Is Reckless Aim subject to the no PvP rule?


Pathfinder Society

5/5

This is a new feat from the Blood of Fiends book.

Blood of Fiends wrote:
Benefit: When you shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee, you can choose to take a –1 penalty to your AC and gain a +2 competence bonus on your attack roll. However, when you roll a natural 1 on a ranged attack roll made with this bonus, you automatically hit a random adjacent creature that threatens your intended target.

Would using this feat be subject to the no PvP rule in PFS?

Dark Archive 3/5

Much like scatter with an alcehmist bomb this does not violate the PVP rule as I read it.

5/5 ** Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West

It doesn't not specifically violate PvP, but it should be on the user to ask threatening allies politely if they are okay with the risk incurred by their using this feat.


It is no different than normally shooting into a melee. At the beginning of the scenario you ask the rest of the people at your table if they mind if you do it and if anyone protests, you don't do it when their character is in melee.

Sczarni 4/5

You are still doing ,even if unintentional, possible damage to your allies. In PFS spirit and in regard to other archetypes and feats which were removed from that same reason, I suggest you skip it.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Enevhar, you're kind of right. But that's a bad example: shooting into melee never risks a chance to hit an ally.

Alchemists and their bombs do, even with the Precise Bombs ability, and so we require an alchemist's player to get explicit permission from the player of any possible blast target. Likewise with area-effect spells.

Likewise with this Feat. You have a chance to take down an ally with Reckless Aim. So you need permission from that ally to use it. If the ally were to object, and you were to try to use Reckless Aim anyways, that would be PvP.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

Enevhar, you're kind of right. But that's a bad example: shooting into melee never risks a chance to hit an ally.

Alchemists and their bombs do, even with the Precise Bombs ability, and so we require an alchemist's player to get explicit permission from the player of any possible blast target. Likewise with area-effect spells.

Likewise with this Feat. You have a chance to take down an ally with Reckless Aim. So you need permission from that ally to use it. If the ally were to object, and you were to try to use Reckless Aim anyways, that would be PvP.

Some GM's require explicit permission.

I do not. If a player isn't paying attention, or doesn't speak up for themselves at the time the spell is being cast, then I don't say anything. Most players won't have a problem if the spell is being cast in an appropriate manner anyhow.

If I feel a player is being a jerk with an AoE, then I will say something. Otherwise, I assume we are all grown-ups and don't need me playing overprotective parent in such situations.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Andrew, that might work for players who know that particular rule, but not everyone is going to know they might be taking damage. It is common courtesy to ask.


Chris Mortika wrote:

Enevhar, you're kind of right. But that's a bad example: shooting into melee never risks a chance to hit an ally.

Alchemists and their bombs do, even with the Precise Bombs ability, and so we require an alchemist's player to get explicit permission from the player of any possible blast target. Likewise with area-effect spells.

Likewise with this Feat. You have a chance to take down an ally with Reckless Aim. So you need permission from that ally to use it. If the ally were to object, and you were to try to use Reckless Aim anyways, that would be PvP.

Well, I guess that is one of those rules I never noticed got changed when 3rd edition came out. That or it has always been a house rule and I never knew it, that when you missed by a certain amount or rolled a natural 1, that you hit your ally.

Dark Archive 4/5

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

Enevhar, you're kind of right. But that's a bad example: shooting into melee never risks a chance to hit an ally.

Alchemists and their bombs do, even with the Precise Bombs ability, and so we require an alchemist's player to get explicit permission from the player of any possible blast target. Likewise with area-effect spells.

Likewise with this Feat. You have a chance to take down an ally with Reckless Aim. So you need permission from that ally to use it. If the ally were to object, and you were to try to use Reckless Aim anyways, that would be PvP.

Well, I guess that is one of those rules I never noticed got changed when 3rd edition came out. That or it has always been a house rule and I never knew it, that when you missed by a certain amount or rolled a natural 1, that you hit your ally.

Just like all critical fumble rules, a rule that you hit your ally when you roll a 1 is stupid and makes fighters potentially the worst archers.

Liberty's Edge

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

Enevhar, you're kind of right. But that's a bad example: shooting into melee never risks a chance to hit an ally.

Alchemists and their bombs do, even with the Precise Bombs ability, and so we require an alchemist's player to get explicit permission from the player of any possible blast target. Likewise with area-effect spells.

Likewise with this Feat. You have a chance to take down an ally with Reckless Aim. So you need permission from that ally to use it. If the ally were to object, and you were to try to use Reckless Aim anyways, that would be PvP.

