|
That seems slightly gray. Given that it is a temporary minion, not a class feature permanent minion like a familiar or animal companion, that wouldn't really be PVP. However, it does last a day and presumably player A wanted his spell to last more than one encounter, which the fireball threatened.
I think the players' discussion should have been reframed as to the most strategic use of spells rather than bringing PVP into it.
If you really want to dive down the rabbit hole, if the third player was seriously threatened by the surrounding undead, then taking control of one to call it a minion and prevent AoE spells from saving the third player could arguably be a more PVP move than blowing up a temporary minion.
Long story short, no, I don't believe catching a temporary minion in an area of effect damage spell absolutely falls in the restriction against PvP and should be taken on a case by case basis. Ideally, it would be a strategic discussion among players.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs and Minions don't seem to be covered under the PvP Guidelines:
In keeping with the “Explore, Report, Cooperate” motto of the Pathfinder Society, engaging in non-consensual character-versus-character conflict is prohibited. While accidental friendly fire happens due to missed attack rolls or other factors, players must obtain the consent of other players before deliberately including fellow PCs in damaging effects. Engaging in character-versus-character conflict will award Infamy points and may render a character unplayable. This rule does not apply in situations where a character is not acting of their own free will, such as if they’re being mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
But, a GM can award Infamy for such behaviors, as it goes against the mantra of "Cooperate". What Pathfinder would want to continue adventuring with someone who was notorious for being reckless?
I'm not sure what the tone of this particular interaction was, but if one PC was making a routine of disrupting another, that's how I would handle it (after the appropriate warning, of course).
The fireballing character doesn't have to include all of the undead, after all.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully the Players can resolve the issue amicably.
If not, somebody is going to be unhappy.
In the abstract, personally, I would NOT allow the player to fireball the minion. In almost all circumstances, the fireball can be placed somewhere else and likely be effective in still getting a bunch of bad guys. So it seems to me that the fireball player loses less than the zombie controlling one.
However, at the actual table I'd quite possibly have a strong opinion on which player is being the jerk (it really could be either one). If I did have such an opinion I'd quietly council the player to stop being a jerk and, if that failed, rule against the jerk.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
There is far to little information here to give a definitive answer. Certainly, damaging a character's summoned or acquired minion is not automatically defined as C-v-C combat.
Damaging a characters "class feature" minions with out permission or dire need would probably be C-v-C combat
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
NPCs and Minions don't seem to be covered under the PvP Guidelines:
In keeping with the “Explore, Report, Cooperate” motto of the Pathfinder Society, engaging in non-consensual character-versus-character conflict is prohibited. While accidental friendly fire happens due to missed attack rolls or other factors, players must obtain the consent of other players before deliberately including fellow PCs in damaging effects. Engaging in character-versus-character conflict will award Infamy points and may render a character unplayable. This rule does not apply in situations where a character is not acting of their own free will, such as if they’re being mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a fellow Pathfinder.But, a GM can award Infamy for such behaviors, as it goes against the mantra of "Cooperate". What Pathfinder would want to continue adventuring with someone who was notorious for being reckless?
I'm not sure what the tone of this particular interaction was, but if one PC was making a routine of disrupting another, that's how I would handle it (after the appropriate warning, of course).
The fireballing character doesn't have to include all of the undead, after all.
But how would you actually tell who is being reckless? There's one situation I can think of in a Pathfinder Society scenario where an undead enemy getting even 1 hit might potentially just kill the character outright. You should recall knowledge the monsters at the very least to ensure they don't have some weird ability.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But how would you actually tell who is being reckless?
Very hard to say in the abstract.
But actually at the table? I'd quite possibly have a sense for the players and I'd definitely have a sense for what was a reasonable thing to do. I'd know if fireballing the zombie minion was actually a good idea, a bad idea, or somewhere in between. I'd very possibly have an informed opinion on which player was essentially being selfish and trying to dominate the game.
|
|
But how would you actually tell who is being reckless?
The same way the GM is supposed to adjudicate ambiguity in the rules, or create a welcoming environment, or decide if/when a player is being a 'jerk,' by making their best guess based on imperfect information.
IMO, the very idea of PvP breaking the fourth wall is ludicrous anyway. I rarely consider it when I'm playing and I don't enforce it when I'm GMing. Its been years since I saw a player acting in bad faith with AoEs and in rare cases collateral damage is just a cost of doing "business" as an adventurer. If/when I feel a player is acting in bad faith, I employ the "don't be a jerk" rule, not some arbitrary limitation on in game targeting.
tl;dr no, I would not consider catching the minion as PvP, though I admit I don't care much about the PvP rules so YMMV. If your GM says its PvP, then its PvP.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP says that the character wanting to use fireball was trying to prevent the zombies from surrounding a third player.
That piece of information is important. It tells us that yes, the player is having their character deliberately harming the undead, but doing so for the purpose of protecting another player character.
Given that the undead in question is not the result of a class feature like animal companion or familiar, and is only the result of a particular spell, I don’t see how this is really an issue.
I just don’t see this as a violation of the “no pvp” rule.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... I employ the "don't be a jerk" rule..
There is no such rule in OPF. In any campaign.
It was removed several years ago and replaced with the community standards that require cooperative play and an inclusive environment.
Please reread the guide and familiarize yourself with the rules of the campaign as they are now. Not as they were 5 years ago.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Eh, the wording has changed slightly and removed the term "jerk" but the spirit of the rule is still there:
(Old wording, from season 10 guide)
Players are responsible for their characters’ actions.
“That’s just what my character would do” is not a defense
for behaving like a jerk.
New wording, from current guide:
Players are responsible for their characters’ choices and are subject to consequences resulting from those choices actions. In game actions earn characters Infamy, while code of conduct violations earn players table sanctions.
Below we list some common issues, which are covered more in the Table Variation Appendix:A player’s perception of what their character would do versus the experience of other players at the table.
Deity or class anathemas and edicts as they interact with Pathfinder Society missions.
Class opposition such as a paladin and a necromancer on the same mission team.
Characters perform evil or criminal acts.
(emphasis is mine)
Community standards prevents pvp:
In keeping with the “Explore, Report, Cooperate” motto of the Pathfinder Society, engaging in non-consensual character-versus-character conflict is prohibited.
Regardless of whether the rules explicitly give us the right to kick jerks off our tables or not, if a player is attempting to circumvent the "no c-v-c" rule by, say, deliberately targeting other players minions with AoE attacks, or is trying to play against the party by deliberately placing their minions to interfere with party's combat performance, They'll get kicked out of the table if the issue can't be otherwise resolved.
Which kinda answers OP's question. This is gray area. Hopefully, both players are acting in good faith and the issue can be resolved by players reaching an agreement on targeting different spot, accepting that the minion will get hit, or casting a different spell (or delaying until the minion gets out of the way), or some other way. If not, it'll depend strongly on the context on how the GM should resolve the argument.
(Yes, Yes, later in the PVP part the guide speaks about "deliberately including fellow PCs in damaging effects." but that's an example, not exhausting list. Otherwise one could roll a caster that specializes in counterspelling allies spells, or casts grease or other hostile, non-damaging spells on allies "because the guide doesn't prohibit it", and that's certainly not the intention here.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... I employ the "don't be a jerk" rule..
There is no such rule in OPF. In any campaign.
Actually you don't get to say what the rules are "in any campaign," only the one/s YOU oversee. MY campaigns certainly employ the "don't be a jerk" rule. And we're talking semantics. It doesn't take but seconds of searching to see that the idea of "don't be a jerk" is fairly universal in the gaming community. You say "cooperative play and inclusive environment." I say "don't be a jerk." It means the same thing. As the designers said (CRB p485) "Never let those acting in bad faith undermine your game or exclude other players." I have and will continue to employ its tenets at my tables regardless of the campaign I am running.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Don't be a jerk" was intentionally removed from all OPF Campaigns. (PFS1, SFS, PFS2. I don't think it was even considered for PACS)
My statement "There is no such rule in OPF. In any campaign." was regarding *OPF* campaigns. You are free to have whatever rules you want in home games.
Extensive review and feedback demonstrated that the "Don't be a jerk" rule was being used abusively toward people, and it was proactively removed as a result.
|
|
Eh, the wording has changed slightly and removed the term "jerk" but the spirit of the rule is still there:
(Old wording, from season 10 guide)
Players are responsible for their characters’ actions.
“That’s just what my character would do” is not a defense
for behaving like a jerk.
The rule "Don't be a jerk" was intentionally removed as abusive and adversarial. The intent in doing so was to change the spirit of the rule from one setting a low bar of "don't hurt other people for pleasure" and replace it with a higher bar of "treat other people with respect" as well as dealing with a continuing trend of players citing "don't be a jerk" when asked to stop disruptive play. (After all, if they are enjoying playing their character, then (they argued) making them stop what they were enjoying, was being a jerk.)
This was an intentional change to the rules.
(Everything else you said I pretty much agree with.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the ambiguity of "don't be a jerk" and people exploiting what that means was a pervasive problem, the ambiguity of "cooperative play and inclusive environment" is likely going to be just as troublesome. The issue isn't the language, its the people using the rules to put their own interests above that of the community. You can call it whatever you want, the point is the spirit of the rule. I don't see the point in arguing over the semantics of the words used when the intent is identical.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
That's... An interesting insight into the change, one which I could not have guessed because I've never seen anyone cite "don't be a jerk" -in defense- when being asked to stop being a jerk.
(Although, disruptive play has rarely been a problem anyway, at least locally).
I have to admit that I was slightly confused when I couldn't find the "treat each other with respect" anywhere in the guide anymore, but that's because it's not in the community standards&expectations, but rather in paizo.com/organizedplay/policies and just linked in the "welcome to PFS" part.
|
|
That's... An interesting insight into the change, one which I could not have guessed because I've never seen anyone cite "don't be a jerk" -in defense- when being asked to stop being a jerk.
(Although, disruptive play has rarely been a problem anyway, at least locally).I have to admit that I was slightly confused when I couldn't find the "treat each other with respect" anywhere in the guide anymore, but that's because it's not in the community standards&expectations, but rather in paizo.com/organizedplay/policies and just linked in the "welcome to PFS" part.
That is because periodically Paizo tweaks the text of that policy. And the copy in the guide kept drifting out of date relative to it.
One of my objectives for the Season 4 guide is to figure out a better way to have the guide fetch / incorporate that text without having to copy it, and in a way in which (hopefully) triggers an update message when the information changes...
|
|
The only one who seems to have a problem with rules allowing room for GM judgement (aka ambiguity) is you.
If that were the case then there would have been no need to change the wording of the old rule. I don't have a problem with GM adjudication. In fact I think it should be allowed on a much wider basis. The issue isn't the ambiguity, its the inconsistencies in the org play rules where we attempt to have our cake and eat it too. Over <here> we want nearly RAW, while over <here> we want GM fiat. I find it funny that we think the change in wording is going to have any impact on the people who were exploiting the rules. Jerks are gonna be jerks. Exclusive players are gonna be exclusive players. Either way, its gonna take a GM willing to speak up and/or boot them from the table for the words to have any meaning.
But, like I said, the very idea of this discussion is ludicrous. We all want the same result so arguing over the semantics of which particular words are used is a waste of time. Everyone is welcome to continue this line of conversation (not that you need my permission), but I have better things to do with my time. Good luck.
As most people said up-thread, the analysis of what is/not PvP/CvC is not always easy to define. The circumstances of each encounter can greatly affect how is is applied. Its rarely something that can be properly evaluated well after the fact in a chat room. Its why, in most cases, we have to leave it to the GM to evaluate and determine for themself, in the moment, if either player is acting in bad faith and rule accordingly. Sometimes, collateral damage is just collateral damage. If the GM wants to elicit advice, the other players at the table, not directly involved, are probably more objective than either of the two players and can be a good sounding-board.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only one who seems to have a problem with rules allowing room for GM judgement (aka ambiguity) is you.If that were the case then there would have been no need to change the wording of the old rule.
The rule was changed because it was deemed abusive and adversarial.
That is the reason it was changed.
You are arguing a straw man here.
The Guide to organized play *enumerates* where GMs are and are not allowed to make changes and where they are not. It is not a contradiction, any more than it is a "contradiction" to say some spells require attack rolls, and some spells require saving throws.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, like I said, the very idea of this discussion is ludicrous. We all want the same result so arguing over the semantics of which particular words are used is a waste of time. Everyone is welcome to continue this line of conversation (not that you need my permission), but I have better things to do with my time. Good luck.
You should probably review the Community Guidelines before continuing this back-and-forth.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the info. The sorcerer changed his spell to electric arc to forgo the argument. He couldn’t position the fireball to catch the three undead without hitting the minion or another player. The druid then blew up his own undead minion casting final sacrifice.
Random comment:
You can't use Final Sacrifice on a temporarily controlled minion.
(Thankfully - It's already quite powerful.)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the info. The sorcerer changed his spell to electric arc to forgo the argument. He couldn’t position the fireball to catch the three undead without hitting the minion or another player. The druid then blew up his own undead minion casting final sacrifice.
Since that was the goal of the Druid, I think his argument against PvP are pretty lame. Also, as The King in Yellow states, it wasn’t even a legal move
1 creature with the minion trait that you summoned or permanently control
I’d have a quick talk to that player, explaining that they need to read the spells they are casting better. I am guessing he was upset because he thought he had figured out a neat exploit . Not saying that this was an intentional oversight, but I’d warn him that this could be construed as cheating, especially if he continues doing it. It is the player’s responsibility to know their character’s abilities, and not to try and take advantage of a GM who cannot know every ability and spell in all the books!
Also, I would not have considered this PVP in the first place. This was not a permanent feature of the character, nor the character himself. Hindsight tells me the player didn’t care about the minion anyway, and I also would have talked to him afterwards, in private, to state his whole argument was probably a waste of the tables’ time, given he was just planning on blowing it up anyways.
Just my humble opinions here, so take them as you will. As they say, YMMV
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The pointlessness...
Player A, the binder, could have said, "I'm going to use Bind Undead now and then Final Sacrifice next round for 6d6 area damage against the remaining undead." Misunderstanding of the spell, aside.
Player B, the fireballer, could have then said, "I can cast fireball this turn for 6d6 area damage against all the undead, why don't you delay until after my fireball to see what's left to deal with?"
But, no, Player A had to act all sly about his grand plan and then complain and throw around the PVP buzzword when someone threatened to make his plan moot by doing exactly what he wanted to do sooner and more efficiently.
|
Thanks for the info. The sorcerer changed his spell to electric arc to forgo the argument. He couldn’t position the fireball to catch the three undead without hitting the minion or another player. The druid then blew up his own undead minion casting final sacrifice.Since that was the goal of the Druid, I think his argument against PvP are pretty lame. Also, as The King in Yellow states, it wasn’t even a legal move
Substitute "weak" for "lame" and I would agree.
(Lame is problematic in this context. In most contexts, actually.)