Advice: Player Uses Suggestion vs. Other PCs

[ladytruckdriver]

Hey guys! I apologize if this isn't something worthy of a post on its own. I took a look at the "RAW questions that don't deserve their own post" thread, but I feel this may be more opinion-based than outright rules-based.

WARNING: SUPER LONG

So I'm still trying to figure out my conjurer/master specialist [conjuration]/malconvoker/incantrix [if I need it]/whatever character, but I think it's safe to say that I'll have a pretty high Will save at around level 10, which is where we're starting. However, I don't know if it's going to be high enough to stand up to the party's bard's Fascinate/Suggestion class feature.

This is what he did in response to my in-game argument with a fellow party member: He said he cast Suggestion. The party member and I both made Will saves; we had to beat at least a 31. We both failed. In-character, he wiggled his fingers and suggested "Get along."

I'm not even sure if that's RAW. Isn't Mass Suggestion a thing, so he'd have to Suggest us one at a time if he didn't specifically cast that? Wouldn't he have to say he cast Fascinate first? In that case, wouldn't I get two Will saves instead of one?

I got pretty irritated when I was unable to RP my character's actions in something as simple as a disagreement over our course of action with another PC. If it was a boss making me do it or if I was trying to pull something that would drastically change the course of the story and make all the other PCs mad, I'd find it more reasonable, but otherwise I don't want to be a part of a campaign where it turns out I wasted my time trying to develop my character's personality, since I can just get overruled. It's possible that he has something worked out with the DM, since he's supposed to be the party leader. I think the campaign is probably supposed to be mostly about his character, which I thought I'd be OK with, but in practice, it's annoying.

Since I haven't quite figured out how my character is going to work mechanically, and because the DM said I have one more session to figure out what I'm doing, I have time to alter my build to attempt to counteract his shenanigans, but again, I'm not sure I want to. I don't want to have to take feats and buy items just to protect myself from a fellow PC, even if he is the main character, of sorts.

My ultimate question is how I should handle the situation. Should I try to talk to the DM, or directly to the player? I'm hesitant to do the latter because I'm not sure how he'll respond to me complaining about his build. He mostly buffs and doesn't try to solo the battles, but I do feel like he's soloing the story. Am I even being reasonable? I want to be a good sport, but I did mull over my character concept long enough to be unhappy that I can't play it how I want to. And I don't want to have to resort to trying to troll the other player by having something like Contingency pop or buy an item for every time he tries to control my RPing.

Please let me know what you think would be the best way to deal with it!

[Extra Anchovies]

One PC using magic to halt a (purely verbal) in-character conflict between two other PCs is actively discouraging roleplaying. Also, using compulsions (and even charms) on other PCs is a total **** move if you don't get OOC permission from the targets' players first. Ask the player why they decided to do what they did. If that player disapproves of other players roleplaying their characters in the ways that they want to, then don't play in games with that player, because they're a massive control freak. Either talk to the DM about getting that player in line, talk to the DM about kicking that player, or leave the game yourself. People play roleplaying games (as PCs, that is) to create a character and control that character themselves, not have that character controlled by another person. A player who tells you what your character does instead of letting you decide for yourself is just as bad as a DM who does so* - if not worse.

*sure, there are compulsions, but there are none that I know of that allow the controller to dictate literally every action taken by the compelled creature - a dominated PC has to follow the orders they are given, but gets to choose exactly how they do so (e.g. when given a command to kill a group of adventurers, they'd choose their own tactics unless given specific tactical directions by the creator of the compulsion effect).

[Enran]

I'm sorry, what? A DC 31 on Suggestion at level 10 means this guy has a +16 Charisma modifier. For starters, have the DM look over his sheet.

Second, yeah, he has to Fascinate you first, and yeah, he has to Suggestion one at a time.

Third, make it very straightforward to the Bard (in-character, obviously, though the discussion it generates might shift to OOC): he cuts the "magically mentally controlling other party members" crap, or he establishes himself as a major threat to you and your free will, and Suggestion won't stop you from killing him in self-defense unless he has a tongue of pure silver (and I mean out-of-character, not in-character) to the point of convincing you that leaving your will in his hands is entirely reasonable. (EDIT: Looking again, I could honestly make a case that his repeated use of that on fellow party members could potentially make "letting him live" constitute an "obviously harmful act," thus nullifying the spell, but that's stretching it a bit.)

Mentally dominating party members without a really good reason is actually worse than pretty much any other form of PvP, so if the DM comes to the Bard's defense by saying that attacking the Bard would constitute PvP and he won't allow even the threat, point out that he's being the aggressor with mental influence. If the DM continues to side against you on this point, suggest somebody else DM, or leave the table.

[daremetoidareyo]

Planar bind a succubus to rot his crotch off. And to get him addicted to drugs that he has to come to you for.

He isn't the only beast with mind control out there.

[OldTrees1]

Talk to the Bard player. Let them know that you do not enjoy them controlling your character (Remember to use a neutral/informative tone). If everything is on the up and up, the Bard player will respect your concern either by halting or by giving a good justification of their actions*. If, on the other hand, the Bard player makes no signs of respect towards your concern, then speak with your DM.

*One example being: "I used that to give you an in game scapegoat that you could use, if you so chose, to end the IC argument. It was not meant to dictate how you play your character."

[Sacrieur]

First, please ignore the OOC advice in this thread about how the player was in the wrong. It's been a common theme here that everyone's knee jerk response is to kick a player out the moment they do something you don't personally like.

First you can fascinate several creatures at once.
Second, you do get a second saving throw against the Suggestion, but not against Fascinate.
Third, the DC against Suggestion is, as someone pointed out, not feasibly that high.

Before we begin, let's start with the fact that the rules didn't fail you, the player didn't follow them. You should have spoken up and looked at the exact ability once you felt that little ping go off that said, "A 31 DC are you serious?"

But it is very possible that the Bard could have succeeded, and that's what I'd like to discuss.



I got pretty irritated when I was unable to RP my character's actions in something as simple as a disagreement over our course of action with another PC. If it was a boss making me do it or if I was trying to pull something that would drastically change the course of the story and make all the other PCs mad, I'd find it more reasonable, but otherwise I don't want to be a part of a campaign where it turns out I wasted my time trying to develop my character's personality, since I can just get overruled. It's possible that he has something worked out with the DM, since he's supposed to be the party leader. I think the campaign is probably supposed to be mostly about his character, which I thought I'd be OK with, but in practice, it's annoying.

This is where roleplaying begins. Turns out you're the one trying to metagame by stopping the player from doing what he wants to do. He's allowed to mind control you. It's part of the game so get over it. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to tell him how to play his character.

So if you stop from your own personal outrage and metagaming, you'd realize that your bard friend made a critical mistake. A keen player would immediately point out that his character knows, after the fact, that he's been mind controlled and has the rational abilities to pinpoint who did it to them. Now, from this IC perspective, what would you do from here? If it helps you, don't think of the bard as another player but as an NPC.



Since I haven't quite figured out how my character is going to work mechanically, and because the DM said I have one more session to figure out what I'm doing, I have time to alter my build to attempt to counteract his shenanigans, but again, I'm not sure I want to. I don't want to have to take feats and buy items just to protect myself from a fellow PC, even if he is the main character of sorts.

You could always stop metagaming.



My ultimate question is how I should handle the situation. Should I try to talk to the DM, or directly to the player? I'm hesitant to do the latter because I'm not sure how he'll respond to me complaining about his build. He mostly buffs and doesn't try to solo the battles, but I do feel like he's soloing the story. Am I even being reasonable? I want to be a good sport, but I did mull over my character concept long enough to be unhappy that I can't play it how I want to. And I don't want to have to resort to trying to troll the other player by having something like Contingency pop or buy an item for every time he tries to control my RPing.

No, you're not being reasonable.



Talk to the Bard player. Let them know that you do not enjoy them controlling your character (Remember to use a neutral/informative tone).

I'd imagine they'd like it even less if you told them how to play their character when they're just playing their character in a perfectly acceptable nature. Attempting to tell them they're not allowed to do something they're actually allowed to do in game to your character is the most absurd case of metagaming I have ever personally witnessed.



