Is it ever a good idea to hit the party?

[Dausuul]

A pet peeve of mine is people who think it's Ok to target party members in area effect attacks. IMO, unless the characters have full immunity from the effects of the attack, then it is never a good idea.

Well, first of all, requiring total immunity is way excessive. A decent level of resistance is plenty. If the party wizard deals 3d6+7 damage with fireball, and the tiefling swordmage on the front line has fire resist 8, you're looking at average 9.5 damage to the tiefling in exchange for 17.5 to a whole bunch of enemies*. That's almost always a net win.

Even if the party member lacks resistance, though, it can be a good move. From a tactical perspective, it mostly comes down to numbers; as a rule, if you take X% of your party's total hit points but X+1% of the enemy's, it's a good trade. If you take X-1% of the enemy's, it's a bad trade. (Obviously, there are a lot of nuances that I'm glossing over here; you might accept X-1% if it will take a monster to zero and thus reduce the enemy's damage output.)

From a gameplay/social perspective, it's fine as long as you get permission from the guy you're about to blast. Front-line fighter types tend to be pretty gung-ho, so they're usually quite open to the idea of taking a hit in exchange for hitting four or five enemies. But you never blast a party member without asking first.

They should treat the other characters as the living beings that they are supposed to represent, and the Area Effects as the potentially-lethal attacks that those are supposed to represent, rather than treating the whole thing as just a set of playing pieces moving around a board.

That's a legitimate argument, but I think it's missing the intentionally larger-than-life, heroic aspect of D&D. The PCs are heroes; they're better, stronger, faster than ordinary people, and they know it. And they're also a little bit nuts. You have to be pretty crazy to take on a bunch of seven-foot hyena-men with axes who have you outnumbered two to one.

So is it really that unreasonable for the party fighter to yell, "Blast us all!" and the wizard to oblige? Keep in mind that the fighter has seen the wizard's blasting spells before, knows he can tough them out, and is prepared to duck and roll.

[SIZE=-2]*Actually, it's even better than I implied. A swordmage's primary stat is Int, which means a high Reflex defense, so there's good odds the wizard will miss the tiefling and deal only half damage. At that point you're looking at maybe a couple points of damage to the tiefling, versus 8.75 (miss) or 17.5 (hit) to the enemy.[/SIZE]

 

[Janx]

A pet peeve of mine is people who think it's Ok to target party members in area effect attacks. IMO, unless the characters have full immunity from the effects of the attack, then it is never a good idea.

I seem to be encountering several people who think otherwise lately, so I thought I'd see what the general consensus is in the greater online community.

just to clarify, the OP seems to be talking about PCs who target fellow party members in area effect attacks.

When I first read it, I was thinking GM's targetting party members in area effect attacks, which was a completely different animal.

Seems like most folks got the original point, but it wasn't until I read some of the other threads that I got the OP's meaning.

Now back to the now clarified topic:

Unless my PC volunteers for some suicide mission (I'll go in and get them to surround me, then you hit them with everything you got, centered on me), if your PC does damage to mine, you are attacking me, and only my enemies attack me.

It may even be acceptable to have the other PC realize mid-spell that your PC is in the AoE, with a "I can't get all the monsters without hitting you, have you got enough HP?"

But just casting AoE with no regard for my PC, that's what my enemies do, and I would consider it a betrayal and deal with it appropriately.

 

[Nifft]

In my previous game, there were two Wizards and one guy with both Evasion and amazingly high saves.

"Friendly Fire" works quite well in the right group.

Cheers, -- N

 

[OakwoodDM]

We actually had a situation in the last session of the game I play where the mage hit the whole party with a fireball.

We're a party of 2, and we've been attacked by green slime. We're both in right trouble trying to fight it off and being generally unsuccessful in attacks, so he drops a fireball on himself, singeing both of us but obliterating the slimes.

That's the first time he's dropped an area attack on me, despite me saying I'm happy for him to do it at other times (I'm playing a Goliath Warden and we're 6th level, so I have shed loads of hitpoints and the opportunity, given adequate warning, to further protect myself.).

 

[Storminator]

The US Army's stance is "our goal is not to minimize fratricide, but to minimize total casualties." It's a pretty good stance. If a little fratricide reduces total damage taken, it's a good trade.

I don't think PC hit points and enemy hit points are equal, but I think a you can work out a reasonable exchange. And sometimes time in rounds is vastly more important than a few ally hp.

PS

 

[jmucchiello]

So no one has an IC issue with friendly fire? It seems a bit metagamey to think nothing of friendly fire. Your character has a lethal power he's going to unleash hoping it will slaughter his foes yet he thinks nothing of hitting his friend with the same power. Why? Because he knows how many hit points his friend has. There's something wrong with that line of thinking. How is this any different from "I'll leap off the cliff, it's only 20d6"?

 

[Nifft]

So no one has an IC issue with friendly fire? It seems a bit metagamey to think nothing of friendly fire. Your character has a lethal power he's going to unleash hoping it will slaughter his foes yet he thinks nothing of hitting his friend with the same power. Why? Because he knows how many hit points his friend has. There's something wrong with that line of thinking. How is this any different from "I'll leap off the cliff, it's only 20d6"?

As Storminator pointed out in the post right above yours, some real-life organizations think in exactly the same terms.

Is the US Army "metagaming"? (I rather hope not.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Storminator]

So no one has an IC issue with friendly fire? It seems a bit metagamey to think nothing of friendly fire. Your character has a lethal power he's going to unleash hoping it will slaughter his foes yet he thinks nothing of hitting his friend with the same power. Why? Because he knows how many hit points his friend has. There's something wrong with that line of thinking. How is this any different from "I'll leap off the cliff, it's only 20d6"?

I know all my recent PCs have tended to be extremely heroic types, so I've been quite happy to get caught in the blast - knowing I'm a freaking hero. I have played some more self absorbed types that would be outrageously offended by taking damage as well. I've also played some seriously calculating wizards that would announce the odds of their friends' survival of the next blast...

So it very much depends on the PC.

PS

 

[lotuseater]

i am surprised by the response of some of the first posters who suggest that friendly fire is okay if you talk about it and agree to it ooc first. i agree with the more recent posters who are saying that what matters is ic.

would your character be willing to put other characters at risk? how will they react? are they okay with that? i think most people would not. i could see some particularly dare devil characters, or a particularly stupid barbarian who doesn't even realize where the attack comes from, but i think most reasonable people would be upset at getting hammered by a friendly fireball.

if you take significant damage from a spell, in character, you aren't thinking, oh, well, i had plenty of hps in reserve. you're thinking, damn, that hurt, and could have killed me.

but at the same time, the decision to do it, or not to do it, should be based on what your characters would think about it. i'm sure certain characters would put their companions at risk and not think twice. and others may just panic and not think of the consequences. it's a situation rife for good role playing.

so i think taking the discussion out of character robs you have some juicy in game drama.

 

[Nifft]

i am surprised by the response of some of the first posters who suggest that friendly fire is okay if you talk about it and agree to it ooc first. i agree with the more recent posters who are saying that what matters is ic.

IMHO both are important. Just as it's important to be able to play your character, it's important that the character you're playing isn't more of a jerk than the other players are willing to tolerate.

Cheers, -- N