PFS and friendly fire


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I didn't realize I was going hipster. Is there a pill I can take to prevent that? Also, the situations are not the same at all. The first law of robotics says that inaction is RvP. Nothing in the guide says inaction is PvP. You can keep arguing to the absurd and throwing up straw men, but that doesn't mean your argument is correct and/or logical.

If you hate hipsters, I'm sorry for comparing you to one. I was trying to have some levity, since we both apparently think we're smart and like to cite things most people have to look up. For the record, if you want to look like an expert on logical fallacies, not calling out something so infantile as ad hominem when it's prominently on display doesn't do much for your credibility.

But I digress. I'm not bringing the laws of robotics into the discussion per se. I used them as a fairly well known example to serve as a parallel. Yes the events in "The Inevitable Conflict" are impossible for PFS (although maybe not now that we're in Season 6, but that's another thread..) but they serve as an illustration and warning about how things can get out of hand if one insists on a perfect rule against PvP. My point has been that sticking to what some posters have been insisting is RAW still allows for passive PvP, which defeats the purpose they're trying to achieve. My other point is that Mike Brock's own view (shared by myself, and most of the posters in the thread) is the superior way to read the rule.

Scarab Sages

The opposite (being unable to exclude PCs from a negative channel) happens a lot when PCs are stealthing or invisible. Just kind of happens sometimes.

EDIT:

Quote:
My other point is that Mike Brock's own view (shared by myself, and most of the posters in the thread) is the superior way to read the rule.

Superior is pretty subjective. Especially when dealing with the interpretation of deliberately ambiguous rules. I'd say allowing the players to consensually make the a deliberate tactical decision to puts another PC at risk is the right thing to do, but that's just my opinion and there's nothing particularly superior about it. But I'd certainly advocate it!

Sovereign Court

Venture Captain Richard Dangle wrote:

Superior is pretty subjective. Especially when dealing with the interpretation of deliberately ambiguous rules. I'd say allowing the players to consensually make the a deliberate tactical decision to puts another PC at risk is the right thing to do, but that's just my opinion and there's nothing particularly superior about it. But I'd certainly advocate it!

You, me, and most posters in the thread seem to agree that there are infinite options about how a GM may or can adjucate a player's actions that could potentially harm another player's PC. I'm calling that "Mike Brock's view".

The view I've been arguing against is that there is no flexibility. That view is where players may not, under any circumstances, even including having the express permission of said player(s), harm each other's PCs.

It is indeed a pretty black and white dispute. Flexibility is allowed, or flexibility is not allowed. And given Mike Brock's own statements on the issue, my use of "superior" is actually a nod to being charitable and not calling the other side flat out "wrong".


David Bowles wrote:
I personally don't see how a clause that talks about "intentional PvP" in any way protects from carelessly or mistakenly placed AE effects. If an effect's primary target is an opponent, I see no reason that it does't go off. Secondary targets don't trigger the "intentional PvP" as far as I can tell. At least not in a RAW manner, as intent is impossible to prove, so I'd say go off the primary target.

It would be pretty easy to check intent just by pointing out that it's going to hit other party members. If the player goes, "oops, better do something else" then yay for good intentions. If they go "I still want to do it" then that's intentional pvp.

Either way the explosion shouldn't hit the rest of the party unless they agree to it.

Seriously, just imagine yourself as the melee players in this scenario, and everything else will flow naturally.

Liberty's Edge Venture-Agent, Online

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't read the whole thread, but the one thing that struck me was the GM ruling that the default alignment would be the worst case possible for the given situation, as if he felt the need to punish the player for his oversight.

I disagree with the idea that true neutrality is the default because it is common. In fact, I would consider it one of the rarer alignments. I believe most people are, in fact, good.

As for the actual ruling at the table, I think the GM should have selected the PCs alignment based on how the player played the PC, not what would be the worst outcome as the OP indicated.

Scarab Sages

True Neutral would be the default alignment for anyone lacking strong convictions.

