|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Ferious, characters are ALWAYS in a position to be killed. This isn't a new circumstance, collateral damage is just one more risk. The goblin rogues might also kill you, as could the pit trap, the glyph of warding, just about anything.
I'm sorry, but given a game where Pathfinders are constantly in danger, what makes this source of danger different?
If the wizard says 'I delay', and you get damaged by goblin rogues, would you feel differently, and why?
The difference is that one player directly damaging another player's character without permission could lead to a real world argument or fight if it goes badly, and that is not a good situation to create in an organized play environment. The section on player vs player combat is not about creating a set of rules to determine what in game actions a character can or can not take. It is about avoiding an out of game situation that could lead to real people becoming upset, angry, or hurt.
If an alchemist throws a bomb and misses, and it happens to scatter and accidentally damage a player's character, that is unintentionally damaging them. If someone drops a fireball directly on top of a 10-year old kid's character, and the kid's character is killed as a result, that is a bad situation out of game. There are many situations that fall in between those two, and it's impossible to define them all and know without asking what is ok and what isn't.
Real people's real emotions are at stake when players fight. Allowing characters to fight, damage, or otherwise disable each other without permission will lead to real people getting hurt feelings. That is what the Player vs Player combat section of the guide is trying to avoid.
|
Acedio,
Here's my thinking on the matter. Am i ok with being fireballed for no reason whatsoever? Of course not.
Am I ok with being fireballed if there IS a reason? Usually always yes.
Perhaps the wizard can end the encounter with a single spell, conserving resources. Perhaps that's the only AoE effect the party has. Perhaps the wizard has realized that the healer has yet to act, and will be able to help the fighter, but only if the swarm has been defeated.
What are the alternatives?
1) Break character in the middle of the game, stop momentum, and ask "are you ok, are you ok, are you ok, may I use my fireball spell now?" This one is clunky, and goes against my idea of a role-playing game.
2) Ban area effect spells. Don't like this one either, the lightning bolts are fireballs are iconic parts of the game.
3) Make the game so simple, that risk to players is zero. This, I REALLY despise. If I wanted to play Candyland, I would. The whole point of Pathfinder is that the rewards come from overcoming risk. If this goes away, then the entire game is cheapened.
I guess I'm somewhat confused as to what you're actually trying to get at, and the alternatives you have enumerated don't seem very feasible or practical.
How exactly is it insufficient for the players to come to a reasonable compromise (sometimes with the assistance of a GM) about whether friendly fire is appropriate?
A big one just like how the military distinguishes te difference of friendly fire and hostile. friendly fire is frowned upon and harshly punished. Also if I was killed by a player lobbing fireballs and saying I was collateral damage I would expect him to pay for the raise I would also expect a wizard to have alternative means of contributing just as I expect the martial to have similar means of contributing.
I'm sorry, but given a game where Pathfinders are constantly in danger, what makes this source of danger different?
Even there, consent matters. I recall reading about soldiers getting medals for ordering fire on their own positions to take out the enemy -- but not about the men who carried out those orders being punished for doing so.
The main difference I can see between that situation and PFS play is that the men firing on that position would not ask for permission to fire on a friendly position -- they would be expected to refrain from doing so unless the person in command at that position orders or requests otherwise.
I think it is entirely sufficient for players to come to a reasonable compromise. That's what I want too. I think protecting new players and young players is entirely reasonable as well.
I also feel like a limited amount of non-lethal collateral damage is acceptable. I'm surprised that others disagree. I also feel that system mastery should increase as the level of the table goes up.
To me, the damage I take from friendly fireball isn't any different than the damage I take because the ranger doesn't have cold iron weapons and the fight will take longer. Not ideal, but just another thing to put up with in the call of duty.
For the record, feel free to use your own judgment as to what's best if you're ever at my table. If you want to discuss things before we head into danger, great. If you want to shout quick instructions, that's fine too. But what I would prefer to see is a table where everyone uses their own notion of whats best for these particular circumstances, in the face of limited information and time pressure.
You know, like we're playing the role of Pathfinders.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player an Gm I have always seen it handeled the way -> You ask if it is ok, if yes fire if no do another thing.
I first got in contact with this rule in a scenario where you fight a Troop (much uglyer swarm with automatic ranged dmg) where my only option was to include a already downed Character in an AOE to get the troop down to kill it before it would TPK us -> Our GM said it would be ok because ALL players at the table agreed to it including the downed player. The result was the downed Player was at -Con+1 and survived barely becuase of a shield other and the troop went down so that the party could survive.
