I'm also finding it interesting that whenever the subject of a race boon comes up, there are a lot of complaints that it won't fit thematically with PFS for whatever reason. But when a level 2 PC has the same initiative modifier as a CR 27 Demon Lord that can cast 10 wishes a day, we're all kind of ok with that. :)
Which Demon Lord would that be?
Is it in a PFS scenario?If not, how does it affect any PFS decisions?
The only thing that iniative does is set the order of who goes first. It doesn't matter if the high is 49 or 19. Even if your init cap is put into place, a monster with a +2 init will likely go after a +4 init archer.
So far, your examples seem to be of games where the players spent gold and resources to prep for the fight, played a season 0-2 scenario, and the GM may not have interpreted the rules correctly (thinking of archers under water - Freedom of Movement will not help the arrows).
Have you been noticing/seeing the same problem with the new scenarios?
|
That is a point Tarma, but PFS can´t do something about it.
Only possible thing is scenario writers read this and bring in more optimized foes with class levels to raise the difficulty. On the other hand that will be an arms race and not so optimized players might be turned off by the level of difficulty.
There are statements on this by Mike and John, where John points out that especially the powergamers will start to cry when what they do is done to them.
A lot of scenarios also depend on the ability of the GM.
The better you are and the better you play, the more difficult it gets for the players. Untill your players are really good too and you are then bound by the "play as written" rule, but that´s PFS^^
On the other hand, you could take this to the advice or general forum and adress the design team, who are in charge of the rules and monsters and stuff. Maybe they hear you out and see your concerns?
But then, some of them are already busied by the differences between core game and additions :D
|
As for investment, I think that's getting a little overestimated. One can easily get a +8 to +11 at level one without much investment.
If it is such a minimal investment to get a +8 or +11 then this wouldn't be a problem because everyone would have a +8 or +11. Obviously that is not the case. The average PC would need a trait, a feat and a 14 DEX to have a +8 on initiative at first level. That is not a negligible investment. Yes, there are a few builds that getting a +8 to initiative at first level is not that difficult, but punishing the people who actually DO invest in this because some builds don't have to is not a good solution.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pumping your initiative modifier has diminishing returns as the modifier increases. So realistically it already is capped by practicality. Nobody really needs over a +15.
Attacking initiative as a root cause of PCs who end combats in one turn is not going to solve any problems. Really, even if the bad guys got one turn, in the vast majority of cases it's not going to save them from getting destroyed by over powered PCs.
|
Pumping your initiative modifier has diminishing returns as the modifier increases. So realistically it already is capped by practicality. Nobody really needs over a +15.
Attacking initiative as a root cause of PCs who end combats in one turn is not going to solve any problems. Really, even if the bad guys got one turn, in the vast majority of cases it's not going to save them from getting destroyed by over powered PCs.
Sure it does, if the bad guys won initiative they could run away to the chase thread that needs fixing.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
By monster initiatives I mean as in they're completely beastly, not as in they're actual creature stats.
Gotcha.
From a GM perspective, those games are not nearly as interesting with incredibly high inits. Most monster initiatives are only in the +2 to +4 range. Having a 13-19 init mod on every PC starts getting to the point where as a GM you should probably skip the fight because there's not point to playing through it.
I rarely see any fights ending in one round in my area. Surprise rounds, placement, and monster tactics routinely prevent NPCs from being in "fireball formation" for insta-gibbing by high initiative PCs. But perhaps that's because players in my area lean more towards the social experience of PFS than the mechanical one. Most wizards or gunslingers I see going first in combat either buff the party before the baddies get to go, or put themselves in a position not to die after blasting off their boomstick.
I'm also finding it interesting that whenever the subject of a race boon comes up, there are a lot of complaints that it won't fit thematically with PFS for whatever reason. But when a level 2 PC has the same initiative modifier as a CR 27 Demon Lord that can cast 10 wishes a day, we're all kind of ok with that. :)
I don't equate initiative modifier to power the same way you do, I suppose. My gunslinger with a +20 to initiative is one of my weaker PCs. My barbarian with a -2 initiative modifier is easily one of my strongest. Both are level 9, so there's a direct comparison for you.
