Obscuring Mist and Darkness builds?

[BigNorseWolf]

David Bowles wrote:

Pets and their legion of apologists.

Your constant, and I mean constant, harping on the evils of pets really grates after a while. You complain about them in EVERY single topic. Summoners? Well they're not as bad as druids. Fog? Well its not as annoying as pets. Slumber hex? Well its not as bad as the pets. Baking contests? Raccoons with profession baker are overpowered.

Quote:

Also, the above post just goes to show how the "don't be a jerk" rule is a non-rule.

Because you may in fact be doing something wrong if every single critter out there blows you away in terms of effectiveness. You cannot control the very subjective tastes of what other people think is the correct level of optimization. You can control your own builds though. If the pets are in the way of your melee THAT much, buy a saddle and ride them into battle so you can share the space and up your mobility.

[David Bowles]

"If the pets are in the way of your melee THAT much, buy a saddle and ride them into battle so you can share the space and up your mobility. "

The owners would have to agree to that. There's no guarantee of that, for sure.

"You complain about them in EVERY single topic."

I feel that they don't get the attention they deserve.

[Jiggy]

David Bowles wrote:

"You complain about them in EVERY single topic."

I feel that they don't get the attention they deserve.

Then make an awareness thread and talk about it there. Currently you're borderline-spamming.

[David Bowles]

Ironic indeed.

[ElyasRavenwood]

Natertot wrote:

Explore Report Cooperate.

Hey Natertot, How are you?

I had an interesting situation a couple of years ago.... we were facing some enemies who were charging us along a large curving passage way carved out of a cliff wall behind a water fall.
My Magus cast Sleet Storm. This made things very slippery and impossible to see. My character took his GOZ mask and gave it to our rogue archer, and suggested she put it on. Once she had the GOZ mask on, she could see where all the enemies were, slipping falling, and crawling towards us, So she began shooting at them. The GM denied them their Dex bonus because they couldn't see where the arrows were coming from through the sleet storm.....did I mention our archer character was a rogue? She made short work of our approaching enemies.

So the Darkness / Obscuring mist thing can work.

[David Bowles]

Jiggy wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

"You complain about them in EVERY single topic."

I feel that they don't get the attention they deserve.

Then make an awareness thread and talk about it there. Currently you're borderline-spamming.

That sounds like a poor idea, really. People sound like they are happy with the way things are. No reason to make further spam.

[BigNorseWolf]

David Bowles wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

"You complain about them in EVERY single topic."

I feel that they don't get the attention they deserve.

Then make an awareness thread and talk about it there. Currently you're borderline-spamming.

That sounds like a poor idea, really. People sound like they are happy with the way things are. No reason to make further spam.

Spam in its own clearly marked container is better than spam in the frosted flakes, and spam in the cheese, and spam in the pasta, and spam in the milk.

[David Bowles]

Really, pet references are only meant to be half complaints. They are also a point of reference for me to compare other class features and such to.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

David Bowles wrote:

trollbill wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

I've been stuck behind THREE large pets before. I went for an hour and a half lunch in the middle and no one noticed. Frankly, I'd rather have been in the middle of obscuring mist or darkness.

Nothing's stopping you from politely pointing this problem out to the other players.

I did. These particular people told me to make a PC with more movement and better initiative.

Might I suggest having a fancy tea party whenever this happens? ^^ Just take your time describing how you make the tea, arrange the tableware, unfold the tablecloth ... after all you have the same right to an action in combat as everyone else. And summoners/druids have no to place to complain.^^

PS: My highest PFS character (cough level 2) is a hunter ^^

[David Bowles]

There's no reason to do that. I just wish I could get my sheet and let them win Pathfinder, though, and not have to sit through it.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

David Bowles wrote:

There's no reason to do that. I just wish I could get my sheet and let them win Pathfinder, though, and not have to sit through it.

Well if it helps, you can ride my tiger any day... once it is large, it would pretty silly otherwise ^^ And yes, this means that players should remember not to hog the spotlight all the time.

