|
I took it more as "why is A.) so bad when things like B.) are still happening" or "If someone else can grey area me (not quite PvP by definition arguably), I'm not sure how the undead are any different".
Not really the same thing as "Since this happened to me, I now have self appointed free reign to do whatever I want".
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
Yeah but the "oracle of heavens" problem is mostly a problem of lacking communication and cooperation in the party.
I also know some specials who need to go first on every round and charge in, effectively shutting off most caster blasters or control effects, because they also often have a worse or similar bad chance to make a save like the enemies. Would they wait or ready an action, everyone could have fun^^
|
|
I'm guessing that the implication was more along the lines of technically the Oracle's spell was not considered an Attack (no to hit, no damage), and therefore not PvP, and since it wasn't an "attack", the DM allowed the Oracle to do it without worrying if the other player(s) affected where okay with it.
If it had instead been a Fireball (more clearly PvP), they might (and I'm either reading between the lines or putting words in their mouth), might have been a totally different story.
|
|
The PVP definition should probably start with "it would break invisibility" and expand from there to include minions and indirect effects (like cutting a rope the other PC is hanging from).
I was thinking about that, too, but I think can not recall off hand if the Color Spray would actually break invisibility, and didn't have time to track that down, so was assuming that was a part of the grey area.
I would say something more along the lines of: "any non-beneficial spell, ability, or similar action against another player's character, or that includes them in an area as a valid target, without the player's and character's permission. Affects used by NPC's against a player that force the player to attack other player's characters are an exception for that one character only, though in such circumstances other players may use non-lethal means against the affected character, but still may not otherwise "attack" the player's character. In extreme cases where one character might reasonably kill another, such as while dominated, and the other players have no other option but to "kill or be killed", the DM may make a call to avoid multiple player's dying."
Minions should probably not be included in this, and kind of it's own can of worms between summoning, the undead/paladin issue, and the like. Adding minions can basically cause the same issue if one player has a character focused on summoning and the other is focused on area Evoc blasting. It would just make more issues than it would solve.
|
I was thinking about that, too, but I think can not recall off hand if the Color Spray would actually break invisibility, and didn't have time to track that down, so was assuming that was a part of the grey area.
I would say something more along the lines of: "any non-beneficial spell, ability, or similar action against another player's character, or that includes them in an area as a valid target, without the player's and character's permission. Affects used by NPC's against a player that force the player to attack other player's characters are an exception for that one character only, though in such circumstances other players may use non-lethal means against the affected character, but still may not otherwise "attack" the player's character. In extreme cases where one character might reasonably kill another, such as while dominated, and the other players have no other option but to "kill or be killed", the DM may make a call to avoid multiple player's dying."
Minions should probably not be included in this, and kind of it's own can of worms between summoning, the undead/paladin issue, and the like. Adding minions can basically cause the same issue if one player has a character focused on summoning and the other is focused on area Evoc blasting. It would just make more issues than it would solve.
There is nothing unreasonable at all about a TPK resulting from a blaster sorcerer or the like failing their will save. Likewise, it is not at all unreasonable for the party to be torn limb from limb by super powered undead if a necro gets MCed.
I'm also inclined to say that PvP rules should indeed include minions, summons and the like. These represent an expenditure of resources, a lot of them in the case of the risen dead, and it is therefore quite a "jerk" move to terminate them. Summon monster obviously isn't that much of an issue, but uh... are summons really that different from an animal companion? They serve the same purpose; many times they serve even better than an actual companion would be able to. People aren't encourages to just go blow up a druid's t-rex or something, are they?
|
|
How about something simple like "You must receive a player's permission to make an attack or cast a spell that directly affects them or their resources. This rule does not apply between characters when one is under a mind affecting effect that causes them to act otherwise."
All the non-lethal jargon gets clunky. Also, I have seen players who like to get dominated and intentionally don't take steps to prevent it as a reason to be able to take down PCs. I would be strongly against saying that lethal force could not be issued in return.
I prefer the player consent and not the character because I as a player would allow people to hurt my characters more than my characters would.
In general the PVP rules are kind of funny. I once joked while my character was unconscious that the party should pour the unknown potion down my throat, if it would cause me to die the PVP rules wouldn't let it happen.
|
|
The point is that (outside of undead) a no PvP hard rule that include "minions" is just asking to cause even more issues. If one character comes that focuses on flooding the field with summoned minions and another character comes that can only really area blast, it's a whole new can of worms as one player is sitting through each encounter twiddle their thumbs.
Secondly, this should not be a backdoor advocating one class over the other in the Paladin/Cleric/Necromancer issue.
|
|
The point is that (outside of undead) a no PvP hard rule that include "minions" is just asking to cause even more issues. If one character comes that focuses on flooding the field with summoned minions and another character comes that can only really area blast, it's a whole new can of worms as one player is sitting through each encounter twiddle their thumbs.
Secondly, this should not be a backdoor advocating one class over the other in the Paladin/Cleric/Necromancer issue.
I would be for directly advocating against a build that floods the field with minions. I have only played with one player that does this and it has been a long time, but it was so incredibly annoying. At the first sign of anything that looked like it might result in combat he started pulling as many minions as he could on the field and didn't stop until the combat was over. He took more time and board space than the rest of the party combined.
As for the paladin/necromancer issue, I don't see it advocating for one over the other any more than saying the paladin can't go dump out the rogue's poison or kill the witch's imp.
|
You can limit a necromancer to 1 controlled critter under the 1 pet limit. (and just keep the rest shambling around on deck until the first one bites it... which shouldn't take long)
But no, You can't blast a pet any more than you can blast a PC for the exact same reasons.
1) You are then fighting with another PLAYER
2) You take a considerable chunk of the Players ability to act out of commission (just as if you'd blinded them)
3) Killing the pet costs a character money to get them raised, re equipped, runs the risk of damaging their equipment, or even wands of CLW charges.
4) Results in the character/player spending their actions to recover from the attack (cures, heals, etc)
1 is particularly poignant. Most of the point of the no PVP rule is to keep the players from trying to kill or sabotage each others characters: either directly or passive aggressively.
|
|
I disagree with that BigNorseWolf, as much as i would like to see that. The undead created should not fall into the same as a animal companion or familiar. They are not a permanent bonus, and are spell created... that would be the same as saying you can't use monster summoning to get more then one, summoned monster at a time.
The whole idea of using undead is sketchy at best because of this. While the extra horde of undead can led to prolonging the game and limiting other players... there is a firm disadvantage to using them. GM's should remember they are almost always mindless, the controlling player should have to eat move actions to direct them. Not to mention to amount of gold he/she just blew in gems to create them.
|
|
I disagree with that BigNorseWolf, as much as i would like to see that. The undead created should not fall into the same as a animal companion or familiar. They are not a permanent bonus, and are spell created... that would be the same as saying you can't use monster summoning to get more then one, summoned monster at a time.
The whole idea of using undead is sketchy at best because of this. While the extra horde of undead can led to prolonging the game and limiting other players... there is a firm disadvantage to using them. GM's should remember they are almost always mindless, the controlling player should have to eat move actions to direct them. Not to mention to amount of gold he/she just blew in gems to create them.
The horde of undead will in no way limit other players if the necromancer is playing responsibly. I will concede that they might make that person's turn take a little longer than usual. It takes a few seconds to roll the dice for twelve skeletons full attacking an <insert creature here>. Furthermore, no where in the rules does it state giving a verbal command to your creatures would require a move action; speaking is a free action in Pathfinder, just as it was back in that "other game." I will admit to some curiosity about your stance on this. You yourself have just admitted that undead can be quite costly to create and maintain. Why, then, would you advocate for allowing their arbitrary destruction at the hands of other party members?
As for the summon monster comparison.... Well, the undead are indeed more difficult to acquire. A.) you need dead bodies (these MUST be provided by the scenario; you cannot somehow pull them from a bag of holding). B.) The expense is ridiculous. Characters without blood money and a specific magic item I shall not name here are pretty well SOL in terms of their wealth. Why should they be punished (mechanically) for choosing to trololo with dead people?
|
|
First, The Beard.
I never advocated the destruction of party resources... not once. That does include the undead mentioned above.
Being undead, i as a GM would require the necromancer to burn a move action just like any other combat companion. Once they are given a set instruction they, being mindless... will carry it out until they or the target is destroyed. I do not see how this is any different then the norm... sure its not written into the spell details but seems standard to me.
Now once the target is destroyed, the necromancer can give another command and move on. Also, your twelve skeletons example... as a player i would be extremely upset if i was a melee fighter. Those minions would be blocking access for my character to actually be engaged. This has never happened to me, but i can picture the fighter/barbarian player sitting in a corner and throwing up his/her hands.
|
|
Talon, the last time I saw someone put forth this argument I posed the following question repeatedly. He would never answer, perhaps you can take a swing at it.
You are making a leap to assume that undead should be commanded like animals. In a way it makes sense to look for transparency or rules of thumb, but should the orders given to undead be more likened to those given to animals (which may be done with your legs, body language, or some other underwater equivalent), or given to them like commanded undead? If you say there should be no difference, remember that you may command intelligent undead as well as non-intelligent and there is no distinction on how you do it. In both cases, you just say words, the only exception being how simple or complex your words can be. And there is no reason those intelligent undead that you are commanding can't take complex instructions just as easy as any PC or hireling.