Outside this specific instance, the DM calling a character with no alignment written down true neutral would be regarded as a reasonable decision.

Sovereign Court

Michael Hallet wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread, but the one thing that struck me was the GM ruling that the default alignment would be the worst case possible for the given situation, as if he felt the need to punish the player for his oversight.

I disagree with the idea that true neutrality is the default because it is common. In fact, I would consider it one of the rarer alignments. I believe most people are, in fact, good.

As for the actual ruling at the table, I think the GM should have selected the PCs alignment based on how the player played the PC, not what would be the worst outcome as the OP indicated.

Bonekeep is not really designed with a lot of RP opportunities in mind, and there's a time limit. The players may or may not have taken the time to have any character introduction or RP, so it might not have been possible to do that assign alignment based on behavior. Assigning alignment by deity is probably the best way to go. Faction is also a really good area to consider, but not always foolproof. But hindsight is 20/20.

This was, as far as I can tell, a spur of the moment conflict that needed a quick resolution so there's not a ton of time to sit and argue about what alignment to temporarily assign someone elses PC.

If all else fails, let's not forget that the society is a self proclaimed neutral organization. So assuming a neutral alignment does actually have some merit given the people the PC is ultimately working for. And just because good is common in your area does not mean it's common in every other area. All of my PCs but one are neutral on the good-evil axis.

Once again, it's solved by having a fully created character.

Let's not try to read into the motives of this GM and accuse him of being out for blood. His decision was reasonable.

Silver Crusade

deusvult wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

I didn't realize I was going hipster. Is there a pill I can take to prevent that? Also, the situations are not the same at all. The first law of robotics says that inaction is RvP. Nothing in the guide says inaction is PvP. You can keep arguing to the absurd and throwing up straw men, but that doesn't mean your argument is correct and/or logical.

If you hate hipsters, I'm sorry for comparing you to one. I was trying to have some levity, since we both apparently think we're smart and like to cite things most people have to look up. For the record, if you want to look like an expert on logical fallacies, not calling out something so infantile as ad hominem when it's prominently on display doesn't do much for your credibility.

But I digress. I'm not bringing the laws of robotics into the discussion per se. I used them as a fairly well known example to serve as a parallel. Yes the events in "The Inevitable Conflict" are impossible for PFS (although maybe not now that we're in Season 6, but that's another thread..) but they serve as an illustration and warning about how things can get out of hand if one insists on a perfect rule against PvP. My point has been that sticking to what some posters have been insisting is RAW still allows for passive PvP, which defeats the purpose they're trying to achieve. My other point is that Mike Brock's own view (shared by myself, and most of the posters in the thread) is the superior way to read the rule.

First I'm going hipster without realizing it and now I'm calling things ad hominem attacks without realizing it. Maybe I'm going into a fugue state.

Also, I'm not an expert on logical falacies. I used to be, but it's been so long since I had to bother knowing about them that I've forgotten them. I just happened to remember reductio ad absurdum, and it seemed to fit, and I also remembered strawman arguments, and that also seemed to fit.

Also, despite reading a lot os Asimov's books, I had to look up your reference.

Silver Crusade

"Seriously, just imagine yourself as the melee players in this scenario, and everything else will flow naturally."

Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I *expect* to get hit with at least one fireball if there's someone who can cast it in the party. Especially if I am point. Things just sometimes don't go 100% perfectly, and that applies to AE placement as well.

Sovereign Court

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
...and now I'm calling things ad hominem attacks without realizing it. Maybe I'm going into a fugue state.

No, you didn't make use of that tactic. I just noticed you happened to overlook it when someone else used it against me, and by omission of complaint appear to condone it since you were establishing yourself as some authority on logical fallacies by bringing them up for a 2nd time. Maybe you didn't see the other person do it. Maybe you did and condoned it because the poster has been agreeing with you. I don't know and don't presume to know.