EDIT -- Quick followup: I will admit, with my slow barbarian, there have been times where I wanted to attack ____, only to find it had already been effectively dealt with. Luckily there are always other things to do in combat that make the game fun for me. However, if all I wanted to do was charge the bad guy every fight, a -2 initiative is going to mean I have a hard time pulling that off going last most of the time.
Going first only matters if the fight ends in one round -- otherwise, both of those characters are going to get to act regardless. A level 2 PC can't end a fight against the CR 27 Demon Lord in one round, even if he does go first. Granted, initiative is a good thing to invest in for everyone -- it's not the end all be all thing to have in my experience.
|
But then I would have as much fun if the Judge just said after Init is rolled "Everyone just mark off 20% of you HP and 10% of you consumables and we'll handwave this encounter". After all, some Judges do that to the RP encounters (even having the term "RP encounter" vs. "Combat encounter" makes my mind hurt - like they are two different things).
To be fair, sometimes that happens because the GM just doesn't have a good handle on the personality of this one NPC in the adventure he was handed half an hour before. And sometimes for other reasons. For instance:
It isn't always about the GM just wanting to get to the combat; without extensive prep time (which PFS doesn't always afford; I've been handed a scenario literally five minutes before game time when it turned out we had too many players for the number of tables once) it can be very difficult to do a convincing job playing the roles of half a dozen or more NPCs to the degree that you can immerse the players. Combat is prominent because it's easy, in the sense that once you know how the system works you can always run a combat, whereas each NPC's personality is different, or should be since your players will notice if they aren't. And sometimes you get a role that you, as a roleplayer, just are not suited for; in the spoilered example me doing that in detail would be kind of like casting James Earl Jones as a seductress; it just doesn't work. :p
|
|
My Diviner Wizard has a huge initiative modifier, and also gets to go in the surprise round. Most of the time, he puts down a control spell (Web has been very effective) and then a buff (most often Haste) to start a combat. This tends to make a combat easier, and get everyone in the party participating.
My Sorceress, on the other hand, has a very low initiative modifier (+1 at last count). She is quite a capable blaster, but being slow she is often the target of enemy fire. Sometimes, she even plays the part of the party tank ... >.<
Neither one dominates a battle to the exclusion of others, but both aid the survivability of their party members. This point has been hammered home several times in this thread. Initiative modifier by itself won't dominate the table for almost any scenario, whereas finding a social and cooperative methodology for characters will enhance the play experience of everyone at the table.
Eh. From a powergaming perspective, Init mods higher than +8 to +10 are a waste of character build resources that could be used elsewhere.
:)
Ultimately it doesn't matter if you beat the opposition by 5 or 15, you still just... go first.
-j
Eh. From a powergaming perspective, Init mods higher than +8 to +10 are a waste of character build resources that could be used elsewhere.
Depends on a number of things. +10 for a wizard is easy to get without heavy investment for instance and they benefit greatly from proactively manipulating the battlefield. One spell can end the encounter, though some spells are less immediate than others. I remember being told several times by several people the trick to being a good spellcaster is being subtle and using the spells that still let everyone else have their fun, such as buffing and save or suck instead of AoE save or die. Color Spray can wipe the whole encounter and leave room for a janitor maybe, but mass confusion or haste won't end it so quickly everyone else can't fight.
+10 still leaves plenty of room to lose to an opponent. It isn't about beating your friends as much as beating your foes so your friends can live to fight another day.
Yeah, but the discussion was mentioning init mods of +15 and higher.
THAT... is a waste in 90% of fights.
-j
Unless you're competing with other similarly high init mods.Yeah, but the discussion was mentioning init mods of +15 and higher.
THAT... is a waste in 90% of fights.
I think this is the crux of what is wrong here.
Pathfinder isn't a competition.
Well, except with the monsters. You tend to not want to lose to them either. Being eaten might be harsh, definitely unpleasant I can tell you that much!
|
Unless you're competing with other similarly high init mods.Yeah, but the discussion was mentioning init mods of +15 and higher.
THAT... is a waste in 90% of fights.
I think this is the crux of what is wrong here.
Pathfinder isn't a competition.
This is very true. I know a few different players that have the viewpoint that they cannot rely on someone else to keep there character alive. So the only way to keep their character alive is to romflstomp all the combats themselves.