[Artanthos]

trollbill wrote:

Several of my characters have Wands of Obscuring Mist simply because it is way too useful, especially in covering retreats and protecting from ranged attacks. I don't think I have ever kicked off an Obscuring Mist that would effect other people at the table without checking with the rest of the players first to get a consensus. I know I am not going to get 100% agreement, but if most the party is at least okay with it then I cast it. But at least I am trying to be as considerate as I can be with the rest of the table. It's not perfect because social interaction will never be perfect, but most of them realize I am at least trying to be considerate of them even if I did something they didn't like. It's really just that simple.

My magus carries Obscuring Mist for much the same reason. If I can shut down enemy archers or a caster I cannot reach, I'll do so and deal with the 20% concealment in melee.

[Dhjika]

Artanthos wrote:

My magus carries Obscuring Mist for much the same reason. If I can shut down enemy archers or a caster I cannot reach, I'll do so and deal with the 20% concealment in melee.

If I have a character without darkvision that can use obscuring mist or UMD I always have a wand of obscuring mist. No attack of opportunity and the ability to shutdown some darkseeing sneak-attack NPCs. When you are otherwise blind, obscuring mist levels the playing field - especially against sneak attacking ranged attackers.

And against archers, or touch attackers, it sometimes the only way to cut back on attacks.

[David Bowles]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

There's no reason to do that. I just wish I could get my sheet and let them win Pathfinder, though, and not have to sit through it.

Well if it helps, you can ride my tiger any day... once it is large, it would pretty silly otherwise ^^ And yes, this means that players should remember not to hog the spotlight all the time.

I think in my specific example, two of three pet owners had somewhere to be.

[Sammy T]

@dhijka: 20% concealment still allows for AOOs

[Eric Brittain]

As a judge for PFS I feel it is absolutely my right in a situation where a player's PC would be negatively effected by another player's PC's actions where the first PC does not agree with or want to suffer the consequences of that action to deny that action as PvP. This is not only a right but a responsibility to maintain the social collaborative core of the game.

THe reasoning behind the acting PC's actions are irrelevant. The only factor that matters is if the player of the PC potentially suffering the consequences of that action is ok with it or not. If they are ok (and if multiples if they are all ok) with it then game on, otherwise chose another action (learn to be a more cooperative player).

Organized play is not for everyone and if you are a player that cannot abide by the fact that the game has these boundaries then perhaps you should seek your fun elsewhere.

The game needs to be safe for the players (not their PCs) to enjoy.

---
As a player you will run into variation on the PvP rule as well as the "don't be a jerk" rule. That is just the nature of the beast. As much as we try to make the game largely the same regardless of wher you play there will be table variation.

My strong suggestion if you run into a situation where you are looking at playing with a table where you do not think you are going to have fun with is to no play with that table. I believe that not playing is better than playing and not having fun.
---
It is also my position that pets are just an extension of the PC as they are part of their class abilities. As such they are subject to all o the limitations and constraints that the player's PC is subject to. This includes no PvP.
---
And David Bowles, please consider making a seperate thread to raise your issues instead of sprinkling them in the middle of other issues. Who knows you bringing something up clearly and directly could change the way the game plays and make thing better for everyone.

[Dhjika]

Sammy T wrote:

@dhijka: 20% concealment still allows for AOOs

of course, but only from 5 feet away

[Dhjika]

David Bowles wrote:

Really, pet references are only meant to be half complaints. They are also a point of reference for me to compare other class features and such to.

(to diverge a bit)

I find that letting pets go on the same initiative as their owners enhances the power of having a pet. Especially in high initiative player builds.

If you split owner and pet initiatives, then giving a pet a command and having it obey on its turn reduces the effectiveness a bit - and if the pet goes first, then the pet waits for a command. And sometimes by the time the pet acts the command no longer makes sense.

[David Bowles]

After digging around, I have found other threads that have pretty much already covered the topic of druids/pets. I'll just discipline myself and use another class feature as a point of reference for comparisons and quit talking about problems no one can fix.

[Artanthos]

Eric Brittain wrote:

As a judge for PFS I feel it is absolutely my right in a situation where a player's PC would be negatively effected by another player's PC's actions where the first PC does not agree with or want to suffer the consequences of that action to deny that action as PvP. This is not only a right but a responsibility to maintain the social collaborative core of the game.

Even in a situation where other members of the party will be negatively affected if the action cannot be taken?

You are giving one player the power to veto another players ability to assist the party.

