Community

1.) PVP will happen, whether you include rules for it or not. (Just one look at how many threads popped up in the House Rules board trying to make PVP work for 4E will varify that.) The succubus will dominate the Crusader (surprsiningly low Will saves for a holy-warrior) and he'll go after the already half-dead sorcerer. Awesome. The dread necromancer will raise zombies in front of the paladin of Kelemvor. Sweet. Some of the most memorable and fun encounters from some of the most memorable and fun games I've ever played have involved PVP for some reason. I seriously doubt I'm alone. Just because some of you are too narrow-minded to imagine anyone enjoying this for roleplay reasons or any other reason besides being jerk and sabotaging other peoples' fun, doesn't mean we don't or that it should be excluded from the game entirely. Yes, it's a team-based game. But the point isn't just kill the guys the DM throws at us. It's to tell a story, to play a character, and to have fun without imposing on the fun of others. So, if everyone at my table enjoys an opportunity for PVP, I'll give them that opportunity from time to time and it should be accounted for (and yes, balanced for) in the rules. No, the guy doing it just to be a jerk will not be liked. He also won't be invited back to the table (simple enough solution). For those of us with valid reasons to want PVP rules, balance the classes/PCs so that it's viable with the normal combat system or give us special PVP rules. In the PHB1 or the DMG no less.

Thank you, sincerely, to those of you not taking the "I don't like it so it shouldn't go in DND and anyone who likes it is X" approach to this thread that's been all-too-common on these boards for all-too-long. To you I apologize for my ire.

2.) Now, finally, to the actual point of the thread. Balancing the classes is only half the story for making PVP work. It's the half that earlier editions of DND got wrong. Whomever got the initiative won, because the fighter could usually one-shot the mage (or at least stun him) or the mage could turn invisible and start flying around as the DM shouted "CHEAP! Cheap-CHEAP!" Unless it was melee vs. melee, in which case sit back and enjoy a nap for the hour-long slugfest.

But for the most part 4E got this right kinda right. Leaders are at a slight disadvantage because their secondary abilities benefit allies and PVP by definition is usually 1 on 1. Controllers are screwed if they run out of dailies (or if they were fighting a charging barbarian or an archer ranger). In a fight between a defender and striker, both will bloody each other, but barring bad rolls, the ranged striker will win the day and the close or melee sriker will lose. These problems could be countermanded, however, with planning, clever play, and luck.

The problem 4E has is that players just aren't balanced to fight other players, period (partially by dev admission to enforce the dogmatic and paternalistic idea that DND is only for cooperative combat vs. the designated enemy and no one could possibly find PVP rewarding unless they were intentionally being a jerk to sabotage the rest of the party). Sure, a monster with 1500 HP can take the beating a striker could provide, but even a fighter was in trouble in a round or two of PVP because of the way HP and damage were tabulated. And lord forbid any elemental-based character came across another PC with halfway decent resistance. This could be avoided, somewhat, by houseruling that characters who worked together so closely knew each other's moves and could counter some of the damage (PCs engaged in in-party PVP did half damage) but it wasn't a perfect solution, and no solution was ever made core. Even in the book on playing evil characters, AFAIK.

I say, if the devs really want to maximize the number of play styles Next supports as they claim have rules for PVP in the DMG or balance classes so that normal combat is a viable PVP option.

Feb 28, 2012 -- 1:56PM, dmgorgon wrote:

Feb 28, 2012 -- 1:32PM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Wow, this got out of hand quick.

There is a time and a place for pvp.  It usually isn't something I'm interested in, but if someone and their group wants to do it, what harm does that do you?  It doesn't make them sociopaths, or MMO gamers, or 12-year-olds.  It just means they enjoy an aspect of the game you don't.   

So, in an attempt to get somewhere near back on track, what do you mean, dmgorgon, by having the rules support pvp better?  What would that look like? 

Well before the chaos of the last few posts,  I was saying that it would be nice if my character at least felt as powerfull as the other characters.    If every character was capable of doing high damage or playing the striker role then that might correct the problem. 