I'm sorry, what? A DC 31 on Suggestion at level 10 means this guy has a +16 Charisma modifier. For starters, have the DM look over his sheet.

Second, yeah, he has to Fascinate you first, and yeah, he has to Suggestion one at a time.

Third, make it very straightforward to the Bard (in-character, obviously, though the discussion it generates might shift to OOC): he cuts the "magically mentally controlling other party members" crap, or he establishes himself as a major threat to you and your free will, and Suggestion won't stop you from killing him in self-defense unless he has a tongue of pure silver (and I mean out-of-character, not in-character) to the point of convincing you that leaving your will in his hands is entirely reasonable. (EDIT: Looking again, I could honestly make a case that his repeated use of that on fellow party members could potentially make "letting him live" constitute an "obviously harmful act," thus nullifying the spell, but that's stretching it a bit.)

Mentally dominating party members without a really good reason is actually worse than pretty much any other form of PvP, so if the DM comes to the Bard's defense by saying that attacking the Bard would constitute PvP and he won't allow even the threat, point out that he's being the aggressor with mental influence.

*claps*

Very good advice I'm glad someone beat me to it.

---
And in case anyone doubts what I say. I literally do this on a weekly basis handling PvP because I allow it. And boy do players sometimes really get into it. So believe me when I know what I'm talking about.

[BowStreetRunner]

One other thing to keep in mind. People can 'get along' with people and still discuss their opinions. Even if the suggestion was allowed, there was no reason you needed to end your debate with the other player over this suggestion. Just keep it civil. Any future attempt by this PC to influence your PC, stop and consider how flexibly you can interpret his suggestion. Find the wiggle room and use it. And the first time you make your save, see him use this ability on another PC, or otherwise find out he has been using this ability, let all the other PCs know and then confront him as a group.

[goto124]

Why is the PC using mind control against other PCs?

Is this a PvP game?

Why did the DM allow this?

What sort of game is this supposed to be?

Is this Paranoia?

[Sacrieur]

Why is the PC using mind control against other PCs?

Because PCs, in-game, aren't any different than other NPCs except that you can't use Diplomacy against them. The character is just acting as he would act in that scenario.



Is this a PvP game?

I would hope so, since PvP includes mind control.



Why did the DM allow this?

Probably because he doesn't want to tell people how play their characters.

[Extra Anchovies]

First, please ignore the dumb OOC advice in this thread about how the player was in the wrong. It's been a common theme here that everyone's knee jerk response is to kick a player out the moment they do something you don't personally like.

I appreciate your efforts to keep this discussion civil and to not insult those who you disagree with.


This is where roleplaying begins. Turns out you're the one trying to metagame by stopping the player from doing what he wants to do. He's allowed to mind control you. It's part of the game so get over it. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to tell him how to play his character.

ladytruckdriver wants to have her character argue with another PC. Mister Bard wants her to not do that. Mister Bard tries to stop ladytruckdriver from doing what she wants to do. Mister Bard metagames by using an IC action to enforce his OOC desire to stop a player from doing what they want to do. Mister Bard is telling ladytruckdriver how to play her character (even with an IC justification, he's still telling her, OOC, how to play her character). Mister Bard, as you say, has "absolutely NO RIGHT to tell [her] how to play [her] character".

Whoops.

Also, if you think that "get over it" is helpful advice for anyone in any situation, then you don't know what helpful advice is. Even if there's nothing that can be done about a particular situation, there are much nicer ways to convey that fact than "get over it", and no particular reason to not use them.


And in case anyone doubts what I say. I literally do this on a weekly basis handling PvP because I allow it. And boy do players sometimes really get into it. So believe me when I know what I'm talking about.

"Well, I do this in my games so it's obviously the right thing for everyone to do."

[EdgarofFargo]

First, please ignore the OOC advice in this thread about how the player was in the wrong. It's been a common theme here that everyone's knee jerk response is to kick a player out the moment they do something you don't personally like.

First you can fascinate several creatures at once.
Second, you do get a second saving throw against the Suggestion, but not against Fascinate.
Third, the DC against Suggestion is, as someone pointed out, not feasibly that high.

Before we begin, let's start with the fact that the rules didn't fail you, the player didn't follow them. You should have spoken up and looked at the exact ability once you felt that little ping go off that said, "A 31 DC are you serious?"

But it is very possible that the Bard could have succeeded, and that's what I'd like to discuss.




This is where roleplaying begins. Turns out you're the one trying to metagame by stopping the player from doing what he wants to do. He's allowed to mind control you. It's part of the game so get over it. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to tell him how to play his character.

So if you stop from your own personal outrage and metagaming, you'd realize that your bard friend made a critical mistake. A keen player would immediately point out that his character knows, after the fact, that he's been mind controlled and has the rational abilities to pinpoint who did it to them. Now, from this IC perspective, what would you do from here? If it helps you, don't think of the bard as another player but as an NPC.




You could always stop metagaming.




No, you're not being reasonable.




I'd imagine they'd like it even less if you told them how to play their character when they're just playing their character in a perfectly acceptable nature. Attempting to tell them they're not allowed to do something they're actually allowed to do in game to your character is the most absurd case of metagaming I have ever personally witnessed.




*claps*

Very good advice I'm glad someone beat me to it.

---
And in case anyone doubts what I say. I literally do this on a weekly basis handling PvP because I allow it. And boy do players sometimes really get into it. So believe me when I know what I'm talking about.

It's not metagaming to roll spellcraft/know:arc (dc 13ish? for a 3rd level spell) on the class feature and start preparing circle of protection of evil and celerity. Nowhere in the spell description for suggestion does it say that the subject doesn't know that they are under compulsion.

So OP should play a 10th level wizard and just grab dominate person, tell everyone to give them all the party's shares of gold, ect. They are level 10 right, and OP is allowed to play their character however they want and if anyone tells them otherwise they're unreasonable is essentially what you're saying.

[Sacrieur]

I appreciate your efforts to keep this discussion civil and to not insult those who you disagree with.

If I sound acerbic it's because I'm sick of watching other people being bullied by this sort of suggestion. It's grown stale and yes, it is, in more eloquent terms, a poor suggestion. I'm sorry if you think I'm insulting you if I'm calling your idea bad. I'm not insulting you, I'm calling your idea bad. Which it is, since it's very unreasonable to kick someone out of a group because they did one thing they've maybe disagreed with. I've been told this personally as an actual insult (you know, one directed at my person). So you can imagine my displeasure hearing this repeated over and over about the slightest offense caused by other people.

It really makes me wonder how you guys still find people to play with if you kick out all of your players.



ladytruckdriver wants to have her character argue with another PC. Mister Bard wants her to not do that. Mister Bard tries to stop ladytruckdriver from doing what she wants to do. Mister Bard metagames by using an IC action to enforce his OOC desire to stop a player from doing what they want to do. Mister Bard is telling ladytruckdriver how to play her character (even with an IC justification, he's still telling her, OOC, how to play her character). Mister Bard, as you say, has "absolutely NO RIGHT to tell [her] how to play [her] character".

I'd imagine if he were playing a half-orc barbarian who just liked hitting squishy stuff with big rocks he wouldn't care that these two players weren't getting along. Quit trying to turn it around and make it seem like a bard (who is acting as the party leader, by the OC's own admission) is attempting (albeit poorly) to get the party to get along by metagaming. Should her character also be able to resist the same effects by NPCs? You know what, just make her immune to mind-affecting abilities because you wouldn't want metagame and tell her how to play her character.

That seems fair.



Also, if you think that "get over it" is helpful advice for anyone in any situation, then you don't know what helpful advice is.

Okay, I'm sorry that she picked a game that has rules that bother her. She shouldn't get over it. She should get frustrated and upset and mad at everyone for playing the game as it was intended. Instead she should tell the DM that the player following the rules should be told how to play his character or be kicked out of the game.



"Well, I do this in my games so it's obviously the right thing for everyone to do."