Well, I guess that is one of those rules I never noticed got changed when 3rd edition came out. That or it has always been a house rule and I never knew it, that when you missed by a certain amount or rolled a natural 1, that you hit your ally.

3.X had rules for shooting into melee (you risked hitting a random target) and when there was someone giving cover Ac to the target(you risked hitting the covering character). There wasn't a specific rule about rolling a 1.

5/5

Just to be clear, I would definitely talk to the other players at the table to find out if they were okay with me using it, should I take the feat at all. I understand that it could make a player feel bad or resentful if their character were killed or taken out of a key battle due to damage from another PC, even if I were actually trying to hit the enemy.

Part of my question goes towards how should I handle this (or similar situations) as a GM if it should come up. Locally we tend towards requiring explicit permission in every instance a character could potentially harm an ally.

I appreciate the feedback though. Please let me know how you run such things are your own tables.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Don Walker wrote:
Andrew, that might work for players who know that particular rule, but not everyone is going to know they might be taking damage. It is common courtesy to ask.

I don't consider it PvP if a game mechanic would randomly (in the case of this feat or splash weapons) or actually (area of effect) cause damage to another player if the primary target or act is in an effort to win the fight against the badguys.

Of course there are circumstances where you can tell if someone is being a jerk and casting a spell specifically to mess with other players.

I handle that on a situational or circumstantial basis.

Otherwise, I let the game mechanics work as they will and I don't break the 4th wall by saying, "Sorry, you gotta ask all your fellow players in that area if you can cast fireball first."

Now granted, most players ask that anyways, as that's typically part of gaming etiquette. But I'm not going to force a unilateral vision of what is and is not considered PvP on anyone.

1/5

My understanding is that any game mechanic allowed by the additional rules document Edit: that removes choice of target damaged does not break the PvP rule, even if it specifically forces pvp.

5/5 *** Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

There are two slightly different bits here, that at least I found confusion at first.

Here's how I think they work:

1: You miss with your splash weapon and it lands on/near a fellow PC and damages. This is unfortunate, but doesn't apply the no PvP rule.

2: You throw your splash weapon at a bad guy and there is a fellow PC adjacent. This does apply the PvP rule.

Reckless Aim is like the first situation, you roll a 1 and something bad happens to somebody nearby.

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

I define PvP as malicious purposeful intent to do harm against another PC not incidental/unplanned damage directed at the PC through another attack.

I do see it as common courtesy to tell the player he may be damaged, and hold off on the attack if said damage will cause significant harm or put the PC down.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:

I define PvP as malicious purposeful intent to do harm against another PC not incidental/unplanned damage directed at the PC through another attack.

I do see it as common courtesy to tell the player he may be damaged, and hold off on the attack if said damage will cause significant harm or put the PC down.

This. (Yeah, D-moon and I actually agree)

I don’t like nerfing character builds (spells, bombs, feats, etc.) because someone might get miffed that the damage that took them out was directly or indirectly related to a poor tactical decision or a poor die roll. If you are paying attention, and you see someone about to include your character in an area of effect, and you think it could kill your character, then you have the right and obligation to speak up should you so choose (although some would argue this is metagaming—I don’t disagree and would actually rather see players just do what they are going to do without too much tactical discussion during the action). On the flip side, if you are paying attention, and you are a spell caster or bomber, then you probably know if someone is in trouble should you include them in your AoE, and discretion is a better tactic than not.

I won’t dictate at my table how someone uses a class ability, spell, or feat, unless said use is obviously malicious (Note: if there is a new player that doesn’t fully understand the implications, I will let them know they are about to hurt their fellows).

But bad tactics should not result in me making things easier on the PCs because of some loose definition or politically correct version of PvP.

Also lets consider the implications: Battle is at the end of a long string of resource depleting encounters. Whether that is due to poor resource management, bad tactics, playing up, or just a tough scenario, it doesn’t matter. Wizard is down to just a couple combat effective spells, which happen to be AoE, and Fighter and Rogue are doing ok, but Cleric and Bard have had to retreat or have fallen. Wizard decides to cast a 10d6 fireball augmented to be cold damage (because he knows enemies are at least resistant if not immune to fire—probably through trial and error—but are vulnerable to cold and will take 150% damage if they fail their saves) but would get the Rogue with Improved Evasion and the Fighter who has a high AC and hasn’t taken much damage yet, in the AoE.

What some are saying is, unless the Wizard stops the flow of play for a moment, to ask explicit permission from the Rogue and Fighter, to include them in the AoE, then I, as a GM, have to disallow said action. See a problem with this?

