PVP clairifications [Archive] - Wizards Community

PVP clairifications [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
lordtiberiusfoxx
07-20-06, 01:03 PM Just some gray areas in PVP...

If a PC is down, can another PC Death Knell? I mean, he's already dying, right? Better to have him serve his proper use and save the rest of the party. I can't help it if he can't heal himself.

On expeditions, can say, a Covenant member initiate PVP in an attempt to capture a cabal member and turn him in to the proper authorities (assuming that cover was blown) ?

Tiberius Foxx
Harliquinn
07-20-06, 01:14 PM While I'm not an official source, my opinions are that Death Knell would not be permitted, due to the fact that the target is a living creature.

you touch a living creature that has -1 or fewer hit points. If the subject fails its saving throw, it dies

Being below 0 is not dead, it is only dying and the character, through the use of action points or good rolls, can stabilize themselves. Letting someone die (which is allowed) is not the same as killing them (which Death Knell does).

As for the turning over to authorities. I never got the impression that the Cabal was an illegal entity. They are just out for themselves as the other factions are, but that their methods are more shady than some of the others (and sometimes downright evil). Unless a character breaks a law, I don't think there would be much the authorities would be able to do.
Skerrit
07-20-06, 01:16 PM If a PC is down, can another PC Death Knell? I mean, he's already dying, right? Better to have him serve his proper use and save the rest of the party. I can't help it if he can't heal himself.

No, that would be killing him. Besides, it's pretty impossible to bleed out in Eberron what with spending APs to stablize.

On expeditions, can say, a Covenant member initiate PVP in an attempt to capture a cabal member and turn him in to the proper authorities (assuming that cover was blown) ?

Well, a CoL PC that used lethal force on someone would already be violating the rules. Assuming you mean they try to wrestle you down or cast a hold person (or the like, all nonlethal), then no, you may not use lethal means in return. This is part of the game you pay for playing in an expedition mod with a mixed group of PCs.
delroland
07-27-06, 05:40 PM Well, a CoL PC that used lethal force on someone would already be violating the rules. Assuming you mean they try to wrestle you down or cast a hold person (or the like, all nonlethal), then no, you may not use lethal means in return. This is part of the game you pay for playing in an expedition mod with a mixed group of PCs.
What is the point of allowing evil in the campaign if you aren't going to allow evil PC's to act within their alignment? If a CoL PC tries to cast an offensive spell at me (which includes hold person), I should be well within my rights to defend myself by any means possible. And any evil NPC would most likely try to do the same, most likely using lethal force.

If you guys aren't prepared to handle the ramifications of allowing evil characters, you shouldn't have allowed them in the first place. Evil doesn't fight "fair" or "nice"; if you start something with an evil character, you should EXPECT to be coup de grace'd in your sleep, especially when you are miles deep in the jungle with so many convenient places to hide the body.
Japangirl
07-27-06, 06:02 PM However, this is a national campaign and does have rules. Evil PCs can rest easy knowing that defeating the champions of light then letting them live is far far more painful than allowing them an honorable death in battle. Death is expensive and annoying, so it's disallowed that PCs kill other PCs. Honestly, I don't have any problems with that.

If someone (like a good cleric) casts hold person on me, I intend to beat them into submission and then let the bard/evangelist in my party turn them evil. Now they can't cast spells, and someone in the party can get all their knowledge out of their head with probe thoughts or charm person or dominate person or fascinate/suggest. Taking the light's plans from the heads of their champions, then letting them live with the failure, seems more evil than just killing them. And there's no rules against torture :D.
delroland
07-27-06, 06:20 PM Rules are fine, but they need to be fair both ways. Essentially I feel this rule encourages CoL members (and other good PC's) to attack evil PC's wantonly and without penalty, as long as they use nonlethal force, and that when the evil PC retaliates in a completely RP-appropriate manner, they are penalized. That is not fair to Cabal players.

There is a solution. Put a moratorium on Cabal players attacking any player of another faction unless the other players attack first. Then allow the gloves to come off. This prevents unwanted PvP from Cabal members slaughtering helpless paladins in their sleep, but also allows Cabal shadows to deal with so-called "nonlethal" attacks against their person in a fair and appropriate manner. Heck, you could even disallow the coup de grace. But you must realize that disabling an evil PC serves the same purpose as killing him: it denies him enjoyment of the adventure, and it potentially removes him from the campaign. How is that fair?