No, I'm not saying everyone should play PvP. If you don't want PvP then don't play PvP games. I think PvP is a lot of fun and people who don't participate are missing out on an integral core aspect of roleplaying and that it's immersion breaking and encourages metagaming, but if you don't want to in your group that's up to you. But the default rules of the game allow for PvP and my point was that I have lots of experience in this matter and I deal with grumpy players from time to time who may think that the game should be unfairly catered to them.

---


It's not metagaming to roll spellcraft/know:arc (dc 13ish? for a 3rd level spell) on the class feature and start preparing circle of protection of evil and celerity. Nowhere in the spell description for suggestion does it say that the subject doesn't know that they are under compulsion.

So OP should play a 10th level wizard and just grab dominate person, tell everyone to give them all the party's shares of gold, ect. They are level 10 right, and OP is allowed to play their character however they want and if anyone tells them otherwise they're unreasonable is essentially what you're saying.

I think those are very fair points. Especially the first one. I would definitely advocate any players to do that.

Well ideally the game is balanced. There are a few cases where maybe a DM would step in and start giving PC's circumstance bonuses. But keep in mind that A level 10 wizard would only ever be able to prepare 3 dominate person's a day and has a DC of what? 20 maybe 21? "Against its nature" is pretty vague wording that I think allows for a good number of will saves against that. And once someone resists your control, they're probably going to kill you or run off, get a ring of mind-shielding, then kill you. All NPCs you interact with will get a Sense Motive roll against every member you have dominated.

Even with these restrictions, I agree that dominate person is simply just too powerful to begin with, but I wouldn't necessarily ban PvP because of it.

[OldTrees1]

I'd imagine they'd like it even less if you told them how to play their character when they're just playing their character in a perfectly acceptable nature. Attempting to tell them they're not allowed to do something they're actually allowed to do in game to your character is the most absurd case of metagaming I have ever personally witnessed.

You might have observed I did not suggest telling them how to play their character.

I suggested telling the other player how their actions made the OP feel and then watching the Bard player's reaction to this information. If the Bard player respects the OP's concerns(regardless of whether they change the Bard's behavior) then that is a good sign. This tactic is called communication and is the foundation of all relationships.

Don't worry, 1 false positive does not mar your otherwise excellent post. This forum really is a bit too "knee-jerk" when it comes to things like this.

[EdgarofFargo]

If a group doesn't want to play with someone because of the way they play, they don't have to.

Suggestion doesn't extend to real life.

Also is the game even pvp? that wasn't clarified in the post.

[Sacrieur]

You might have observed I did not suggest telling them how to play their character.

I suggested telling the other player how their actions made the OP feel and then watching the Bard player's reaction to this information. If the Bard player respects the OP's concerns(regardless of whether they change the Bard's behavior) then that is a good sign. This tactic is called communication and is the foundation of all relationships.

Oh I apologize then, it seems you did say this.

I appreciate your support to handle thing maturely in a rational manner.



If a group doesn't want to play with someone because of the way they play, they don't have to.

Suggestion doesn't extend to real life.

It's true, a group can kick out any player for any reason. That doesn't make them justified for doing so. But I mean honestly, if you get kicked out without deserving it, then you're better off not hanging around that group anymore. And as someone who has kicked out a player, I know there's a point where you simply have to cut someone that's toxic loose, but nowhere in the OP did I read anything close to that.



Also is the game even pvp? that wasn't clarified in the post.

I'm assuming it is because the DM let the bard use Suggestion :p

I mean it be hypocritical if the DM stopped anyone else from doing it. The cat is out of the bag and it's not getting back in.

[Kurald Galain]

This is what he did in response to my in-game argument with a fellow party member: He said he cast Suggestion. The party member and I both made Will saves; we had to beat at least a 31. We both failed. In-character, he wiggled his fingers and suggested "Get along."
Ok, so he was using his in-character abilities to get two of the other characters to stop fighting. That strikes me as reasonable; it's the magical equivalent of the party barbarian picking you both up to knock your heads together and beat some sense into you (and in many parties, a barb would easily be able to make a grapple or unarmed attack against any other party member).

Of course, just because he's reasonable doesn't in any way shield him from the consequences of his actions. That said, outright killing his character over this strikes me as excessive, unless your own character was already established as some kind of murderhobo.

And yes, the save DC strikes me as incorrect.

[ladytruckdriver]

Thank you, everyone, for the suggestions! I'll clarify a few points if it's helpful.

WARNING: SUPER LONG AGAIN

If I came off as aggressively buttmad: I am indeed a little buttmad, but I'm also trying to handle the situation as smoothly and gracefully as I can possibly manage. It is not my intention to get anyone kicked out. I would leave myself rather than make another player leave before me if I'm the one who has the problem or is being the problem. Really, I just don't want to be a part of a game that I don't get to play in a way I consider fun. I'm definitely not trying to be a bully.

It was sold to me as a story-driven campaign with some fighting, not PvP. I did not sign up for PvP, and if it turns out that it's a major facet of the campaign, I'm outtie. Beyond my lack of experience, I just don't consider it fun, and I didn't craft my character expecting to fight the other members of the party.

As far as why Bard Suggested us, I have no idea, and can't confirm without asking him. The story is that we're a pirate crew, and we are all supposed to have joined for our own reasons. No backstory has been established as to how we get along or how long we've been traveling together. He's the captain, alignment CN, and most of the other players are neutral, too - just one LE guy, which is who I got into a verbal tussle with. I'm CG and most of what I've done so far has been saying "you guyyys that's not niiice", which doesn't make me feel like I'm contributing much except comic relief, so I might change alignment while I still can. Of course, I couldn't be a Malconvoker anymore in that case. I'll have to weigh my priorities.

He didn't say he used Fascinate on us before casting Suggestion, and I didn't know he should have until I looked it up after the fact. Obviously, I didn't make a save for it, since I didn't know.

I'm confused about being told the rules didn't fail me, because I wasn't suggesting that, or at least not trying to, nor do I think that. I wanted clarificaton. I don't want to ask him to retroactively take back what he did, and I don't feel like I've been failed; I wanted to know if I needed to point out any discrepancies with the RAW rules (which is what we're using, AFAIK) in the future. It looks like I do, because if what has been posted is accurate, he used Suggestion incorrectly. I'm not too familiar with how spellcasters work yet, since I've only played meatheads with any compentency so far. Naturally, it's not an excuse to not know the rules, nor an excuse for not knowing that a DC so high was improbable at that level! But it is a game that I haven't memorized/fully learned my way around, and I haven't been in a game serious enough to warrant checking the sourcebooks every time someone does something, because I've never been in a game that's been even remotely PvP. Because I hate it.

If it's more appropriate to react within the game, then that makes sense. I'm just not sure how offended he'll be if I actually respond in kind - in other words, take steps to prevent him from doing it to me. Again, not PvP. He's at a much higher level of player knowledge than I am, which is one of the reasons I deferred to him in the first place and didn't pull out my book to check. I also don't want to cause tension or trouble within the group. Additionally, I get confused about how alignments operate sometimes, so I wasn't sure how I could respond without it being considered an evil act (although rotting his crotch off and getting him addicted to drugs sounds great). Objecting on the basis of it being mind control and it disrupting my free will makes sense, so if I continue to play, I will do that, if I can still make that harmonize with being a member of the crew.

Metagaming is a really bad word and I should probably feel shame if that's what I'm doing. I'm trying to make the game fun for myself, because I feel pretty useless and bored if I can't RP fluidly in a story-based game, despite my inexperience. I'm more used to text-based RP without lots of rules attached. If I can play within said game without pissing anyone off, then that's exactly what I want! It'll be awkward if I try to leave the group, since we're friends, but I'll still do it if it's not fun for me.

Two more questions:

So it's definitely not metagaming if I respond by changing my spell lineup and buying items after I've successfully Spellcrafted the Fascinate and/or Suggestion?

As far as negotiating exactly how I interpret the Suggestion, if what I'm told to do is as broad as "Get along", can I just literally, physically "get along" an object in the area, or moonwalk on the deck or something?

[Kurald Galain]

So it's definitely not metagaming if I respond by changing my spell lineup and buying items after I've successfully Spellcrafted the Fascinate and/or Suggestion?
Not at all. Your character has enough intelligence and skills to figure that one out. It's also definitely not metagaming to, once the spell wears off, put a dagger to the bard's throat and tell him to never do that again.


