That said, it is an EXCELLENT rule and I highly recommend it. PC on PC violence always ends in disaster for the whole group.
now, attacking another character is not against a book rule per say, but generally against an "unwritten rule" most groups have (don't be a jerk) and generally in bad taste (why do you want to do an unwarranted attack on another PC?).
remember this golden rule of travel: if you have a reason to want to attack this other guy with murderous intent... why are you supposedly travelling with him as a companion?
As far as I can remember, there is no rule explicitly forbidding it. It is a really bad idea, because unless the two players who own the characters have saintly levels of maturity in real life*, things are gunna get ugly.
*then again, if they did both have saintly levels of maturity, I don't think the question would come up.
EDIT: Mostly ninja'd...again...
PC on PC violence always ends in disaster for the whole group.
Not always. However, the likelihood of disaster is directly proportional to the likelihood of the attack happening in the first place. Less mature groups are more likely to resort to deadly violence, and more likely to take it personally when they do. More mature groups are far less likely to engage in this behavior, but when it happens, it's generally merited by the story and fun is had by all.
In your situation ... nevermind, I think that with that last sentence you generally just made people confused. (Your fellow pc is possessed or something? Is this part of his background? Is it some DM curse thing?)
I'd still advise you to refrain from it, cause he's a big guy with a sharp axe and you're a squishy little thing.
Now an invoker going up against a Goliath barbarian is not a pretty sight. I have a player whose character a lot of times would insult the Goliath barbarian. The barbarian didn't take kindly to it. Luckily the bararian didn't kill the invoker.
i would advise against attacking a player. attacking a character or NPC (monster or otherwise) is generally a better idea and doesn't cause the cops to drag you in for violence.
now, attacking another character is not against a book rule per say, but generally against an "unwritten rule" most groups have (don't be a jerk) and generally in bad taste (why do you want to do an unwarranted attack on another PC?).
remember this golden rule of travel: if you have a reason to want to attack this other guy with murderous intent... why are you supposedly travelling with him as a companion?
bahhahahahahaaa
Unless it's in a drunken barroombrawl, I generally advise against it.
In your situation ... nevermind, I think that with that last sentence you generally just made people confused. (Your fellow pc is possessed or something? Is this part of his background? Is it some DM curse thing?)
I'd still advise you to refrain from it, cause he's a big guy with a sharp axe and you're a squishy little thing.
DM Curse
I don't want to attack the person that I have heard is wanting me dead, due to me being an Invoker and the person wanting me dead being possessed by a Balor who is also a Goliath Barbarian
Then perhaps your party should work tirelessly to expel this evil spirit before it comes to that, because your DM is going to do more than tick you off when he makes the Goliath attack the party. There are few things a player hates more than having the DM yank control of his character out of his hands.
If your DM is smart, he will make the Balor asserting control be similar to the Dominate condition. At which point, all your characters need do is stay exactly one square away from the Barbarian. He can't charge (not enough squares), and he can't attack unless the Goliath is using a Reach wepaon (not close enough, if the Goliath is using a Reach weapon, then stay two squares away, and he still can't charge), so the only available actions are move or shift.
If your DM is planning to take control of the Goliath for more than a few rounds, it is a collossally bad idea, and you need to rap him on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and say "Bad DM! Bad!" After the message sinks in that he did wrong, rub his belly and give him a cheeto so that he knows you still love him.
The way I would run it, in his shoes: Have the Balor assert control only when the Goliath is bloodied, have it be Dominate (save ends), and have it end when the Goliath is no longer bloodied. At this point, the party knows there is something wrong, and it needs to gotten to the bottom of. The Barbarian should then be trying to avoid being bloodied, and even if the Balor asserts control, it won't be permanent. At the culmination of the story, have the party drive the Balor out, and fight a weakened version of him on the material plane. He can then be a recurring villain as you guys progress through Paragon and Epic, until you finally track him down in the Nine Hells and destroy him forever.
