Rules on players damaging other players changed ?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

the FLGS I have been playing at recently has started quoting a rule change on AE Spells from players with other players in the Area

the rule they are quoting is that it cannot be done - Period - Regardless of if the other players consent or not -and presumably regardless of weather the attack would actually kill the PC

this also came up last week while spending a standard action to Wake a PC that was under the effect of Deep Slumber I was asked "Would this fall under hurting another PC?"

ok ... sure if such a rule exists Im all for it.

only 1 problem - I cannot Find it in the PFSOPG, the only rule is

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

again if there is a rules change then fine - but Id just like to see a source, I can think of 1 situation off the top of my head where this kind of Ruling would be more harm than good - Swarms

Edit ---edited for format and examples

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ask them for a source, but to my knowledge you have quoted the correct (and often misinterpreted) rule.

5/5

I havent seen any such rule.

Dark Archive

I've used acid splash and a wand of Magic missile to wake up the meat shield on several occasions in PFS. If you think it's a,major problem is just speak to you VC, explain the situation and your concern and have him clarify with the VLs so that the distinction gets out to the GMs. In learning to GM you are taught that pvp is forbidden, but your situation is far from pvp. (If your fighter was mind controlled would he allow the rest of the party to fight back?)

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

I don't believe that rule actually exists in a written source, especially since the guide has not bee updated yet.

And frankly while I can see where this line of reasoning comes from, making it a blanket rule that doesn't even give players the chance to agree, is something I really can't agree with.

Swarms are a good example, and alchemists being unable to throw their alchemists fires and bombs ... cause they WILL miss (trust I am one of them), I don't think that this rule would actually help.

Most of those corner cases are well covered under don't be a jerk.

Shadow Lodge

trust me I am well aware of all the yes's, No,s , Corner cases, fringe events, Failed saves, Natural 1's and all that

my main thing is before I take this to the store coordinator and VL of the Store I want to make Absolutly sure that I am in the Right here

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Wraith235 wrote:

trust me I am well aware of all the yes's, No,s , Corner cases, fringe events, Failed saves, Natural 1's and all that

my main thing is before I take this to the store coordinator and VL of the Store I want to make Absolutly sure that I am in the Right here

TO reiterate what BartonOliver said, just ask them for a written source, you are unlikely to get one.

4/5

With swarms and such, for Sarenrae's sake throw the bomb, splash damage will hurt less than the swarm will.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RealAlchemy wrote:
With swarms and such, for Sarenrae's sake throw the bomb, splash damage will hurt less than the swarm will.

Or withdraw and get ready and when the player dies kill the swarm and ask if he would have rather survived with some PvP damage.

I'll be honest I PvPed two different players in my last game (magic missile with damage I then cured) as a way of scolding them.

Scarab Sages

RealAlchemy wrote:
With swarms and such, for Sarenrae's sake throw the bomb, splash damage will hurt less than the swarm will.

My alchemist does 9 damage of splash. Are you sure that's less than a swarm? I was doing 6 splash at level 1, and having to do mostly splash damage since my allies would fall after 2 to 3 splashes...


Honestly a great way to handle this is asking permission before the game starts, letting the DM be present for it. Some will say no and others may be OK with it depending on the situation so long as there's an overall benefit.

The only time that it wouldn't be OK in any circumstance is if it would lead to a direct result of killing a player.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Wraith, the only two relevant rules are:

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

And

Don't be a jerk.

(Don't be a jerk generally requires you to ask first and avoid damaging party members if possible)

Grand Lodge

Rubani, of Totra wrote:
RealAlchemy wrote:
With swarms and such, for Sarenrae's sake throw the bomb, splash damage will hurt less than the swarm will.
My alchemist does 9 damage of splash. Are you sure that's less than a swarm? I was doing 6 splash at level 1, and having to do mostly splash damage since my allies would fall after 2 to 3 splashes...

Considering there are swarms that do CON drain or damage, in some situations it's better by a fair margin. In others maybe not, but personally I think a player should be aware that an alchemist is your best bet for taking out a swarm and not be there in the first place (unless it just popped up there for some reason which is totally possible)

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally with "it's not player VERSUS player if you have that other player's permission". And by that I mean informed consent; if your AoE spell is unusually strong, you should warn the guy about that.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, around here we use the permission "rule". If you're going to include PCs in an AoE, it's best to ask if they're ok with it first. Generally players are ok with it and players try to limit how many are affected. But yeah, there's no hard rule written that I know of.