Second great encounter was with my Swashbuckler who said to our blaster: "Nuke me (with Refsaves) if you would get more Enemys with it" (I had an Refsave about over 20 and a kind of evasion (MANY multiclassing)) It was kinda ironic, that i rolled two times a 1 to evade him (and took the dmg without complains (but laughing with the table) -> But it got absolutly hilarious when he got dominated later and was ordered to nuke our party: Because of his actions earlier (he always had me in his AOE) our GM let him place his AOE so that the Big Bad was also included. (Hey you nuke your allys all the time^^)
And the third encounter was where I was scouting (invisible) and gave the Group the Attacksignal and moved back in (while invis) and got cought up in the black tnetacles of the witch because she placed it where it would be most usefull (and wihtout asking me because she had no option th know that I was in the radius) It took me out for a potion of the encounter but teached our groop that invis must be used with communication or at least preperation.
So I think this rule should be used carefully and if noone is activly trying to fight PC vs PC you should allow it if they are ok with it.
|
|
i have always followed it as it is written friendly fire is ok, yes you should ask and sometimes a player will say no and you will need to make a judgement call on whether or not you need to do an aoe. just b/c a player says no does not mean you cant, it does mean you must have a valid reason for it and have a way to remedy the damage you do. it is a case by case issue and it is up to the gm's and the players to be mature and undertanding of the situation.
example i have a negative channeling combat cleric, i do not have room for alot of feats to begin with and other players are not gonna stay out of melee so i can do my thing, so i make sure i have ways to heal anyone i damage.
|
|
Here's the thing, though. Abilities and items exist in the game to allow someone to use an AoE attack without damaging their party. Just like a rogue that wants to get sneak attacks might select feats like Improved Feint or Gang Up to create situations where their ability works, someone who wants to use AoE spells can take Selective Spell or buy a rod of Selective Spell to create more situations where they can use their ability. An alchemist can take precise bombs. A negative channeling cleric can take Selective Channel. Yes, someone running into the middle of combat after being told the wizard wants to cast fireball is being insensitive. A wizard or alchemist who expects to always be using an AoE attack in a game that involves a LOT of small spaces, but doesn't take the options to make that possible without damaging the party, and THEN wants to do it anyway is also being insensitive.
There can be "jerks" on both sides. There can also be people who genuinely are not comfortable with taking intentional damage from their own party. I'll say it again, the no Player vs Player Combat section of the guide is not trying to govern in game situations. It is trying to avoid bad out of game situations. The best thing to do if you know that you plan to use tactics that might create a situation where you need to damage another party member in order to be effective is to talk to the other players before that situation occurs. So Chris, like you say, a compromise needs to be reached, and it should happen before the situation comes up.
A ninja vanishes and sneaks into the middle of a bunch of goblins. The wizard doesn't know this, just sees a bunch of goblins in fireball formation. Is he allowed to let it loose even though the silent invisible ninja rushed in there without telling anyone?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A ninja vanishes and sneaks into the middle of a bunch of goblins. The wizard doesn't know this, just sees a bunch of goblins in fireball formation. Is he allowed to let it loose even though the silent invisible ninja rushed in there without telling anyone?
That's a GM's call to make, though again, it is an out of game call, not an in game call. If a player's argument is they should be able to potentially kill another player's character because they don't know the character is there, that is exactly the type of situation the rule is trying to avoid. If the player of the ninja says, "Yeah, I should have thought of that," then fine. If that's not how the player feels, and the two players can't work it out, then it's up to the GM to decide what's best.
To quote the often ignored section of the Player vs Player Combat rules:
No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While killing another character might seem like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for the other character’s player. Even if you feel that killing another PC is in character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever. Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and is forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.Do Not Bully Other Players
We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between PCs can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and may be asked to leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior. GMs should work with their event coordinators to resolve any out-of-game conflicts. If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table.
Player versus player conflict only sours a session. And the section is followed by don't bully other players. Throwing a fireball on top of another character because you are frustrated with how that character is being played is not ok. That is player versus player conflict. Your goal should not be to be allowed to harm another character against that player's wishes. It should be to avoid a situation like that ever coming up in the first place. Think about it for a second. Saying "I should be allowed to attack him because he didn't tell us he was there" is, as a player, intentionally harming another player's character. Avoiding PvP is absolutely a situation where everyone should step out of character to resolve it. Because, as the guide says, in character you should "figure out some other way for your character to express herself."