[David Bowles]

Artanthos wrote:

Eric Brittain wrote:

As a judge for PFS I feel it is absolutely my right in a situation where a player's PC would be negatively effected by another player's PC's actions where the first PC does not agree with or want to suffer the consequences of that action to deny that action as PvP. This is not only a right but a responsibility to maintain the social collaborative core of the game.

Even in a situation where other members of the party will be negatively affected if the action cannot be taken?

You are giving one player the power to veto another players ability to assist the party.

I was gonna say that, but figured it had been said already. I personally don't think that a GM should be stopped an obscuring mist that allows a dominate person to go off. Maybe the person being adversely affected by the obscuring mist needs to learn to be more cooperative. So others don't get mind raped.

[Eric Brittain]

Artanthos wrote:

Eric Brittain wrote:

As a judge for PFS I feel it is absolutely my right in a situation where a player's PC would be negatively effected by another player's PC's actions where the first PC does not agree with or want to suffer the consequences of that action to deny that action as PvP. This is not only a right but a responsibility to maintain the social collaborative core of the game.

Even in a situation where other members of the party will be negatively affected if the action cannot be taken?

You are giving one player the power to veto another players ability to assist the party.

Yes even in this case. Even more so since I am the one who controls how the party will be negatively effected (within the limits and constraints of the PFSOP rulesets).

I also find that there are lots of ways to "save the party" that do not involve PVP.

Edited to expand commentary

[David Bowles]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree and hope it never comes up then. I don't think another player should have the right to get my PC bombarded by something unpleasant.

[Eric Brittain]

David Bowles wrote:

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree and hope it never comes up then. I don't think another player should have the right to get my PC bombarded by something unpleasant.

Your last sentence is my point exactly.

[David Bowles]

There's a big difference between obscuring mist and dominate person, however. I think that's where your position kind of falls apart. Intentions matter. I don't think a single player should be able to veto party tactics. Ever.

[Eric Brittain]

and yet a party is composed of only of single players.

There is no entity called a "party" that doesn't include every single person at the table.

Hiding behind the veil of "it is what everybody wants" while excluding someone at the table is just bullying by committee.

Without a strong defense of the communal (as in including everyone) aspect of the game a lot is lost and the game devolves into pure tactics and an exchange of rules. It loses the deeper archetypal underpinnings that ties us into myth, legend, and the stories shared late at night that define a group.

---
It seems that we disagree and odds are that our paths will never cross. I truly hope that all of your games are amazIng experiences that other people will talk about for years to come. May only good gaming be yours.

[Artanthos]

Eric Brittain wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

Eric Brittain wrote:

As a judge for PFS I feel it is absolutely my right in a situation where a player's PC would be negatively effected by another player's PC's actions where the first PC does not agree with or want to suffer the consequences of that action to deny that action as PvP. This is not only a right but a responsibility to maintain the social collaborative core of the game.

Even in a situation where other members of the party will be negatively affected if the action cannot be taken?

You are giving one player the power to veto another players ability to assist the party.

Yes even in this case. Even more so since I am the one who controls how the party will be negatively effected (within the limits and constraints of the PFSOP rulesets).

I also find that there are lots of ways to "save the party" that do not involve PVP.

Edited to expand commentary

At this point, I refuse to heal the offending party member, and discourage other party members from healing him as well.

Refusing to heal is not PVP. After he falls down, I can go back to blocking the NPC's line of sight.

I don't cast spells that affect other players lightly, and if I do, there is a good reason. I've had a near TPK because 1 player refused to consent to an AoE when the entire party was being eaten by army ants. We survived only because the cleric excluded him from healing and allowed him to die. After that, I was able to kill the swarms.

[trollbill]

Eric Brittain wrote:

Hiding behind the veil of "it is what everybody wants" while excluding someone at the table is just bullying by committee.

While ideally everyone at the table should be discussing the issue and attempting to come so sort of compromise/agreement, this is not always going to be successful (just look at congress) and someone is going to have to not get what they want. Surely, under such circumstances, bully by committee is better than bully by the individual. After all, the entire point of the "Don't be a Jerk" rule is that no one individual should be able to ruin everyone else's fun.