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

This keeps reminding me of the LFR version of this rule that stated you had to ask before doing anything that may damage another players Sadly, some people noticed that the rule just said you had to ask. It didn't say anything about having to abide by the answer once you asked.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would just ask your organizer why they are making this ruling, rather than turning into an adversarial "prove it with a written rule!" confrontation. It may be that players have complained to them about someone's alchemist always bombing them, and feeling that they have to say "yes" because the player in question's personality prevents them from speaking up.


Well, the option is sometimes get hit with a bomb once, or take swarm damage round after round after round.

I'm all for kill the swarm.

What'so the alternative, wait until the character dies, then fight the swarm? How is that a better move?

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

That all being said, it is probably not too much to ask for the player doing the AoE to wait until right before the swarm goes before dropping the bomb if there are friendlies in the area.

But, the rule that I know of does not say "Thou shalt not deal any damage to an ally". I do always ask, first, and try and find a way to abide by a player's wishes not to be harmed. I might respond "Then I will delay or ready until you are out of the area, but that might mean you take the swarm's damage again". I'd always also remind the player before his turn to "get the heck out of Dodge".


Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

Well, the option is sometimes get hit with a bomb once, or take swarm damage round after round after round.

I'm all for kill the swarm.

What'so the alternative, wait until the character dies, then fight the swarm? How is that a better move?

It's a better move because it preserves the agency of the player/character involved.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

The leadership of this organized play community assumes

that you will use common sense in your interpretation of
the rules. This includes being courteous and encouraging
a mutual interest in playing, not engaging in endless rules
discussions. While you are enjoying the game, be considerate
of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them
from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.

You want to fireball the gaggle of goblins.

I'm in the middle of the gaggle of goblins.

You want to cast Fireball.

You ask if you can Fireball me too.

I do not want to be Fireballed.

You decide to Fireball anyways.

I hope the GM stops that action as that violates the "don't be a jerk" rule. If the affected player does not want to be affected, then as courteous players we should defer to their request.

Quote:

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.

Just because your attack won't kill me immediately, I would still consider it PvP as you intentionally damaged me against my wishes.

I honestly can't get onboard with anyone who thinks it's ok to intentionally damage another PC against their player's wishes.

The Exchange 5/5

FLite wrote:

Wraith, the only two relevant rules are:

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

And

Don't be a jerk.

(Don't be a jerk generally requires you to ask first and avoid damaging party members if possible)

Those are the rules, and because they are not explicit, it is up to the GM at the table to interpret them. Unless there is more clarification by campaign leadership. It is up to the player to prove the GM wrong.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka Zoomba

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering in a recent scenario, my alchemist actually got the Paladin to agree to be the direct target of a bomb, I'd say as long as they consent and are aware of any risks it should be fine.

Spoiler:
There were civilians inside of a hut with the paladin and boss were fighting in the doorway. Since Precise bombs don't help on a miss, and the enemy had cover, my character argued that it would be better to have the easier-to-hit pally take the brunt of the damage and expose the already injured boss to the splash damage rather than risk an errant throw harming innocents.

Out-of-character, we knew the Paladin was in fine enough shape to take it easily. In- and out-of-character, we also found this hilarious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some people read the paragraph heading "No player vs. player combat" as a rule and ban PvP entirely rather than simply lethal PvP. YMMV.

Personally I don't allow PC's to injure other PC's ("injure" includes damage and negative status effects) without permission. Permission permits anything.

Sovereign Court

Sammy T wrote:


You want to fireball the gaggle of goblins.

I'm in the middle of the gaggle of goblins.

You want to cast Fireball.

You ask if you can Fireball me too.

I do not want to be Fireballed.

You decide to Fireball anyways.

I hope the GM stops that action as that violates the "don't be a jerk" rule. If the affected player does not want to be affected, then as courteous players we should defer to their request.

Why did you run into the gaggle of goblins in the first place?

It helps if players work together as a team but that also means in your post if you played that way, you should not get upset when the fireball caster leaves you in the middle of the pile to die. (Or waits until you are below your negative con to fireball the goblins and leaves your charred carcass behind.)

it is a two edged sword.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Zoomba: you can also target bombs (and other splash weapons) at the floor. That's only AC 5, and often a good way to splash adjacent nimble foes.


So, damage from goblins is somehow different from, ahem, friendly fire?
I literally do not understand why these are different.

