Attacking a willing target

[HealingAura]

Wisdom modifier can improve the Will defense since it represents the character's willpower which helps resisting mind effecting attacks. In this situation the character actually wants to concentrate on the attack, so it should be easier to attack a willing character with higher Wisdom.

There should be some official ruling to this since this is a valid option for characters with such at will powers.

 

[Samir]

Okay take this instance. There is a LFR adventure where the necromancer locks you in a small opening to a room with a blast that can be sustained minor. Its effect is immobilize save ends and it reattacks fort at +12 (for levels 1 to 4) for 2d8+5 I think in addition to reimmobilizing. If our storm sorcerer would have used one of his at-wills that pushes 3 on a hit to reflex, would that be appropriate to get the party out with only the single at-will damage applied. What would be the defense for the hit? Is it 0 as some say here or 10 or include dex bonus even though immobilized?

If it's vs. Reflex, I'd have him attack a defense of 10. After all, the target is not trying to dodge.

This is just my opinion, however, since TMK there is no official ruling on this, so this just seems like the most logical way to houserule it.

 

[Turtlejay]

But, since you pointed out this was in Living Forgotten Realms, the DM should *not* make any houseruling or esception, since as far as I know, they are not allowed to do such things.

I might be wrong. The more I think about this, the more I see the potential to be abused.

Jay

 

[Saeviomagy]

By the rules, a character can at the very least, close his eyes, granting CA to attackers.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone rendering themselves helpless either, but I doubt it would only apply to a specific attack: more likely it's a round by round thing (since even closing your eyes is a round by round thing according to at least one official adventure).

 

[On Puget Sound]

My warlord likes to Opening Shove an ally, then shift that same ally, so I would also love some official clarification on this. Some ideas:
1) Free action to allow CA for an ally.
2) As above, but you also allow CAs for enemies, until the start of your turn
3) Minor action to actively assist in getting hit: your ally's next attack against you automatically hits.

Opening Shove in particular is too strong an at-will with auto-hit.

 

[Turtlejay]

So, I started to look at the ways this can be abused. In the simplest case you take a character who has innate resistance (Tiefling, Sorcerer, Kalashtar) and a power that does low damage but moves. Any time an enemy throws down an effect, it becomes trivial. Thunderwave to push everyone out of a zone becomes a calculation about which does more damage.

Not to mention the ability of characters to aquire resistances in various ways. I don't think they will make an "official ruling" because it needs none. Allowing things like this is just begging for abuse later.

Jay

 

[ForbidenMaster]

So, I started to look at the ways this can be abused. In the simplest case you take a character who has innate resistance (Tiefling, Sorcerer, Kalashtar) and a power that does low damage but moves. Any time an enemy throws down an effect, it becomes trivial. Thunderwave to push everyone out of a zone becomes a calculation about which does more damage.

Not to mention the ability of characters to aquire resistances in various ways. I don't think they will make an "official ruling" because it needs none. Allowing things like this is just begging for abuse later.

Jay

IE: remember bag-of-rats

 

[DracoSuave]

'll give an example why this can be useful sometimes:
I target an ally and an enemy with the 1st level at will Druid attack "Chill Wind" (area attack). I slide both targets towards each other and if my ally has "Agile Opportunist" (Paragon Tier Feat from PHB2) he can use a melee basic attack on that enemy as an opportunity action.

So, you want the power to be used to bestow a free opportunity attack and, as well, damage an enemy?

Um... yeah you'd need to roll against the ally!

Do I still have to target his defense?
He doesn't even want to resist the attack or avoid it, so why should I have to pass his defense?

Because just because the -player- can see the advantage of it, the character might not desire to be hit with a bolt of sub-zero mystic cold and then slammed into the enemy.

Of course, making it an automatic hit makes little sense since you can always roll 1 (missing a target is not always due to his high defenses)

What would you rule in this situation?

That you have to attack the player and deal full damage to get the benefit. You're trying to milk a free attack from the system. Dicerolls to do it are -more- than appropriate.

You can use the power in this way, and it's not hinky. But then asking to auto hit on parts? You're pushing it, and trying to exploit. The line gets drawn before that point.

I go with conflict resolution.

Is there a conflict? No. Then there's no need to roll the dice. You hit.

The monster who is taking free hits because of this might disagree there is no conflict.

 

[Turtlejay]

To clarify, obviously it is not against the rules to attack your ally when the power says the target is one creature. But to make that attack an auto hit *if you want* is bad news.

For example, until recently I had a Gnome Illusionist with Phantom Bolt as an At-Will. We also have a Kalashtar Paladin in the party. If I wanted, I could attack him with Phantom Bolt, do 1d6+5 damage, and slide him 1. Were I guaranteed to hit, I would know that scooting him out of the aura of 3 Chillborn zombies would save him 15 hitpoints, at a cost of 1d6 damage (since he resists psychic damage). If it is guaranteed to hit, I would do it every time, and that would be. . .stupid. If I only have a normal chance to hit, I would probably choose another action that I know will be successful. Always being able to slide him out of danger from 10 squares away doesn't work for me.

Jay

 

[LostSoul]

The monster who is taking free hits because of this might disagree there is no conflict.

Then there is a conflict and we roll to see what happens!

I might say something like, "Okay, you can ride the wind, but if he doesn't control it well enough you won't get there in time to set up your agile opportunity attack. You'll take the damage and the slide no matter what, but if he misses you can't make the OA."

That's where the conflict is, so that's what we have to roll for.