Pc Pvp

[Tegu8788]

I've seen a number of threads mention how player combat is broken, and that building a monster with PC rules creates glass cannons. I'm in a group where a character I'm going to play is likely to rub other characters the wrong way. Has anyone found a good way for one player to fight another player? Limit dailies, boost HP? I don't imagine killing will occur, but at least down to a quarter of HPs.

[Fox Box Socks]

I've heard that 3v3 with a strict "no doubling up on roles" policy actually works out kind of well. Kind of.

[Kurald Galain]

PVP runs against core principles of the game. The entire design is that high-damage low-hp creatures (i.e. the PCs) fight against low-damage high-hp creatures (i.e. monsters). As a result, PVP fights are inherently problematic, and tend to boil down to whomever gets the highest initiative wins.

[Dimers]

PVP runs against core principles of the game. The entire design is that high-damage low-hp creatures (i.e. the PCs) fight against low-damage high-hp creatures (i.e. monsters).

PVP also runs against the core idea of the adventuring team relying on each other and nobody being able to get by on their own. Infighting to establish dominance is one thing; trying earnestly to whack the party's controller is quite another.

Guilded Age (http://guildedage.net/) has good examples of characters starting off at each other's throats and "rubbing the wrong way" without getting into PVP. Byron and Frigg actually meet each other via mutual nonlethal attacks, and they content themselves with verbal sparring thereafter. (Okay, sure, Byron kills everybody later, but that's more a "frenzied berserker meets DM fiat" situation.)

[Katana_Geldar]

PvP goes against everything mechanically in 4e, it even sayd in the Players Handbook that it assumes players are good and work together.

No, just no.

[Sarco_Phage]

PVP runs against core principles of the game. The entire design is that high-damage low-hp creatures (i.e. the PCs) fight against low-damage high-hp creatures (i.e. monsters). As a result, PVP fights are inherently problematic, and tend to boil down to whomever gets the highest initiative wins.

Would that, technically, make 4e match the JRPG model? I recall in a JRPG PCs are likely to be putting out ludicrous numbers in terms of damage, but only having, say, a tenth of that in terms of HP.

I recall one JRPG which actually had a versus mode (GBA's Golden Sun and the Lost Age), and high level fights typically ended really, really fast.

[Drglenn]

I'm in a group where a character I'm going to play is likely to rub other characters the wrong way.
Simple answer: don't play that character :smallconfused:

[Doug Lampert]

PVP runs against core principles of the game. The entire design is that high-damage low-hp creatures (i.e. the PCs) fight against low-damage high-hp creatures (i.e. monsters). As a result, PVP fights are inherently problematic, and tend to boil down to whomever gets the highest initiative wins.

Not really.

At level 1 the monsters have only slightly more HP and do about the same damage. And with the errata the monster's damage keeps up as it levels. And with healing powers counted the PCs will ALWAYS have more HP than the monsters. They certainly do at level 1 if the party has a cleric, and this goes nowhere but up as the leader gets utility powers and the other characters accumulate items and multiclass feats.

The problem is that PCs have nova attacks and their ability to take damage depends on the leader helping them. PC vs. PC there's no time for the healer to do his job even if he's involved.

If for some insane reason you want PC vs. PC to work as a fight then take away both character's action point (thus reducing the damage rate to less than everything in one round) and let both characters spend a healing surge for temporary HP equal to what an equal level multiclass healing word would restore to them. That might be enough, but if I were a player I'd hate it if the GM suddenly changed the rules like that.

Worse, my players have done PC vs. PC in game, but every PC vs. PC fight I've had has come up with other stuff going on, so if I did want to change the rules for PC vs PC when and how the rules change would be a serious problem as would when they change back. When they've come up I just play them out, it's typically everyone else vs. one character, so the outcome of the PvP part of the fight is forgone and I don't see the point to changing rules for that.

If your character is annoying and you EXPECT PC vs. PC even prior to entering him in the campaign then I'd say I know who I'd expect people to be ganging up on.

DougL

[Tegu8788]

So that's a resounding no on PC PvP. I'll have my char engage in a verbal fight instead, as suggested. The fight I expect to be an emotional outburst, so it can be altered. Thanks all.

[Grogmir]

When I'm DMing if a player turns on the party or single party member, their character instanly becomes an NPC.

It can be the basis of good Roleplaying. It should never ever breakdown into Rollplaying.

[Crasical]

When I'm DMing if a player turns on the party or single party member, their character instanly becomes an NPC.

It can be the basis of good Roleplaying. It should never ever breakdown into Rollplaying.

Wait, what? I don't think that word means what you think it does. Having players agree as a houserule that anyone turning on the party is now an NPC is fine, but how the heck is turning against the party 'rollplaying'?

[Dimers]

Wait, what? I don't think that word means what you think it does. Having players agree as a houserule that anyone turning on the party is now an NPC is fine, but how the heck is turning against the party 'rollplaying'?

I believe he's saying that it's okay to roleplay intraparty strife, but if somebody wants to use a mechanical ability against another PC, that's when they lose control of their own character. It's not that Grogmir considers strife 'rollplaying' -- the words break down there are being used loosely.