[trollbill]

Artanthos wrote:

At this point, I refuse to heal the offending party member, and discourage other party members from healing him as well.

Refusing to heal is not PVP. After he falls down, I can go back to blocking the NPC's line of sight.

Passive aggressive PVP may not be PVP by RAW but I am pretty sure it is by RAI. To me, it's not any better.

[nosig]

Eric Brittain wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

Eric Brittain wrote:

As a judge for PFS I feel it is absolutely my right in a situation where a player's PC would be negatively effected by another player's PC's actions where the first PC does not agree with or want to suffer the consequences of that action to deny that action as PvP. This is not only a right but a responsibility to maintain the social collaborative core of the game.

Even in a situation where other members of the party will be negatively affected if the action cannot be taken?

You are giving one player the power to veto another players ability to assist the party.

Yes even in this case. Even more so since I am the one who controls how the party will be negatively effected (within the limits and constraints of the PFSOP rulesets).

I also find that there are lots of ways to "save the party" that do not involve PVP.

Edited to expand commentary

so here's an example from one of my last games... I actually was the judge at this one...

Wall of Text:

Party consists of (something like) the following...

1st level Ranger (archer) (2 XP)
1st level (Newbie running a...) Barbarian Iconic
1st level Bard (second PC, first game - so 0 XP)
1st level Rogue
5th level Ranger (archer/Elf)
4th/1st level Cleric/Ftr (High AC, no real effective attacks)

I was surprised at how well the high level players hung back and let the 1st levels shine - backing them up and letting them do much of the driving in the encounters. (the High level ranger at one point handing the low level blunt arrows to use at skeletons, and the Cleric prepping Shield Other to keep the low level Melees in the fight)

Late in the game they have moved undetected around some Mook guards and are able to catch the enemy BBE (Oracle Caster) in a small room alone, when she gets off an Obscuring Mist ... and "the situation" pops up.

The Bard starts to sing.
The Cleric, realizing that the enemy is a spell caster drops a silence into the mist beside where he thinks the BBE is, leaving much of the party outside it's AOE, but preventing the BBE from casting spells... In fact the mist and the silence have much the same AOE...

The Barbarian and rogue dive into the silent mist... followed shortly by the two Rangers as they draw melee weapons... leaving the bard outside the mist a little put out that the Cleric's silence has cut her song off from the melee in progress in the mist.

Now, I as the judge, realize that the PCs currently fighting the BBE would have a very hard fight if she could use her spells (for example, Inflict Moderate Wounds is great against 1st level PCs...)... so...

Would it be ok for me to tell the Cleric "Sorry - your Silence spell is PvP - because the Bard is singing and you are preventing him from having an effect in combat"?

Or should I just ask the Bard "you ok with the Silence?" realizing that the Bard is going to say "No way! I can't even cast spells in there!"? Do I give him the athority to prevent the clerics action (which also totally nerfed my BBE)?

Or do I make a judgement call, and decide "what would be better for the players", or "what would be more fun"? Realizing that my spellcasting BBE just got dogpiled by 1st level PCs in a silence?

Or do I just let the players play their PCs the way they see them?

Tough call...

Each time we (as judges) expand "stepping in" and "disallowing player/PC actions", the players loose a little "freedom of expression", and we move closer to game where we don't need player input - one were we (as judges) dictate every action on the parts of the players/PC... Some times we have to. For myself (both as a player and as a judge) I just try to limit the times it is needed as much as I can...

[GM Lamplighter]

Or do you combine a few of those options into something like this?

GM: So, that silence is going to cut off the bard's song, you realize?

Cleric: Yeah, but we need to stop the BBEG from casting spells!

GM: Fair enough. Bard, What do you think about that?

Bard: Well, it ruins what I was doing!

GM: yes, it does, but given the new information provided by your more-experienced colleague, and the difference between the bonus you are providing and *total immunity* to the BBEG's spells, do you want to continue your current course or adapt to the situation as it has evolved?

Bard: ...

(OK, I would use less-snarky tones in real life.)

"Freedom of expression" is already limited: We don't allow people to play evil PCs, or be jerks, or a bunch of other things because they are not good for the campaign as a whole. Neither is the tacit permission to mess with your fellow players.

[nosig]

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Or do you combine a few of those options into something like this?