To me, it seems like the greatest thing you could do for my character is help me survive. So, if you incinerate all the goblins and do me a bit of damage, I'm still alive. That's better than 'killed by goblins'. I would be grateful for such help.

Now, if you fireball me, but there were no goblins, well, then I have to interpret that as an attack. That falls under the jerk rule.

It's possible that there are edge cases. If I'm surrounded by Devils, and you fireball us, I'm the only one who takes damage, because they're probably fireproof. That would make me look at intent. If this was an honest mistake, I might be irritated by your poor play, but I still would not interpret that as an attack.

And the remark about player agency doesn't work for me either. You're going to protect your characters agency by telling me what I can and can't do? Really? That doesn't work. You' ve created a system where you have rights that I do not. Why would I agree to that? You clearly wouldn't.


0. PFS thread
A. did you ask me if you could damage my character yes/no
-- if yes above then proceed to step 2
2. did I say yes to you damaging my character yes/no
$. if yes above then go ahead and damage my character


Ok Lamontius, the goblins aren't going to ask, they'll just stab you.

Why is damage from a player different?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:

So, damage from goblins is somehow different from, ahem, friendly fire?

I literally do not understand why these are different.

To me, it seems like the greatest thing you could do for my character is help me survive. So, if you incinerate all the goblins and do me a bit of damage, I'm still alive. That's better than 'killed by goblins'. I would be grateful for such help.

Now, if you fireball me, but there were no goblins, well, then I have to interpret that as an attack. That falls under the jerk rule.

It's possible that there are edge cases. If I'm surrounded by Devils, and you fireball us, I'm the only one who takes damage, because they're probably fireproof. That would make me look at intent. If this was an honest mistake, I might be irritated by your poor play, but I still would not interpret that as an attack.

And the remark about player agency doesn't work for me either. You're going to protect your characters agency by telling me what I can and can't do? Really? That doesn't work. You' ve created a system where you have rights that I do not. Why would I agree to that? You clearly wouldn't.

I rule things more in this vein. As always, each circumstance is different. Its pretty easy to tell if a player is being a jerk and doing AoE's just to be a jerk. It is also pretty easy to tell if a player is being a jerk by saying no to an AoE.

Unless the situation merits it, I usually let the players figure it out for themselves.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So it sounds like you would be ok with getting fireballed in that situation. Cool.

Someone else might not be ok with getting fireballed in that situation. Their desire to not get fireballed should be respected, even if it is tactically not the best decision to make.

In that situation, if you are the one launching the fireball, it's not up to you to say whether it's ok to nuke your buddy. You need to ask first and respect their wishes, regardless of how illogical you think their decision is. It's about as simple as that.


As someone who, in 1 case intentionally, damaged other players recently:

In the first case I had no choice. Friendly character (a witch) was surrounded by FOUR swarms with one swarm allready attacking her. It was a watery area, so I had to use a Rod of element Ice, to make my fireball of any worth. Yes, I did throw my giant snowball killing the Swarms. Sure the witch got damaged, but I used my Resources of healing to patch her up afterwards.

Second case was a simple missunderstanding where I did cast a Thunderbolt, and mixed up the rulings. So I did damage a friend unintentionally.

(Well, technically I then did it a third time, cause my character was dominated).

I invested in a selective rod then, to further avoid such situations. But in cases where I have to use a different Rod (like the Elemental rod in the previous example) I might have again no choice. If I have to do such a thing, I normally ask first, and then use MY healing issues to patch up the damage.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Acedio wrote:

So it sounds like you would be ok with getting fireballed in that situation. Cool.

Someone else might not be ok with getting fireballed in that situation. Their desire to not get fireballed should be respected, even if it is tactically not the best decision to make.

In that situation, if you are the one launching the fireball, it's not up to you to say whether it's ok to nuke your buddy. You need to ask first and respect their wishes, regardless of how illogical you think their decision is. It's about as simple as that.

Actually it isn't. It is up to how strict the GM wants to be on the rule in the Guide.

The guide does not say anything close to what you are saying.

Sovereign Court

I guess it makes very little sense to me that a GM would see that the players have come to a reasonable consensus that friendly fire is an appropriate tactical decision and overrule that.

The converse of what you've implied is that the GM could overrule the request to not use friendly fire and allow the player to use it anyway, which makes less sense. Perhaps that's a wording/comprehension issue though.