Sovereign Court

Lucy_Valentine wrote:
If the player goes, "oops, better do something else" then yay for good intentions. If they go "I still want to do it" then that's intentional pvp.

Haha and what if they go, "sorry, but I'm going to have to get you in my AoE because -INSERT REASON HERE-*, but it's for great justice and will bring us great success" and the other guy says, "yeah go for it, because -INSERT REASON HERE-**"?

Seems like that's less PVP and more Teamwork.

* List 1:

1. Cannot exclude because of positioning or limited range.
2. Cannot exclude from selective feat because they cannot be targeted because of darkness/stealth/invisibility.
3. Cannot exclude from selective feat because limit of excluded targets reached.
4. Cannot exclude because I cannot hit the enemy otherwise.
5. Other

** List 2:
1. I don't care.
2. I'll be fine.
3. I do this for Taldor.
4. It's funny
5. Evasion.
6. You'll heal me later, right?
7. It's good for the party.
8. Other


If the player is aware that his ability can hurt another player then the DM should seek the effected player to agree or not.

If the other PC is completely undetectable, or things beyond the PC knowledge than the player can hurt the other players.

Two instances where a DM let me hurt another player.

SOmeone was playign a dhampire and made a point to not let us know and think he was a human is later dropped in combat. I tried to jam a potion of curelight wounds down him to save him. Here even the player noted that this is what should have happened.

Second time I had a readied action to color spray an oncomming enemy. A PC goes invisible and stealths into my readied action think a crzy high stealth role. He said something about how the bad guy would get a free hit on my PC now. I told the DM I do not know he is there I would continue my action and the DM agreed.

These are two examples of where I would allow another player to hurt anothers without permission. They are few and far between.

Now in the OPs example I feel the DM should have stopped the game and allowed the ranger a chance to accept your casting of the spell or not.

Silver Crusade

I really, really dislike the idea of ranged AE casters being able to magically target their spells in the exact perfect place. And if they get it wrong in a case of a very crowded battle board, they get a magical out because someone doesn't consent? I don't see why there is this level of shielding from arcane mistakes, when other PC mistakes are punished at full force.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There have been a couple of posts in this thread suggesting that the GM in question was blood-thirsty, or gets his jollies killing PCs, or whatever.

Remember, folks, this in Bonekeep. It's supposed to be extra-deadly, Jason Buhlmann is supposed to drink the tears of players who have lost characters there, and so the ruling of hitting another PC with an area effect seems completely appropriate to that dungeon. The GM in question might be much more lenient in other environments. (I have never run it, and don't ever intend to run it, exactly because I don't enjoy that GMing style.)

Silver Crusade

I am very much NOT a bloodthirsty GM, nor do I seek the death of anything other than animal companions. But I object to AE damage casters getting a free pass as described above.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Lormyr wrote:

On the matter of PvP, it's a very simple affair at my tables:

1). No PC may willfully choose to negatively effect another PC without consent from the player who's PC may be negatively affected. The only exception to this is when a PC might become dominated or similar.

2). If a player consents to their PC being effected by a fellow PC's ability, then rolls bad or otherwise fails and something awful happens, the result stands. I would also make certain to the caution any player who appeared to be consenting to something that would likely be very bad for them, just so they would know what they might be getting into.

Concur. I proceed in the same manner.

In a recent scenario with an evil Knife Master Rogue and his invisible ally, the party agreed to be glitterdusted by the the party caster in order to ferret out the invisible baddie. I warned them them that being blind would make them susceptible to the Knife Master's d8 sneak attacks and they all agreed to be 'dusted.

3 of 5 PCs failed the save...


Acedio wrote:
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
If the player goes, "oops, better do something else" then yay for good intentions. If they go "I still want to do it" then that's intentional pvp.

Haha and what if they go, "sorry, but I'm going to have to get you in my AoE because -INSERT REASON HERE-*, but it's for great justice and will bring us great success" and the other guy says, "yeah go for it, because -INSERT REASON HERE-**"?