As far as negotiating exactly how I interpret the Suggestion, if what I'm told to do is as broad as "Get along", can I just literally, physically "get along" an object in the area, or moonwalk on the deck or something?
No, since it's an emotional effect, rather than a legalese one. That still gives you a lot of leeway, just in a different way; you can't just say that "gettal ongh" is dwarvish for punch him in the face, or something like that.

[EdgarofFargo]

And yes, the save DC strikes me as incorrect.

For all the people saying this, it doesn't seem impossible, and depending on the munchinry going on, could be probable

10 base
5 = 1/2 bard level
+2 from ability focus
so the cha mod would have to be +14
unlikely wishes/manuals are involved at lvl 10

with an 18 and 2 from racial, 2 from levels 4 and 8, the base score is 22 (if higher level adjusts are allowed this could easily be 6 or 8 higher)

Another +6 from an item would give 28, getting up to +9

From here the save is 26, not there yet, but closeish.

I'm not sure if a Bard's vest can get you another +2 but I think it would, getting up to 28, so I didn't quite make it

But if you take that 26 and play it as a cleric with DMM persist, get spell focus enchantment instead, we're down to 25.

Heighten it to 5, up to 28.

DMM persist Adept Spirit on self, Wear orange ioun stone for 1 caster level each, Beads of Karma for a +4 to the caster level

DMM Persisted Owl's Insight at +6 caster level, up to 16, that's a +8 stacking wisdom bonus, getting the save up to 32 for Suggestion.

Not impossible just unlikely.

edit: OMG you can heighten the suggestion itself to 5, greater spell focus is another +1, getting up to 37
editedit: I mean 35 derp.

[Extra Anchovies]

It really makes me wonder how you guys still find people to play with if you kick out all of your players.

Maybe because we're more than just your nebulous meany-mean strawmen, and try to resolve disputes in the most mutually beneficial manner before resorting to options that may upset one or more individuals involved in the conflict?

If you'd, I don't know, actually read all of the advice that I gave, instead of just seeing "kicking that player" and ignoring the rest of what I wrote, you'd notice that I suggested two courses of action to take before trying to get the other player out of the game, and that ousting Mister Bard was the second-last resort, the last being OP leaving the game. The general context of this thread is "another player is harming my enjoyment of the game", and whenever that comes up I give the same advice: try talking to the player about it, then try talking to the DM and/or other players about it, then decide if you'd rather leave or try to get the other player removed and follow through on one of those. Those are the only four options, because I do not consider "keep playing despite not having fun" to be something that anyone should ever do.


Thank you, everyone, for the suggestions! I'll clarify a few points if it's helpful.

You're welcome! Clarifications are always appreciated.


If I came off as aggressively buttmad: I am indeed a little buttmad, but I'm also trying to handle the situation as smoothly and gracefully as I can possibly manage. It is not my intention to get anyone kicked out. I would leave myself rather than make another player leave before me if I'm the one who has the problem or is being the problem. Really, I just don't want to be a part of a game that I don't get to play in a way I consider fun. I'm definitely not trying to be a bully.

And you aren't being a bully. Don't listen to anyone who tries to tell you that not enjoying something makes you a bad person. If you don't want to play in a game that isn't fun, the game you're in isn't fun, and you don't want any of the other players to leave, you have three options:
1. Change the game so that it becomes fun (e.g. by talking to Mister Bard, the DM, and/or the other players).
2. Change your perspective of the game so that it becomes fun (e.g. by expecting and preparing for PvP).
3. Leave the game.


It was sold to me as a story-driven campaign with some fighting, not PvP. I did not sign up for PvP, and if it turns out that it's a major facet of the campaign, I'm outtie. Beyond my lack of experience, I just don't consider it fun, and I didn't craft my character expecting to fight the other members of the party.

Let your DM and fellow players know that you joined the game with the expectation that PvP would be minimal if present at all. If the rest of the group knows that it's not something you want to see in the game, they'll either respect your wishes and avoid frequent PvP with you, or they'll admit that they don't care about what you think and you can get out of the game without wasting any more of your time.


If it's more appropriate to react within the game, then that makes sense. I'm just not sure how offended he'll be if I actually respond in kind - in other words, take steps to prevent him from doing it to me.

If he initiated PvP, and you respond with like PvP (in this context, "like PvP" is anti-compulsion protection and maybe some compulsions of your own, but not fireballs and poisoning), and he gets mad, then you're gaming with a child.


Metagaming is a really bad word and I should probably feel shame if that's what I'm doing.

People like to use "metagaming" like it's a synonym for "orphanage burning". It's not. Metagame actions can be very good things as long as they are done in the interest of the story. It's metagame actions taken for selfish, power-gamey reasons (like using out-of-character knowledge for in-game personal benefit) that are bad.


I'm trying to make the game fun for myself, because I feel pretty useless and bored if I can't RP fluidly in a story-based game, despite my inexperience. I'm more used to text-based RP without lots of rules attached. If I can play within said game without pissing anyone off, then that's exactly what I want! It'll be awkward if I try to leave the group, since we're friends, but I'll still do it if it's not fun for me.

Don't let the fact that the other players are your friends keep you in the game if you aren't having fun. A simple "hey guys, it turns out that this game isn't really shaping up to be what I was expecting and I'm not having too much fun with it. I'll still be around for the next one" would suffice if it proves impossible to change the game and/or your attitude towards the game such that it becomes enjoyable.


So it's definitely not metagaming if I respond by changing my spell lineup and buying items after I've successfully Spellcrafted the Fascinate and/or Suggestion?

Heck no. Unless your character likes being magically controlled.


As far as negotiating exactly how I interpret the Suggestion, if what I'm told to do is as broad as "Get along", can I just literally, physically "get along" an object in the area, or moonwalk on the deck or something?

Well, the intention behind the orders still has to be (mostly) followed, and in this case "get along" meant "peacefully coexist", not "get moving". As has already been said, a suggestion to "get along" would very likely do nothing to halt an in-progress verbal argument, but it would prevent it from dissolving into shouting and name-calling.

[Sacrieur]

Thank you, everyone, for the suggestions! I'll clarify a few points if it's helpful.

WARNING: SUPER LONG AGAIN

If I came off as aggressively buttmad: I am indeed a little buttmad, but I'm also trying to handle the situation as smoothly and gracefully as I can possibly manage. It is not my intention to get anyone kicked out. I would leave myself rather than make another player leave before me if I'm the one who has the problem or is being the problem. Really, I just don't want to be a part of a game that I don't get to play in a way I consider fun. I'm definitely not trying to be a bully.

It was sold to me as a story-driven campaign with some fighting, not PvP. I did not sign up for PvP, and if it turns out that it's a major facet of the campaign, I'm outtie. Beyond my lack of experience, I just don't consider it fun, and I didn't craft my character expecting to fight the other members of the party.

The thing about PvP is that more often than not, nobody (except maybe the DM) really sees it coming. By default it's included into the rules and if handled well, creates a very fun experience for everyone involved. Obviously tensions can rise if one person takes it personally, but you have to remind yourself that you're part of the world they're in as well. PvP tends to smooth itself out while players will either drop conflicts, just never quite get along, or come to some mutual understanding sometime. But it's a consequence of merely playing diverse characters: there are going to disagreements, especially if there's a paladin in the party.

And, I should point out, most players don't think it's unfair to distract the paladin or manipulate him in other ways to do some underhanded shady stuff, which isn't all that different from what's being done here.

That said, PvP is by default, allowed in the game. The DM may set limits on it or may not. The only restriction is that diplomacy can't be used on PCs. But the fact is PC conflicts happen all the time and it can be difficult to pin down what PvP actually is. Is it PvP to use bluff? What if you're using it to put them in harm's way?