I'm also looking at an old module I have that has few PvP situations in it.   This module hinges on the fact that some in the party will be become possessed.  In this situation,   the DM passes the player  note telling him that he is now Chaotic Evil and must not let the other players know this fact.   The player is then forced to do things when appropriate which might lead to a party conflict.    The final battle has the possessed pcs fight against the party to protect the BBEG.    

 

I think the fact that your only judgement is on character "power" and the only criteria towards that power is if you can kill your supposed friends characters says something.

NONE of the examples for D&D given in this thread to justify PvP have in any way required characters to actually draw weapons and players to actually face off against each other. The fundamental point of the game is cooperation towards a goal. The simple d20 mechanic is enough to resolve any in character dispute because the players should be capable of letting it go at that. Let me restate that to make my point clear. If it really is in character then simply rolling a d20 and whoever gets the higher roll "wins" should be enough. If not something else is wrong and all the PvP mechanics in the world won't help. If you're actually talking about role playing then do that.

I'd also like to provide another example of a situation where PvP is appropriate. This was in second edition. I was playing a cleric who worshipped no god and instead drew his power from the having signed the Dead Pact (ala Torment). This pact requires him to treat the dead, animate and otherwise, the same as he would treat a living being. So he can fight back against a skeleton that attacks him, but cannot tear around destroying them when they haven't anything wrong and is in fact bound to protect them against people who would. The undead that he animates serve him out of duty adn respect rather then magical compulsion.

So, we come to a dungeon level and find that someone has been killing a ton of undead - docile tomb guardians who weren't hurting anybody. We follow the trail of this guy and find - a lawful good paladin engaged in combat against an anti-paladin. The party shouts in unison "Vile killer, I wil lay you low for your crimes!" but half of us are pointing at the paladin as we say it and half are pointing at the anti-paladin.

This leads into a really excellent fight. Loses on both sides as everyone pulls out all the stops to try and win (not loss of life but various supplies and magic items we had been hoarding are expended). Ultimately both Paladins are killed and we end with a role played scene where my cleric holds a badly beaten fighter by his lapels and says -

"Look, I know this upsets you but it's over. The guy is already dead. Either you can die down here with him or you can let it go and we can finish our mission."

"Fine, but I can never forgive what just happened here. Once we're done, if I so much as see your face again, I'll kill you."

Cleric drops him to the cobblestone floor and stalks out of the room.

Mar 1, 2012 -- 2:09AM, 759mages wrote:

Just because some of you are too narrow-minded to imagine anyone enjoying this for roleplay reasons or any other reason besides being jerk and sabotaging other peoples' fun, doesn't mean we don't or that it should be excluded from the game entirely Yes, it's a team-based game. But the point isn't just kill the guys the DM throws at us. It's to tell a story, to play a character, and to have fun without imposing on the fun of others. So, if everyone at my table enjoys an opportunity for PVP, I'll give them that opportunity from time to time and it should be accounted for (and yes, balanced for) in the rules. No, the guy doing it just to be a jerk will not be liked. He also won't be invited back to the table (simple enough solution). For those of us with valid reasons to want PVP rules, balance the classes/PCs so that it's viable with the normal combat system or give us special PVP rules. In the PHB1 or the DMG no less..

The reason is that a lot of these 'new' or 'modern' gamers were raised on video games.  Terms like ganking and griefing is all they typically think about.    They cannot mentaly separate the player from the character he is role playing.   These types of gamers immediatly assume that any sort of party infighting is the result of a griefer, who by definition is a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players.

Thank you, sincerely, to those of you not taking the "I don't like it so it shouldn't go in DND and anyone who likes it is X" approach to this thread that's been all-too-common on these boards for all-too-long. To you I apologize for my ire.

This is very true,  what they typically want is for the system to look just like 4e and everything else to be an add/on module that they don't have to buy.   

I say, if the devs really want to maximize the number of play styles Next supports as they claim have rules for PVP in the DMG or balance classes so that normal combat is a viable PVP option.

I'm not sure we need a set of rules for PvP.  At the very least, it's just a matter of allowing each class to do high damage.    Everyone should still have the option of making a non-combat focused character, but for those that want to do high damage they shouldn't be forced into a particular class.   High damage options should be available to all classes, just as non-combat options should be.  

If the roge wants to knfie my wizard in the ribs, fine.

As long as he doesn't mind being turned into a snail afterwards.