorcerer casting fireball to kill the enemies while the rogue who has a 5% chance of not evading said fireball damage completely is in the AOE is not even close to PvP and should not be considered as such.

Well, that's the entire point, it still could be PvP. What if the rogue had 1 hp? What if he was level drained to lower his saves? What if the entire night the two people playing the rogue and sorcerer have been arguing and seem to dislike each other?

There's a reason there's a GM there to adjudicate the game. This is most definitely why I really would love to simply keep it to GMs interpretation because there's always just too many variables.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Alizor wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
A sorcerer casting fireball to kill the enemies while the rogue who has a 5% chance of not evading said fireball damage completely is in the AOE is not even close to PvP and should not be considered as such.

Well, that's the entire point, it still could be PvP. What if the rogue had 1 hp? What if he was level drained to lower his saves? What if the entire night the two people playing the rogue and sorcerer have been arguing and seem to dislike each other?

There's a reason there's a GM there to adjudicate the game. This is most definitely why I really would love to simply keep it to GMs interpretation because there's always just too many variables.

Well of course the GM always has to rule based on circumstances.

If there seems to be a personal conflict between the two, then the GM should probably step in when a situation like the above arises.

However, it shouldn't matter if it is a 5% chance of death due to the rogue having those problems you presented, or simply a 5% chance of taking full (or half given improved evasion) damage. That's a normal standard circumstance that will arise in many games, many times. And I simply don't feel it is the GM's call to disallow the fireball because the rogue might die if the player rolls a 1.

Grand Lodge 1/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Mansfield

Spellcasting is a special case. I have played high level casters in various organized play campaigns over the years. I generally ask people if they are okay with being included in the area of effect. There are a couple of exceptions to this. First, if I previously announced that I would be dropping an AoE spell in a given area and you put yourself in the area, then it's your own fault. Second, if the situation is bad enough that a TPK seems imminent, I will do whatever it takes to shift the odds in the party's favor, which may include nuking a fellow PC. I've never had a player or judge object to my casting the spell, although there have been a couple of occassions where an alternate center point was suggested and I generally agreed. (It's hard to tell on many maps exactly how much area you have available). I've never killed another PC, although there have been plenty who said go ahead, I have evasion and rolled poorly on their saving throw.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

sieylianna wrote:
Spellcasting is a special case. I have played high level casters in various organized play campaigns over the years. I generally ask people if they are okay with being included in the area of effect. There are a couple of exceptions to this. First, if I previously announced that I would be dropping an AoE spell in a given area and you put yourself in the area, then it's your own fault. Second, if the situation is bad enough that a TPK seems imminent, I will do whatever it takes to shift the odds in the party's favor, which may include nuking a fellow PC. I've never had a player or judge object to my casting the spell, although there have been a couple of occassions where an alternate center point was suggested and I generally agreed. (It's hard to tell on many maps exactly how much area you have available). I've never killed another PC, although there have been plenty who said go ahead, I have evasion and rolled poorly on their saving throw.

And this is how I would typically expect it to go.

But you have a lot of people saying that if someone did not give permission, as a GM, they would then disallow the action.

To me, that just seems to defeat the entire purpose of playing the game.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
To me, that just seems to defeat the entire purpose of playing the game.

So the entire purpose of the game is AoE spells that include your party?

I think that statement is a bit extreme. For the same reason I don't have to let someone stop my game to burn down every orphanage, I don't have to let this go through. But, at the same time, I can allow it. Every situation is different, and taking a table control away does not really strengthen roleplaying as much as it weakens the ability to reign in bullies.

I see where you're coming from, and most people on these boards know I'm no champion of tight GM controls, but at the same time this is not a home game. You see complete strangers with vastly different comfort levels, experience, and playstyles. You not only need to run the game, you need to keep it running by reducing the chance conflict will arise.

The ability to say "no" to an action does not ruin the game. It's no different than the ability to tell someone to get up and leave in the case of extreme disruptive play. It's no different than my ability to say yes to a situation the rules did not anticipate. It's part of being a GM - using your judgment.

The above gm calls all require judgment of the situation at hand. There is no magic formula, and Mark posting one won't improve things. Further, no one is saying all AoE spells are right out; there is no blanket ban.

We're GMs. We can look situation to situation and determine what's right. That's what makes this whole thing better than a simple video game.