As far as why Bard Suggested us, I have no idea, and can't confirm without asking him. The story is that we're a pirate crew, and we are all supposed to have joined for our own reasons. No backstory has been established as to how we get along or how long we've been traveling together. He's the captain, alignment CN, and most of the other players are neutral, too - just one LE guy, which is who I got into a verbal tussle with. I'm CG and most of what I've done so far has been saying "you guyyys that's not niiice", which doesn't make me feel like I'm contributing much except comic relief, so I might change alignment while I still can. Of course, I couldn't be a Malconvoker anymore in that case. I'll have to weigh my priorities.

If you're playing CG with someone who is LE expect a lot of friction. Naturally you've already felt it. So some third party is going to try to get everyone to get along. Most parties have a party face that tends to fit the diplomatic bill and want to resolve conflicts by talking, especially in the group.



He didn't say he used Fascinate on us before casting Suggestion, and I didn't know he should have until I looked it up after the fact. Obviously, I didn't make a save for it, since I didn't know.

Then he was using the spell Suggestion, which has an even lower DC (12 + Cha mod) and is subject to a spellcraft check if you want it.



I'm confused about being told the rules didn't fail me, because I wasn't suggesting that, or at least not trying to, nor do I think that.

I want you to know that the game isn't at fault for what happened. I think it's important to note that. Some players don't like rules and such, but they are mostly there to keep the game balanced so keep it in mind that if something feels imbalanced feel free to ask a player how exactly they're able to do that, or ask the DM if you're sure they're allowed. Especially with PvP. If your player could get away with a 31 DC Suggestion spell used on two creatures at once then I don't know what else he might be getting away with.



I wanted clarificaton. I don't want to ask him to retroactively take back what he did, and I don't feel like I've been failed; I wanted to know if I needed to point out any discrepancies with the RAW rules (which is what we're using, AFAIK) in the future.

You would have every right to demand a retcon. But in any case that's not really how the spell Suggestion works. So you two would get along for 10 hours then the spell would end. As far as the rules are concerned, it wasn't a discrepancy; it was more like a full blown disregard. I can't think of a time where I've screwed up that bad. It makes me curious why your DM didn't catch it, because whenever I see big numbers I always double check them to make sure they're legit (as a DM). It's concerning because the DC for a spell is 10 + mod + spell level. This is pretty basic stuff that he should know. I definitely think it's worth pointing out that the DC of the spell was actually much lower than it was.



It looks like I do, because if what has been posted is accurate, he used Suggestion incorrectly. I'm not too familiar with how spellcasters work yet, since I've only played meatheads with any compentency so far. Naturally, it's not an excuse to not know the rules, nor an excuse for not knowing that a DC so high was improbable at that level! But it is a game that I haven't memorized/fully learned my way around, and I haven't been in a game serious enough to warrant checking the sourcebooks every time someone does something, because I've never been in a game that's been even remotely PvP. Because I hate it.

Well, I can forgive you for that, but make sure to ask questions. I'm sorry if I came off brusque I didn't realize you were so new to the game, but I've been a DM for some time now and player for a long, long time before that, so naturally my perspective can be a bit jaded. In any case, it's really on your DM to know the rules, not you. As I like telling my newer players, "It's okay if you don't know the rules, just tell me what you'd like to do and I'll tell you what the rules are for it."

D&D is very rule heavy, so it would be insane to expect players to know every single rule in the book. Not even I do.


If it's more appropriate to react within the game, then that makes sense. I'm just not sure how offended he'll be if I actually respond in kind - in other words, take steps to prevent him from doing it to me. Again, not PvP. He's at a much higher level of player knowledge than I am, which is one of the reasons I deferred to him in the first place and didn't pull out my book to check. I also don't want to cause tension or trouble within the group. Additionally, I get confused about how alignments operate sometimes, so I wasn't sure how I could respond without it being considered an evil act (although rotting his crotch off and getting him addicted to drugs sounds great). Objecting on the basis of it being mind control and it disrupting my free will makes sense, so if I continue to play, I will do that, if I can still make that harmonize with being a member of the crew.

If you really hate doing PvP, then you can bake it right into your character to avoid conflict. That's one solution. Or you can play with non-PvP groups.

Reacting out of vengeance is something a character could do, but it could be metagaming if your character isn't vengeful. I mean "doing this to your character because you did it to mine" can be a form of metagaming.


Metagaming is a really bad word and I should probably feel shame if that's what I'm doing. I'm trying to make the game fun for myself, because I feel pretty useless and bored if I can't RP fluidly in a story-based game, despite my inexperience. I'm more used to text-based RP without lots of rules attached. If I can play within said game without pissing anyone off, then that's exactly what I want! It'll be awkward if I try to leave the group, since we're friends, but I'll still do it if it's not fun for me.

A good DM will identify that and try to cater to that aspect. D&D is probably one of the hardest things for you right now because it is a rules-heavy game and being the type of player you are, you may find it difficult to work in a system with so many rules. It may help to approach it from an angle that the rules are there to only define how you do what you do, not determine what you do. The game is perfectly open for you to explore and you don't need to know the rules to do something. DMs are told (in the official material, no less) that if a rule doesn't exist to make a mechanic up.


So it's definitely not metagaming if I respond by changing my spell lineup and buying items after I've successfully Spellcrafted the Fascinate and/or Suggestion?

Absolutely not. Your character is well within every right to boost their will save. That's an appropriate reaction to being mind controlled. As for alignment, I don't like worrying about it and trust me it's not a discussion you want to get in. Just play your character like you'd like and let the alignment solve itself. If the bard tries again you can even try to determine what kind of spell he's casting.



As far as negotiating exactly how I interpret the Suggestion, if what I'm told to do is as broad as "Get along", can I just literally, physically "get along" an object in the area, or moonwalk on the deck or something?

That would be hilarious, since the bard never actually specified what to get along with. However your character would interpret it is how they do interpret it. A vague command means vague actions. The player may whine but just say, "Tough it out bub, you should have specified."

[EdgarofFargo]

I mean 35 derp.

wow derp forgot to factor out the 1/2 caster level from bard

So 30!

but also check out this list of things to increase caster level http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1054346
Do some of this, get huge caster level, add 1/2 of that to your wis as an insight bonus from owl's wisdom all day , and therefore 1/4 to your all of your spell's DCs, level 10.

[Crake]

For all the people saying this, it doesn't seem impossible, and depending on the munchinry going on, could be probable

10 base
5 = 1/2 bard level
+2 from ability focus
so the cha mod would have to be +14
unlikely wishes/manuals are involved at lvl 10

with an 18 and 2 from racial, 2 from levels 4 and 8, the base score is 22 (if higher level adjusts are allowed this could easily be 6 or 8 higher)

Another +6 from an item would give 28, getting up to +9

From here the save is 26, not there yet, but closeish.

I'm not sure if a Bard's vest can get you another +2 but I think it would, getting up to 28, so I didn't quite make it

But if you take that 26 and play it as a cleric with DMM persist, get spell focus enchantment instead, we're down to 25.

Heighten it to 5, up to 28.

DMM persist Adept Spirit on self, Wear orange ioun stone for 1 caster level each, Beads of Karma for a +4 to the caster level

DMM Persisted Owl's Insight at +6 caster level, up to 16, that's a +8 stacking wisdom bonus, getting the save up to 32 for Suggestion.

Not impossible just unlikely.

edit: OMG you can heighten the suggestion itself to 5, greater spell focus is another +1, getting up to 37
editedit: I mean 35 derp.

Yeah, and all of that on a 49,000gp budget of a level 10 character!

Come on, clearly the guy thought his perform check was setting the DC for the suggestion, like it does for fascinate. Maybe the bard player just didn't realise that the suggestion ability had a separate save and just melded the two abilities in one subconsciously.

My advice for the OP is this: If it sounds ridiculous, it probably is. If its something you don't care about, whatever, let it slide, but if you care immensely (such as when they are using it against you), ask the player to explain how they got to that result, and double check it yourself.

[Elkad]

Why is the PC using mind control against other PCs?

Is this a PvP game?

Why did the DM allow this?

What sort of game is this supposed to be?

Is this Paranoia?


Back to this discussion again. How do you make D&D a non-PvP game and still have it work? I've always played and/or DMed in full PvP campaigns. Most games it's never an issue.
Question. If you turn PvP off through some DM fiat, what do you do about friendly fire? If the fighter is mixing it up with some trolls, can the wizard fireball them all and not harm him because "PvP is off"?