My view is that the GM should defer to the players' judgement, but support the target of the friendly fire in the case of a conflict.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Acedio wrote:
I guess it makes very little sense to me that a GM would see that the players have come to a reasonable consensus that friendly fire is an appropriate tactical decision and overrule that.

I agree with you here. But as a GM you should not be disallowing AoE stuff for the simple reason that some player doesn't want it.

You have to weigh the entire circumstance against itself, and see what the situation is. Largely I try to let the players figure it out for themselves. But if one player, who has invested a lot of their character potential in AoEs (see Alchemist) and you have another player constantly running into the fight and then whining about the bombs damaging him... As a GM I'm going to be pretty unsympathetic to the whiner. The Bomber has a right to actually use their major class feature without I-Run-Into-Tactically-Poor-Areas-Every-Fight dictating whether he can or not.

Sovereign Court

Ok, that is a good insight. Thank you for explaining that.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Acedio wrote:
Ok, that is a good insight. Thank you for explaining that.

Sure thing. As always, every situation is going to have its own set of unique circumstances, where a hard-n-fast rule is not always going to be appropriate. But if I have a conflict at the table about AoE that the players can't come to an agreement on, I will largely defer to allowing a player to take whatever action they wish as long as it isn't obvious they are the ones being the jerk.


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.


As a thought experiment, what about this.

My character is surrounded by two swarms. I look at the GM and announce "I'm not ok with taking damage from the swarm".

Is that ok? Should it work?

Scarab Sages 4/5

Usually there is a period of time where the person with the AoE is trying to place a template in order to catch the most enemies. That's a good time to ask. Something like, I can catch all of the swarms, but only if I hit the paladin. Are you ok with that? Something similar happened to me in a game recently, and I gladly gave the ok. It was a cold effect, so I did ask if it was going to stagger or otherwise incapacitate me, since taking the meat shield out of the fight might not have been the best thing. It was just damage, so I said fine.

Here's the thing... It always depends on the circumstance. A level 1 character playing up that gets caught in the wrong place may not fare well if even a small amount of damage is dropped on them. Or the attack could be likely to leave someone at a low amount of hitpoints. That's fine if the fireball kills all the goblins. That's not fine if they all have rogue levels and make their saves.

The difference between taking damage from a goblin and taking damage from a party member is that the goblin is not another player sitting at the table. The no PvP rule is not just about not killing. There is a whole paragraph before that line about how player vs player combat accomplishes nothing and leads to hard feelings. Why that always gets ignored, I have no idea.

Andrew seems to have a good approach. Weigh the situation, then rule accordingly. Let the players try to work it out amongst themselves first, and step in if needed.

Talking is a free action in game. Why is asking a question and discussing what's best in the situation so hard out of game?

Shadow Lodge

Ferious Thune wrote:


Talking is a free action in game. Why is asking a question and discussing what's best in the situation so hard out of game?

Sadly I think that if I had to put money on it - your statment is the origin of my question - at least where this particular FLGS is concerned ... there are a couple of players and GM's that take a hard line on tactical communication - and I mean a HARD Line - for example Statments like "A Round is 6 seconds your taking longer than that here"

so to Follow the logic down its path

Little Tactical Communication allowed = no time for permission to be given or not given = no AE's on players

yes I realize that this is an entirely different subject - and I am not trying to shift topics - just what you said was a bit of a realization to me

Scarab Sages 4/5

Wraith235 wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:


Talking is a free action in game. Why is asking a question and discussing what's best in the situation so hard out of game?

Sadly I think that if I had to put money on it - your statment is the origin of my question - at least where this particular FLGS is concerned ... there are a couple of players and GM's that take a hard line on tactical communication - and I mean a HARD Line - for example Statments like "A Round is 6 seconds your taking longer than that here"

so to Follow the logic down its path

Little Tactical Communication allowed = no time for permission to be given or not given = no AE's on players

yes I realize that this is an entirely different subject - and I am not trying to shift topics - just what you said was a bit of a realization to me

In that situation, now that it's known how the GMs rule, I'd suggest talking before a combat breaks out, so everyone is on the same page going in.


Yes, I'm all for talking BEFORE the danger starts. Think about it, if you were risking your life with these people, wouldn't you ask questions about what they can do?

On the other hand, I'm of the opinion that the players should NOT know if the goblins are regular goblins, or goblin rogues with evasion. There should be no label that says "rogue 2" on their foreheads.