Honestly, it's not a tool I would take away, and if you see a GM being overzealous in it's administration, do not play with him and perhaps mention it to the store liaison or your venture captain. Same as you would in a dozen or so other instances of bad GM behavior.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
A sorcerer casting fireball to kill the enemies while the rogue who has a 5% chance of not evading said fireball damage completely is in the AOE is not even close to PvP and should not be considered as such.

Sure. And my rogue will then knife the bastard in his sleep with his poisoned dagger of Douchebag Wizard Bane and see if he has a 95% chance of making the coup de grace save. Fair's fair, right?

ALWAYS ASK -- if you don't ask, I will be very stubborn to accept your "reasonable" explanation later.

(What is it with this mentality which assumes casters are granted special dispensation to ignore PvP restrictions whenever they feel it's convenient?)

- - - - -

First-level table last week: my guy on horseback is surrounded by a bunch of baddies with axes (and the horse is wailing on the them like no tomorrow, and I'm protecting the horse with Mounted Combat and it's granting me cover when I need it). Bard just plops Sleep right on the whole mess, I fail the save (and for some reason wasn't in a state of mind to declare no-PvP right away). Remaining bad guys, being evil punks, then rip into me (easy target slumped in the saddle) and the horse -- and one of them was of a mind to coup de grace me while he had the chance, but the combat-trained horse would AoO the full-round attempt, so he didn't.

We both survived after the bard popped some charges off his wand of CLW (and he complained about the cost). <slow burn>

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mike Schneider wrote:
Quote:
A sorcerer casting fireball to kill the enemies while the rogue who has a 5% chance of not evading said fireball damage completely is in the AOE is not even close to PvP and should not be considered as such.

Sure. And my rogue will then knife the bastard in his sleep with his poisoned dagger of Douchebag Wizard Bane and see if he has a 95% chance of making the coup de grace save. Fair's fair, right?

ALWAYS ASK -- if you don't ask, I will be very stubborn to accept your "reasonable" explanation later.

(What is it with this mentality which assumes casters are granted special dispensation to ignore PvP restrictions whenever they feel it's convenient?)

- - - - -

First-level table last week: my guy on horseback is surrounded by a bunch of baddies with axes (and the horse is wailing on the them like no tomorrow, and I'm protecting the horse with Mounted Combat and it's granting me cover when I need it). Bard just plops Sleep right on the whole mess, I fail the save (and for some reason wasn't in a state of mind to declare no-PvP right away). Remaining bad guys, being evil punks, then rip into me (easy target slumped in the saddle) and the horse -- and one of them was of a mind to coup de grace me while he had the chance, but the combat-trained horse would AoO the full-round attempt, so he didn't.

We both survived after the bard popped some charges off his wand of CLW (and he complained about the cost). <slow burn>

Mike, then that was just a stupid move on that part of the player playing the Bard. That wasn’t PvP. Now if he cast sleep in order to get you killed, or then walked up and killed you himself, that’s PvP.

Ancillary damage is not player vs player combat. It is simply incidental.

And as stupid as the Bard’s move was, and I would be tempted to call the player stupid instead of just calling his move stupid, especially if his move got my character killed… you reacting like, “you can’t cast that… No PVP!” would equally as lame.

What would be better, would be to have an educational conversation with the player of the Bard.

“Hey, you know, if you cast sleep, you are liable to catch me in it, and I am liable to fail my save. If even one of these guys survives, they could kill me. That wouldn’t be a real smart thing to do.”

Bard says, “um… I’m gonna do it anyways, because I can.”

Then the GM could step in and say, “Hey, dude, that’s kinda jerk move, why don’t you try to find something else to do?”

Bard says either, “Ah ok,” and find something else or “Nah, still gonna cast it.”

GM would then say, “you know, there is a rule about being a jerk in Pathfinder. Please find something else to do.”

See, it might be splitting hairs, but it should not be about PvP, since incidental damage is not PvP. But to callously not care about your party members is both against PFS OP rules, and it is against the Pathfinder Society rules for the characters as well since you are supposed to cooperate.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Lets create another scenario here.

The mooks have overrun the beef up front, and while he still stands a large portion of them are flowing back to the casters. The bard will definitely die as a mounted mook (cavalier?) has a charge lane. So his only option to not die is to cast his only spell that could save his behind. Sleep.

Is it PvP for you to tell him he can’t cast it because you might fall asleep too? Even though by saying no, there is a very, very good chance that the Bard will die if he doesn’t cast the spell?

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I wouldn't call that PvP, no, Andrew. (I would call it a lack of pre-planning on the bard's part. No tanglefoot bags? No potions good for escaping? No way to cast sleep in a different location, to catch the NPC but not the PC?)