Seems like that's less PVP and more Teamwork.

I believe I had that covered with the bit you didn't quote:

Either way the explosion shouldn't hit the rest of the party unless they agree to it.

Dark Archive

David Bowles wrote:
I really, really dislike the idea of ranged AE casters being able to magically target their spells in the exact perfect place. And if they get it wrong in a case of a very crowded battle board, they get a magical out because someone doesn't consent? I don't see why there is this level of shielding from arcane mistakes, when other PC mistakes are punished at full force.

What other PC mistakes and punishments are you comparing to?

A fighter can't accidentally stick a sword in the wrong person. Caster players aren't as skilled at targeting spells as their characters are. In the case of wizards the players are typically much less intelligent than their characters are, in the case of 20+ INT wizards everyone is - and I am not even sure how you simulate their level of intelligence. Accurate targeting seems like the least of the issues.

Silver Crusade

Acedio wrote:
Lucy_Valentine wrote:
If the player goes, "oops, better do something else" then yay for good intentions. If they go "I still want to do it" then that's intentional pvp.

Haha and what if they go, "sorry, but I'm going to have to get you in my AoE because -INSERT REASON HERE-*, but it's for great justice and will bring us great success" and the other guy says, "yeah go for it, because -INSERT REASON HERE-**"?

Seems like that's less PVP and more Teamwork.

* List 1:

1. Cannot exclude because of positioning or limited range.
2. Cannot exclude from selective feat because they cannot be targeted because of darkness/stealth/invisibility.
3. Cannot exclude from selective feat because limit of excluded targets reached.
4. Cannot exclude because I cannot hit the enemy otherwise.
5. Other

** List 2:
1. I don't care.
2. I'll be fine.
3. I do this for Taldor.
4. It's funny
5. Evasion.
6. You'll heal me later, right?
7. It's good for the party.
8. Other

Add in genuine error, imo.


David Bowles wrote:
I really, really dislike the idea of ranged AE casters being able to magically target their spells in the exact perfect place. And if they get it wrong in a case of a very crowded battle board, they get a magical out because someone doesn't consent? I don't see why there is this level of shielding from arcane mistakes, when other PC mistakes are punished at full force.

It's because the caster isn't the one paying for the mistake. Blowing up all the melee might or might not be good tactics, but it's not usually good fun for the melee players.

If the casters have free permission to drop fireballs on the fight then that's a pretty big disincentive for anyone to play melee. But you do kind of need a tank.

Silver Crusade

It's not "free permission". But I don't think its fair for the NPCs to allow a tank to engage and then have a caster just lob a fireball in and be able to sample 10-12 squares looking for the perfect spot that won't hit his own guy. Pick a safe spot that does less damage, or be edgier and risk hitting your own guy.

PCs in PFS frequently pay for other PCs' mistakes. Constantly, as a matter of fact. I've seen two TPKs that could have been easily prevented if a cleric had quite swinging and channeled. I don't see why people are advocating for such thorough protections on this one.

Given that there is no threat mechanic in Pathfinder, and many intelligent enemies give up on AC 30+ pretty quickly, I'm not sure what your "tank" is really getting you compared to a system like 4th.

Lantern Lodge

David Bowles wrote:
I really, really dislike the idea of ranged AE casters being able to magically target their spells in the exact perfect place.

Well, it is magic. . .

David Bowles wrote:
I don't see why there is this level of shielding from arcane mistakes, when other PC mistakes are punished at full force.

The "shielding" is not for the arcanes - they are not the ones who will roast or be persistent DC 30 save or sucked. The shield is for everyone else.

Sovereign Court

Unless there's some agreement in advance that a caster will pay for the at least some of the raise dead of someone they blow up accidentally (IE caster takes full responsibility for their mistakes), I'm a little hesitant/unwilling to allow the caster to make that mistake without warning given that it punishes the victim, has no downsides for the caster, and can cause hard feelings between players.

