Bat Aside vs. solo monster (or last man standing)?

[KarinsDad]

I'm not arguing with the RAW interpretation. I know what it says.

I'm arguing that the power as written is needlessly limited.

Yes because powers that are limited are by definition unfun.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Yes because powers that are limited are by definition unfun.

Wow, KarinsDad, this sounds to me like a sudden leap into the sarcastic. I don't think "this power was poorly written; the designer failed to account for a fairly common situation" is anywhere close to "limited powers are bad".

 

[webrunner]

By defeated you mean dead (and most defeated enemies are typically dead), then this might be a bit problematic.

Most occurances of the words Ally or Enemy in the rules indicate a living creature. For example, the Occupied Squares rule.

Can a dead body be an Ally? I don't think so.



How can the corpse of a dead creature be willing?


This is no different than ruling that a dead PC in an area effect makes the caster elligible for the Coordinated Explosion bonus.


Using dead allies to trigger or allow effects seems pretty darn cheesy.


Even Raise Dead indicates that one must have part of the corpse of the creature, not part of the creature and that the soul is returned. If the soul of a dead creature is gone, how is the corpse an ally? A former ally, sure.

Actually, a dead ally is still an ally.
Cleric Utility 22, "Revive":

Target: One bloodied or dying ally or a dead ally who died during this encounter

The term "Dead Ally" has meaning within the rules. The same or similar wording are used for several powers such as Sanctified Revival and Call the Dead.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Actually, a dead ally is still an ally.

Inigo Montoya: He's dead. He can't talk.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

 

[DracoSuave]

Inigo Montoya: He's dead. He can't talk.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

LOL

Have fun stormin' the castle!

 

[KarinsDad]

The term "Dead Ally" has meaning within the rules. The same or similar wording are used for several powers such as Sanctified Revival and Call the Dead.

I don't consider poorly written powers in latter splat books to be general rules. They are specific rules for those powers, but not general rules.

 

[webrunner]

I don't consider poorly written powers in latter splat books to be general rules. They are specific rules for those powers, but not general rules.

They aren't specific rules for those powers as they don't define the terms 'dead ally'. Instead they use the existing rules for "dead" and "ally" which, together, let you refer to one of your allies who has died.

If there was no such thing, generally, as a dead ally mechanically, then the rules as written would be broken and not merely "poorly written." (How would you write a power for reviving an ally, being careful not to call them an ally?) Additionally there would be no rule at all for "someone who is dead who was allied to you when he was alive" - I'm inclined to believe that such an important subset.

Someone doesn't just stop being your friend just because they die, otherwise you wouldn't ever want to revive anyone. "Pfft" you'd say, "he's dead. He's no ally of mine"

Frankly, the ruling that something is only an ally while it is alive seems contrary to the spirit of the game: it's such a ridiculous case to say that someone suddenly isn't your ally because they missed a death save, and is suddenly allied again once they're raised.

 

[KarinsDad]

Frankly, the ruling that something is only an ally while it is alive seems contrary to the spirit of the game: it's such a ridiculous case to say that someone suddenly isn't your ally because they missed a death save, and is suddenly allied again once they're raised.

Sorry, but this is exaggeration. Contrary to the spirit of the game? We are talking game mechanics here to make an adjudication determination. That is not contrary to the spirit of the game.

And in the Coordinated Explosion example, allowing a corpse to give the PC a bonus seems outside of the spirit of the game.


In the DMG:

An ally is a cast member that helps the PCs in some way, large or small.

How can a dead corpse help anyone?


In 3E, a dead creature was an object. They were no longer a creature. Spells that affected objects could affect them.

In 4E, it depends on which section of the rules you read. They are called "former companions" in some cases.


With regard to these "dead ally" powers, they are written fairly poorly to begin with.

There is a fight in the streets. An enemy combatant Kobold dies, as does the Innkeeper. The Innkeeper is an NPC ally, so we can bring him back from the dead. We were fighting the Kobold, so we cannot bring him back from the dead. There is a bum in the alley who died. We cannot bring him back either because we didn't know him.

To me, this is more outside the spirit of the game than stating that a creature is no longer an ally once it dies. The dead PC (or NPC) is a corpse of a former ally, sure. But not an ally. Not someone who can assist and befriend the PC.


D&D has always been a bit wishy washy on the enemy/ally rules. Is an ally only someone you consider a friend? So, the guy who helps you while pretending to be an enemy is still an enemy? The guy who helps you while plotting against you is still your friend? Does the "assume willing targets" phrase mean that if an ally is not willing, that he is no longer your ally?

The rules have never been that clear in these areas.

 

[webrunner]

I agree that Bat Aside is awfully written, and makes no sense as it is. But it's not because of some ally/enemy distinction, but that it requires throwing into another enemy (that has to be allied with it for some reason?) for no describable reason other than mechanical.

You can't use it to bat aside into one of your enemies that is also your enemy's enemy in a 3-way fight, you can't use it to bat aside if the enemy is alone, as written.

And I also posit that aside from edge cases (such as "is an inkeeper an ally"), the revive powers are well written, and are written the way that the rules support (keep in mind there's three different powers that use that mechanic, and they are the only three powers that affect the class of "your fallen party members") - but the edge cases are only because of ally/enemy identification issues and exist in every "ally" power; does "Each ally in burst" include innkeepers?

I was just pointing out there is consistant, multi-source support for the concept of a 'dead ally', which you seem to choose to ignore as being 'poorly written'.

 

[KarinsDad]

I was just pointing out there is consistant, multi-source support for the concept of a 'dead ally', which you seem to choose to ignore as being 'poorly written'.

You had to go to splat books to find it. You didn't find it in core rules and you didn't find it in regular rules, rather in power descriptions.

I don't consider that "support for the concept of a 'dead ally'", I consider it support for a new designer writing new stuff. The PHB and DMG discuss allies that are willing and helpful, not allies that are dead.