[Kurald Galain]

Back to this discussion again. How do you make D&D a non-PvP game and still have it work? I've always played and/or DMed in full PvP campaigns. Most games it's never an issue.
Question. If you turn PvP off through some DM fiat, what do you do about friendly fire? If the fighter is mixing it up with some trolls, can the wizard fireball them all and not harm him because "PvP is off"?

Well, it depends on your players.

Officially, the rule in public campaigns like LFR or PFS has generally been that you cannot place hostile area effects so that they would hit PCs, unless you have their permission. This works out pretty well; if it's a beginning player that doesn't realize how hitting your allies is (usually) not such a good strategy, you can tell him off. If it's an advanced player who has good reason, then other players generally let him (e.g. dropping a fireball over a high-HP character with fire resistance is probably not such a big deal). Of course, if your character ends up mind controlled, then all bets are off.

On the other hand, we've had a nasty drow player at the table once who went around pickpocketing other player characters and hid behind the "no PVP" rule to avoid retaliation. Bottom line is, legislation doesn't stop jerks from being jerks.

[Pex]

Back to this discussion again. How do you make D&D a non-PvP game and still have it work? I've always played and/or DMed in full PvP campaigns. Most games it's never an issue.
Question. If you turn PvP off through some DM fiat, what do you do about friendly fire? If the fighter is mixing it up with some trolls, can the wizard fireball them all and not harm him because "PvP is off"?

Very easy. Players just choose, by their own fiat, to work together to confront and defeat the challenges the DM places before them and enjoy the campaign. It's called "getting along", "being friends", "don't be a jerk", etc.

But two players might disagree! Yeah, that's because they're two individuals. They talk it over. Perhaps it requires a party vote depending on what it is. They find a resolution and move on. They aren't arguing. They don't use class abilities on each other. They're having an adult conversation. (Even teenagers can do this.)

[EdgarofFargo]

Yeah, and all of that on a 49,000gp budget of a level 10 character!

Come on, clearly the guy thought his perform check was setting the DC for the suggestion, like it does for fascinate. Maybe the bard player just didn't realise that the suggestion ability had a separate save and just melded the two abilities in one subconsciously.

My advice for the OP is this: If it sounds ridiculous, it probably is. If its something you don't care about, whatever, let it slide, but if you care immensely (such as when they are using it against you), ask the player to explain how they got to that result, and double check it yourself.

Seems reasonable to me, the only items in there that cost anything are nightsticks and prayer beads, the +6 enhancement bonus can come from the DMM persist build. making this whole build cost about 20,000.

Although, owl's wisdom is a druid spell. Which isn't a problem, because instead of cleric it could be archivist church in./divine ex./ect

edit: orange iuon stone at 30K is out of price range for costing more than half of the starting gold, but it doesn't matter if you can take flaws. Get the snowcasting feat, the cold reserve feat, the enchantment reserve feat, SEVERAL spells and feats to buff CL, ect.

[Twurps]

Back to this discussion again. How do you make D&D a non-PvP game and still have it work? I've always played and/or DMed in full PvP campaigns. Most games it's never an issue.
Question. If you turn PvP off through some DM fiat, what do you do about friendly fire? If the fighter is mixing it up with some trolls, can the wizard fireball them all and not harm him because "PvP is off"?

D&d works fine without it.
I've played d&d for several years, and had to discover on this very forum PvP is even a thing. No DM has ever banned it, as no DM has ever had to ban it, as it just doesn't exist in our game. (And yes: friendly fire happens on occasion, be it for good reason or accident. But: PvP 'not existing' nobody ever thought to perceive it as such) Maybe its because I only play with friends, but we just all have the presumption that we all have each others well being in mind (both IC and OOC).

Back on topic. One thing that always strikes me as odd in threads like this is how there don't seem to be any 'regular' opportunity to evaluate the game.

From my own experience:
At some point in time, the d&d session is over. People start gathering their stuff, cleaning up after themselves, getting shoes and coats, etc. We use that time to talk about what happened in the session. Mostly 'normal stuff' like how cool a new ability was, or laughing at(with!) the rogue about sneaking that immune creature etc. However: this is also the time to voice concerns/annoyances about players, characters, DM's, setting etc. Our DM asks for feedback pretty consistently here.
This is the primary place to voice stuff like:
-I feel my character is 'under/out-performing' in relation to the others.
-I feel we're handling this mechanic wrong
-How on earth does his druid pull of this ***.
-etc.

This is where I would voice my dislike of the whole 'mind control' thing. Not talking to 1 player/DM at a time, but just out in the open, with all players present. This way (over time) all players get the best feel for each others playstyle, and most if not all of the serious irritations so often voiced on these forums is avoided. Don't make it a big deal. Let's face it: this is just 1 session, and only 1 thing there-in annoyed you (I'm assuming the rest of the session was fun, and you consider this a game worth continuing). Make your concerns known. Chances are the other player never perceived this as PvP, or a problem otherwise, and is very likely to take your concerns into consideration. I'm sure you'll work something out. Most likely within 1 session, or else at least within a handfull.

If this doesn't work, then at least you will have insights into the motivations of both the DM, said player and probably even the other players. Bringing those motivations to this forum will get you much better advice, suited to your particular group/situation.


If your sessions don't have these moment: create them. This works best if your a DM, but any player can do it.
A few pointers to make this go over more smoothly:
-ALWAYS include a positive comment (in fact, when first getting this started: only mention positives). Preferably a positive thing for every person there, but at the very least for everyperson related to a negative point you're planning to mention.
-Don't state facts, state your feelings. ('I feel like I'm not able to contribute as much' goes over better than: 'You're overpowered)
-Actively ask for feedback back, especially in situations where you have experienced friction.
-When receiving (hopefully constructive) feedback. Welcome it, instead of dismissing it right away. ("Thanks for the feedback, I hear what you're saying") Keep in mind that any feedback comes from an emotion. No matter how ridiculous the argument may seem to you. The argument may be objectively proven untrue (your build is not overpowered, your build is in fact legal, etc), but the emotion behind the argument always remains. (eg. frustration because player feels he's not contributing, just to stick with that example.)

[Elkad]

Very easy. Players just choose, by their own fiat, to work together to confront and defeat the challenges the DM places before them and enjoy the campaign. It's called "getting along", "being friends", "don't be a jerk", etc.

But two players might disagree! Yeah, that's because they're two individuals. They talk it over. Perhaps it requires a party vote depending on what it is. They find a resolution and move on. They aren't arguing. They don't use class abilities on each other. They're having an adult conversation. (Even teenagers can do this.)

Sure, we find resolutions too. 99% of the time. The other 1% it may come to (in-character) blows. The tiny amount of PvP that comes up has never been a problem. Definitely not enough to make a house rule banning it. Character conflict is not player conflict, and I've never even had a hint of it turning into player conflict, even when deaths were involved. IMO, it makes a better game.

Still didn't answer my question about friendly fire though. Bunch of trolls vs your beatsticks. Or summons. Or the "invisible somewhere that-a-way" rogue. If the wizard casts fireball on the whole mess, how do you handle it? Is it OK to cook the druid's summoned critters? His animal companion? How about the fighter? What if he's got some (but not quite enough) fire resistance? How about gambling the rogue (with evasion) won't turn a 1 on his reflex save?

I've had my rogue die from that last one. Party caster didn't even know where I was, hit me by accident with a lightning bolt, I failed my save, which knocked me negative, and I bled out while invisible and unconscious. And then the party ended up retreating anyway, and the trolls found me and ate me.

How about save-or-suck/lose effects? Can I hit friendlies (and enemies) with glitterdust or entangle?

I recently used suggestion on another PC (my wife's character). Well, my familiar did, same thing. She was blocking a hallway, and too cautious to advance alone on the mini-boss attacking her from range. We had a terrain encounter complicating the situation (involving a vertical shaft and a rope and a silence zone and a side tunnel partway down the shaft) and I needed her to move. I shouted down the shaft at her, but she didn't move (because she couldn't hear me). Rather than stopping the game to have a player discussion about our course of action, or letting the enemy escape, my Imp flew down near her (and past the silence zone) and suggested that she charge alone. She failed her save and role-played it out. Worked out fine.