Edit: I just noticed something that furthers the point. A druid or ranger handles as a free action. It is still quite transparent to the animal command rules to say a necromancer does the same with his undead (especially since the text doesn't call for any action.)
|
|
Sitri, i will give my reasoning, others may likely disagree.
Animals have next to no intelligence, 1 or 2 at best. They require a move actions to give commands. Intelligent undead would be rare, but having more cognitive ability would act as retainers or the like. Simple verbal instructions, ie free action.
Mindless undead should not be simpler to control then animals, they have no intelligence scores. They should not be easier to control then the animals mentioned above.
There are certain spells which do conjurer intelligent undead, these likewise should not be treated like the animals and as retainer types. That is my take the situation, i hope that you understand my reasoning... i do not think it out of the realm of reason.
|
|
This spell enables you to control undead creatures for a short period of time. You command them by voice and they understand you, no matter what language you speak. Even if vocal communication is impossible, the controlled undead do not attack you. At the end of the spell, the subjects revert to their normal behavior.
(from the control undead spell, which the channeling feat references)
Command by voice definitely sounds like the talking is a free action deal.
Also, who's ever had the Big bad necromancer at the end of a dungeon use an action for "KILL THEM MY UNDEAD MINIONS!" ? Come on. Most bad guys get a whole two minute background rant complete with a naruto flashback of why they're the bad guy.
|
|
Sitri, i will give my reasoning, others may likely disagree.
Animals have next to no intelligence, 1 or 2 at best. They require a move actions to give commands. Intelligent undead would be rare, but having more cognitive ability would act as retainers or the like. Simple verbal instructions, ie free action.
Mindless undead should not be simpler to control then animals, they have no intelligence scores. They should not be easier to control then the animals mentioned above.
There are certain spells which do conjurer intelligent undead, these likewise should not be treated like the animals and as retainer types. That is my take the situation, i hope that you understand my reasoning... i do not think it out of the realm of reason.
It seems like you have made up a rule. I understand why, but you have inserted a rule for half the targets of a spell that isn't mentioned anywhere in the spell.
Additionally, the intelligence of the target isn't really what is causing you to take a move action to command an animal. You are taking some type of physical actions with your body. It doesn't matter how much you boost the Int of your animal, if you are telling it to perform a trick, you are getting its attention and then pointing or whatever. This is the action that is taking up time, not your talking. Also the fact that druids and rangers can command as a free action (presumably by some magical means) regardless of intelligence, reinforces the idea that intelligence isn't the limiting factor here.
|
|
correct, regarding the spell like, effects. This is using the channeling to command the undead, Necromancer specialist and clerics. However the second level variation from the wizard/sorcerer spell list is very different. Command undead gets a bit, more complex in its wording. That is what i was referring to.
|
|
I would hope this is at least not something you would enforce while GMing a Pathfinder Society game, as the rules do not support that particular methodology. Now for a home game I'll say I can definitely see some merit to your point. But then, a necromancer has no business flooding the field with undead. It's obnoxious and slows play. A worthwhile necromancer may animate many creatures, but they should choose to only utilize two or three at the max at a time for the sake of fluidity.
|
|
and the chance to allow other players to actually play the game... the methodology is unclear at best. For a home game the players can simply rip through the undead to get to the targets or burst them down with AoE. In the society, it gets alot more complex... they are hurting my minions, that is clearly pvp!
thus my reasoning for putting more of a balance... i have not had to deal with as yet.
that is my .02
|
|
There is no time limit on dead created with animate dead, you know. The argument could easily be made that they are as valuable to the necromancer as a druid's animal companion. How would you feel in a home game if a party tried to kill your character's companion left and right? That's the point that some of us have been attempting to convey. It would be considered bad form to just devastate a druid's animal companions, no? I could see it if animate dead weren't so darned expensive to cast, though.
|
|
yes, i am quite aware in a home game you can keep undead for a much longer amount of time. As far as my druid's animal companion, i would ensure it did not block out the rest of the party from actually having fun. Every scenario you have thrown out thus far, has been from the necromancers point of view... step back and look at the rest of the party.
Your playing a front line fighter type, and can't get to any targets because the undead skeletal swarm beat you in initiative, not at all unlikely as they get improved initiative. What do you do? and no, it is never in the party's interest to burn resources... i said that several posts back.
|
|
The problem here is the assumption that there's a swarm. What if there are only two or three undead in play, as most necromancers will be limiting themselves to? I already know how annoying it is for one of my characters to be blocked from laying the smackdown on an enemy, in any case. There has been a lot of assumptions that necromancers just go "hey, here's thirty skeletons." I've never actually seen one do this; quite the contrary, actually. Most favor a handful of powerful undead. In any case it is as I said. I do see your point. I simply don't agree that they should be punished when the spell itself already punishes them enough; a simple difference of opinion.