What's worse is that a lot of GM's out there will take the stance of, "That's what you get for playing evil." Under a GM like this, if a Cabal player did the exact same thing to a Covenant player, they would be punished for it. Therefore, there need to be clearly delineated guidelines that allow for fair play on both sides.

Besides, if the paladin dies for sucker-punching a Cabal player, its not like he lost that much, as the campaign bumps will keep his character on an even keel with the rest of the campaign. So character death does not cause that much of a loss.

As an added note, torture by the current, poorly-designed guidelines would not be allowable, as it does lethal damage to characters. Besides, paladins of at least third level are immune to torture, as it is a fear effect.
Japangirl
07-27-06, 06:38 PM Actually, the way I see it (and I could be wrong), torture would require increasing DC fort saves to hold out. When you fail one fort save, you give one small piece of information. Three failed fort saves in a row means you spill your guts. It's not a fear effect at all, but physical pain to the limits of one's capability to resist. Will saves also make sense, depending on the torture.
delroland
07-27-06, 06:46 PM It is a fear effect. It uses the Intimidate skill, and the Intimidate skill is a fear effect. Paladins (of at least third level) are immune to fear, and so they are immune to Intimidate. Therefore, paladins are immune to torture.

There are quite extensive rules for torture in the BoVD, and while that is not an offical sourcebook for the campaign, if a GM is going to allow you to torture characters (be it NPC, PC, or both), he will most likely use those rules.
Skerrit
07-27-06, 07:12 PM There will be very specific rules on what you can and cannot do to each other in v1.0 of the Campaign Standards.
delroland
07-27-06, 08:17 PM I am just concerned with fair play. If a CoL character attacks a CoS character, the CoL player should be held accountable for picking the fight. The CoS player should not be punished simply for defending himself and winning.
Herrbard
07-27-06, 08:21 PM There will be very specific rules on what you can and cannot do to each other in v1.0 of the Campaign Standards.
Greg, any hint as to when we will see this much sought after document?
Skerrit
07-27-06, 10:52 PM I hope before Gen Con. We are having some issues getting things up on the site before the con. At the very least, we will have several copies onsite. Bare with us as we get things up and running.
Herrbard
07-28-06, 12:29 PM Thnaks for the info. As always, we remain flexible!
The_Jester
08-13-06, 11:49 AM There will be very specific rules on what you can and cannot do to each other in v1.0 of the Campaign Standards.

Did I blink and miss them?

Where in the rules (anywhere) does it say killing is no-no? Is it an RPGA guideline?
Sianger
08-14-06, 12:39 AM Did I blink and miss them?

Where in the rules (anywhere) does it say killing is no-no? Is it an RPGA guideline?

I do believe it is.
That said, yes, it's not in the CS 1.0 (not surprising since the FMs are overworked and all, but just saying...)

I strongly recommend that no-PvP rules include things against alignment detection. And, naturally, that they be fair to evil characters, because it's as often as not the non-evil characters who start the PvP.
Mark the Hammer
08-14-06, 03:33 PM I had a fellow CoS member push be down a 20' shaft because I was in the way... Not too happy. The GM did nto really address the issue and the other 3 GMs that I had throught GenCon all had different takes on the rules...

I lived (barely) and had a great time nonetheless but, I was not pleased. ;)
Sianger
08-14-06, 09:17 PM I had a fellow CoS member push be down a 20' shaft because I was in the way... Not too happy. The GM did nto really address the issue and the other 3 GMs that I had throught GenCon all had different takes on the rules...

I lived (barely) and had a great time nonetheless but, I was not pleased. ;)

I read your post on the main board earlier, and I still don't get it... how come he needed to push you because you were in the way? Friendly characters can move through each others' squares even in combat. Unless you were specifically refusing to let him through.

Besides, even in the Cabal, such directly harmful actions are expressly forbidden - you could have been KOed by that fall. Our "Uncle" or "Godfather" or whoever is supposed to frown very strongly on such actions... read the Obscura section.

