New PK rules discussion.

[Kaaurk]

But should you expect the wizard to say "WOAH! Wait, time out!!! Killmode spar. Now you just sit there and wait your turn Mr. Uberfighterman while I cast my disintegrate spell." *cast* "OK! Time in!!"

I was just refering to spells. That in my opinion isn't fair, but it has more to do with the killmode reverting to the lowest form then what spells are being allowed in a pvp

[Zorinar]

Hi,
I have a minor sidebar comment to start with:
I have been killed twice by disintegrate and all it did was kill me, It didn't destroy anything in my inventory nor turn my corpse into dust. I'm not sure if it does do that in FK now, or if it did that back in the day but not now.

Onward then:
Death spells really don't kick in all the time. In fact, a spell like phantasmal killer can take me five casts on a mob before it finally works and I have a suspicion that it would be harder to get them off on a PC. These spells are not guaranteed to work and a wizard that throws all his eggs into the insta kill basket can end up dead because of it. Five wasted casts would certainly put any wizard in real trouble in PVP.

Additionally, --well I might be wrong-- but I believe that death spells do not work in kill mode stun or spar. I -THINK- one gets a "failed" message. Most of our player vs player combat is on stun anyways, real kills are rare. It's poor role-play to use a death spell in a spar and I think everyone knows that. (Because technically you just killed them, not stunned them) I know how frustrating it can be to die to a death spell but on the other hand, if a wizard was certainly fearing for his life his enemy should certainly be afraid of the magic he wields.

Now that I think about it, I could see a few characters using the no death spell rule to their advantage. Knowing that the player is not allowed to use death spells, 2 or 3 fighters can easily confront a wizard and start a fight knowing they will win for sure without fear of a "weird" spell -or the like- popping out. (Necromancers certainly become very less frightening as well.)

I think we have a mature player base where strong wizards are concerned in the game. I have not personally ever seen a wizard go around bullying others with their death magic. I have never even cast a death spell at a player (that I can recall anyways) and I have only personally seen two others do it and they failed at it anyways.

At the end of my over-bloated post I guess I am agreeing with Brar that in the overall picture of things, Wizards can do nasty things and they can be scary people and I think we should not take away what they have just to make them less of what they are supposed to be. (However, I still think that if we block melee attacks during a cast a lot of cleric over-powered-ness can be solved right there. They either swing or they cast)

[Selveem]

Knowing that the player is not allowed to use death spells, 2 or 3 fighters can easily confront a wizard and start a fight knowing they will win for sure without fear of a "weird" spell -or the like- popping out. (Necromancers certainly become very less frightening as well.)

You can't use two or three vs one as an example of how something can be beat something. If two high level wizards lost a fight against a fighter (even without death spells!), it's because their players are too inexperienced/discomposed/disinterested/unmotivated) to win.

If Death spells are to be the norm in PVP, I feel that bleeding, limb-rending, and massive damage rules come into play as well. As it stands now, I can't really damage limbs (at least past a certain point) in a fight vs another PC. Additionally, casting should require stamina as every non-casting ability currently does. Stamina drain should be increased for those who do not have the full five attacks so that the percentages drained per round are all equal (currently those with five attacks get their stamina drained very quickly because of this). Skills such as trip should be opened up. Bash should have its success rate properly adjusted. Et cetera, et cetera.

Just saying if people want to be able to lord power over others just because they're blessed caster classes, then the same right should be afforded non-caster classes.

[Brar]

Then we should had tactical combat, ranges, combat flying, teleporting, contigent spells, bigby's spell which are the bane of fighters and again... a melee classe, no matter which one, is at complete loss against a wizard and stands absolutly no chance if they don't take them by surprise and unprepared.

That's how FR and even DnD is, live with it.

There is no such thing as charge that gets you up a cliff, jump that makes you getting in melee range and such in DnD, that the apanage of PvP competitive game (Diablo, Guild Wars, Wow and the like).
It won't ever work in our current rules settings or we have to tone down every single classes for the sake of PvP balance, but then for me it's not FR anymore, it one more PvP hack and slash.
The problem here is that we want to follow DnD rules, but with PvP balance... while DnD is absolutly not prepared for any PvP combat, it's a group of adventurer against monsters.

Fighters are wizards and clerics' men at arms, that's how it always been and how it should be for me. There is no know lasting ruler in FR history that is not backed up by some monsterly powerful wizard who rules in the shadows behind the throne, not a single one. Even Obould have his shaman, Azoun have Vandy, ect ect...

That's the settings we want to play in, of course we can change it if we will, we did so already but I think we should change it for the good reason and for me it's for the sake of stroy telling and RP, not because people feels they can't win against another in PvP fights, that's a stupid reason for me.

Nobody should be forced to give up on skills/spells they learned and took the time to level up.

Now considering the PvP issues, there was a discussion at a time to slow down combat and reduces everyone hp. Perhaps it can alleviate the need to resort to killmode stun/spar/nofight.
Another thing that could be considered is making the flying/land system works more in depths; giving an attack of opportunity and making the opponents gets melee attack only if the casted spell is "ranged touch".
To hinder the "mob fight abuse" that can potentially arise, it could be coded as another special pvp fight mode.
So basically, it would take into account that a caster who is flying can only be attack by flying opponent or with ranged weapon. However, he would be open to attack once he cast a touch spell and for one round only.
Also disable autoattack while casting and gets the cating time on par with the books.