If your DM is planning to take control of the Goliath for more than a few rounds, it is a collossally bad idea, and you need to rap him on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and say "Bad DM! Bad!" After the message sinks in that he did wrong, rub his belly and give him a cheeto so that he knows you still love him.
I just did a for-real spit take after reading this.
My cat is ticked.
But it was worth it.
As a rule, inter-party combat just shouldn't happen. But occasionally, this might change, particularly if there is a significant in-game motivation. (I've played starwars games where some of our most epic battles were between PCs and other PCs who had fallen to the dark side, for example) It is very important if this is to occur that all the PLAYERS are ok with it, even though their characters may not be.
However, d&d 4th edition does not seem like it's balanced for this sort of engagement. I would still allow it to happen in a game I ran, if it were at a suitably dramatic moment with a good enough reason.
(no backstabbing while asleep because the player gets on your nerve or something)
It depends entirely on the kind of game you are playing in (running) and the style and maturity of the players involved.
As a rule, inter-party combat just shouldn't happen. But occasionally, this might change, particularly if there is a significant in-game motivation. (I've played starwars games where some of our most epic battles were between PCs and other PCs who had fallen to the dark side, for example) It is very important if this is to occur that all the PLAYERS are ok with it, even though their characters may not be.
However, d&d 4th edition does not seem like it's balanced for this sort of engagement. I would still allow it to happen in a game I ran, if it were at a suitably dramatic moment with a good enough reason.
(no backstabbing while asleep because the player gets on your nerve or something)
Its amazingly well balanced if characters are built for it. There are some matchups that are incredibly tough, but the layers of complexity and metagaming are fascinating.
It depends entirely on the kind of game you are playing in (running) and the style and maturity of the players involved.
As a rule, inter-party combat just shouldn't happen. But occasionally, this might change, particularly if there is a significant in-game motivation. (I've played starwars games where some of our most epic battles were between PCs and other PCs who had fallen to the dark side, for example) It is very important if this is to occur that all the PLAYERS are ok with it, even though their characters may not be.
However, d&d 4th edition does not seem like it's balanced for this sort of engagement. I would still allow it to happen in a game I ran, if it were at a suitably dramatic moment with a good enough reason.
(no backstabbing while asleep because the player gets on your nerve or something)
Its amazingly well balanced if characters are built for it. There are some matchups that are incredibly tough, but the layers of complexity and metagaming are fascinating.
It could be really tough, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean the game would be balanced for it.
If your DM is smart, he will make the Balor asserting control be similar to the Dominate condition. At which point, all your characters need do is stay exactly one square away from the Barbarian. He can't charge (not enough squares), and he can't attack unless the Goliath is using a Reach wepaon (not close enough, if the Goliath is using a Reach weapon, then stay two squares away, and he still can't charge), so the only available actions are move or shift.
Quibble: The rules for Charging have changed and a two-square-away charge with a Reach weapon is now legal. You're no longer forced to stop in the first legal square.
If the dude has no Reach, you're right. If he's got Reach, then 1 square doesn't work ( he can Reach you) and 2 squares also doesn't work (he can Charge 2, end adjacent. and still hit you with his reach weapon).
The rolled up newspaper is still a good choice, though.
i would advise against attacking a player. attacking a character or NPC (monster or otherwise) is generally a better idea and doesn't cause the cops to drag you in for violence.
now, attacking another character is not against a book rule per say, but generally against an "unwritten rule" most groups have (don't be a jerk) and generally in bad taste (why do you want to do an unwarranted attack on another PC?).
remember this golden rule of travel: if you have a reason to want to attack this other guy with murderous intent... why are you supposedly travelling with him as a companion?
This is true, attacking a PLAYER is generally know as ASSAULT.
PC on PC violence always ends in disaster for the whole group.
Incorrect, PVP(Player vs Player) can be quite fun and entertaining. However it is important to discuss it before hand and make sure everyone is okay with the possiblity of PVP.