So, yes, I sympathise with you and fail to understand how this could have been allowed. It's buggers like that who give us Cabal members a bad name...
Skerrit
08-14-06, 09:31 PM Our new campaign standards will greatly detail the PvP issue, but it basically comes down to the fact that you basically can't do it (we'll detail some in game reasons why). Anyone who kills another PC is permanantly removed from the game.
Mark the Hammer
08-15-06, 08:43 AM I read your post on the main board earlier, and I still don't get it... how come he needed to push you because you were in the way? Friendly characters can move through each others' squares even in combat. Unless you were specifically refusing to let him through.

Trust me, I did not understand it either. The GM said, you can move through his square (mine)... No, I did not try to bar his movement. I would have let him by as we were chasing after someone (If you played the first mod, I think you might know where this occured). He did not even ask, just "I push him down the shaft." My tiefling duskblade had little chance against the gnoll fighter (I know that is not an allowable class in CoS but, there was only 1 choice of a fastplay fighter).

I had a good time but, a better clarification is what I think needs to be made so that people don't get mad at the gaming table. It did not ruin my good time! :D
kiddoc
08-15-06, 09:02 AM (I know that is not an allowable class in CoS but, there was only 1 choice of a fastplay fighter).

ACK! We had 3 fastplay fighters at the show! 1 Tower shield build, 1 archer build, and the gnoll blackwheel-only build. We've got to get those stinking things online!

Mark, I'm very sorry to hear about that odd experience. We'll do our utmost to make sure the clarifications are as clear as possible and reflect the combined wisdom of both our players and factionmasters. Hang in there, and thanks for being so understanding about it.
Mark the Hammer
08-15-06, 09:12 AM Supplies ran VERY low, very fast on fastplays.... LOL I tried to get a barbarian on Friday and they had none. My friend also was a fighter and the gnoll is all they had. Oh well!! :D

