Inferlock Curse loop?

[On Puget Sound]

Pointing in a mirror at yourself and issuing a potent magical curse, never mind an infernal one, would work in real life. A dm might allow it to work in-game.

I want to learn curses from you. Mine rarely work in real life, and there are so many deserving targets.

 

[cmbarona]

I want to learn curses from you. Mine rarely work in real life, and there are so many deserving targets.

According to some of the logic presented here, though, you would only be able to curse yourself. Congrats if it works, though.

 

[On Puget Sound]

And according to the Threefold Law common in (real world) ceremonial magick, any curse you inflict will affect you at thrice the strength it affects the victim, so perhaps they are correct.

 

[Incendax]

So by definition, you are your own enemy. That part is clear.

Your interpretation of the rules is only made clear by exemption, but those are indeed the rules. You have two functional ways to rule this in your game:

A) Either you are not your own enemy, which agrees with RAI.

B) You are your own enemy, strike yourself with Area Burst powers, and cannot curse anybody but yourself until you take Twofold Curse at 11th level.

Sanctioned Games in America support only one of these two rulings.

If the latter is the preference of your gaming group, then having Temporary Hit Points does not alleviate the Dying condition.

 

[Voss]

Well, let's take your example and assume that PCs count as their own enemies. I think this is a somewhat crazy assertion, but you are making the arguments for it, so I guess it falls on you to support how it works in-game.

If it doesn't work in-game, then I'd think we're clearly looking at an infinite oregano-style interpretation.

(1) Rangers can never mark opponents, since they are their own enemy, and they are by definition closest to themselves.

(2) Swordmages always hurt themselves with Greenflame blade.

(3) As Hyp pointed out, you cannot move because you cannot end your movement in an enemy's space.

(4) Warlocks can never curse anyone, because they need to target the closest enemy. Again, by definition, that is them.

Are you proposing that all of these side-effects are, in fact, how 4e should be played? Without ever moving, and without any strikers ever using their targeting abilities?

-O

I'm proposing thats how the rules are written. How the game *should* be played is a bit too metaphysical for me.

And actually, 3 isn't a problem, unless there is some sort of recursive functional call and a space is tagged 'friendly' or 'enemy' before a creature moves into it. If its an empty space, there aren't any enemies there to prevent you from moving into it until after you do so.

Mal- I actually rather dislike running games. I haven't since 2nd edition. Plus, things being how they are, I just don't have time. I do enjoy playing in them though, but as it stands, I wouldn't touch a ranger, swordmage or warlock with a 10' pole.

 

[Paultimatum]

It seems the healing doesn't work, and obviously you don't count as your own enemy using RAI. However, as far as I can tell you do in RAW, which most probably needs errata. Still, I like finding exploits even if it would be pointless to use them For the first question,

She Must Curse Herself, And It WON'T Work.

This can't be true, because the infernal pact ability says when the enemy is reduced to 0 or below hp. If they curse themselves but they are already at 0 hp, they are not being reduced to 0 or below.

She Can't Curse Herself.

This doesn't work either because the warlock's curse ability says that you cannot curse an enemy already under your curse, not an enemy that has been under your curse.

This means the possibility left is:

She Must Curse Herself, And It Will Work.

Well, it probably doesn't work because of the healing thing, but it's funny anyway. Hope I helped .

 

[Hypersmurf]

And actually, 3 isn't a problem, unless there is some sort of recursive functional call and a space is tagged 'friendly' or 'enemy' before a creature moves into it. If its an empty space, there aren't any enemies there to prevent you from moving into it until after you do so.

There's nothing stopping you moving into it. There's something preventing you ending your movement there.

If you are an enemy, then the square you are occupying is an enemy's square, and you cannot end your movement in an enemy's square. You therefore end your movement in the last square you could legally occupy... which isn't the second-to-last square either, because that's an enemy's square when you're in it; nor is it the third-to-last square, because that's an enemy's square when you're in it too.

Moving into the square isn't an issue; the issue is that once you've moved into it, you can't stop.

-Hyp.

 

[Obryn]

I'm proposing thats how the rules are written. How the game *should* be played is a bit too metaphysical for me.

Righto. Clearly, the entire rest of the game's text tells us nothing about that sentence. I'll tell you what - you go ahead and play a game where nobody moves. Warlocks and rangers can only mark themselves, and swordmages only hit themselves, but none of this really matters because it's secondary to the fact that nobody ever moves or else, nobody ever stops moving. Or at least, you can argue that's how the rules say the game should be played.

As for me, I'll laugh and feel sorry for your DM.

-O

 

[Voss]

There's nothing stopping you moving into it. There's something preventing you ending your movement there.

If you are an enemy, then the square you are occupying is an enemy's square, and you cannot end your movement in an enemy's square. You therefore end your movement in the last square you could legally occupy... which isn't the second-to-last square either, because that's an enemy's square when you're in it; nor is it the third-to-last square, because that's an enemy's square when you're in it too.

Moving into the square isn't an issue; the issue is that once you've moved into it, you can't stop.

-Hyp.

Wow. They really do have recursive subroutines in the rules. Thats pretty crazy. But I'm still confused, do the rules not make a distinction between occupying a square and passing through it? Because it seems to me that if you are moving, you aren't occupying a square to prevent yourself from ending your move into it.

For instance, if we use the logic your proposing, the powers that allow you to shift through an opponents square don't actually work, since you'd occupy every square you pass through, and you can't do that if an enemy is in it, even if you are going to move out of it later during your move.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But I'm still confused, do the rules not make a distinction between occupying a square and passing through it?

They make a distinction between passing through a square and ending your move in a square.

For example, you can enter an ally's square; you can't end your move in an ally's square.

If you haven't finished moving, you and an ally can occupy the same square; you cannot, however, end your move in a square your ally occupies.

The rule on which squares you occupy are on p283: "A creature is considered to occupy the square or squares within its space."

For instance, if we use the logic your proposing, the powers that allow you to shift through an opponents square don't actually work, since you'd occupy every square you pass through, and you can't do that if an enemy is in it, even if you are going to move out of it later during your move.

The rules normally prohibit you entering an enemy's square; those shifting powers override that, and permit you to enter the enemy's square. Once you've entered the square, you and the enemy occupy the same square; this is fine.

What they don't override is the rule that you may not end your move in a square occupied by an enemy.

-Hyp.