I will make a post in game suggestions with a complete suggestion later tonight because I'm getting out of subject.

To resume, I think we can change the settings we are in, but let's do it for a good reason (RP), not for PvP sakes, I really fear to becoming another stupid hack and slash mud around loosely based on a fantasy setting with no sense...

That's only my feeling of course, burn me or praise me but that's how I feel

Brar

[Harroghty]

Please continue to post your opinions here and trust that they are being discussed by the staff. I wanted to address a few issues though:

• -Using a lower killmode in order to slow down a melee attack is definitely against the PvP rules because it is blatant code abuse.
  
  -Instant-death spells were banned in PvP because the staff felt that zapping someone dead with one spell limited the other player's ability to role-play and react. Yes, there are those situations where one could be used in an acceptable manner, but I think that those are the minority. How do you wizards respond to that?

[Aveline]

-if you are on stun, the spells will not kill. At least they did not before.. do not know if they still do.
So if you are on kill and you are killed by normal means (A stab to the heart) how would you role-play that death any more significantly than if you were killed by an insta-death spell? They are both pretty instant deaths in the midst of a fight and you don't really have more opportunity to RP one than you would another. You wouldn't get to RP the deathblow of a magic missile anymore than phantasmal killer. A fight on kill or stun mode zooms by anyway, there really is no RP in the midst of a fight unless you are smoting every round, and those fights very rarely happen outside of a spar or tournament.

[Kregor]

Actually, the reason the save or die spells were initially banned by the staff in PK situations is because until the save/resist system was recoded, saving throws did not work, at all. So the problem with insta-death spells was that they were guaranteed death, and the random chance to avoid it wasn't there.

As a result, these spells were way more powerful than they should have been, and would be unbalancing in a PK encounter.

In the same vein, Hold spells were banned because the save/resist possibility wasn't there, nor was the affect given another save each round, as the spell would allow in D20 text.

With saves now coded, and working, there should be no real reason to leave such a ban in place, in my opinion. For what that's worth

[Selveem]

In the same vein, Hold spells were banned because the save/resist possibility wasn't there, nor was the affect given another save each round, as the spell would allow in D20 text.

For the record, that's not the case. Hold spells get one chance to save. Upon failed save, you're held for max rounds. I've tested thoroughly with Casious.

[Raona]

In the same vein, Hold spells were banned because the save/resist possibility wasn't there, nor was the affect given another save each round, as the spell would allow in D20 text.

For the record, that's not the case. Hold spells get one chance to save. Upon failed save, you're held for max rounds. I've tested thoroughly with Casious.

Kregor's statement was historical, and I believe it to be accurate. In that situation, it would certainly make sense that hold spells would be unfair and unbalancing.

What you describe as the current situation does not seem wrong - if someone casts hold person on you, you get to attempt a will save; if successful, you are not held; if unsuccessful you are held for a fixed period of time based on caster level, as per canon. What is missing is an opportunity to re-attempt the save to break the hold, in subsequent rounds, as canon calls for. [This is probably a substantial coding challenge, but could be put in as an enhancement request, if holds are being misused or are overpowered. Such requests need to get a substantial number of amens from the playerbase choir before they are considered.] The potential for abuse lies in an opponent repeatedly casting Hold Person on you, before you are free again, such that you can never move. The definite duration of Hold Person (since you are not able to save in subsequent rounds) and the echoes spelling out success in beating the will save make that sort of (mis)use of Hold Person a near-certain death sentence, provided they have enough instances of hold person memorized. That could also be fixed by limiting this spell to once per combat, as stun and bash are, but that may not be necessary if the per-round save is implemented and the caster no longer can be certain you'll stay held for a fixed amount of time.

[Selveem]

People don't really need to cast hold person again before it ends. Hold person lasted 23 rounds on my fighter vs Casious (at least, I was stunned after). Stun is basically an instant-kill with one chance to avoid it. Afterwards, you're as good as dead.

If it's not allowed in PVP, then there's really no need to fix it. I don't see mobs casting it, so it'd really only be beneficial for players to use it vs mobs which is a significant enough advantage.

[Brodnur]

Just wanted to chime in myself. I've been in a few PvP's both as a fighter against a wizard, and a wizard vs wizard, wizard vs fighter, etc, etc. And yes, a high level whatever is absolutely deserving of respect. A fighter has the ability to remove some, if not most of a wizards casting, if they know the proper skills, which places the caster in the position of being pretty much slaughtered. But, on the other hand, the wizard also has the ability of removing the fighter's superior physical abilities, if they know the proper spells. I think it boils down to who's done the best training on their PC with regards to PvP. Another point I've discovered, is that negotiation prior to the spar is crucial. If someone can negotiate an advantage, then I say go for it, short of something that destroys the PC's corpse, I'm of the opinion that in a fight, anything goes, so long's both parties have agreed beforehand on the terms. That is just for the "friendly match" scenario, however. For the mortal enemies, hate your guts kind of match, I can absolutely see the need for a set of base PK rules. But what is too much? What is too little? It's a difficult thing to find that happy medium. My personal views on this, is the insta-death spells should be made available during a PvP, if for no reason than that, if the situation were really happening, would a true wizard hold back against the fighter who's swing that five pound slab of razor sharp steel at his head? Just my two coppers worth, if it's even worth that