As I said, it made me a little upset. It did not ruin my game or anything. It was just annoying. I am glad to here your concern however. I thought that they mods were VERY well laid out and I think that most people like the way that they allowed different ways to complete the objectives besides hacking and slashing. :cool:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lordtiberiusfoxx 07-20-06, 01:03 PM	Just some gray areas in PVP... If a PC is down, can another PC Death Knell? I mean, he's already dying, right? Better to have him serve his proper use and save the rest of the party. I can't help it if he can't heal himself. On expeditions, can say, a Covenant member initiate PVP in an attempt to capture a cabal member and turn him in to the proper authorities (assuming that cover was blown) ? Tiberius Foxx
Harliquinn 07-20-06, 01:14 PM	While I'm not an official source, my opinions are that Death Knell would not be permitted, due to the fact that the target is a living creature. you touch a living creature that has -1 or fewer hit points. If the subject fails its saving throw, it dies Being below 0 is not dead, it is only dying and the character, through the use of action points or good rolls, can stabilize themselves. Letting someone die (which is allowed) is not the same as killing them (which Death Knell does). As for the turning over to authorities. I never got the impression that the Cabal was an illegal entity. They are just out for themselves as the other factions are, but that their methods are more shady than some of the others (and sometimes downright evil). Unless a character breaks a law, I don't think there would be much the authorities would be able to do.
Skerrit 07-20-06, 01:16 PM	If a PC is down, can another PC Death Knell? I mean, he's already dying, right? Better to have him serve his proper use and save the rest of the party. I can't help it if he can't heal himself. No, that would be killing him. Besides, it's pretty impossible to bleed out in Eberron what with spending APs to stablize. On expeditions, can say, a Covenant member initiate PVP in an attempt to capture a cabal member and turn him in to the proper authorities (assuming that cover was blown) ? Well, a CoL PC that used lethal force on someone would already be violating the rules. Assuming you mean they try to wrestle you down or cast a hold person (or the like, all nonlethal), then no, you may not use lethal means in return. This is part of the game you pay for playing in an expedition mod with a mixed group of PCs.
delroland 07-27-06, 05:40 PM	Well, a CoL PC that used lethal force on someone would already be violating the rules. Assuming you mean they try to wrestle you down or cast a hold person (or the like, all nonlethal), then no, you may not use lethal means in return. This is part of the game you pay for playing in an expedition mod with a mixed group of PCs. What is the point of allowing evil in the campaign if you aren't going to allow evil PC's to act within their alignment? If a CoL PC tries to cast an offensive spell at me (which includes hold person), I should be well within my rights to defend myself by any means possible. And any evil NPC would most likely try to do the same, most likely using lethal force. If you guys aren't prepared to handle the ramifications of allowing evil characters, you shouldn't have allowed them in the first place. Evil doesn't fight "fair" or "nice"; if you start something with an evil character, you should EXPECT to be coup de grace'd in your sleep, especially when you are miles deep in the jungle with so many convenient places to hide the body.
Japangirl 07-27-06, 06:02 PM	However, this is a national campaign and does have rules. Evil PCs can rest easy knowing that defeating the champions of light then letting them live is far far more painful than allowing them an honorable death in battle. Death is expensive and annoying, so it's disallowed that PCs kill other PCs. Honestly, I don't have any problems with that. If someone (like a good cleric) casts hold person on me, I intend to beat them into submission and then let the bard/evangelist in my party turn them evil. Now they can't cast spells, and someone in the party can get all their knowledge out of their head with probe thoughts or charm person or dominate person or fascinate/suggest. Taking the light's plans from the heads of their champions, then letting them live with the failure, seems more evil than just killing them. And there's no rules against torture :D.
delroland 07-27-06, 06:20 PM	Rules are fine, but they need to be fair both ways. Essentially I feel this rule encourages CoL members (and other good PC's) to attack evil PC's wantonly and without penalty, as long as they use nonlethal force, and that when the evil PC retaliates in a completely RP-appropriate manner, they are penalized. That is not fair to Cabal players. There is a solution. Put a moratorium on Cabal players attacking any player of another faction unless the other players attack first. Then allow the gloves to come off. This prevents unwanted PvP from Cabal members slaughtering helpless paladins in their sleep, but also allows Cabal shadows to deal with so-called "nonlethal" attacks against their person in a fair and appropriate manner. Heck, you could even disallow the coup de grace. But you must realize that disabling an evil PC serves the same purpose as killing him: it denies him enjoyment of the adventure, and it potentially removes him from the campaign. How is that fair? What's worse is that a lot of GM's out there will take the stance of, "That's what you get for playing evil." Under a GM like this, if a Cabal player did the exact same thing to a Covenant player, they would be punished for it. Therefore, there need to be clearly delineated guidelines that allow for fair play on both sides. Besides, if the paladin dies for sucker-punching a Cabal player, its not like he lost that much, as the campaign bumps will keep his character on an even keel with the rest of the campaign. So character death does not cause that much of a loss. As an added note, torture by the current, poorly-designed guidelines would not be allowable, as it does lethal damage to characters. Besides, paladins of at least third level are immune to torture, as it is a fear effect.