Looking at a bigger picture, the prohibition is to keep warring players from threatening one another's characters, and the rest of the party. But you'd want to ask Nick and Josh exactly what they were looking to prevent.

It's not, generally speaking, an in-combat rule. it includes all sorts of situations that aren't life-or-death: Don't deliberately foil that guy's faction mission. Even though you're adventuring in Cheliax, don't sell the halfling PC into slavery. Don't grab all the loot and flee.

In any case, there are combats where PFS parties might find themselves in difficult circumstances, where there's a clear "best" option for one character that also harms her colleagues. And it's the understanding of many of us that her player needs the other players' agreement in order to take that option.

The Exchange 4/5

It is a thread like this that confirms my GMing theory that "PCs are not my friends, they are the enemy." The hunger for more PC blood is insatiable.

/Or maybe I got bit by a ghoul.
//How about we all step back and go grab a beer?
///Anyone here got ranks in Craft: Brewer?
////And can you brew it with the blood and tears of PCs?
/////It lowers the alcohol content slightly but produces the perfect flavor.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Dragnmoon wrote:
I have no issue with the bit of interpretation being left up to the GM, I would live without a call from Mark.

More or less this.

No amount of handholding from on-high is going to eliminate jerks from the game which is ultimately the problem.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
Mike, then that was just a stupid move on that part of the player playing the Bard. That wasn’t PvP. Now if he cast sleep in order to get you killed, or then walked up and killed you himself, that's PvP.
1) I am not clairvoyant.
Quote:
<rationalizations>

2) I don't care. Get my permission before you hose me.

If a player can't figure out how to run a caster without blasting his allies without their permission while making lame percentage justifications, then he shouldn't play one. There is no legitimate rationale for granting a caster special dispensation to gun down their buddies just because the player is good at devising excuses.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Alizor wrote:
There's a reason there's a GM there to adjudicate the game. This is most definitely why I really would love to simply keep it to GMs interpretation because there's always just too many variables.

I agree with this. The number of variables you could deal with from week to week are staggering, and I think it is just best if GMs are given the leeway they need to best judge the specific situation they are dealing with at the table they are at. Good GMs are going to be able to handle this issue when it comes up, and players have venues to address in contacting Coordinators and Organizers about bad GMings and bad cases of PVP.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mike Schneider wrote:
Quote:
Mike, then that was just a stupid move on that part of the player playing the Bard. That wasn’t PvP. Now if he cast sleep in order to get you killed, or then walked up and killed you himself, that's PvP.
1) I am not clairvoyant.
Quote:
<rationalizations>

2) I don't care. Get my permission before you hose me.

If a player can't figure out how to run a caster without blasting his allies without their permission while making lame percentage justifications, then he shouldn't play one. There is no legitimate rationale for granting a caster special dispensation to gun down their buddies just because the player is good at devising excuses.

Yeah, lets not teach people how to play the game that are new. Lets just tell them they can't play anything complicated and that they can only play the fighter type until they learn the rules.

That's a great way to help get new folks involved in the game.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Here's another interesting scenario:

Party's facing a very tough battle. Caster has the opportunity to cast his only fireball, and if he doesn't do it now, it's extremely likely the party will suffer casualties. Caster asks permission from the fighter/barbarian who would be caught in the blast.

If the melee dude says "no", is that PvP?

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
If a player can't figure out how to run a caster without blasting his allies without their permission while making lame percentage justifications, then he shouldn't play one. There is no legitimate rationale for granting a caster special dispensation to gun down their buddies just because the player is good at devising excuses.
Yeah, lets not teach people how to play the game that are new.
Wow...that's, like, so dreamy all encompassing that I can barely resist adopting it for my own. Why, I could claim to win any argument just by plopping it into a reply and then adopting a Captain Morgan pose.
Quote:
That's a great way to help get new folks involved in the game.

Andrew, the absolute fastest way to drive a noob out of the game is to have your wizard kill their character after making a lot of self-serving noise about saving throws and percentages, then later chide them in on-line forums how you had every right to blow them down without their permission in a cooerperative campaign which is allegedly no-PvP.

Put yourself in their shoes, and listen to yourself talk.

1/5

Great to see everyone again!