Which means that sometimes, players will try things, and they will not work. Which is fine. It makes sense in-game, and it's more fun out-of-game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
And I'd suggest that fireballing is not at all player vs. player combat. It's player vs. goblin combat. Yes, another player might get caught in the way, but the purpose is to kill the goblins.

Scarab Sages 4/5

I didn't mean to imply that the players know the goblins have rogue levels. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Dropping a fireball on a PC who is surrounded by goblins and using the excuse that you'll do more damage to the goblins than the PC won't always work, because you don't know what stats the goblins have. They might have rogue levels, or they might just have a lot of levels and enough HPs to live. That's why it's PvP, because you could be putting a character in a position to be killed. It seems only polite to ask if they are ok with that before doing it.

I've reposted this a couple of different places now. Most recently in the thread suggesting edits to the guide. This is an excerpt from the Adventure Card Guild guide to organized play. The language here leads me to believe that the same was intended in the role playing guild.

Card Game GtOP wrote:

Cooperative Play

First and foremost, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is a cooperative experience. Please let this idea guide your behavior during play. Don’t make decisions on behalf of other players, and don’t take actions that may harm another player’s character without that player’s consent. If there is a dispute over the rules, try to come to an agreement as quickly as possible; if that proves impossible, choose the path that benefits the most players. Be courteous and encourage a mutual interest in playing, not engaging in endless rules discussions. While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table, and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.

My suggestion is to add that language to the role playing guide (some version of parts of it is already there), as it would clear up a lot of the confusion. It's possible they don't intend the role playing game to have the same guidelines as the card game, in which case, I imagine they'll ignore my suggestion.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like the oft stated but false belief that a GM can never ever employ a Coup de Grace unless the combat tactics expressly demand it, the idea that the ban on PvP combat means that you can't ever hurt other PCs is widely held but just plain wrong.

There is a clear distinction between PCs combatting each other and combatting a common foe in a manner that might cause collateral damage. We can't kill each other & we can't be jerks. However calling in a "Broken Arrow" request is not Player vs Player combat.

As a rule of thumb in PFS it boils down to consent. Normally asked just before letting loose an AoE. I have even seen tables where the players stipulate that the casters are free to do what they want as long as it is not done with malicious intent!

Scarab Sages

There have been several times where I expressly asked to be included in an aoe blast with my dwarven monk with sky high reflex saves, evasion, and a +5 to save vs spells.

I would be quite put out if the casters were forced to exclude me and not damage all of the baddies.


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?

Dark Archive

Out of curiosity, how does it work if you're intentionally using a damaging AOE effect, but aren't sure of the exact range? Exact situation happened in a game a few weeks back - got ahold of a technological grenade, and knew how to use it well enough to throw it, but had never used one before and had to guess the splash radius. Guessed wrong, was larger than expected, splashed a couple of party members. Does the GM stop you from harming the other players with an AOE in this case when you had no knowledge? What about if it would kill one of them?

Although to be fair, it would be a stupid thing to throw a thing with an unknown radius around an unconscious friend :)

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Sammy T wrote:
Quote:

The leadership of this organized play community assumes

that you will use common sense in your interpretation of
the rules. This includes being courteous and encouraging
a mutual interest in playing, not engaging in endless rules
discussions. While you are enjoying the game, be considerate
of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them
from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.

You want to fireball the gaggle of goblins.

I'm in the middle of the gaggle of goblins.

You want to cast Fireball.

You ask if you can Fireball me too.

I do not want to be Fireballed.

You decide to Fireball anyways.

I hope the GM stops that action as that violates the "don't be a jerk" rule. If the affected player does not want to be affected, then as courteous players we should defer to their request.

Quote:

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.

Just because your attack won't kill me immediately, I would still consider it PvP as you intentionally damaged me against my wishes.

I honestly can't get onboard with anyone who thinks it's ok to intentionally damage another PC against their player's wishes.

What if you (well not you, the hypothetical player) are a bloody fool?

What if this Fireball is the difference between life or death for the whole party ?

The chance to kill a character vs the near certainty, that the enemies will decimate you...

Of course if the player who got himself surrounded by goblins, is successful in his attempt to have the GM prevent the action, and it results in a TPK.. the result could be that the other players at the table will just reject every playing with him again.

The Exchange Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Austin aka countchocula

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Visitor 163 576 wrote:


I'm sorry, but given a game where Pathfinders are constantly in danger, what makes this source of danger different?

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.

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Rules on players damaging other players changed ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.