GM: So, that silence is going to cut off the bard's song, you realize?

Cleric: Yeah, but we need to stop the BBEG from casting spells!

GM: Fair enough. Bard, What do you think about that?

Bard: Well, it ruins what I was doing!

GM: yes, it does, but given the new information provided by your more-experienced colleague, and the difference between the bonus you are providing and *total immunity* to the BBEG's spells, do you want to continue your current course or adapt to the situation as it has evolved?

Bard: ...

(OK, I would use less-snarky tones in real life.)

"Freedom of expression" is already limited: We don't allow people to play evil PCs, or be jerks, or a bunch of other things because they are not good for the campaign as a whole. Neither is the tacit permission to mess with your fellow players.

from the reactions of the Bard in game? She would have disallowed the spell, or any other action the cleric had suggested at that point. She was very put out that the only thing she could do was nerfed. In fact, she continued to sing even with everyone but her and the Cleric in the silence - and ended up drawing the bypassed guards from the other room, into the fight (the Cleric was actually blocking/plugging the doorway, and failed to realize that she could shut it to reduce the sound of the bard song - So when the guards arrived they ended up fighting the Cleric who was all AC and hard to get past... That continued until the rest of the party arrived...

[nosig]

GM Lamplighter wrote:

...

"Freedom of expression" is already limited: We don't allow people to play evil PCs, or be jerks, or a bunch of other things because they are not good for the campaign as a whole. Neither is the tacit permission to mess with your fellow players.

I realize that "Freedom of expression" is already limited: My point is, do we need to expand on those limits more? restrict the actions of the players more... do we need to dictate what the PCs can do even more than we do now? or let them "work this out on their own"?

These two players (the Bard and the Cleric) are likely not to sit at the same table together again, at least for a while. They have encountered each other before, and (unknown to me) likely have "baggage" from those past encounters. In the future they will most likely solve this issue the way we (gamers in general) have solved it for many years. If we have a problem playing with someone - we avoid playing with them. Problem solved. We play with people we like to play with, and avoid people we have problems with. Even if the people we have problems with are great players/people/whatever - if we have a problem playing with someone, we avoid playing with them. We do not need the judge to act as a police man, or kindergarden teacher to enforce order and rules of etiquette.

so, yes, ""Freedom of expression" is already limited:" - I just don't think that we need to expand those limits even more...

I beleave that that way leads to: "you are not playing it right - you are having 'bad fun'"...

[Finlanderboy]

Int he bard situation I think it is foolish the players can nto protect themselves with a silence spell. If the bard said no, you can nto silence the area, and I got killed by an inflict moderate I would be upset the bard did not let the party play as a team and would be furious at the DM, and would never want to play with the selfish bard again.

That cleric drop a protection spell with silence on the bad guy to help his team, and because the bard could not help with a different effect they can veto that protection. No. They can always do other things like aid another.

[Artanthos]

trollbill wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

At this point, I refuse to heal the offending party member, and discourage other party members from healing him as well.

Refusing to heal is not PVP. After he falls down, I can go back to blocking the NPC's line of sight.

Passive aggressive PVP may not be PVP by RAW but I am pretty sure it is by RAI. To me, it's not any better.

Are you now advocating taking control of characters away from people who don't play the "right" way?

You've already advocated giving one character the ability to veto usage of spells and abilities in situations where those spells and abilities could mean the difference between survival and an TPK.

Is forcing a party TPK by vetoing everyone else's abilities PVP?

[Finlanderboy]

Artanthos wrote:

Eric Brittain wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

Eric Brittain wrote:

As a judge for PFS I feel it is absolutely my right in a situation where a player's PC would be negatively effected by another player's PC's actions where the first PC does not agree with or want to suffer the consequences of that action to deny that action as PvP. This is not only a right but a responsibility to maintain the social collaborative core of the game.

Even in a situation where other members of the party will be negatively affected if the action cannot be taken?

You are giving one player the power to veto another players ability to assist the party.

Yes even in this case. Even more so since I am the one who controls how the party will be negatively effected (within the limits and constraints of the PFSOP rulesets).

I also find that there are lots of ways to "save the party" that do not involve PVP.

Edited to expand commentary

At this point, I refuse to heal the offending party member, and discourage other party members from healing him as well.

Refusing to heal is not PVP. After he falls down, I can go back to blocking the NPC's line of sight.

I don't cast spells that affect other players lightly, and if I do, there is a good reason. I've had a near TPK because 1 player refused to consent to an AoE when the entire party was being eaten by army ants. We survived only because the cleric excluded him from healing and allowed him to die. After that, I was able to kill the swarms.

As a DM I would rule that the player not wanting to use the PVP would need to take every single effort to get out of the way before they could veto this action. If they are using the No PVP rule to cause the party harm they are beign jerks. They need to leave the table. I have seen it before. The fact a player needs to allow someone to die or close to it to save themselves or the party is silly. I have been there and the DM needs to step in and alert the offending player(s) they are being jerks and may be removed from teh table.

[Natertot]

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Natertot wrote:

Explore Report Cooperate.

Hey Natertot, How are you?

I had an interesting situation a couple of years ago.... we were facing some enemies who were charging us along a large curving passage way carved out of a cliff wall behind a water fall.
My Magus cast Sleet Storm. This made things very slippery and impossible to see. My character took his GOZ mask and gave it to our rogue archer, and suggested she put it on. Once she had the GOZ mask on, she could see where all the enemies were, slipping falling, and crawling towards us, So she began shooting at them. The GM denied them their Dex bonus because they couldn't see where the arrows were coming from through the sleet storm.....did I mention our archer character was a rogue? She made short work of our approaching enemies.

So the Darkness / Obscuring mist thing can work.

Hello Elyas,

Doing well.

As to the whole Darkness/Obscuring mist thing, I think it is a potential strategy if your group all knows about it before hand and if it is used sparingly.

Probably best to be reserved for when you feel you are all in the deep doodoo and can't get out any other way.

Nathan Meyers
NYC PFS GM/Player

[Dragnmoon]

I am assuming there I more to that story then the cleric casting into the mist since the mist would block line of sight.

[shamrock13]

I have played a shadow caster for some time now. I use spells like communal dark vision on PC's who need it to mitigate anything that would take from their game/fun. There are times when I have pulled punches so that others could "get their chance" and to keep things fun and not monotonous or boring. I haven't had any issues yet and I have a great time!

[trollbill]

Artanthos wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

At this point, I refuse to heal the offending party member, and discourage other party members from healing him as well.

Refusing to heal is not PVP. After he falls down, I can go back to blocking the NPC's line of sight.

Passive aggressive PVP may not be PVP by RAW but I am pretty sure it is by RAI. To me, it's not any better.

Are you now advocating taking control of characters away from people who don't play the "right" way?

No, that is what your doing by saying it is okay to circumvent the intent of the PvP rules on a technicality. There is no effective difference between deliberately killing someone and deliberately letting them die. In both cases, your actions were intentional and your desired outcome was to have that someone die. Just because one method lets you escape punishment on a technicality doesn't make you any less of a jerk. In fact, I would argue it makes you more of one because you know what you are doing is wrong but don't care because you think you can escape punishment for it.

Quote:

You've already advocated giving one character the ability to veto usage of spells and abilities in situations where those spells and abilities could mean the difference between survival and an TPK.

I did? Really? Where?

Quote:

Is forcing a party TPK by vetoing everyone else's abilities PVP?

I don't understand what this has to do with what I have said. All I was trying to say was, is that if it is wrong for your character to deliberately kill another character at the table by action, then it is wrong for you to deliberately kill another character at the table by inaction ('deliberate' being the key word and by your example your suggested actions were definitely deliberate). The fact that you may escape punishment for the latter does not make it any less wrong. There are better solutions than killing off PCs whose actions you don't like. If no consensus can be met then the players should ask the GM to step in. If that fails, then everyone getting up and leaving the table in protest is still a better solution, IMO, than conspiring with the other players to make one PC do what you want or die.

[Eric Brittain]

As the cleric actions that nosig reported do not effect the bard player's PC but rather the effects generated by the bard player's PC I would not have ruled it PVP.

Helping the any inexperienced player explore their options (when they are open to it) would be something I would consistently recommend.

[nosig]

Dragnmoon wrote:

I am assuming there I more to that story then the cleric casting into the mist since the mist would block line of sight.