1) Rogue will likely take no damage, unless he rolls poorly, and then only half.
2) Fighter will fail maybe 60% of the time, but he has good HP’s and the risk of being severely wounded is outweighed by the severe damage done to the enemies en masse.
3) Wizard would basically not get an action in combat except maybe a single shot with his crossbow, or he could run into melee with his quarterstaff. Yeah, that sounds like a winning option.
4) Party ends up getting TPK’d because I, as a GM, disallowed a viable, valid, and good tactical action be used in combat because of some uber-squeamishness about PvP.
Not at my table. Players are responsible for their character’s safety, and they should be paying attention and be willing to speak up if they have an issue with some action. If they don’t, then as GM I will take their silence as tacit approval of the action being taken.

That being said, players who have characters with abilities, spells, or feats that could hurt a fellow character have the responsibility to use those abilities, spells, or feats in a responsible and a most tactically beneficial way as they can given the circumstances. If they start getting irresponsible to the point they may cause a character death or TPK by their bad decisions, then the circumstances may result in me asking a few questions, like, “dude, you are just flinging your spells around like crazy and your actions are going to result in character Y’s death or a TPK, that’s not cool, please show some restraint.”

Liberty's Edge 4/5

5) Wizard rethinks his placement of the spell, and gets most of the enemy, and only includes the Rogue who is confident of his ability to survive.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
What some are saying is, unless the Wizard stops the flow of play for a moment, to ask explicit permission from the Rogue and Fighter, to include them in the AoE, then I, as a GM, have to disallow said action. See a problem with this?

No, that's exactly how we run it. If the situation is that dire then the fighter and rogue will almost certainly accept the decision, but if they don't then it's on them to win through.

There is a side effect to allowing characters to drop AoEs "because it's all they have" - they don't need to consider taking alternatives. If my cleric has an excellent channel negative energy attack but no selective channeling, can he just blast merrily away complaing that "it's all he has"? The other party members can't hit him back, nor can they deny him a share of the loot, so he has immunity from the consequences of his actions.

Admittedly channeling indiscriminately may sometimes be the best option, such as dealing with swarms, but I'd still expect him to ask first.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

In this neck of the woods, Sormfriend's described situation is common.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

In my experience conversations go more like:

Wizard looking at battlemap and maybe pulling out template
Fighter: Whatchya plannin’?
Wizard: Well, I can shoot a cold fireball which will do 150% damage to all of the badguys or I can shoot my crossbow and probably miss.
Rogue: Don’t worry bout me, I have Improved Evasion and a ridiculous Reflex save.
Fighter: I’d rather if you missed me if you can, but I can take it if you can’t.
Wizard: Ok, well I can only miss one of you if I want to get most of the baddies, so I’ll miss the Fighter.
This is an organic conversation (meta-gamey yes) based around good tactics and caring about other players’ characters. If the wizard started the conversation with, “Can I have your guy’s permission to cast fireball?” I’d get really irritated as another player (even a targeted one) or GM. If as a GM, I see things getting stupid or irresponsible, I’ll step in. Otherwise, I’ll just let things develop organically.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

So, Andrew, what about:

Fighter: Whatchya plannin’?
Wizard: Well, I can shoot a cold fireball which will do 150% damage to all of the badguys or I can shoot my crossbow and probably miss.
Rogue: I'm down to about a third of my full health, and this archetype doesn't get Evasion.
Fighter: Wait. You're doing what?! My Reflex save is terrible, and if you roll max damage, you'll drop me.
Wizard: Sorry, guys; if you'd been paying attention, you wouldn't have stepped into my line of fire.

or

Fighter: Whatchya plannin’?
Wizard (to the GM): Cold fireball. Centered here. Does 7d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 5, 4, 2, 5, 2) = 25 points of cold damage.
GM (to Rogue and Fighter): Roll your reflex saves, people.

or

Wizard: I thought the rogue had Evasion!
Rogue: Not this archetype.
Wizard: I wouldn't have hit you with the spell if I'd known that.
Rogue: Why didn't you ask?

It sounds like you're saying that the wizard needs to get permission; you just want him to do it in character.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we need to approach Reckless Aim just a tad differently than AoE's.

Most players know AoE's exist. Even if they don't, the wizard still starts by announcing "I'm fireballing this whole area" and gesturing to part of the map. Even a newbie can put two and two together and say "wait a second, I'm standing there too! Isn't that going to blast me?" and then they can talk it out as necessary.

