A plea for Ryan: Please talk to us about Friendly Fire

[HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise]

Well with formation combat, wouldn't it make more sense to gear your people to be protected from, or at least resistant, to the artillery fire?

[Being]

I think GW should build the "casting <spellname> at <targetname> in <animation duration>" right into the casting of spells whether AoE, DD, or Healing.

[Bringslite]

HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:

Well with formation combat, wouldn't it make more sense to gear your people to be protected from, or at least resistant, to the artillery fire?

It makes perfect sense. If you can afford it. There are a lot of "flavors" of energy to protect yourself from.

[HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise]

Yep, and that's where the 'Tactics' come in. Lob a fireball or three, the enemy goes "lol!" and pops their Fire Resistance Spells/Potions ... and then you bust out the Chain Lightning or the Acid Fog as the groups mix it up.

Bluff and Feint aren't necessarily just for swordplay ...

[leperkhaun]

I like FF, it means that people who do AOE need to pay attention to where they are going to attack. It also forces more diverse spell/ability selection.

[DipperJC]

Being wrote:

Sadurian wrote:

...Whatever the arguments for and against Friendly Fire, wanting to educate children about the dangers of weapons is a very weak one.

I would say that since play is the most elementary and fundamental form of education for not only humans but nearly all forms of vertebrate it is desperately important to attend to what lessons our play might teach.

I would make the argument that what play is teaching is worth serious consideration for adults as well: if it weren't enjoyable it would be irrelevant, but if we have evolved distinct pleasure in our play then it is providing a function intrinsic to our natures.

Have you never wondered why we enjoy such an otherwise frivolous activity? Do you believe it has no significant meaning?

Okay, so if I've understood the thrust of your argument correctly, you want Friendly Fire because Friendly Fire is realistic and realism teaches people more about real world scenarios.

I don't have a problem with that argument on it's face, but any time anyone talks about our "responsible standards" and the "safety of children", I get a little bit queasy, precisely because I want this game to be as realistic as possible within it's fantasy setting. Specifically, as someone who intends to play an evil character on this game, I want to be able to kill children repeatedly and have the chance of getting away with it. I want to be able to Suggestion a good PC, have them throw that fireball with a little more friendly fire involved, dispel the charm, then sit back and watch the good party argue about what just happened. I want the ability to raise undead minions and set them on farmers. I want to convince kingdoms to enslave all gnomes, encourage sexism against women, and routinely execute for crimes.

Now, are you going to try to forbid any of that on the grounds that it might "teach the wrong lesson"?

[Hobs the Short]

Passing judgement upon the player for having their evil character do evil acts would seem to totally miss the point of RP. I tend to stay away from anything that seems to blend IC with OOC.

[LazarX]

Soldack Keldonson wrote:

How is friendly fire handled in the PF RPG PnP game?

It's handled in that spells don't care whether your target is friendly or hostile as to how they effect them. Unless you have other mechanics intervene, your fireball will burn friends AND YOU, if you're in it, as well as allies.

What the OP isn't being clear on is whether or not he's looking for MMORG style mechanics in which blasting spells only damage your enemies even when your friends are standing in them. If it's following Pathfinder mechanics, then the answer is that WOW rules won't be applying here.

[Nihimon]

LazarX wrote:

Soldack Keldonson wrote:

How is friendly fire handled in the PF RPG PnP game?

It's handled in that spells don't care whether your target is friendly or hostile as to how they effect them.

It's also - generally - handled by giving the players plenty of time to think about it and lay out their Spell Area of Effect Template, which is simply not practical in a massively multiplayer online game. At least, it's not practical unless that "turn-based" aspect is baked in from the start and all the players know that's what they're signing on for.

[Onishi]

Nihimon wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Soldack Keldonson wrote:

How is friendly fire handled in the PF RPG PnP game?

It's handled in that spells don't care whether your target is friendly or hostile as to how they effect them.

It's also - generally - handled by giving the players plenty of time to think about it and lay out their Spell Area of Effect Template, which is simply not practical in a massively multiplayer online game. At least, it's not practical unless that "turn-based" aspect is baked in from the start and all the players know that's what they're signing on for.

That and also worth noting to those who's experience in gaming is entirely MMO based. Wizards etc... are not half baked archers in terms of other attacks. Situations in which fireball is not a good idea to cast, often outnumber ones in which it is the best option. Wizards biggest advantage is a huge array of spells that work well under certain circumstances. AoEs are one category of spells in a wizards spellbook, useful in very specific situations. A wizard could also fight the battle via summoning, buffing party members, counterspelling an enemy wizard, use suggestion to influence enemies to make bad decisions, several knockback spells, creating illusions to confuse the enemy, single target damage spells and that's just a fraction of the options available at 5th level (IE the level in which a wizard can learn fireball).

I'm not saying I expect every single one of those options to be present, some are flat out undoable in an MMO IMO, (IE mind effecting spells) in PFO, but I would be very disapointed if wizards fell into the current MMO standard which is, if AoEs aren't the prime option, then a wizard is just a weaker archer.

[Kryzbyn]

FF been rescinded yet?

[Will Cooper]

LazarX wrote:

Soldack Keldonson wrote:

How is friendly fire handled in the PF RPG PnP game?

It's handled in that spells don't care whether your target is friendly or hostile as to how they effect them. Unless you have other mechanics intervene, your fireball will burn friends AND YOU, if you're in it, as well as allies.

What the OP isn't being clear on is whether or not he's looking for MMORG style mechanics in which blasting spells only damage your enemies even when your friends are standing in them. If it's following Pathfinder mechanics, then the answer is that WOW rules won't be applying here.

That's true for fireball and cloudkill and ice storm. It's not true for chain lightning or firesnakes or burning arc. In short, the effect of spells on allies within the area of effect depends on the spell.

And even with something as basic as fireball, there are metamagic feats that allow target selection.

[Being]

Jerrycnh wrote:

... Okay, so if I've understood the thrust of your argument correctly, you want Friendly Fire because Friendly Fire is realistic and realism teaches people more about real world scenarios.

No, it isn't 'realism' that is my point, but personal responsibility, a prerequisite of liberty. If we teach ourselves there are no negative consequences possible attached to a potentially dangerous choice we are teaching irresponsibility. If we permit negative consequences to the player's volitional actions then we are teaching them to consider the consequences of their choices, and that seems better to me.