Japangirl 07-27-06, 06:38 PM	Actually, the way I see it (and I could be wrong), torture would require increasing DC fort saves to hold out. When you fail one fort save, you give one small piece of information. Three failed fort saves in a row means you spill your guts. It's not a fear effect at all, but physical pain to the limits of one's capability to resist. Will saves also make sense, depending on the torture.
delroland 07-27-06, 06:46 PM	It is a fear effect. It uses the Intimidate skill, and the Intimidate skill is a fear effect. Paladins (of at least third level) are immune to fear, and so they are immune to Intimidate. Therefore, paladins are immune to torture. There are quite extensive rules for torture in the BoVD, and while that is not an offical sourcebook for the campaign, if a GM is going to allow you to torture characters (be it NPC, PC, or both), he will most likely use those rules.
Skerrit 07-27-06, 07:12 PM	There will be very specific rules on what you can and cannot do to each other in v1.0 of the Campaign Standards.
delroland 07-27-06, 08:17 PM	I am just concerned with fair play. If a CoL character attacks a CoS character, the CoL player should be held accountable for picking the fight. The CoS player should not be punished simply for defending himself and winning.
Herrbard 07-27-06, 08:21 PM	There will be very specific rules on what you can and cannot do to each other in v1.0 of the Campaign Standards. Greg, any hint as to when we will see this much sought after document?
Skerrit 07-27-06, 10:52 PM	I hope before Gen Con. We are having some issues getting things up on the site before the con. At the very least, we will have several copies onsite. Bare with us as we get things up and running.
Herrbard 07-28-06, 12:29 PM	Thnaks for the info. As always, we remain flexible!
The_Jester 08-13-06, 11:49 AM	There will be very specific rules on what you can and cannot do to each other in v1.0 of the Campaign Standards. Did I blink and miss them? Where in the rules (anywhere) does it say killing is no-no? Is it an RPGA guideline?
Sianger 08-14-06, 12:39 AM	Did I blink and miss them? Where in the rules (anywhere) does it say killing is no-no? Is it an RPGA guideline? I do believe it is. That said, yes, it's not in the CS 1.0 (not surprising since the FMs are overworked and all, but just saying...) I strongly recommend that no-PvP rules include things against alignment detection. And, naturally, that they be fair to evil characters, because it's as often as not the non-evil characters who start the PvP.
Mark the Hammer 08-14-06, 03:33 PM	I had a fellow CoS member push be down a 20' shaft because I was in the way... Not too happy. The GM did nto really address the issue and the other 3 GMs that I had throught GenCon all had different takes on the rules... I lived (barely) and had a great time nonetheless but, I was not pleased. ;)
Sianger 08-14-06, 09:17 PM	I had a fellow CoS member push be down a 20' shaft because I was in the way... Not too happy. The GM did nto really address the issue and the other 3 GMs that I had throught GenCon all had different takes on the rules... I lived (barely) and had a great time nonetheless but, I was not pleased. ;) I read your post on the main board earlier, and I still don't get it... how come he needed to push you because you were in the way? Friendly characters can move through each others' squares even in combat. Unless you were specifically refusing to let him through. Besides, even in the Cabal, such directly harmful actions are expressly forbidden - you could have been KOed by that fall. Our "Uncle" or "Godfather" or whoever is supposed to frown very strongly on such actions... read the Obscura section. So, yes, I sympathise with you and fail to understand how this could have been allowed. It's buggers like that who give us Cabal members a bad name...
Skerrit 08-14-06, 09:31 PM	Our new campaign standards will greatly detail the PvP issue, but it basically comes down to the fact that you basically can't do it (we'll detail some in game reasons why). Anyone who kills another PC is permanantly removed from the game.
Mark the Hammer 08-15-06, 08:43 AM	I read your post on the main board earlier, and I still don't get it... how come he needed to push you because you were in the way? Friendly characters can move through each others' squares even in combat. Unless you were specifically refusing to let him through. Trust me, I did not understand it either. The GM said, you can move through his square (mine)... No, I did not try to bar his movement. I would have let him by as we were chasing after someone (If you played the first mod, I think you might know where this occured). He did not even ask, just "I push him down the shaft." My tiefling duskblade had little chance against the gnoll fighter (I know that is not an allowable class in CoS but, there was only 1 choice of a fastplay fighter). I had a good time but, a better clarification is what I think needs to be made so that people don't get mad at the gaming table. It did not ruin my good time! :D
kiddoc 08-15-06, 09:02 AM	(I know that is not an allowable class in CoS but, there was only 1 choice of a fastplay fighter). ACK! We had 3 fastplay fighters at the show! 1 Tower shield build, 1 archer build, and the gnoll blackwheel-only build. We've got to get those stinking things online! Mark, I'm very sorry to hear about that odd experience. We'll do our utmost to make sure the clarifications are as clear as possible and reflect the combined wisdom of both our players and factionmasters. Hang in there, and thanks for being so understanding about it.
Mark the Hammer 08-15-06, 09:12 AM	Supplies ran VERY low, very fast on fastplays.... LOL I tried to get a barbarian on Friday and they had none. My friend also was a fighter and the gnoll is all they had. Oh well!! :D As I said, it made me a little upset. It did not ruin my game or anything. It was just annoying. I am glad to here your concern however. I thought that they mods were VERY well laid out and I think that most people like the way that they allowed different ways to complete the objectives besides hacking and slashing. :cool: