What classes tend toward PvP?

[TuggyNE]

So, my extremely limited anecdotal evidence suggests that a few classes tend to encourage PvP more than others, such as Warlocks (perhaps the Chaotic/Evil restrictions mess it up) and Rogues (thieving from everyone in sight is what they do, right? Right?). Any other suggestions or stories about this?

Also, general advice on preempting these tendencies would probably also be quite handy.

[eggynack]

I don't have much of the other stuff, but I'd probably add paladins to the list, if there's an evil guy in the party, and maybe druids, if that evil guy happens to be a necromancer. You've got some classes which are occasional targets of PvP, and some classes which are occasional instigators of PvP.

[Matticussama]

I'd say that, in general, almost all Divine classes encourage PvP if party members are of a drastically different alignment. Unless an evil party member is playing a very behind the curtain sort of evil, then the good Cleric or Paladin are probably going to kill them when they realize that evil behavior wasn't just a one-off decision. I would say this also applies to the Crusader class for the same reasons.

[ArcturusV]

In my experience, it's usually less Class Based, and more Race Based. Halflings, in particular, are almost always the instigators of PvPing. This doesn't mean they always stab someone first, but usually they push buttons until it happens. Elves are usually secondary for that, usually less because they are into PvP, but that the people who play Elves tend to play them as giving zero cares about the "Lesser Races" in the party and see nothing wrong with dropping AoE templates right on top of their Cannon Fodder... I mean "Party Members".

If I was going to hazard a guess for Classes, Rogue, yeah. Usually because they use the BS excuse of "I'm a rogue, I'm supposed to steal!" to loot party members. Rangers and Wizards are two others. Usually for the same reason "people are in my way". Rangers getting ticked that some beatstick is giving them a penalty to hit by being in melee of their targets. Wizards because friendly fire isn't. And they're the class most likely to drop Friendly Fire.

[Mnemnosyne]

Meh, even as a non-evil character, or even a good character, I would say paladins in the party are still more likely than most to encourage pvp if they're played in that manner. A good paladin player of course wouldn't create this problem, but an overenthusiastic and inexperienced player is likely to try to live up to what they see as what a paladin is 'supposed' to do, and cause this sort of problem.

Beyond that, I'll second the 'rogue' mention, since the same overenthusiastic, inexperienced players are likely to play them like kleptomaniacs that can't stop stealing from their party. ...on that note, Kender. Not a class, but still.

Clerics, I haven't really seen having this problem. Theoretically, they should - especially those that are clerics of a particularly forceful god that likes to convert others. In practice, I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a super-zealous cleric that tries to convert the party either by force or to the point that the group gets sufficiently irritated to attack him.

As for preempting those tendencies...I'd say it's mostly a matter of discussing the issue with the player beforehand. Look at their background (you do have players write backgrounds, right?) and see if there's anything that seems like a problem in there. If the player's playing a paladin, it would be wise to discuss the Code and rewrite it so it A: makes sense, and B: is clearly understood to both player and DM so that the player knows what he can and cannot do/allow in his presence.

If the party rogue is stealing from the party and you're the DM, and foresee conflict because of it, one thing you can do is steal from the rogue. Stat up a better thief, probably one that can defeat the rogue one-on-one and would require the party's assistance to beat. However, since he's stealing stuff that was stolen from the party, it's hard for the party rogue to ask for help, from the people that he stole from, to get back the stuff that he stole from them. Once the party does catch on, there's also another option: suggest to them that they show him exactly why it's a bad idea to make your friends into enemies; recommend that they abandon him at a critical moment. If the character dies and is resurrected, perhaps he will learn a valuable lesson. If the character dies and is not resurrected, then perhaps the player will learn that making characters that the rest of the party hates is a bad idea, even if they don't directly kill you.

[Eldan]

In my experience, it's less a class thing and more a player thing. Certain players can use almost anything as a reason:

"I'm an elf, I have to be haugthy and tell everyone I'm better than them!"
"I'm a rogue, of course I steal from party members!"
"I'm a chaotic neutral bard, I can't possibly say anyting that makes sense!"
"I'm a Paladin! He stepped on a fly that might be good aligned! Smite!"

And so on.

[Theoboldi]

Frenzied Berserkers. PvP is quite literally (I do hope I am using the word correctly here) one of their class features. Woe to the player who played one without asking the other members of his party first.

[Killer Angel]

Frenzied Berserkers. PvP is quite literally (I do hope I am using the word correctly here) one of their class features.

That's absolutely true, but it quickly become a non-issue: at a certain point, you let the FB to die by itself... :smallamused:

[TuggyNE]

You've got some classes which are occasional targets of PvP, and some classes which are occasional instigators of PvP.

A useful distinction, I think.


I'd say that, in general, almost all Divine classes encourage PvP if party members are of a drastically different alignment.

Hmm, I suppose that's true.


In my experience, it's usually less Class Based, and more Race Based. Halflings, in particular, are almost always the instigators of PvPing. This doesn't mean they always stab someone first, but usually they push buttons until it happens.
[…]
Rangers and Wizards are two others. Usually for the same reason "people are in my way". Rangers getting ticked that some beatstick is giving them a penalty to hit by being in melee of their targets.

Those are both rather unexpected, especially since Precise Shot is only a feat away. :smalltongue:


...on that note, Kender. Not a class, but still.

Haha yeah.


If the party rogue is stealing from the party and you're the DM, and foresee conflict because of it, one thing you can do is steal from the rogue. Stat up a better thief, probably one that can defeat the rogue one-on-one and would require the party's assistance to beat. However, since he's stealing stuff that was stolen from the party, it's hard for the party rogue to ask for help, from the people that he stole from, to get back the stuff that he stole from them.

Now that is an amusing and appropriate idea. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, after all.


In my experience, it's less a class thing and more a player thing. Certain players can use almost anything as a reason:

"I'm an elf, I have to be haugthy and tell everyone I'm better than them!"
"I'm a rogue, of course I steal from party members!"
"I'm a chaotic neutral bard, I can't possibly say anyting that makes sense!"
"I'm a Paladin! He stepped on a fly that might be good aligned! Smite!"

Hmm. Any idea how to slap some sense into this sort of person?


Frenzied Berserkers. PvP is quite literally (I do hope I am using the word correctly here) one of their class features. Woe to the player who played one without asking the other members of his party first.

True enough.

[Karnith]

Paladins of Slaughter. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures) Look at that Code of Conduct. Just look at it. Yes, I had a player want to play one as written.

In my experience it's generally been a player problem, though, and not an issue of "Oh, the class says I should do this" (Paladin moral quandaries excepted).

[shadow_archmagi]

Frenzied Berserkers. PvP is quite literally (I do hope I am using the word correctly here) one of their class features.

I don't think so, I'm afraid.

Literally is used to distinguish between metaphorical and actual- (typing Rofl vs actually rolling on floors laughing). I'd argue that LITERALLY having PvP as a class feature would entail having a class feature that was either named player vs player, or directly called out other members of the party as the only viable targets, or something along those lines.

The frenzied beserker's class feature requires them to attack the nearest target once the last enemy dies. In the strictest sense, that's not even PVP: Since there's no conflict between the players themselves, one character is simply obligated to attack, it's not even a question of whether Steve is an awful roleplayer or not. Whereas if Paladin Steve gets into PVP, it's because Steve is making bad decisions, if Barbarian Steve attacks someone, it's essentially an accident, and thus probably LESS likely to cause long-run conflict, since once he gets out of rage he cam apologize and offer up a healing potion.

[BWR]

All pvp I have experienced has come from players. If players play their PCs as ***** towards other PCs, pvp will probably happen. If one player insists on playing a CE murderrapist in a group of paladins (or just about anybody really), yeah, pvp is going to happen, and it's entirely that one player's fault for intentionally choosing a character that obviously doesn't work with the group.
If players are generally nice and try to work together, it doesn't really matter what they play, the PCs will end up finding a way to iron out their differences without resorting to violence, and they will avoid making characters that will obviously not work together.

Honestly, I don't count the Frenzied Berserker, just as I don't count Confusion or Dominate: that's out of the player's and PC's hands.

[ahenobarbi]

I says class matters not. One player initiated PvP as Paladin, Wizard, Druid, Warlock, Fighter... and many more. Other players did not.

[Drachasor]

Yes, this is definitely a player issue. Sometimes one a DM encourages or supports.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Hmm. Any idea how to slap some sense into this sort of person?
Slaps? Hidden text?

[137beth]

I says class matters not. One player initiated PvP as Paladin, Wizard, Druid, Warlock, Fighter... and many more. Other players did not.

Pretty much. Still, some players have an intrinsic misunderstanding of certain classes (paladin), which leads them to be more likely to cause issues.
I'd say cleric can also be an issue, for a lot of the same reasons as paladin--but much less often.

[Crake]

I'd have to agree on the whole "it's the player, not the class" thing. I'm currently DMing a group with a succubus beguiler (gestalting outsider HD with his beguiler levels), a half celestial duskblade//homebrew healer/radiant servant hybrid and a janni ninja (also gestalting outsider HD with his ninja levels) and despite it all, they manage to work together quite well, even if they do often show distaste for eachother's lifestyle choices.

[Jeff the Green]

Paladins of Slaughter. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures) Look at that Code of Conduct. Just look at it. Yes, I had a player want to play one as written.

In my experience it's generally been a player problem, though, and not an issue of "Oh, the class says I should do this" (Paladin moral quandaries excepted).

Paladins in general, really. Their code leads so many players to act like Judge Dredd.

[Dimers]

Paladins are easily at the top of my anecdotal list.
Second are rogues, but only if you count theft as PVP.
Third are plain ol' barbarians, which I'm very surprised not to see mentioned before this.

[Jormengand]

Paladin + Antipaladin + Liberator + Enforcer + Justicar is the perfect recipe for a slaughter. The Paladin needs to kill the antipaladin and the enforcer, the Antipaladin needs to kill the paladin and the liberator, the liberator needs to kill the paladin and the enforcer, the enforcer needs to kill the antipaladin and the liberator, the justicar needs to kill everyone and no-one needs to kill the justicar.

Oh, and there are single-alignment versions as well.

[Roguenewb]

Paladins and Druids are the most plot disruptive, and the most likely to get into party conflict. Actual fighting...almost certainly a player based thing. Wizards tend to be the best at PvP (what a surprise) because they can totally dismember a party. I've also seen grapplers abuse the fact that PCs tend to suck at grapple.

As an aside, the most PvP I've ever seen was when I played a beguiler. At low levels, he kept all his friends charmed to him all the time, which drove some players nuts. Later he'd dominate all the BSFs before a big fight, so he could use them as chess pieces around the combat board. They did not enjoy that. I claim sanctuary though, the character existed because my players refused to believe in tiers and claimed that fighters and warmages were better than beguillers and refused to see reason. I showed them.

[Jormengand]

Oh, someone also decided to attack my wizard because I cast Unnatural Lust to get her to kiss and cuddle my character, who was also a girl.

I then Held her Person and stole her equipment until she made it up to me. That was fun.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, Precise Shot is easy to pick up. But usually they don't because they're already complaining about all the Feat Taxes in Archery, like Point Blank Shot. As a Ranger, they don't want to be shooting arrows from that close anyway. But still, it's something I've seen. Similarly with Wizards who don't get Shaping of some sort. Or something like the Sniper ability to turn spells into Rays, etc.

I actually tell my players I'm fine with PvP... if it comes with Plot. I usually throw a punch into the arm/shoulder of a guy who just PvPs out of nowhere. Just one day they decide that instead of power attack smashing the Orc Shaman, they're going to go smash their own Wizard or something. Bad stuff. But I don't mind if it comes up as a matter of plot. Some evil NPC gets their ear and starts planting ideas. Resentment builds up after months or years of bad blood between party members, etc.

[Mnemnosyne]

PvP with no explanation can be confusing, yeah. My first time I got PvP'd, was in a play by post game. To this day, I still have no idea why. Admittedly, at the time I was playing an obnoxious munchkin type character, but ironically...I had yet to do anything that seems likely to have drawn the ire of the guy that killed me. I was a little smug, is all. A little. I did eventually grow out of my obnoxious munchkin stage, and realize what a pest that character would have been had she lived, but I have never understood why she was attacked at that particular time when she had yet to do anything annoying.

Ironically, even at the time I wasn't all that upset about it. PvP has never really bothered me.

[nyjastul69]

My personal experience is that it's a player thing and not a class thing. When it's a player that's not normally a pvper, it tends to be with the rogue class.

[Eldest]

Oh, someone also decided to attack my wizard because I cast Unnatural Lust to get her to kiss and cuddle my character, who was also a girl.

I then Held her Person and stole her equipment until she made it up to me. That was fun.

I... frankly, that would outrage me OOC, and would bring about an OOC response.

Adding to the chorus of people that say it's the players and not the class.

[Jormengand]

I... frankly, that would outrage me OOC, and would bring about an OOC response.

Adding to the chorus of people that say it's the players and not the class.

My actions or theirs? If the latter, they did explain that "Yeah, just to make this clear I don't have a problem with you doing that, but my character probably would," OWTTE.

[Eldest]

My actions or theirs? If the latter, they did explain that "Yeah, just to make this clear I don't have a problem with you doing that, but my character probably would," OWTTE.

Your actions, I have strong feelings about any sort of involuntary emotions or actions. If they had no problem with it OOC and reacted IC, yes, that was actually impressive, though I would actually view the casting of involuntary spells on party members as the start of PvP in that case.

[Jormengand]

Your actions, I have strong feelings about any sort of involuntary emotions or actions. If they had no problem with it OOC and reacted IC, yes, that was actually impressive, though I would actually view the casting of involuntary spells on party members as the start of PvP in that case.

There was a reason behind it, I didn't just spontaneously cast the spell.

Because I was a wizard, and they're not spontaneous.

Also, I know that person pretty well, and yes they were fine with it.

[Eldest]

There was a reason behind it, I didn't just spontaneously cast the spell.

Because I was a wizard, and they're not spontaneous.

Also, I know that person pretty well, and yes they were fine with it.

Ok, if it worked in your game, it works. I was just trying to say that, since I read it first as the player being angry OOC and retaliating IC, I would react somewhat the same way.

[Necroticplague]

Like everyone else, its always the player, not the class, but certain classes can more often create problems leading to PvP for unskilled players.

A classic example is to look for anything from page-long alignment arguments. If these arguments come up around a table, expect some form of conflict to occur. A classic example would be a necromancer who can vehemently have disagreements over whether what he does in intrinsically bad(not getting into that plane of worms). Paladin who feel they have the right to police the rest of the group fall under the same category. This applies especially in the case of certain Exalted feats, which actually force them to do so or suffer penalties.Beguilers who think the fact they can manipulate people gives them carte blanche to do so should not be surprised when retribution occurs. Barbarians who use their class name to assume they should have absolutely no tact or respect for societal laws, norms, and mores.Monstous, especially aberrant or fiendish relation who use their different ways of thinking for a similar excuse. Morons who seem to only deal in ultimatums, having no concept of compromise.

[Twilightwyrm]

I wouldn't really say Warlock's encourage PvP, at least not any more than any other chaotic and/or evil character. Hell, I'd imagine a Chaotic Good warlock could work quite well as a means of holding the party together. So really, they'd be no more difficult to integrate than a Hexblade. As for rogues, contrary to popular belief, stealing is not "what a rogue does". Sure, they CAN, but any character class CAN (especially with Sleight of Hand being not exclusive to the rogue). The category the rogue falls into is more along the lines of a diplomat and/or an engineer, depending on how they are build (Open Lock as a class skill means nothing. A fighter with an adamantine handaxe can effectively "open lock"). So no, they need not be more predisposed towards thieving, and indeed work just as well, if not better, on the other side of the law as well.

Rather, I would tend to agree with the views on divine classes posted here, if only because there is no way to divorce their character from the mandates of the divine powers that they serve. Sure, a cleric can choose a fairly tolerant deity, a druid can try to take a more laid back view, etc. etc., but it must be specifically bypassed, rather than simply not built towards.

[Venusaur]

Dread Necromancer can be a recipe for trouble.

[TuggyNE]

Hidden text?

Yeah, Imma try some hidden text next time, tell you how it goes. :smallwink:


Pretty much. Still, some players have an intrinsic misunderstanding of certain classes (paladin), which leads them to be more likely to cause issues.

I think that's the key thing I'm getting at, or at least the main one; sure, PvP is always avoidable, but some classes, for various (often stupid) reasons, seem to encourage it. One of those reasons is misunderstanding, and another is clinging too tightly to a narrow interpretation the stock fluff (and sometimes rules).


Paladins are easily at the top of my anecdotal list.
Second are rogues, but only if you count theft as PVP.
Third are plain ol' barbarians, which I'm very surprised not to see mentioned before this.

Why Barbarians? Just because "Grarg smash!"?


I have never understood why she was attacked at that particular time when she had yet to do anything annoying.

Clearly the other player was precognitive IRL.


Like everyone else, its always the player, not the class, but certain classes can more often create problems leading to PvP for unskilled players.

A classic example is to look for anything from page-long alignment arguments. If these arguments come up around a table, expect some form of conflict to occur. A classic example would be a necromancer who can vehemently have disagreements over whether what he does in intrinsically bad(not getting into that plane of worms). Paladin who feel they have the right to police the rest of the group fall under the same category. This applies especially in the case of certain Exalted feats, which actually force them to do so or suffer penalties.Beguilers who think the fact they can manipulate people gives them carte blanche to do so should not be surprised when retribution occurs. Barbarians who use their class name to assume they should have absolutely no tact or respect for societal laws, norms, and mores.Monstous, especially aberrant or fiendish relation who use their different ways of thinking for a similar excuse. Morons who seem to only deal in ultimatums, having no concept of compromise.

That's a pretty good list, yes.


Sure, they CAN, but any character class CAN (especially with Sleight of Hand being not exclusive to the rogue). The category the rogue falls into is more along the lines of a diplomat and/or an engineer, depending on how they are build (Open Lock as a class skill means nothing. A fighter with an adamantine handaxe can effectively "open lock"). So no, they need not be more predisposed towards thieving, and indeed work just as well, if not better, on the other side of the law as well.

Yeah, but this is a case where existing preconceptions are the cause of the trouble, rather than misinterpreting the rules as such; "Rogue" sounds like certain types of character that are expected to be kind of jerks. Even if they aren't supposed to be.


Dread Necromancer can be a recipe for trouble.

Hmm, yes. Minionmancy with a side of moral quandary is always fun.

[Dimers]

Why Barbarians? Just because "Grarg smash!"?

Honestly, I don't understand the people who start intraparty fights. All I can tell you is that the barbarians I've seen are hungry for any combat any place any time, and a lot of them have also had codes-of-honor about as strong and arbitrary as the paladin code is. "It's the way of my tribe!" Bleeping bleep-bleep, it is. You just want to hit things with your greataxe. *Grump.* :smallyuk:

[angry_bear]

A lot of the problems come from poor party coordination. 9 times out of 10, if the party sits down and agrees to be of the same alignment access, (CG, LG, NG, LN, N as the good/not likely to commit evil access for example) the only pvp you're likely to see is a friendly dual with no real consequences.

Whereas if someone rolls up an evil, or chaotic neutral character (Not always with CN, but often enough) for whatever reason, there's probably going to be a decent amount of infighting. And let's face it, there's usually that one guy who wants to be evil for no real reason other than to create party conflict.

Even with the good axis there will be potential for conflict of course. If a rogue player is in a group of lawful good characters, he might not want to go for the Robin Hood archetype for example. It's not that the archetype is an evil one, but a party of mostly lawful good characters might not agree with that character's methods. This can easily lead to conflict, but with the alignments, they've got a better chance of talking things out in character than if it's a chaotic evil barbarian who's go to solution is burning down the nearby village.

Basically what I'm trying to say in this wall of text is that, it doesn't just boil down to a single character class, or certain types of players, but a combination of everything.

[ArcturusV]

Always reasons for intraparty fights.

Last major one I was in, the "PvP" turned into an entire plot arc. Other player in the group was using Enchantment magic to strip away free will and conduct various behaviors upon the sanctity of the fairer sex that I rather not be explicit about.

Also he had badly, badly rigged dice. As in he could crit every single roll for a session without blinking.

But I otherwise really liked my character (Lawful Evil Gish type), and the game, and the other people in the group. But we all found the guy's play in that regard repugnant. And he never understood it. Nor why people liked my "Evil" character considering that he represented the "Good" of tossing people aside like disposable pens and mindjacking.

... so eventually I launched a massive player driven plot arc where I systematically destroyed that character, everything he ever wanted, and made sure there was no way in the multiverse that he could ever come back.

And other than the target of the PvPing, everyone loved the PvP Arc. Well... I wouldn't say other than the target. The target himself liked it... after he got over the shock of finding out our "Solo sessions" over the last few months was me plotting his downfall. He finally got non-rigged dice, and wanted to take another shot at me, rolling up a related character to come gunning for me (In good spirits).

[Zanos]

Dread Necromancer can be a recipe for trouble.
Thou shalt not waste! Really a DN is just looking out for the environment and should get along splendidly with the druid and the paladin.

[Twilightwyrm]

Yeah, but this is a case where existing preconceptions are the cause of the trouble, rather than misinterpreting the rules as such; "Rogue" sounds like certain types of character that are expected to be kind of jerks. Even if they aren't supposed to be.


While I can suppose see your point, but the question is what classes tend towards PvP, which in turn implies something more than just a general stereotype associated with a class. While it is true that a class that is labeled as kind of a jerk might jump out at someone who wants to play someone that is kind of a jerk. But generally speaking (and unlike in classic labeling theory), the people that would do this in the first place are already looking to be jerks, regardless of class, whereas I somewhat doubt that people that would not be inclined towards being jerks would start acting like jerks when there is no part of the class that actually pushes them in that direction.

Indeed, this is where some divine classes differ. While they might not start off with the preconception that they may act like jerks (with the exception of the Paladin, which suffers the worst of both worlds), the mechanisms within the class can push the character towards such activity, making it more likely to happen even in cases where the person who originally made the character did not initially intend it. So while I can see your point in theory, I'm not sure it is entirely accurate in practice, though I do concede that it may be difficult to tell.

[buttcyst]

As DM, in my games, I allow any PvP that can be called for IC, don't encourage it, but I do make my players aware prior to entering game that PvPIC is allowed, which mostly applies to newcomers attempting to enter the party, my form of a "don't be a jerk/ your character doesn't fit" check on new players. I feel it adds a level of realism to the environment, if a new party member joins in the middle of a haunted house and his character is a strange mix-breed with a lion's head, the party might kill you based on appearance. Likewise, if you meet the party in town and you come across as a jerk, they might leave you behind, possibly chase you off if you follow them around.


As player, I have always had an element of PvP in every game I have played in, under a large variety of DMs, probably why I am open to it in games I DM. I have played along side a kender that I used to turn upside down frequently with the help of the party monk, my cha was too low to persuade him to do anything so we simply grabbed him and literally turned him upside down and shook him, we kept an inventory of what was actually his. I have had a wizard almost die from confronting a party rogue about breaking into an arcane college. I had a fighter (protected by a wish from a djinn someone else made because I "was to have no harm come to me", the party didn't find this part out until it was obvious), he took over 700 points of damage in one session after getting the party arrested and transported to another plane, and almost all of that damage was from the party.


I guess my conclusion is that PvP isn't a bad thing, and shouldn't be frowned on, but it does need to be announced as an element in your world if you choose to include it. Or you could hold the other extreme and simply announce that it is not allowed. Trying to hold a gray area on this one I believe will lead to hurt feelings (the IRL kind).


rogues tend to lead to PvP, alignment based classes can lead to clashes. Any situation that truly sparks an IC point of view on a topic or ideal can lead to a PvP situation eventually. mostly though, PvP tends to happen when a new person is introduced to a party, especially if the party(players) has existed together over the course of a few levels.


And as for all you barbarian bashers, my currant character is a barbarian and I would like to add that his last experience in town was him fishing in the river and then feeding various NPCs the fish that I caught... and at night I was fixing the wall that I used for a door on my way to bravely help the town put out a forest fire. He is a complete teddy bear until a fight breaks out, when he becomes the wild bloodthirsty barbarian everybody loves, but will still render aid to those in need after combat amidst the fatigue.