Please expand on this.

[GM Lamplighter]

Let's not take individual rules in isolation. If the bard in nosig's example had "baggage" with the other player, and was complaining beyond what was reasonable, then this goes way beyond a PvP ruling.

Eric is correct, the silence doesn't affect the bard directly, and so in this specific case, if the bard would not budge then I would let the cleric cast the silence spell, perhaps reminding folks that they are a team and should try to work together and use each other's strengths.

(Of course, I also work to avoid a 4-level split like the party that was described, but that can't always be avoided. When the players all have the same number of options this happens far less often.)

[nosig]

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Let's not take individual rules in isolation. If the bard in nosig's example had "baggage" with the other player, and was complaining beyond what was reasonable, then this goes way beyond a PvP ruling.

Eric is correct, the silence doesn't affect the bard directly, and so in this specific case, if the bard would not budge then I would let the cleric cast the silence spell, perhaps reminding folks that they are a team and should try to work together and use each other's strengths.

(Of course, I also work to avoid a 4-level split like the party that was described, but that can't always be avoided. When the players all have the same number of options this happens far less often.)

my problem is highlighted with your statement bolded above. Do we need the Players to clear actions with us as judges? When do we? Why? If the player decides to cast a Daylight, does he have to clear it with the judge? (I have had one of my PCs blinded by another player when he cast Daylight - I was running a Crypt Braker Alchemist and using her "sorta mutigen" gives the her "Light blindness"...)

Do we "let the cleric" cast spells, or do we just prevent actions that are "out of bounds"? Is this game driven by player actions/choices, or defined by what is "inside the lines"?

I don't think there are clear answers here - just ways of looking at the problem.

[Artanthos]

trollbill wrote:

Quote:

Is forcing a party TPK by vetoing everyone else's abilities PVP?

I don't understand what this has to do with what I have said. All I was trying to say was, is that if it is wrong for your character to deliberately kill another character at the table by action, then it is wrong for you to deliberately kill another character at the table by inaction ('deliberate' being the key word and by your example your suggested actions were definitely deliberate). The fact that you may escape punishment for the latter does not make it any less wrong. There are better solutions than killing off PCs whose actions you don't like. If no consensus can be met then the...

When that one player's refusal to allow other players to act is killing the entire group yes, I will advocate allowing him to die. Once the character is dead, the veto dies with him. Had he consented to the AoE, the party would have sustained less damage and he would have survived. To go one step further, AoE damage automatically removes clinging army ants and would have put an end to the continuing damage that wound up killing him.

[Dragnmoon]

nosig wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

I am assuming there I more to that story then the cleric casting into the mist since the mist would block line of sight.

Please expand on this.

Sent a PM

[trollbill]

Artanthos wrote:

When that one player's refusal to allow other players to act is killing the entire group yes, I will advocate allowing him to die. Once the character is dead, the veto dies with him. Had he consented to the AoE, the party would have sustained less damage and he would have survived. To go one step further, AoE damage automatically removes clinging army ants and would have put an end to the continuing damage that wound up killing him.

I am sorry that you think that is the best possible solution to the problem.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

In the example Nosig provided, it seemed pretty clear, that the bard was not the player most likely to suffer from the BBEGs attacks.

If the bard was allowed to veto the action, and it got someone killed (not unlikely with this party split), well that would not have been pvp, but just plain stupid and IMO a jerk move.

Excluding characters from the effect of a channel energy seems to violate the don't be a jerk rule too, but there are plenty of legal option that do not have to target the problem player, like casting a cure spell on another player.

I think it is only reasonable to veto if the group has consent except for one player, if the decided action would place said player in undue danger.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

PS. Healing is your own responsibility, just because someone on the group is able to cast heal spell, doesn't mean, that he has to play the healbot. Cooperation should always happen, but this doesn't mean, that the group has to support a player in his chosen combat style.

If a player with a barbarian always charges into the midst of enemies, and gets cut to ribbons, this could force other characters to spend their actions in combat on healing (so the barbarian doesn't simply die once the rage ends).

[nosig]

Dragnmoon wrote:

nosig wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

I am assuming there I more to that story then the cleric casting into the mist since the mist would block line of sight.

Please expand on this.

Sent a PM

replied.