These players often forget that this is a team game and if your killing everything as soon as the combat starts it is often no fun for the rest of the party.
Yeah, you're not trying to beat your fellow Pathfinders.
You're trying to beat the opponents. And most don't have Initiative scores that are hyper optimized. The handful that are, oh well, just have a plan ready for if you DON'T go first.
-j
|
|
From a GM perspective, those games are not nearly as interesting with incredibly high inits. Most monster initiatives are only in the +2 to +4 range. Having a 13-19 init mod on every PC starts getting to the point where as a GM you should probably skip the fight because there's not point to playing through it.
I'm also finding it interesting that whenever the subject of a race boon comes up, there are a lot of complaints that it won't fit thematically with PFS for whatever reason. But when a level 2 PC has the same initiative modifier as a CR 27 Demon Lord that can cast 10 wishes a day, we're all kind of ok with that. :)
First of all...the assumption that initiative modifiers are the end all and be all of combats baffles me.
And I am okay with PCs built according to approved rules being allowed to play. Especially given the false equivalency built into the question of the challenge of a monster being directly tied to what range it falls into in a round of combat.
|
|
Unless you're competing with other similarly high init mods.Yeah, but the discussion was mentioning init mods of +15 and higher.
THAT... is a waste in 90% of fights.
I think this is the crux of what is wrong here.
Pathfinder isn't a competition.
This is very true. I know a few different players that have the viewpoint that they cannot rely on someone else to keep there character alive. So the only way to keep their character alive is to romflstomp all the combats themselves.
These players often forget that this is a team game and if your killing everything as soon as the combat starts it is often no fun for the rest of the party.
Not surprising since my experience with these types is they aren't team players. You usually can't rely on them to keep your character alive either. If fact, if you ever do end up rescuing their character for some reason, the seem genuinely surprised that you would do that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is very true. I know a few different players that have the viewpoint that they cannot rely on someone else to keep there character alive.That's a shame.
I think what she means is that they dont want to get screwed over because someone shows up with a build that will somehow end up costing their characters their lives. So they build efficient characters so they dont need to rely on the combat prowess of anyone else at the table to make sure they live. I dont think your characters being self reliant is a problem, as long as you dont hog the spotlight.
While I try to do the same thing with my characters (the self reliant part), I find its often better to have a character that is just able to survive as many different kinds of encounters, opposed to being able to completely destroy many different kinds of encounters. Let someone else do all the killing if they want. As long as I dont die, Im fine.*
*I spend a good deal of time with certain characters just doing stuff to roleplay while in combat, instead of rollplaying. Example: My Diviner (who is very curious) often uses his 'I always go in the surprise round' actions to do something mundane like examine something nearby, since I tend to go before the monsters jump out in the first place. :P
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Initiative is very important to combat, because it's very easy to have really high damage outputs on your PC's.
For example, let's say you have a character who's background is based on hunting demons (which in Year of the Demon, isn't that far fetched.) So when they have a chance to enchant their weapon, they put evil outsider bane on it (which is only a +1, and easily affordable by level 4-5).
Now this is a player who hasn't tried to over optimize, so let's say his strength mod is +3. When this player encounters an outsider now, on one attack he is capable of doing 6+2D6 damage to the outsider even before his weapon roll.
Add in a second or third attack (which is very possible at 5-6) and that becomes 12+4D6 to 18+6d6 before the weapon's damage roll itself. Add in smite or any other judgement, and the damage then begins to explode. And this is someone who hasn't optimized.
Except in the example you provided, that person is optimized to fight an evil outsider. They also have a +2 weapon -- which is hard to get at level 4-5 (is it even possible?). Finally, they have haste to get that third attack, so they've got another teammate buffing them. So yes, when you are well prepared for a specific fight, and work together with your party, evil beware!
I don't see anything in this example that makes me think initiative needs to be capped.
|
|
So when they have a chance to enchant their weapon, they put evil outsider bane on it (which is only a +1, and easily affordable by level 4-5).
It's a +1 that must already have at least a +1 applied to the weapon before it can be applied.
Meaning the weapon is at least a +2.Meaning the enchants alone are 8,000.
Meaning that you must have at least 27 Fame to be able to have a +2 weapon (enough for 11k and some change).