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
Here's another interesting scenario: ...Party's facing a very tough battle.
<groan> Look; this is just rationalization. I.e., attempting to devise an argumentative scenario in which the given of the scenario is that one PC has to be attacked. -- And for what purpose? Compiling a laundry-list of exceptions to the no-PvP clause?
Quote:
Caster has the opportunity to cast his only fireball, and if he doesn't do it now, it's extremely likely the party will suffer casualties....

Situation: a wounded wizard is directly between the fighter (or an archer) and the monsters. The fighter smacks (or archer shoots) the wizard, drops him, 5ft steps into the spot he formerly stood, and wails the tar out of the monsters with the rest of his full-attack + Great Cleaving Finish (or archer Rapid Shots targets now sans cover). Unfortunately, the fighter (or archer) rolled a confirmed x3 crit on the wizard, and the sod goes to -40.

The wizard player looks at the other, and goes "WTF, dude?" and the attacking player shrugs and says, "Well, the odds I wouldn't kill you were no lower than 96% because an ordinary hit was only going to leave you at -3 to -10, and I couldn't think of any other way to effectively protect myself and the rest of the party. -- Besides, I was here last week when you fragged some noob player; and I wasn't looking forward to the same treatment. I'll bet your wizard was just waiting for my, big, brave, stupid fighter to step in and engage those monsters, and if I had a few lousy rolls, your guy would back out and Kablooey the whole room. -- This is what you're going to do, right? Oh, I also couldn't help noticing that the noob player didn't show up this week...I wonder why. Shame, that. He was such a nice guy and having lots of fun right up until you fried him."

Grand Lodge 1/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Mansfield

Mike Schneider wrote:
First-level table last week: my guy on horseback is surrounded by a bunch of baddies with axes (and the horse is wailing on the them like no tomorrow, and I'm protecting the horse with Mounted Combat and it's granting me cover when I need it). Bard just plops Sleep right on the whole mess, I fail the save (and for some reason wasn't in a state of mind to declare no-PvP right away). Remaining bad guys, being evil punks, then rip into me (easy target slumped in the saddle) and the horse -- and one of them was of a mind to coup de grace me while he had the chance, but the combat-trained horse would AoO the full-round attempt, so he didn't.

Please explain how your 1st level was surrounded by a bunch of higher level bad guys, so you were the only one put to sleep. It only affects 4 hit dice, affects lowest hit dice first and starts from the point of origin. I suspect there is more to your story than you are mentioning. If nothing else, charging into the middle of the bad guys seems like a poor tactical move on your part and you were lucky to survive, with or without the sleep spell.

The Exchange 4/5

Straw Man wrote:
Great to see everyone again!

LOL!

You know how to get away with killing PCs at the table? Be the GM.

/Just sayin'
//Is it bad when a table full of your closest friends have a toast to the fact you're a killer GM?
///Apparently I've coup de grace'd 11 people, 9 of them I've never GM'ed for.
////Not my fault you took a Nat20 to the face.

Liberty's Edge

sieylianna wrote:
Please explain how your 1st level was surrounded by a bunch of higher level bad guys, so you were the only one put to sleep. It only affects 4 hit dice, affects lowest hit dice first and starts from the point of origin. I suspect there is more to your story than you are mentioning.
I didn't say I was the only one put to sleep (the spell got two of them too; unfortunately their buddies just kicked them awake again).
Quote:
If nothing else, charging into the middle of the bad guys seems like a poor tactical move on your part and you were lucky to survive, with or without the sleep spell.

Tactics: the original plan had been to ambush two guards (with me riding in from a ways away to Overrun one while they were flatfooted); a blown Stealth check on not-my-part screwed that up, I rolled a 2 on my Overrun attempt, and then guards' friends spilled out of a nearby building to surround. <shrug> (The other two PCs of our four-person table, a monk and a rogue, had run off to sneak into this warehouse from the back-side. I was the only "tank".)

Earlier in the adventure, I'd grabbed a chainshirt off a bad guy for good AC, I had an elevation bonus to attack foot targets, one immediate-action per round to take cover behind my mount to gain cover, and Mounted Combat to probably soak off one attack per round against the horse -- which was goin' medieval on their behinds with its three attacks.

I didn't need the bard's healing until after he had zonked me out cold and left me easy-pickings -- and this is often the case with a melee build: the player of a caster sees a melee PC surrounded by the enemy and freaks, thinking the end-is-near when actually the melee PC is winning a careful war of attrition.

Scarab Sages 1/5

Intent: is the player trying to harm PCs? If there is any indications of this the player will be expelled from my table.