So, if an invisible ninja runs into the middle of a group of enemies, it very much depends on the context of the situation. If it's an over zealous, possibly inexperienced player, they probably aren't expecting their teammate to drop a deadly attack on top of them. That's a situation where you may want to point out during the ninja's turn that your character will likely throw a fireball and that you wouldn't know their character is in the radius. Why wait until your turn to do that?
If you've genuinely reached your turn without anyone realizing what's going on, then you should feel free to say, "Normally, I would throw a fireball, but it will catch the ninja, because I don't know he's there." The player has an opportunity to speak up. If you believe it's the only move you can make, you can also speak up, and the GM can decide what call to make.
That's a long way of saying there's no right or simple answer to your question. What this thread should absolutely not result in is defining a line where it's ok to attack another character without at least discussing the situation, because every situation is different, and real world feelings are at stake.
|
|
My call about invisibility and AOEs is that if you are going invis and do not telling the party where youll end up you will get the AOE without speaking against it, becuase the caster has no way to see you or take you out without metagaming. That said, I am mostly the one in the AOE -> yesterday the wizard began casting sleep, the enemys dropped a darkness and i moved to one of them and killed him so when the wizard fired the sleep to the place where it would have reached the two enemys last round it got me (failed save) and en enemy (made his save) and the whole table agreed to that was how it is handled if you fire an AOE blindly (or cant see your teammembers otherwise).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just last night, I was flanked by Kyton-type monsters with only 10 HP remaining. I called to our Arcanist to Lighting Bolt the lot of us, me included.
"I'm thinking I can Lightning Bolt them, but the monk is in the line..."
"Do it!"
"You sure? I'ts 8d6, and you're only level 5 and hurt pretty badly"
"Do it!"
With a +12 Reflex save and evasion at 5th level, I figured it was the better option than dying to constrict. I either make my save and take nothing or use my reroll to avoid dying to my own tactic. I looked to the GM, said "If I fail both rolls, I'll sit here laughing with you!"
|
My only character kill as a GM was from a negative channel I threw up specifically to kill a downed character. And I did that because the Wizard was going to hold off on casting Burning Hands (his last spell) to avoid killing that character (played by his 10 year-old son). I also knew that if he didn't cast that Burning Hands, it was about to be a TPK. (Due to failed save against Blindness, Hold Person, and Bestow Curse.)
I decided I'd rather be the killer GM than have the table try to talk the 10 year old into letting his father kill his character. (I also knew that he had *just enough* PP for a Raise Dead.)
There is a playstyle issue deep down here, and it's versimilitude, the internal consistency that we use instead of 'realism', because let's face it, this isn't a realistic game.
If my invisible ninja gets fireballed against my will, I might:
feel like there was no way the character could have known, and support the decision
OR
feel like there was every way the player knew, and be against that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So, how we feel on this issue (and I'm not discussing rules, I'm discussing feelings) might come from our views on internal consistency within games. Should it be possible to have player knowledge that characters do not have? Should that possibly allow for tragic results like in Romeo and Juliet, where the audience knows more than Romeo does?
Or should Pathfinder play out more like Monopoly, where everything about the game is known except for the outcome of the dice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal feeling is that PFS should push more in the direction of a role-playing game, and less like a board game. So, in the interests of better drama, I accept the occasional tragedy (minor or major).
I realize the PFS guidelines are a bit more on the player knowledge side of things than I want them to be, and I do understand why, it's because of that one player who would ruin it for everyone else.
What are your thoughts?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious. Is this actually a problem in real life or is everybody just arguing theory?
Up here, our rule is simple. No PVP without permission. And that rule works VERY well.
I've seen fireballing of allies, I've seen opposed bluff and sense motive checks, I've seen characters knock each other out. What I have NOT seen is one player ever getting upset about it. Because the player Ok'ed it.
People only ask to do PVP when it is a really good idea or it would be amusing/in character. People generally agree because of that, only refusing when they know something the other player doesn't.