EDIT: At least when the caster deliberately coordinates said friendly fire with their pal, they can make arrangements to pay the hospital bills if necessary.

Silver Crusade

Lormyr wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I really, really dislike the idea of ranged AE casters being able to magically target their spells in the exact perfect place.

Well, it is magic. . .

David Bowles wrote:
I don't see why there is this level of shielding from arcane mistakes, when other PC mistakes are punished at full force.
The "shielding" is not for the arcanes - they are not the ones who will roast or be persistent DC 30 save or sucked. The shield is for everyone else.

But people aren't shielded from stupid party healers. Or bad dpr builds. Or bad positioning. Or bad spell selection. Or lack of preparation. Or lack of methods of dealing with swarms. Or Kyle Baird scenarios. Just this. It makes no sense to me.

Silver Crusade

Acedio wrote:
Unless there's some agreement in advance that a caster will pay for the entirety of the raise dead of someone they blow up accidentally (IE caster takes full responsibility for their mistakes), I'm a little hesitant/unwilling to allow the caster to make that mistake without warning given that it punishes the victim, has no downsides for the caster, and can cause hard feelings between players.

I can understand that. But if I were using AEs, I would be very wary of starting a party death spiral. So there is a downside for the caster.

" can cause hard feelings between players"

Players can already do this by playing one-man wrecking crews and not giving anyone else a chance to do anything. And GMs are mechanically helpless to prevent it. Again, I see this as a case of special treatment.

Sovereign Court

Heads up for edited text, but I think your point still stands. Sorry, I do that a lot =\

Anyway, I don't see it as special treatment so much as a simple way of eliminating at least one source of drama at the table with a little bit of GM intervention.

I also think GM intervention can handle the problem you mentioned, too, but that might be a conversation for a different topic.

Silver Crusade

"Well, it is magic. . ."

Until there is a auto-target spell, as far as I can tell, they are using mundane judgment and eyeballs. And there is a magical method for making it trivial: selective spell. If you want to be lazy, use that.

Silver Crusade

"I also think GM intervention can handle the problem you mentioned, too"

Seeing as how I can't legally stop the abuse of animal companions, much less other actual PC builds, I don't see how. But that is another topic.

This is truly of little consequence, because once I explain how it works at my table, I've never had a single PC caught in an AE that wasn't planned. It just seems strange to me that PCs can negate spells legally cast by other PCs that are not intended to harm that PC based off the language in the handbook.

Lantern Lodge

David Bowles wrote:
But people aren't shielded from stupid party healers. Or bad dpr builds. Or bad positioning. Or bad spell selection. Or lack of preparation. Or lack of methods of dealing with swarms. Or Kyle Baird scenarios. Just this. It makes no sense to me.

I find that your examples are strictly apples to oranges. A PC wizard including another PC in their fireball, confusion, black tentacles, ect. is an "apples" situation - one PC has directly afflicted another with a hostile effect.

"Stupid" party healers? Harmful to party victory, certainly possible - but not a directly afflicted hostile effect.

Bad dpr? Same.

Bad positioning? Same.

Bad PC spell selection? Same.

Lack of preparation? Same.

Hard scenario? Now we are into apples vs. oranges vs. mango. Bad guys are supposed to strive to harm you. Your fellow teammates, with whom your tenets are "explore, report, cooperate" are not.

I do not know any sane individual who would consider a fireball to his face cooperation outside of extreme mitigating circumstances.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You guys think you have it bad with accidental AoE damage now a days, you should have been there during the pre-3E days with Fireballs expanding to fill a volume and lighting bolts ricocheting.

Shadow Lodge

Chris Mortika wrote:
Remember, folks, this in Bonekeep. It's supposed to be extra-deadly, Jason Buhlmann is supposed to drink the tears of players who have lost characters there, and so the ruling of hitting another PC with an area effect seems completely appropriate to that dungeon. The GM in question might be much more lenient in other environments. (I have never run it, and don't ever intend to run it, exactly because I don't enjoy that GMing style.)

Bonekeep doesn't excuse the PvP rule.


trollbill wrote:
You guys think you have it bad with accidental AoE damage now a days, you should have been there during the pre-3E days with Fireballs expanding to fill a volume and lighting bolts ricocheting.

I miss ricocheting lightning bolts!

Also my cleric does not have selective channel. Last week's game was almost TPK, mostly because the front liners were first levels and couldn't keep the enemy mooks far enough away or couldn't get them far enough under 0 (to be fair they were dropping too often to keep the enemies away). Honestly it made for a good game. :)

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast aka heretic

trollbill wrote:
You guys think you have it bad with accidental AoE damage now a days, you should have been there during the pre-3E days with Fireballs expanding to fill a volume and lighting bolts ricocheting.

Yes those were they days: a Fireball filled 33,000 cubic feet , dungeons were narrow and had low ceilings. PvP was the norm and DMs were by definition right.

I am confused by the notion that some GMs would veto a players request that another player help his character out if in doing so there is co-incidental damage.


Avatar-1 wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Remember, folks, this in Bonekeep. It's supposed to be extra-deadly, Jason Buhlmann is supposed to drink the tears of players who have lost characters there, and so the ruling of hitting another PC with an area effect seems completely appropriate to that dungeon. The GM in question might be much more lenient in other environments. (I have never run it, and don't ever intend to run it, exactly because I don't enjoy that GMing style.)
Bonekeep doesn't excuse the PvP rule.

Exactly, this type of thinking is why only certain people can DM bonekeep now to keep these unacceptable ideas out of an alreayd deadly scenario.

Lantern Lodge

trollbill wrote:
You guys think you have it bad with accidental AoE damage now a days, you should have been there during the pre-3E days with Fireballs expanding to fill a volume and lighting bolts ricocheting.

Spellcasting was significantly different all around back then. Contingency and spell trigger made killing high level wizards almost impossible. On the reverse end, interrupting their spellcasting was significantly easier though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:
PCs in PFS frequently pay for other PCs' mistakes. Constantly, as a matter of fact. I've seen two TPKs that could have been easily prevented if a cleric had quite swinging and channeled.

The cleric's player however, should be commended for taking the message board mantra on how one should never heal in battle if they can do damage to heart.

Silver Crusade

"Bonekeep doesn't excuse the PvP rule. "

But doesn't the rule pertain to intentional PvP? Or is there a ruling that makes it all PvP? If so, why not state that players are straight up immune to all effects from other players?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:

"Bonekeep doesn't excuse the PvP rule. "

But doesn't the rule pertain to intentional PvP? Or is there a ruling that makes it all PvP? If so, why not state that players are straight up immune to all effects from other players?

Just as Paizo doesn't want to turn PFS into a SciFi campaign, they won't turn it into World of Warcraft either.

Silver Crusade

Lormyr wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
But people aren't shielded from stupid party healers. Or bad dpr builds. Or bad positioning. Or bad spell selection. Or lack of preparation. Or lack of methods of dealing with swarms. Or Kyle Baird scenarios. Just this. It makes no sense to me.

I find that your examples are strictly apples to oranges. A PC wizard including another PC in their fireball, confusion, black tentacles, ect. is an "apples" situation - one PC has directly afflicted another with a hostile effect.

"Stupid" party healers? Harmful to party victory, certainly possible - but not a directly afflicted hostile effect.

Bad dpr? Same.

Bad positioning? Same.

Bad PC spell selection? Same.

Lack of preparation? Same.

Hard scenario? Now we are into apples vs. oranges vs. mango. Bad guys are supposed to strive to harm you. Your fellow teammates, with whom your tenets are "explore, report, cooperate" are not.

I do not know any sane individual who would consider a fireball to his face cooperation outside of extreme mitigating circumstances.

They are not apples to oranges in terms of lethality. Indirect mistakes are frequently MORE deadly than direct damage mistakes. I have been at tables where I got nuked by my own guys. It was better than having a jellohead healer. At least to me.