That amount cant be earned, even if you earn every point of Fame, til at least level 5.2, and the cost is still pretty high, assuming the character is playing in their appropriate tier most of the time.
But yes, it is prety simple to get your damage output up to a decent level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Initiative is very important to combat, because it's very easy to have really high damage outputs on your PC's.
For example, let's say you have a character who's background is based on hunting demons (which in Year of the Demon, isn't that far fetched.) So when they have a chance to enchant their weapon, they put evil outsider bane on it (which is only a +1, and easily affordable by level 4-5).
Now this is a player who hasn't tried to over optimize, so let's say his strength mod is +3. When this player encounters an outsider now, on one attack he is capable of doing 6+2D6 damage to the outsider even before his weapon roll.
Add in a second or third attack (which is very possible at 5-6) and that becomes 12+4D6 to 18+6d6 before the weapon's damage roll itself. Add in smite or any other judgement, and the damage then begins to explode. And this is someone who hasn't optimized.
This is when Initative becomes incredibly important, because if people want to have any impact on the battle, they feel that they need to have a really high one just to do anything.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, which makes me wonder why you keep belaboring the point, your problem is not with high initiatives. It's with glory hogs that don't allow others at the table to participate in the battle. This is not a mechanical problem, this is a social one. Which means enforcing a mechanical solution will fail because these people will simply find some other way of doing the same thing. The only solution that will really work is for others to teach them that this type of behavior is not acceptable in the social environment that is PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That means that there's a problem with initiative.
No, that means there is a problem when a player runs a high initiative character that makes the session unfun for the other players. High initiative by itself isn't a problem. Your idea that it should be capped is just treating a symptom of the problem.
I'm assuming that when you said 'High initiatives are a problem when they used exactly as intended' you left out a 'not'.
|
|
As has been repeatedly pointed out, which makes me wonder why you keep belaboring the point, your problem is not with high initiatives. It's with glory hogs that don't allow others at the table to participate in the battle. This is not a mechanical problem, this is a social one. Which means enforcing a mechanical solution will fail because these people will simply find some other way of doing the same thing. The only solution that will really work is for others to teach them that this type of behavior is not acceptable in the social environment that is PFS.
This is the problem. High initiatives are a problem when they used exactly as intended. Most of the examples given in this thread so far have been situations where the person with high init doesn't attack on their first turn, so therefore it's ok.
But if someone who has a high initiative goes first and does what they're supposed to do, then it's a problem. The demon hunter I mentioned earlier (Let's call him Dante), if he has a high initiative and then moves and attacks the demon and kills it in the first attack then he's glory hog or an unsocial player.
That means that there's a problem with initiative.
Have you even tried sitting down with "Dante" and talking about this problem with him? Cause if you haven't, you are just as much a part of the problem as Dante is.
High initiative isn't the problem. It's a symptom.
The problem lies with the player.
-j
|
|
High initiatives are a problem when they used exactly as intended. Most of the examples given in this thread so far have been situations where the person with high init doesn't attack on their first turn, so therefore it's ok.
But if someone who has a high initiative goes first and does what they're supposed to do, then it's a problem. The demon hunter I mentioned earlier (Let's call him Dante), if he has a high initiative and then moves and attacks the demon and kills it in the first attack then he's glory hog or an unsocial player.
That means that there's a problem with initiative.
Double my bafflement and add in a heap of befuddlement.
If a player obeys the rules AND directs a PC in an appropriate combat manner (unless you have a different idea of what "does what they're supposed to do" means), that player is the problem, in part or in whole?
PFS isn't a home campaign. The scenarios are still written with the underlying assumption that the parties succeed. Players prefer for their characters to not only survive combats, but to decisively win them.
As an experienced judge (you know, a GM in an OP campaign), I know how to get around whatever problems initiative would seem to present. But they are hardly anywhere near the actual mechanical issues that one would address in the name of game balance.
|
Have you even tried sitting down with "Dante" and talking about this problem with him? Cause if you haven't, you are just as much a part of the problem as Dante is.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, which makes me wonder why you keep belaboring the point, your problem is not with high initiatives. It's with glory hogs that don't allow others at the table to participate in the battle. This is not a mechanical problem, this is a social one. Which means enforcing a mechanical solution will fail because these people will simply find some other way of doing the same thing. The only solution that will really work is for others to teach them that this type of behavior is not acceptable in the social environment that is PFS.