But we're Canadians :-). Our defining national character is supposed to be to be polite compromise :-) :-). Maybe it really IS different elsewhere. Hence my question
|
A ninja vanishes and sneaks into the middle of a bunch of goblins. The wizard doesn't know this, just sees a bunch of goblins in fireball formation. Is he allowed to let it loose even though the silent invisible ninja rushed in there without telling anyone?That's a GM's call to make, though again, it is an out of game call, not an in game call. If a player's argument is they should be able to potentially kill another player's character because they don't know the character is there, that is exactly the type of situation the rule is trying to avoid. If the player of the ninja says, "Yeah, I should have thought of that," then fine. If that's not how the player feels, and the two players can't work it out, then it's up to the GM to decide what's best.
To quote the often ignored section of the Player vs Player Combat rules:
...No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to provide an enjoyable experience for as many players as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session. While killing another character might seem like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for the other character’s player. Even if you feel that killing another PC is in character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever. Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and is forced by that NPC to attack a fellow Pathfinder.Do Not Bully Other Players
We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between PCs can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing everything in your power to make another character
Actually, you couldn't be further from the truth. The no PvP rule gas nothing to do with accidental friendly fire.
It is all about actual inter-party conflict. The kind where characters are trying to steal from one another and kill each other, often because they have out of character issues with on another.
|
|
the common mantra in my area is "withholding healing is *not* PvP"
is this a violation of the "don't be a jerk" rule? probably. but I've also only VERY rarely seen it actually used, and usually against players who were already violating that rule and disrupting the table.
if you're gonna be a jerk and screw up the scenario for everyone else, don't be surprised if no one wants to heal you. if your tactics are idiotic and against the advice of the entire table, that's just darwinism at work. maybe next time you won't charge OVER the protective wall to take on an owlbear solo as a level 1 paladin?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, you couldn't be further from the truth. The no PvP rule gas nothing to do with accidental friendly fire.
It is all about actual inter-party conflict. The kind where characters are trying to steal from one another and kill each other, often because they have out of character issues with on another.
I didn't say it had anything to do with accidental friendly fire. In fact, upthread I said if a bomb misses and scatters to where it will damage someone, that's an accident.
What I'm saying is that the PvP rule is there to govern the actions of the Players, not the Characters. That's why it's PvP not CvC. When a player knows that another player's character is in the area of effect of their spell, and they choose to cast that spell anyway, that is not accidental.
I just don't understand why it is difficult or offensive to ask another player how they feel about that before doing it. There are many examples in this thread where one player was ok with their character being hurt and in fact wanted the spell to be cast. That is perfectly ok. But if that is the blanket rule, eventually you're going to run into a player that is not fine with that, and that is where a conflict starts. By not at least taking the time to ask the other player if they are ok with it, you would be creating the potential for conflict.
As I also said in that same post you quoted, if you legitimately reach a situation where no one involved realized that the character would be damaged, then that it a true accident. Just because a character is unaware of the situation, however, does not mean that the player is unaware of it. So all I'm saying is the rule is telling us that creating situations where there is conflict between the players is bad for the game.
Basically this thread exists because that rule is interpreted one of three ways:
1) It says you cannot intentionally kill another character. Anything else is fair game.
2) It says no player versus player conflict. You can't do anything to harm another character ever, even if all of the players are fine with it.
3) You can harm another character, but only if the player gives permission.
To say 1 is the rule is to say it's ok for a player to drop a fireball on someone new to Pathfinder who may not have know better than to run into the middle of the enemy, without asking or pointing out to them that it would be a bad idea. Do we really want a rule that makes it ok for a 20 year veteran playing the game to "accidentally" kill a new player's character? Do we really want to have to invoke "Don't be a jerk" to stop that? Or do we want players to be considerate of each other in the first place and not create situations like that to begin with?
Number 2 is equally restrictive in the other direction. If all of the players at the table are fine with potentially being hurt or killed by friendly fire, the GM should not step in and stop it from happening. But we have examples like the one that started this thread that this is how it is being ruled.
Number 3 is closer to how it should work, but the rule does allow for friendly fire in the event that the GM decides that allowing the attack is for the good of the table.
What I am saying is trying to force a complicated rule and a complicated situation designed to govern behavior outside the game into one of those three options designed to limit actions in the game is wrong. If the players cannot work it out themselves, the GM should step in and make a decision based on what is best for that table at that time.