[nedz]

It sounds to me like he was just tired of you two arguing and wanted to get on with the game; and like anyone who tries to break up a fight he gets attacked by both sides. :smallsigh:

Was his action PvP ? Technically yes, but he didn't make you do anything other than stop arguing.

It does sound like he used his perform check to do this which is incorrect, but probably a genuine mistake.

[Segev]

The advice in this thread so far has been good. Talk it out with the other players - especially the Bard's - and go over both your expectations and theirs for the game, and the mechanics to make sure he's using his powers correctly.

Absolutely take IC measures to protect yourself. A protection from evil item will cost you 4,000 gp if it's on continuously. If it's usable only by your class, that cuts it down to 2,800 gp. It's perfectly reasonable for a CG character travelling with an LE one and a mind-controller to want such a thing. And it will protect you from NPCs with mind-control abilities, to boot!

[OldTrees1]

Sure, we find resolutions too. 99% of the time. The other 1% it may come to (in-character) blows. The tiny amount of PvP that comes up has never been a problem. Definitely not enough to make a house rule banning it. Character conflict is not player conflict, and I've never even had a hint of it turning into player conflict, even when deaths were involved. IMO, it makes a better game.

Still didn't answer my question about friendly fire though. Bunch of trolls vs your beatsticks. Or summons. Or the "invisible somewhere that-a-way" rogue. If the wizard casts fireball on the whole mess, how do you handle it? Is it OK to cook the druid's summoned critters? His animal companion? How about the fighter? What if he's got some (but not quite enough) fire resistance? How about gambling the rogue (with evasion) won't turn a 1 on his reflex save?

Friendly Fire is not necessarily PvP. Especially if the rogue is the one to suggest the fireball.

99+% of the time IC resolutions can be reached. The remaining <1% of the time the players can use player fiat to force a resolution.

IMO, having a bias and a premise to avoid PvP (so not a ban) adds to a campaign. However different people like different things.

[Pex]

Sure, we find resolutions too. 99% of the time. The other 1% it may come to (in-character) blows. The tiny amount of PvP that comes up has never been a problem. Definitely not enough to make a house rule banning it. Character conflict is not player conflict, and I've never even had a hint of it turning into player conflict, even when deaths were involved. IMO, it makes a better game.

Still didn't answer my question about friendly fire though. Bunch of trolls vs your beatsticks. Or summons. Or the "invisible somewhere that-a-way" rogue. If the wizard casts fireball on the whole mess, how do you handle it? Is it OK to cook the druid's summoned critters? His animal companion? How about the fighter? What if he's got some (but not quite enough) fire resistance? How about gambling the rogue (with evasion) won't turn a 1 on his reflex save?

I've had my rogue die from that last one. Party caster didn't even know where I was, hit me by accident with a lightning bolt, I failed my save, which knocked me negative, and I bled out while invisible and unconscious. And then the party ended up retreating anyway, and the trolls found me and ate me.

How about save-or-suck/lose effects? Can I hit friendlies (and enemies) with glitterdust or entangle?

I recently used suggestion on another PC (my wife's character). Well, my familiar did, same thing. She was blocking a hallway, and too cautious to advance alone on the mini-boss attacking her from range. We had a terrain encounter complicating the situation (involving a vertical shaft and a rope and a silence zone and a side tunnel partway down the shaft) and I needed her to move. I shouted down the shaft at her, but she didn't move (because she couldn't hear me). Rather than stopping the game to have a player discussion about our course of action, or letting the enemy escape, my Imp flew down near her (and past the silence zone) and suggested that she charge alone. She failed her save and role-played it out. Worked out fine.

There is no other 1% of the time. It shouldn't come to blows, ever. If it does happen something went wrong. Once in a while a player was secretly told by the DM his character got dominated/influenced by the bad guy to purposely start something. Barring that, players just got out of control. Everyone needs to pull back and start over.

As for friendly fire, never on purpose, so sorry, so sad. It's just not done. If you Honest True can't think of something else to do, ask the player first. He might ok it knowing he could take it or even knowing going in it could happen but went in anyway and will just take the brunt. He might not like it but ok it anyway because he realized he goofed rushing into the situation without waiting for you to do your thing first. If you can't think of something else to do, force yourself to do so anyway. You can tell the player he goofed rushing in if you feel it was a goof, but you just do something else instead. Hopefully the player will learn for next time. If the player doesn't or refuses to learn, that can be discussed out of game. Sometimes it will be you who needs to learn not to always depend on your one particular thing that can cause too much friendly fire or forces other players always to take a backseat to whatever you want to do.

[Elkad]

Friendly Fire is not necessarily PvP. Especially if the rogue is the one to suggest the fireball.

99+% of the time IC resolutions can be reached. The remaining <1% of the time the players can use player fiat to force a resolution.

IMO, having a bias and a premise to avoid PvP (so not a ban) adds to a campaign. However different people like different things.

In my friendly fire death above, the caster didn't even know I was there (my token wasn't on the map). I sure didn't suggest it.

Upthread there is some discussion about new players hitting friendlies. We typically just give a warning. "That will hit the fighter, sure you want to target it there?" and then let the player make the decision whether or not to do it. If they are REALLY new, the fighter might add something like "I have fire resistance" or "I'm looking pretty hurt" to drop a hint.

And with experienced players, it goes something like this.
DM: "Wizard, your turn"
Wizard: "I cast fireball" and marks the center point on the map.
Target is now locked, no takebacks.
DM grabs the 20' radius wireform and centers it on your point. Poor placement or not, it goes off from that point. Hitting friendlies, missing enemies, whatever.

[OldTrees1]

In my friendly fire death above, the caster didn't even know I was there (my token wasn't on the map). I sure didn't suggest it.

Upthread there is some discussion about new players hitting friendlies. We typically just give a warning. "That will hit the fighter, sure you want to target it there?" and then let the player make the decision whether or not to do it. If they are REALLY new, the fighter might add something like "I have fire resistance" or "I'm looking pretty hurt" to drop a hint.

And with experienced players, it goes something like this.
DM: "Wizard, your turn"
Wizard: "I cast fireball" and marks the center point on the map.
Target is now locked, no takebacks.
DM grabs the 20' radius wireform and centers it on your point. Poor placement or not, it goes off from that point. Hitting friendlies, missing enemies, whatever.

The way I see it:
Unintentional Friendly Fire =/= PvP
Friendly Fire as a known unfortunate side effect =/= PvP
Friendly Fire as an intent can be PvP

Your warning/locked target system seems like a good one.

[EdgarofFargo]

The way I see it:
Unintentional Friendly Fire =/= PvP
Friendly Fire as a known unfortunate side effect =/= PvP
Friendly Fire as an intent can be PvP

Your warning/locked target system seems like a good one.

While I agree with this, I've been in games that were like: I don't care how many goblins you'd vaporize with that fireball, our improved evasion rogue with +18 ref save is in there and might take damage! You can't do that!

[ladytruckdriver]

WARNING: OH GOD, WHY IS EVERYTHING I WRITE SO LONG?

Extra Anchovies - Thank you for being so kind! It’s heartening to know that I’m not being weird about the situation. I figured, “it’s a game, so if I’m not having fun, then it’s not worth my time, or wasting anyone else’s.” I know some people play in really serious campaigns specifically set up that way, but that wasn’t how this one was portrayed to me, and I’m not at the level of experience required to do a game like that. And interpreting “get along” in the way you and Kurald Galain suggested makes a lot of sense. He didn’t specifically tell me to stop arguing, after all! So I’ll definitely keep your advice in mind in the future. Again, thank you!