PC on PC violence always ends in disaster for the whole group.
Incorrect, PVP(Player vs Player) can be quite fun and entertaining. However it is important to discuss it before hand and make sure everyone is okay with the possiblity of PVP.
Yeah, PvP works if everyone is on board until you run into an issue of someone having an unfair advantage or something, in which case that can be an issue.
Stabbing another player when they sleep or something doesn't count as PvP, or jumping them after they find a nifty item. It has to be a consensus, or it's a cheesy, immature ambush, in most cases.
In one session I DMed, the PCs were trying to collect a bounty on a professional fighter, but the only way they could approach him was to enter a fighting tournament themselves. During the course of the tournament, the party Fighter and Rogue ended up facing each other. It worked out about like you'd expect - the Rogue started out stronger (he managed to bloody the Fighter in the openening round), but the Fighter still won the match. The players did their best because they wanted to see who would win, but in-character they were just mock-fighting to appease the crowd.
The idea was to have both groups in the same world, but different parts, with the only condition I placed on the other DM being that in a years time (we play when at home from uni, so this will be about 8-12 full day sessions), we had to make sure that both groups were at the same level, so that they could enter a grand tournament (in which each DM will also have a full party, plus other teams at various levels of balance, including some fights that would normally not be put in since the TPK risk is too great).
We'll see how it goes next summer, but it's making them take combat tactics a lot more seriously and learn to use their characters very well since they know they're going to have to prove themselves at some point.
At least that was the idea, turns out the other DM is useless at organising, so the second group has fallen apart. The tournament may become a singles match (which will make the dragon that enters even more of a challenge).
PC on PC violence always ends in disaster for the whole group.
Incorrect, PVP(Player vs Player) can be quite fun and entertaining. However it is important to discuss it before hand and make sure everyone is okay with the possiblity of PVP.
Yeah, PvP works if everyone is on board until you run into an issue of someone having an unfair advantage or something, in which case that can be an issue.
Stabbing another player when they sleep or something doesn't count as PvP, or jumping them after they find a nifty item. It has to be a consensus, or it's a cheesy, immature ambush, in most cases.
Aye, which is why it's extremely important to discuss everything before hand.
I don't want to attack the person that I have heard is wanting me dead, due to me being an Invoker and the person wanting me dead being possessed by a Balor who is also a Goliath Barbarian
*Holds up stopsign* Clarification needed because as the post is written now it is in fact not the PC that wants you dead, but the evil demon NPC that controls the PC. If its the DM who is in control of those actions I wouldn't worry, its probably just being used as dramatic tension or serving as motivation to get rid of the posession. If its the actual player I'd be a bit more worried as he could be using his posession as an excuse to PK people. In any event, just talk to the person in question, be it player or DM and tell them that you'd rather not get involved in a PVP event. Wouldn't the rest of the party logically side with you anyway given that the other guy is posessed by a super evil demon?
It depends entirely on the kind of game you are playing in (running) and the style and maturity of the players involved.
As a rule, inter-party combat just shouldn't happen. But occasionally, this might change, particularly if there is a significant in-game motivation. (I've played starwars games where some of our most epic battles were between PCs and other PCs who had fallen to the dark side, for example) It is very important if this is to occur that all the PLAYERS are ok with it, even though their characters may not be.
However, d&d 4th edition does not seem like it's balanced for this sort of engagement. I would still allow it to happen in a game I ran, if it were at a suitably dramatic moment with a good enough reason.
(no backstabbing while asleep because the player gets on your nerve or something)
Its amazingly well balanced if characters are built for it. There are some matchups that are incredibly tough, but the layers of complexity and metagaming are fascinating.
That basically requires that they be playing something OTHER than DnD. However you may be able to apply the rules, DnD is a team-based game, and not a competitive one. And real (as in, built for use in a campaign) characters aren't gonna be built for it, anyways.