EDIT: You are correct that the rule is about inter-party conflict, and that's been my point. When a player knows that their actions could harm another player's character, then no matter what the in game situation is, taking those actions is creating a situation that can lead to inter-party conflict. And that is why the rule applies. So that the players and/or GM can work out the solution before a character gets killed from friendly fire. What that solution is could be anything from, "Yeah, I should have realized that, go ahead," to "Oh, this is your first time playing, let's figure out another option," to "He told you he was going to fireball them. You ran in anyway and almost got yourself killed. The party will likely TPK if he doesn't cast the spell, so I'm going to let him do it." All situations are not created equal.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are correct that the rule is about inter-party conflict, and that's been my point. When a player knows that their actions could harm another player's character, then no matter what the in game situation is, taking those actions is creating a situation that can lead to inter-party conflict. And that is why the rule applies. So that the players and/or GM can work out the solution before a character gets killed from friendly fire. What that solution is could be anything from, "Yeah, I should have realized that, go ahead," to "Oh, this is your first time playing, let's figure out another option," to "He told you he was going to fireball them. You ran in anyway and almost got yourself killed. The party will likely TPK if he doesn't cast the spell, so I'm going to let him do it."
Viewed as "PvP" rather than "CvC", I'd be inclined to rule that the player who had his character dash into an area where a fireball was about to be targeted was the initiator of PvP - he deliberately took an action that would significantly decrease the effectiveness of the party, and invalidate the stated actions of another player, just to satisfy his own desires. He'd have to come up with a pretty convincing reason for his character to do that before I'd disallow the fireball.
Players need to be reminded that the guidelines are "Explore; Report; Cooperate". If you can't play in a manner appropriate for a team member, then don't expect to be treated as a member of the team.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are correct that the rule is about inter-party conflict, and that's been my point. When a player knows that their actions could harm another player's character, then no matter what the in game situation is, taking those actions is creating a situation that can lead to inter-party conflict. And that is why the rule applies. So that the players and/or GM can work out the solution before a character gets killed from friendly fire. What that solution is could be anything from, "Yeah, I should have realized that, go ahead," to "Oh, this is your first time playing, let's figure out another option," to "He told you he was going to fireball them. You ran in anyway and almost got yourself killed. The party will likely TPK if he doesn't cast the spell, so I'm going to let him do it."Viewed as "PvP" rather than "CvC", I'd be inclined to rule that the player who had his character dash into an area where a fireball was about to be targeted was the initiator of PvP - he deliberately took an action that would significantly decrease the effectiveness of the party, and invalidate the stated actions of another player, just to satisfy his own desires. He'd have to come up with a pretty convincing reason for his character to do that before I'd disallow the fireball.
Players need to be reminded that the guidelines are "Explore; Report; Cooperate". If you can't play in a manner appropriate for a team member, then don't expect to be treated as a member of the team.
And depending on the situation, you would be right to rule that way. If, as I said in my example, the situation was Player A says: "I'm going to fireball them." then Player B turns invisible and runs into the middle of them, then, yeah, it's something close to what you're saying.
If the situation was Player B is playing a pregen in their first PFS game, and they turn invisible and run into the middle of the enemy, then Player A, without prior warning, says: "I'm going to cast a fireball on the group, even though I as a player know you're there, and this is your first game of Pathfinder," then the GM should probably step in and find a different solution.
All situations are not equal and reading malice or intent into either player's actions without looking at the specific situation isn't going to solve anything. That is why a distinct line of this is allowed/this isn't allowed shouldn't be drawn. It should be a judgement call based on the situation (and sometimes that judgement will be to allow the attack).
|
|
I have fireball'd party members before, for the lulz. I dropped a 110 point fireball at a 7-11 table in a certain mod, killing two party members and the other creatures there.
Acceptable losses. If I hadn't killed them, along with the creatures there they would have had much higher pp costs to come back to life. 8)
Your in a fight, and sometimes you get dropped into a pit, or trampled on, or any number of things.
You just hAve to laugh and enjoy the game.
|
|
I like to refer to this as letting a player "invoke the PvP rule".
It can even happen after the dice are rolled so long as the victim player obviously didn't agree with it/realise what was going on. It's courtesy play (rather than rules abuse).
The wording of the rule that says you can't kill a voluntarily kill a player ever isn't referring to being in the middle of a gaggle of goblins, it's referring to "you're doing something I don't like and now I'm going to attack you". You can't do that ever.
It gets foggier with the goblin example, and commonsense and permission should be asked. If the victim wants to invoke the PvP rule, the GM should enforce it. The player who wants to make the attack can try and use reason to convince them otherwise, but don't drag the game down doing it.