But nobody expects the arrows to go amiss. Additionally, someone who's making attack rolls usually rolls pretty fast after announcing.

So Mr. Reckless says "I shoot this guy" and no one reacts. Why would they? Then he rolls a 1, says "uh-oh", and begins determining if his ally gets hit. By the time anyone at the table thinks to ask what the heck's going on, the attack roll has already been made.

"Hey, wait! If I'd known he could accidentally shoot me, I'd have 5ft stepped away on my turn/asked him not to shoot/etc!"

Do we let the archer take back the attack, even though the roll has already been made? Do we tell the victim that maybe next time they should ask what feats every single other player has before the game starts? What do we do?

Grand Lodge

I think that as a player he should inform those in the party when he joins that he can be rather reckless with his shots. I think that at that point most other members would suggest he take careful aim when firing into melee (ie., don't use your Reckless Aim feat). In PFS play I would suggest that Paizo remove the feat from society play to avoid this issue.

In terms of Splash and AoE damage, both the (fighter and rogue in our examples) should hold off getting into melee on round 1 and let the Splashers and AoErs get a couple of blasts in.

Its a two way street here. If the melee guys want to get into HtH on round 1 for glory points, then the Splashers and AoErs can back off and wait for them to die and then fire for effect, or stand there and do not much of anything (which isn't fun). Good players will have back ups for these situations, its whether they want to take the time to employ them.

Likewise indiscriminate flinging of pots and AoE spells isn't cool, and melee fighters should have a backup that allows for ranged combat to allow for your casters to do their thing.

Playing as a team isn't hard, being a jerk is easy.

5/5

Guide to PFS OP wrote:
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 that character’s player. Even if you feel 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—ever.

This is I think what makes it murky. The rule says nothing about intent. If one reads this strictly it doesn't matter what the player's intent is, only whether you know your action has the potential to kill another player. This would mean no aoe spells, Reckless Aim, triggering a trap, etc. that could kill someone else even if unintentionally.

Around here most people proactively ask other players if it's okay to throw an alchemist bomb, cast fireball on them, etc. This (and lots of other discussion) tends to be done out of character.

As a GM if the attacker doesn't ask, I point it out to the affected player(s) and ask them if it's okay, requiring their explicit permission. I think that getting distracted or going to the restroom shouldn't result in getting killed by another player. That is so much on the side of un-fun that I am okay with metagaming.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

So, Andrew, what about:

Fighter: Whatchya plannin’?
Wizard: Well, I can shoot a cold fireball which will do 150% damage to all of the badguys or I can shoot my crossbow and probably miss.
Rogue: I'm down to about a third of my full health, and this archetype doesn't get Evasion.
Fighter: Wait. You're doing what?! My Reflex save is terrible, and if you roll max damage, you'll drop me.
Wizard: Sorry, guys; if you'd been paying attention, you wouldn't have stepped into my line of fire.

or

Fighter: Whatchya plannin’?
Wizard (to the GM): Cold fireball. Centered here. Does 7d6 points of cold damage.
GM (to Rogue and Fighter): Roll your reflex saves, people.

or

Wizard: I thought the rogue had Evasion!
Rogue: Not this archetype.
Wizard: I wouldn't have hit you with the spell if I'd known that.
Rogue: Why didn't you ask?

It sounds like you're saying that the wizard needs to get permission; you just want him to do it in character.

I let it play out. If the player of the rogue isn't paying close enough attention to the game to let the wizard know that he'd be in serious trouble if he included him in the blast. Then that's on the player of the rogue, not the wizard. It isn't PvP in my mind, unless there is malicious intent. Friendly fire, yes. PvP no.

And as a GM, I don't let someone just declare a spell as they are rolling dice. I want them to explain to me where it will be placed, what the effects of the spell are, and what saves I need to roll would be, then they can roll dice. That process gives any players who might have an issue a moment to speak up.

Lack of paying attention and poor tactics are NOT an excuse to whine about PvP.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mike Lindner wrote:
Guide to PFS OP wrote:
In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever.

I don't see that as murky at all. And I interpret it differently than you have.

It IS all about intent. The idea is that I'm not allowed to go, Hey Bob, I'm gonna kill your character cause you suck!

But if its in the heat of battle and something happens... that's combat.


Maybe I just have too high of an expectation for players because of some of mine from past home games, but if the player of a wizard is not paying enough attention to the game to know which PCs have been hurt, and roughly how badly based on numbers given by the GM and by reactions from the players, then maybe that player should not be playing a character with AoE abilities, wizard or otherwise, and regardless of whether it would count as PvP or not.

Oh, and if it is the player that is the ditz and not the character, then I feel it should be up to the GM to point out that what the player wants to do is not something that the character would do, precisely because it could kill his teammates.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Maybe I just have too high of an expectation for players because of some of mine from past home games, but if the player of a wizard is not paying enough attention to the game to know which PCs have been hurt, and roughly how badly based on numbers given by the GM and by reactions from the players, then maybe that player should not be playing a character with AoE abilities, wizard or otherwise, and regardless of whether it would count as PvP or not.

Oh, and if it is the player that is the ditz and not the character, then I feel it should be up to the GM to point out that what the player wants to do is not something that the character would do, precisely because it could kill his teammates.

Certainly you can inform a player of things his character would know. If they persist, then you can have the discussion about being a jerk.

But in my opinion, I should never, ever, start a conversation about AoE, Splash, or anything else that could potentially harm another PC, "get permission first."

As a player, I have an alchemist, and I took precise bombs specifically to avoid hurting other characters. I also do my best to place them so that I will never hurt another character.

But as a GM, I am not going to dictate a requirement for permission. I will let it play out at the table. I will look at the circumstances and make comments as necessary.

5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

Lack of paying attention and poor tactics are NOT an excuse to whine about PvP.

...
But in my opinion, I should never, ever, start a conversation about AoE, Splash, or anything else that could potentially harm another PC, "get permission first."

You seem to take an approach of "combat is risky, be on the ball or be in the ground." While I do tend towards that as a GM controlling non-PC combatants, I don't apply it to PCs harming each other as a GM or player. A hardline approach of that nature just wouldn't work with this player base; I strongly believe it would drive away a good chunk of players.

Most games around here are much more casual with plenty of stepping away from the table for a minute, side conversations, and such. I've tried to take an stance that accounts for this approach to the game.

Much of my reasoning is based on the fact that players actively choose to pick spells, feats, and such that could harm other PCs. It's not like you can't take other options to avoid harming your allies (selective metamagic is awesome).

To try to put my viewpoint more succinctly: dying sucks; being killed (directly or indirectly) by another player really sucks; when creating a character add fun, don't add suck.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It isn’t a GM’s responsibility within PFS, to make sure that every character is well balanced with all other characters. AoE spells have been a staple of DnD since the game began, as best I recall. I started with the big blue box that came out prior to the red box.

Now if a spellcaster takes nothing but AoE spells, then good tactics means they will be largely ineffective a large portion of the time. That’s on them.

But if they are a well balanced spellcaster, and circumstances indicate that resources are to a point that the only way they can be effective is to cast the AoE spell, then let the game play out the way it will.

I won’t let someone be a jerk at my table. But I’m also not going to let someone gimp the spellcaster because they are whiney either. That’s also being a jerk.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Rule zero (Don't be a jerk) implies it would be a good idea to check with your fellow players before taking them out of combat.

But I wouldn't interpret that as meaning that I have to ask their permission before putting them at risk of minor injury (either on a miss, or as part of an area effect).

Wearing my other hat: If I run up into melee combat with the BBEG and his friends, I'd consider it unreasonable to object if some small fraction of the damage I incurred came from 'friendly fire' side effects. If my own allies did more damage to me than I could expect from the BBEG that might be a problem, but to complain about every last scratch seems disingenuous.

Silver Crusade 2/5

"In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever."

I understand wanting to let players do their thing. But the rule says they can't kill another character. No loophole, it ever adds "ever". It doesn't bring up intent, it says cannot kill character. It may need to be reworded, but RAW is that a wizard should not be allowed to drop a fireball on his own party.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

"In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever."

...

It doesn't bring up intent

Um...

5/5

Jiggy wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

"In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever."

...

It doesn't bring up intent

Um...

I can drop a fireball trying to kill the BBEG and kill the fighter incidentally. I did not intend to kill the fighter, but I did do it voluntarily.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Jiggy wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

"In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever."

...

It doesn't bring up intent

Um...

That covers having a character dominated or under a spell effect. You may not chose to attack another player.

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

Fair enough. Though if you want to be that pedantic, note that it also offers no restriction on injuries or debuffs. So strictly speaking, I can tie your PC down, beat his 14 CON arse to -13 HP, cast stabilize, and leave him for the buzzards.

Or, we could all play nice.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Mike Lindner wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

"In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever."

...

It doesn't bring up intent

Um...
I can drop a fireball trying to kill the BBEG and kill the fighter incidentally. I did not intend to kill the fighter, but I did do it voluntarily.

Incidental damage is not voluntarily killing another character.

Voluntarily killing another PC would be to intend to target them specifically.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

"In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever."

...

It doesn't bring up intent

Um...
I can drop a fireball trying to kill the BBEG and kill the fighter incidentally. I did not intend to kill the fighter, but I did do it voluntarily.

Incidental damage is not voluntarily killing another character.

Voluntarily killing another PC would be to intend to target them specifically.

If your PC had not chosen to cast that spell, the other PC would not have died. Your PC made a conscious choice to act in a manner that resulted in the death of a character. That is voluntarily killing another PC.

5/5

Guide to PFS OP wrote:
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 that character’s player. Even if you feel 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—ever.

The way every GM is going to interpret this and run their table is going to vary. There is no singular right way to run a table. Let me repeat that.

THERE IS NO SINGULAR RIGHT WAY TO RUN A TABLE.

The theory of what is and isn't considered PvP will never be settled on a message board, in a FAQ, in a blog post or any other mass community message.

Issues like this need to be settled at each and every individual table. If you're looking for an answer to whether "Reckless Aim" is considered PvP, ask the GM and the players at your table. If they don't want you using it, don't use it. If they don't care, you shouldn't either. It's really just that simple.

Let's let this stupid thread die and go back to debating how much trouble Brock is in for posting his wife's age on the internet.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyle Baird wrote:
THERE IS NO SINGULAR RIGHT WAY TO RUN A TABLE.

You're having badwrongfun!

Quote:
Let's let this stupid thread die and go back to debating how much trouble Brock is in for posting his wife's age on the internet.

This is goodrightfun! :D

5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
loud words

I'm not trying to find out the "one true way" here, and I doubt anyone else is either. It can be a good thing though to discuss these things away from the table because we can find out where other groups stand. This is important to me because I have been traveling to more and more conventions and understanding how other people approach contentious issues can only help when stuff happens at the table.

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

Kyle Baird wrote:
THERE IS NO SINGULAR RIGHT WAY TO RUN A TABLE.

Sure there is...

Question: What would Kyle do as GM?

Answer: What ever it is to the exact opposite.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 ** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau

Kyle Baird wrote:


The way every GM is going to interpret this and run their table is going to vary. There is no singular right way to run a table. Let me repeat that.

THERE IS NO SINGULAR RIGHT WAY TO RUN A TABLE.

In short, EXPECT TABLE VARIANCE!


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

"In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever."

...

It doesn't bring up intent

Um...
I can drop a fireball trying to kill the BBEG and kill the fighter incidentally. I did not intend to kill the fighter, but I did do it voluntarily.

Incidental damage is not voluntarily killing another character.

Voluntarily killing another PC would be to intend to target them specifically.

You know it never points out Player characters in that last line....

Strict reading would suggest that you can't even kill Non-Player Characters voluntarily ;)

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

There are many ways that can endanger and even kill someone else on a bad dice roll.

There is my advice - ask at the table and if in doubt - don't do it.

I was once faced with such an issue. The group was in a VERY tight spot - TPK seemed very possible. One option was to cast a Fireball in the middle of the enemies.

There was a paladin in range and he was pretty down. So he needed to make his save to half to survive. The player was okay with it and said - go ahead - it is for the greater good.

Interestingly another player at the table objected - No - you can't do that. That could kill the paladin.

I checked a second time with the paladin player - he was still okay - even having heard the objections from the other player at the table. I did cast the fireball - the paladin did make the save and the whole group did prevail.

This was one of the most tough decisions ever done in a game - but part of the game that makes it memorable is to do a tough decision.

So to reiterate - ask at the table and if in doubt - don't do it.

But the potential to hurt (or even kill) someone should not restrict options of play if the people concerned are okay with it.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeesh I don't pick up a book and I miss out on the best stuff.

-1 to AC for +2 to hit with a ranged weapon? That's an amazing trade. An additional drawback that applies only when you roll a 1? Oh no, I accidentally might shoot my friend. Pssh, +2 to hit is so good. Risk it, that barbarian has enough health.

Don't know how I feel about the whole "is it PVP" aspect, but I just want to say that this is a really good feat. It effectively cancels out the drawbacks of rapid shot. So now rapid shot reads "take an extra attack at a target engaged in melee, a -1 to your AC, and if you roll a 1 it hits your ally." That seems solid to me.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Is Reckless Aim subject to the no PvP rule? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.