Sacrieur - I'm not offended, I just thought I'd maybe come off wrong. I was the one who asked for opinions in the first place. One of the reasons I think D&D is a really cool game is because there's a lot of room for creativity within the rules. I definitely respect that PvP is fun for a lot of people, and maybe, one day, it can be for me, once I know for sure what I'm doing and how to use the rules to do something more interesting than punch a PC in the face when he rubs me the wrong way, stab someone in the butt when they aren't looking for loot, or make a comrade dance for me because I’m a god-wizard. But right now, as a novice player who was engaged in something PvPish with a guy who knows how to make the rules work for him (except, apparently, when he uses them wrong or doesn’t clarify what he’s doing with them), it doesn't seem feasible, unless I come up with something really good. I don’t want to have to cooperate or drop reasonable conflict every time it comes up, or be forced to, if I’m doing what I’m doing to further the story.

And, again, I don’t know how he’ll react to someone pulling the same stuff on him that he pulls on others. I’m worried the game would devolve into him trying to one-up or enact revenge on me every chance he got, let alone cause tension outside the context of the game.

But maybe I can ask for help with how to handle unexpected PvP in an interesting way! Should I take a question like that - "How do I, creatively and reasonably, within the game’s rules, deal with this guy?" - to another post, or can I expand on it here? Should I edit the thread title?

EdgarofFargo - So 30 max, but there would be an incredible amount of planning involved, and it was still a 31? I don't know, I think I'm with Crake. I'm definitely going to check out that list of caster items though.

Pex, Twerps, OldTrees1 - I wish that was the case for the groups I'm in! I was thinking of D&D as a cooperative experience, or at least that's what I wanted it to be, and the idea of PvP never really cropped up for me either until someone tried to engage me. Having to apply real-world adult conversational tactics on your party members, treating each one specially because of their fragile egos, gets really tiresome.

Elkad - It sounds like you're playing with really laid-back people who are able to draw the line between in-game and out-of-game interactions. So far, for me, that's never been the case. Most of the other players I’ve been in games with can and do complain at (not to, because that would imply some sense of cooperative mindset on their part) the other players, or the DM, over something like how unfair it is that they got trapped in a coffin they noticed on a Spot check and jumped on anyway, or how they can’t attack NPCs without in-game repercussions, or how the other PC’s characters are getting so much more attention.

That's another reason why I've been hesitant to bring it up with Bard’s player. I've been in another game with him, and he was trying to PvP until the DM told him straight-out it was a PvE-focused game where we’re supposed to be cooperating to save the world [so everyone would have a reason, no matter what their alignment is, to contribute]. In response, Bard started trying to solo the game. Maybe I'm not being forgiving enough, but in that campaign, I don’t have a chance to RP or even use my character in a fight unless I'm really quick on the uptake and accurately predicting what he’ll do next. I HAVE bought items IC to deal with this guy's character before, and I don’t want to have to do it in this game, too. So some of this is probably my dissatisfaction on how he plays the game. I’m just trying to use my build in a fun way, and if I can’t do that, then I should probably leave.

I guess another question I have is to how I should handle that type of player. As in, if I like the story and want to see where it goes, but another player[s] are making it difficult to enjoy the experience, or for me to contribute and have an influence on it, what should I do? I’ve already tried to see if I’m the problem by asking the DM for advice on how I can improve, but so far, in a year-long campaign, I haven’t received any complaints about how I interact with other players both in and out-of-game. I’m just not very quick on the uptake rules-wise. I don’t want to constantly whine at the DM; I’d like to know how to participate in a reasonable way within the structure of the game.

nedz - That's the thing – we had only just started arguing, and neither of us were attacking him before or after the fact, although it looks like I have a good reason, RP and mechanics-wise, to try to prevent him from doing it again and to be IC pissed off when he does try. The LE guy and I had been engaged for, what, 20 seconds? Bard was also in a position as a character [the captain] to tell us to cooperate via conversation, and without resorting to spells. It seemed excessive. If he was trying to speed up the game, why? It’s supposed to be a RP-heavy game, so (reasonable) character interaction is half the point, right? This is very ~my opinion~, but it seems like he just didn't want anyone else to RP without including himself in the equation. Bottom line, I don't like feeling that my actions have been "optimized" for the Bard’s benefit when I wasn’t being slow in the first place. I don't think my character was being annoying or unreasonable and dragging things out for no reason in the span of half a minute. It was the first session; there were going to be hiccups in the party members’ methods and our opinions of them. I suppose him using Suggestion like that was one of them!

Segev - That's a really good idea! I definitely have the gold for that. Do you think having a summon around with a circle of protection against evil, or something along those lines, like a Lantern Archon, would be even more cost-effective? I might be able to do something like that with my setup.

[nedz]

While I agree with this, I've been in games that were like: I don't care how many goblins you'd vaporize with that fireball, our improved evasion rogue with +18 ref save is in there and might take damage! You can't do that!
I did once play a character who believed in the Differential Theory of Spellcasting, i.e. if my spell does more damage to the enemy than our side then that's a good spell. The trouble was I always seemed to hit the same players characters.


nedz - That's the thing – we had only just started arguing, and neither of us were attacking him before or after the fact, although it looks like I have a good reason, RP and mechanics-wise, to try to prevent him from doing it again and to be IC pissed off when he does try. The LE guy and I had been engaged for, what, 20 seconds? Bard was also in a position as a character [the captain] to tell us to cooperate via conversation, and without resorting to spells. It seemed excessive. If he was trying to speed up the game, why? It’s supposed to be a RP-heavy game, so (reasonable) character interaction is half the point, right? This is very ~my opinion~, but it seems like he just didn't want anyone else to RP without including himself in the equation. Bottom line, I don't like feeling that my actions have been "optimized" for the Bard’s benefit when I wasn’t being slow in the first place. I don't think my character was being annoying or unreasonable and dragging things out for no reason in the span of half a minute. It was the first session; there were going to be hiccups in the party members’ methods and our opinions of them. I suppose him using Suggestion like that was one of them!

I wasn't there so it's hard to tell. It may well be an interpersonal OOC Issue — IDK.

[Magesmiley]

I suppose you could always try earplugs. It's a bit hard to hear suggestions with those in.

Myself, I'd definitely deal with this jerk. You're right to be careful going against a more experienced player - he's doubtless got more than a few tricks up his sleeves.

Some sort of a contingent spell or effect that triggers when you get hit with an enchantment might be interesting. And defensible. ("Honestly, I had the disintegrate set up because I was worried someone would try to charm me...") You might have to dig around or come up with some sort of way to do this, but there should be a way (others here might be able to offer some ideas along this line).

If he's the captain, there's always the possibility of using this against him with the crew - if he's doing this to you, you could make a good case to members of the crew that he's been doing it to them and they're just not aware of it and to keep an eye open. A bit of distrust on the part of the crew could easily give him other concerns to focus on.

[anti-ninja]

I never really got why so many people seem to be against the concept of pvp entirely , its only come up a couple times in games I have been in and every time nothing was taken personally so no real world conflict arose.Now let me ask one question of the OP ,how long did this argument between you and the other player go on before the bard intervened ,I do not mean to point fingers but if it when on for a long time, somewhere between 5-10 minutes it is understandable why he would do this,if it when for that long he may have thought that nothing constructive is going to come of this neither side is ever going to see the others position ,therefore he decided to put a stop to it.

[emeraldstreak]

I never really got why so many people seem to be against the concept of pvp entirely

They aren't. PvP people just don't care. It's non-PvP people that get in PvP situations that raise hell.

[ahenobarbi]

I'm late to teh thread again; Sacrieur said lot's (if not everything) I wanted to say :smallsmile:

Do talk to the player mind-controlling yer. Do play your charter reacting to mind-control(it was a soft kind of it) as you wish - getting along can be done in many different ways (I do not wish to escalate this, but what you're saying does not convince me; let's talk this over [ask NPC to wait [outside] while you talk with the other PC your differences (possibly shielded from interference by Circle of Protection from X)])(or simply say IC that you do insist on things going as you said and are willing to discussions this in private (should work since other PC is also influenced by suggestion)(starting discussion with other PC with raising concern over you two being compelled by someone else as more important issue than the initial disagreement is a good strategy too)).

[LooseCannoneer]

Remember that:
1) A spellcaster would probably know they were hit with a Suggestion.
2) The other person can't cast it all the time.

I'd suggest you wait until the other person can't cast any spells to get out of a serious conversation, then confront that character about his willingness to do that to allies. Get the meatshield on your side first.