Mitigating circumstance: "I thought it would miss you." Done. Intent, to me, trumps end result.

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
PCs in PFS frequently pay for other PCs' mistakes. Constantly, as a matter of fact. I've seen two TPKs that could have been easily prevented if a cleric had quite swinging and channeled.
The cleric's player however, should be commended for taking the message board mantra on how one should never heal in battle if they can do damage to heart.

Sorry, was that sarcastic or not? It's unclear to me.

Silver Crusade

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

Has this language from the guide been expanded via board rulings? If not, I still don't see how it covers genuine mistakes, since that is not "voluntary", it's "unintentional".

Lantern Lodge

David Bowles wrote:
Mitigating circumstance: "I thought it would miss you." Done. Intent, to me, trumps end result.

Perhaps we may just have to agree to disagree then, as I cannot get behind that position at all, and your mind is clearly set on the matter as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is more than just the no pvp rule at work. Many other situations are covered better by the "dont be a jerk" rule.

Silver Crusade

Alright, then. I'm guessing that's a "no", then, on the language being expanded on the boards, then. It's been interpreted this way by the vast majority of GMs. A further ruling or changing of the language would clear this up. Something like "PCs may never cause hp damage to each other under any circumstances."

Silver Crusade

"are covered better by the "dont be a jerk" rule."

But that's an unenforceable non-rule, as everyone has a different threshold for "jerk". That's the supposed defense against hypermunchkins, but it doesn't work there either, because GMs have no legal standing to do anything mechanically about hypermunchkins. Other than shut down the whole table. Yay.

I think people are arguably jerks for showing up with animal companions. Does that really get me anywhere? Should it? Other people think that archery is jerkish. We could go on and on. "Don't be a jerk" rulings just degenerate into name-calling in my experience.


Locally if you stab someone with a knife, and they die from it, it's still murder whether you intended for them to die or not. Claiming you were trying to stab them a little bit and not have them die will not get you anywhere.
I should say that if you voluntarily launch a fireball into your allies, knowing that it will damage them, then if they die yes you just voluntarily killed them.

And no, I don't mind that that gives them a bit of an assist with targeting. I'd rather they had an "unrealistic" level of ability to target giant splash damage effects than that they just killed their own team. I care far less about imaginary metaphysics than I do about friendly fire. If you want a rationale, maybe fireballs actually work by wizards visualising where they want the edge to be. Maybe the time spent at table working out where the template needs to be centred represents the half-second of caster judging intuitively something they've practised a lot.

Lantern Lodge

David Bowles wrote:
I think people are arguably jerks for showing up with animal companions.

Lol Jared and Rod really scarred you for life with those things didn't they? ;)

*Please note, said with a level of humor.*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:
LazarX wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
PCs in PFS frequently pay for other PCs' mistakes. Constantly, as a matter of fact. I've seen two TPKs that could have been easily prevented if a cleric had quite swinging and channeled.
The cleric's player however, should be commended for taking the message board mantra on how one should never heal in battle if they can do damage to heart.
Sorry, was that sarcastic or not? It's unclear to me.

In this venue, You are far more likely to see someone criticizing a player for healing in battle, than complaining of a mistimed fireball.

Lantern Lodge

Sammy T wrote:

Concur. I proceed in the same manner.

In a recent scenario with an evil Knife Master Rogue and his invisible ally, the party agreed to be glitterdusted by the the party caster in order to ferret out the invisible baddie. I warned them them that being blind would make them susceptible to the Knife Master's d8 sneak attacks and they all agreed to be 'dusted.

3 of 5 PCs failed the save...

Yikes, that's rough man. Yet another reason why Blind-Fight is a must for melee's!

Glad to see others believe that to be a reasonable approach. Pull Bruno in here and grapple some sense into folks!

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sprinkles BBQ sauce on David Bowles

101 to 150 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / PFS and friendly fire All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.