This is the problem. High initiatives are a problem when they used exactly as intended. Most of the examples given in this thread so far have been situations where the person with high init doesn't attack on their first turn, so therefore it's ok.
But if someone who has a high initiative goes first and does what they're supposed to do, then it's a problem. The demon hunter I mentioned earlier (Let's call him Dante), if he has a high initiative and then moves and attacks the demon and kills it in the first attack then he's glory hog or an unsocial player.
That means that there's a problem with initiative.
While I agree that the high initiative is only part of the problem, talking with someone isn't always a solution.
If "Dante" character is an inquisitor and killings things is his stitch exactly what options he has that aren't using his high initiative and killing things?Saying "your character is too optimized for the average player here, stop using it and make a less efficient characters" is almost certainly unfun for him.
Would you ask a gunslinger or archer to delay his attacks as he killing the enemies is unfun, so he should be the one to wait and find himself in a less optimal situation because the target is no longer surprised, the barbarian has charged it so he suffer the -4 for targeting a enemy in melee and so on?
The best solution would be better designed encounters where there is always enough to do for the whole party, but that isn't always doable.
You cannot design encounters around the hyperoptimized. Period.
Doing so will result in the majority finding it nearly impossible to complete missions, and large numbers of character deaths.
You also cannot fix social problems with more rules mechanics.
If someone is trying to "win" the game at the expense of the other players enjoyment, trying to curb that behaviour by limiting a particular ability will only result in them finding some other way to break the game.
The root cause is the player, not the rules. They do what they do either because they don't realize they are detracting from the enjoyment of their fellow players, or because they don't care.
In either case, if this is ongoing behavior, then communication absolutely works.
If it's the former, where they didn't realize, then hopefully they will take the hint and dial it down a few notches.
If it's the latter, well, discussing it with them should reveal this. If not immediately, then as soon as they continue with their behavior. And these folks don't belong in PFS. I have no sympathy for such individuals if they get ejected from the event.
It doesn't have to be a confrontational approach. Something as simple as "Hey, man, could you tone it down a notch? The other folks here would like to participate too."
But communication is absolutely the solution to the problem. Not more rules.
We already have the most comprehensive rule for this situation already. "Don't be a jerk".
-j
|
Initiative can be either attack or defense. In PF its one of the cheapest defenses you can acquire. (And you may need perception as a counterpoint.)
If you roll average - which I for some reason I rarely accomplish. I roll the 2 and 3 and 5 more often than any other number. So my +20 puts me in at 22, 25, etc. I end up going fist - which is more often than not - haste + move (into cover / position). Then plan round 2.
(How I get there - 14 Kensai, 3 Shadowdancer)
My costs - 14k (dueling weapon - (4)), imp init (4), warrior of old (2). Dex (4) - 0 cost, Int (+6) (adds due to kensai)- 16k. I've bandied about spending 2 feats and eventually getting the scorpion for another +4. Its a very unlikely event.
I don't see the point in capping initiative at (some number) because to get there you needed to put some effort into it. It only pulls the teeth of initiative specialists - rogues, kensai, inquisitors, and oracles. (sorry in case I left someone out.)
Going first isn't always a Panacea. Sometimes its more logical to wait and see what transpires.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot design encounters around the hyperoptimized. Period.
And that is not what I have suggested. "The best solution would be better designed encounters where there is always enough to do for the whole party, but that isn't always doable." is very different from "You should design encounters around the hyperoptimized." A better design could include multiple enemies instead of a single big target, enemy tactics aimed at surviving instead of dishing out tons of damage and so on.
If it is that easy to misread a simple phrase, think how easy it is to misread "Hey, man, could you tone it down a notch? The other folks here would like to participate too." as "You are a jerk".|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if someone who has a high initiative goes first and does what they're supposed to do, then it's a problem. The demon hunter I mentioned earlier (Let's call him Dante), if he has a high initiative and then moves and attacks the demon and kills it in the first attack then he's glory hog or an unsocial player.
That means that there's a problem with initiative.