Harm: if another player's fun would be seriously reduced by the action regardless of the intent of the player it will not happen. If a player feels that they need to reduce other people's fun then they are free to leve the table (this includes faction missions).

Silver Crusade 2/5

OK, so here is a event that has occurred with one of my chars. I was playing a rogue. Our party had entered a city that we had been told earlier was a very military based city. The guards roam the streets and any issues or fights with them will lead to more guards coming, and then more guards since they are all over the city. They blow a whistle and then another guard squad comes and blows there alarm whistle. Etc...now we had no silence spells or such so that is not a possible solution to this issue.

Our party was sneaking around and had to make stealth checks to get from point A to point B. We failed and attracted the attention's of a guard patrol. Now we had some rping going on but I was fairly certain that our one char could use diplomacy to get us out of this. But some of the other chars started up and picked a fight with the city guard. (Unknown to me and 2 other players they had a faction mission that involved them killing guards or something along those lines)
So we fight them and these guards are rather tough since they also have a higher lvl commander with them. Our Gm informs us that the next squad will be coming in x amount of turns and the squad after that one will arrive in x-1 amount of turns etc..

So we killed the first squad with like 4 rounds to spare. And instead of running they are lifting bodies and trying to do some intricate plot to hide the bodies at the location we will be going to or such. (That was not part of their faction mission it was just some weird stuff they wanted to do)
My char looks at them and goes..umm ok well you can fool around all you want, our job is not to fight guards in a city swarming with them, and im not willing to stay and fight and possibly die cause you are all being dumb. Bye..see you if you live at location B. He then used his rope of climbing, hopped on the roofs and sprinted away leaving the party. Who still did not run, right as they where leaving the second guard group came, saw them with the bodies and just attacked.

Long story short, one of the chars ended up being killed by the guards. He he was angry at me saying things like. Yeah we all got hurt cause someone left his friends to fight the guards. And I informed him, that despite me being his friend when did my char ever let anyone in this party thing they where friends and that he would be willing to die for them.

So thoughts on that?

Grand Lodge 4/5

EDWARD DEANGELIS wrote:


So thoughts on that?

Discretion is the better part of valor? What you described was not willfully killing a party member.

Deaths happen in PFS. Sometimes the GM's dice are rolling hot. Sometimes the players bring it upon themselves. Sounds like the latter in this case.

Grand Lodge 1/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Mansfield

Mike Schneider wrote:
Tactics: the original plan had been to ambush two guards (with me riding in from a ways away to Overrun one while they were flatfooted); a blown Stealth check on not-my-part screwed that up, I rolled a 2 on my Overrun attempt, and then guards' friends spilled out of a nearby building to surround. <shrug> (The other two PCs of our four-person table, a monk and a rogue, had run off to sneak into this warehouse from the back-side. I was the only "tank".)

1. Why didn't the bard just sleep the two guards instead of you charging in to overrun?

2. Splitting the party when you knew you had to take out two guards seems like a bad idea.

I wasn't there, but it sounds like more than the bard could use a briefing on tactics. (Not necessarily including you in this).

2/5

EDWARD DEANGELIS wrote:
Stuff

I know exactly the scenario you're talking about and either more guards weren't supposed to come or my GM ran it differently. I guess that's the first problem. From what I understand, it was supposed to be an encounter (you couldn't avoid).

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with what you did. Did they even tell you their plan? Probably not.

It's not PVP, but I guess your PC didn't "cooperate". The question is as a PF, you have to decide when you should "cooperate" and when you should do your own thing if your party is crazy. It's kind of a grey line, especially since you also can't interfere with their business.

Btw, how did they survive with the cascading guard effect and a dead party member?

Liberty's Edge

sieylianna wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Tactics: the original plan had been to ambush two guards (with me riding in from a ways away to Overrun one while they were flatfooted); a blown Stealth check on not-my-part screwed that up, I rolled a 2 on my Overrun attempt, and then guards' friends spilled out of a nearby building to surround. <shrug> (The other two PCs of our four-person table, a monk and a rogue, had run off to sneak into this warehouse from the back-side. I was the only "tank".)

1. Why didn't the bard just sleep the two guards instead of you charging in to overrun? 2. Splitting the party when you knew you had to take out two guards seems like a bad idea.

I wasn't there, but it sounds like more than the bard could use a briefing on tactics. (Not necessarily including you in this).

Four-person baby-characters table, with three others whom I would describe as "chaotic-neutral with goof-ass crazy template".

Plan? ...Hah!

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / How to interpret the no PvP Rule All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.