CvC

[Ksiel]

So, I keep reading about how this or that is over balance in case there is a CvC. This makes me wonder, in the past year how many CvC have we had in ALFA? I know of none.

[dergon darkhelm]

Someone got killed on Moonshaes a month or two ago.....don't know details.


Beyond that it has been a year + for the other CvCs I can recall.

[hollyfant]

CvC is frighteningly common. Seriously. CvC with lethal consequences is rare though.

[oldgrayrogue]

Depends on your definition of CvC. I am aware of several "fight to the death" type encounters over the last few years. Hardly common.

Ksiel raises a good point though. Lethal CvC is rare and usually moderated by DMs. I don't think its the primary driving force behind our "balance" discussions.

[CloudDancing]

Actually it happens more than you think. BUT most of the PvP, are kept an utter secret by the players because they take the situation properly and don't meta game.

[Ksiel]

I am talking CvC as to a point where another pc is killed. Not a scuffle where they fight and then part ways or one is left knocked out and robbed.

As far as it happening more than I think, I haven't seen it since I have been on the DM side of things and don't remember it seeing it any when I played more frequently, so I don't buy that is happens more than I think. However as OGR put it, as long as it is not the driving force for balancing then the purpose of my asking has been answered.

[NESchampion]

Once in the last 6 months for me, though I can think of a number of situations where it could've resulted in more CvC.

[oldgrayrogue]

Like I said it depends on the definition. If you count plotting against other PCs or spreading false rumors about them, or trying to get NPCs to kill them thru RP it probably happens a lot. Corio had secret plots against numerous PCs that they never knew about. But unless such things culminate in an actual combat encounter I don't call it CvC.

[Ksiel]

What I was trying to get at is an example such as, this new class (use blade singer) is too powerful because at level 12 it gets yadda yadda yadda feat which makes it far to easy to kill other PC's and as such we have to remove/fix/replace this feat or the class can't be approved.

This could go for class, spell, feat, skill, race, etc... It just seemed a very weak argument if there are very few CvC.

Anyways, I don't want to start an uproar about it. Thanks for clearing it up for me OGR.

[hollyfant]

CvC is a commonly cited potential problem when judging PrCs, spells or feats. And we do try to rein in the ones that could be used too "unfairly"; the recent problems with invisibility spring to mind. But CvC was never the end-all argument in any discussion that I recall.

[Zelknolf]

I haven't been involved in and CvC since ALFA1, but (ironically!) the only ALFA1 PC who was never in a CvC was my drow, and the last two were involved in multiple fights to the death (my sorcerer killed like six PCs; totally a bloodthirsty monster. And the moral of the story is to believe the tiny acid-breathing elfgirl when she says she'll f-ing kill you.)

I still think it's worth talking about, though, because we regularly slaughter NPCs and don't bleat about it, and we generally handwave it as "be more careful" if someone dies to a spawn. And a horrible inescapable death to NPCs in a DMed session is never a "zOMG that class is so broken!" argument; it's always "zOMG that DM hates me and was griefing!" -- But there is always drama around a CvC death, even if they're done with proper IC and OOC warnings with DM supervision in fair one-on-one fights, and that drama drags every tactic and power known to D&D out and calls it broken, and demands that changes be made to make such a CvC more fair (and to roll back the death, of course.)

If nothing else, discussing and planning for such gives DMs and Admin the opportunity to say, "Yeah; we already talked about that. This was our ruling. Good luck on your next character."

[Ithildur]

Class vs class balance with CvC 'fairness' as the primary basis for policy seems nonsensical, unless you want to play in an arena style server. In a fight to the death at lvl 1 a wizard will die to a barbarian 9 times out of 10; no one calls for a 'fix' to the wizard or to gimp the barbarian because of that. Same thing with a lvl 20 wizard killing a lvl 20 barbarian 9 times out of 10.

There's 4th edition for folks who don't like that part about DnD, but it's a part of the game others of us accept and even enjoy, I dare say.

[Veilan]

CvC is a commonly cited potential problem when judging PrCs, spells or feats. And we do try to rein in the ones that could be used too "unfairly"; the recent problems with invisibility spring to mind. But CvC was never the end-all argument in any discussion that I recall.

This.

[mogonk]

Class vs class balance with CvC 'fairness' as the primary basis for policy seems nonsensical, unless you want to play in an arena style server. In a fight to the death at lvl 1 a wizard will die to a barbarian 9 times out of 10; no one calls for a 'fix' to the wizard or to gimp the barbarian because of that. Same thing with a lvl 20 wizard killing a lvl 20 barbarian 9 times out of 10.

Seriously. Except that 1 time out of 10 at level 10 is far too generous to the barbarian, and a wizard will frequently beat a barbarian even at lvl 1. Sleep. I win. Can you win (effectively) in one turn if your opponent fails a save? Can you pick the type of save? Is the DC really high? Whoever can answer "yes", to more of those questions will almost always win, and among characters who can answer yes to all of them, battles are determined by initiative rolls and saves. Might as well just flip a coin. That's 3rd edition D&D. Yay!

CvC, especially one on one CvC, is a ludicrous exercise at mid-high levels. It's not that the system is so imbalanced, it's that it's not balanced in that context. It was never intended to be.

But honestly, I think that's generally acknowledged in most balance discussions. I concur with Hollyfant that I can't recall having seen a discussion decided purely by CvC concerns.