I'll do you one better. If a Demon Hunter can face a level appropriate challenge for a party of four, and kill it on the first round by himself, the problem isn't the player, or the initiative, it's PFRPG itself that is at fault. Specifically, the idea of Challenge Rating and the desire/need to add more powerful, sometimes unbalanced, options in order to sell new books.
Challenge Rating is based on a party of four core book classes with no archetypes (think iconic pregens) with a 15-point buy. PFS is only just (starting in Season 4) coming to terms with the decision to allow 6-7 person parties (+1 APL) of optimized characters (+1-2 APL), 20-point buy (+1 APL), and higher than CRB wealth (+1 APL), who always start fresh and have a limited number of combat encounters. Except, because PFS only allows average hit points, you really can't throw those level 5 characters against EL 9 encounters all day long.
So it's no wonder that parties are stomping "level appropriate" encounters with Season 0-3's definition of level appropriate. Play some more recent adventures, try to keep parties to 4-5 players, try to keep the level variance within about 2 levels (no one lower than 3 playing with level 5 characters) and try to play the villains smarter than you normally would. These would help your issue more than a simple initiative cap ever would.
And drop it. It's not going to happen, plenty of people have given you good reasons why it doesn't need to happen. You need to open your mind to some of those suggestions, because you're starting to sound like a troll/broken record repeating the same (baseless) argument over and over, and over, and over...
I'm also finding it interesting that whenever the subject of a race boon comes up, there are a lot of complaints that it won't fit thematically with PFS for whatever reason. But when a level 2 PC has the same initiative modifier as a CR 27 Demon Lord that can cast 10 wishes a day, we're all kind of ok with that. :)Which Demon Lord would that be?
Have you been noticing/seeing the same problem with the new scenarios?
Dagon is a CR 28, has a init of +11
Kostchtchie is a CR 26, has a init of +6
Pazuzu is a CR 30, has an init of +13
Xoveron is a CR 27, has an init +6
Shax is a CR 28, has an init of +18 (which is the highest of the demon lords)
Sifkesh is a CR 28, has an init of +12
Nocticula is a CR 30, has an init of +13.All of them can cast wish 10 times a day and can function as an MR 10 creature.
** spoiler omitted **
The problem is still holding true in newer scenarios as well, my table's encounter with mythic creatures was so one sided that the VC attending the event asked how we obliterated them so quickly.
Where are you getting that they get 10 wishes a day?
As for functioning at MR 10, that is only if they are in their own realm, and if you are using Mythic rules, which PFS is not.
Tarma, your arguments so far seem to be only theory crafting, as you have not provided details of any of the problem games that you have referred to (and only 2 games mentioned). Could you please provide details - that is, the scenario, the particular encounters of that scenario and information on the high initiative PCs that shut down the game (class, level, etc.)
Your demon hunter example leaves a little to be desired, as you have a PC using a weapon that they shouldn't be able to afford until late into 5th level (your example was level 4-5), and you have them making 2 or 3 attacks in that round (second iterative attack only shows up at level 6 for full BAB pcs, not 5-6).
This leaves a perception that you system mastery is not fully developed and leaves the rest of your arguments weaker, especially those that are requesting rule changes. Especially when you keep adding in references that do not apply to PFS, like the demon lords.
You cannot design encounters around the hyperoptimized. Period.
And that is not what I have suggested. "The best solution would be better designed encounters where there is always enough to do for the whole party, but that isn't always doable." is very different from "You should design encounters around the hyperoptimized." A better design could include multiple enemies instead of a single big target, enemy tactics aimed at surviving instead of dishing out tons of damage and so on.
If it is that easy to misread a simple phrase, think how easy it is to misread "Hey, man, could you tone it down a notch? The other folks here would like to participate too." as "You are a jerk".
Okay, clearly the main thrust of my post was missed.
What I am trying to say is this is a social behavior problem. Not a rules problem.
Trying to avoid having to confront problem social behavior by hiding behind rules mechanics does not work.
If you try and do so, all that happens is that the problem player finds some other way to break the game.
The exact manner in which they use the rules is only a symptom. The root behavior is deeper than that and can only really be solved with one method.
Communication.
Your words can vary, but ultimately you need to talk with the guy. Confronting someone about jerk behaviour is not in and of itself also "being a jerk". You do have to adjust your approach depending on the situation.
-j