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

[DracoSuave]

Lots of stuff.

And that is why we have "Dungeons Masters" and not "Level 5 Tournament Rules Judges".

Most of the time 'It's common sense' is actually the correct way to adjudicate. This isn't even a new concept; it's the way DMs have been suggested to adjudicate every rpg ever. 4th edition is no exception to this, and explicitly informs you of that fact.

The book, in fact, has empowered the DM to take care of 'problems' that occur when something is 'technically' within the rules, but is abused in corner cases. I don't mean to be snarky, but the power that allows you to bring back a dead ally is not broken as a game concept because some Dark Pact warlock somewhere might think he can get away with damaging his dead friends just to gain a few extra dice of damage.

The problem is the later creating a corner case that is 'technically' within the rules, but where the DM exercises common sense and makes a ruling like 'You cannot damage dead allies to gain power.' In fact, that's already covered as a corrolary of the Bag-of-rats rule.

Honestly, if you think 4th edition has 'rules problems' then you should try -any non-d20 rpg.- Hell, any edition before 3rd.

Hell, try mixing 2nd edition classes with Skills and Powers point buy, the Combat and Tactics combat system, the Dark Sun Psionics rules, and hell, toss in the Complete Guide to Fighters' unarmed combat maneuvers to boot. Now -there- is an exercise in rules systems busting apart at the seams.

-----------------------

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with a Dark Pact warlock using a dying -ally- to fuel Dark Pact spells. Nothing wrong by the game rules, anyways. Society's rules on the other hand....

 

[webrunner]

How so?

Seriously. It is no longer a creature. How can it be an ally? How can it assist you?

I think it's quite clear, from your own words, that a dead creature is still a creature (as every example targeting a dead creature says "dead creature", "dead ally", or "dead [some creature type]"

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

The thing I see in reading this thread, is that the whole "dead ally" issue came up when discussing whether it made sense with Bat aside to toss an enemy to a place with none of its allies. The argument was that whatever the RAW was, it didn't make much sense to be able to toss the guy only adjascent to allies and not into an open space (and by "open space" I mean anywhere where there none of the targets allies adjascent).

It was then suggested that if one is unhappy with tossing the guy into open space, instead by RAW one could toss him next to one of his dead allies, which would be legal. And then this whole long debate over whether a dead person could remain one's ally for game mechanics purposes.

That said, regardless of whether one can rely on a dead ally to provide one with the same mechanical benefits/penalities as a live one, that doesn't go back to the basic issue posed in this thread - does it make sense, regardless of the RAW, that one can only toss the guy next to allies. And, in my view, arguing that you can toss him next to a dead ally actually speaks in FAVOR of being able to toss him anywhere, rather than against. After all, again regardless of what the RAW says, it makes absolute no sense at all that you can toss Benny the Beholder next to the smoldering skeleton that was his minion, but not next to a table or some other non-affiliated skeleton.

Sure, that may not be "your common sense", but to argue that I (or Karin's Dad, or whomever) have no grounds for thinking so is more than a little insulting. And likewise on the issue of whether, regardless of RAW, its makes sense for dead allies to confer all the same mechanical effects of being an ally that they did while still living.

 

[Flipguarder]

I'm not claiming that you aren't using common sense, or that you are being anything other than reasonable, but I'd like to make this point, and please try not to take it as condescending:

If a dead ally is no longer an ally, then the word "dead" loses all meaning., that line of reasoning leads to the word dead being meaningless, since a dead "X" is no longer an "X". It becomes an object. Something is an ally, then it becomes an object.

 

[KarinsDad]

If a dead ally is no longer an ally, then the word "dead" loses all meaning., that line of reasoning leads to the word dead being meaningless, since a dead "X" is no longer an "X". It becomes an object. Something is an ally, then it becomes an object.

That was the rule in 3E. Nobody complained.

Dead x = dead body. Not an ally, a corpse. An object.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

No, not condescending... irrelavant, perhaps, as I stated quite firmly (I thought) that I didn't care what the RAW said on this issue. That said, I'm sorry if I came off too strong - both Karins Dad and Draco Suave in full debate sometimes push my buttons, and I'm afraid that influenced my post.

I would take dead as a descriptor meaning "once alive, but no longer so". For example, dead tree was once a live tree, but is no longer. Just because it has "tree" in the term doesn't require that I treat it in the same way as I would a live tree, or that they have the same mechanical effects in the game. Same goes for a dead ally versus a live ally.

Now, I have no problem with the term "dead ally" as it is used in the above cited power. In terms of the effects of that power, it is pretty clear who its intended target is (indeed, any ambiguity has to do with the definition of ally, as discussed in the numerous "whose my ally/enemy" threads - but no need to rehash those, as in those I believe common sense is again the proper approach). So, for that power, Draco Suave was right when he said the term is clear. Where I do disagree is that the term "dead ally" in one power (or even in several) somehow implies that it is still treated as an ally mechanically for purposes other than that one power (or those powers).

But I guess my main point is that I don't care what the rules say in this regard - if the rules do require that a dead ally is still an ally mechanically, I simply won't play it that way, as I think in some edge cases its potentially broken, and the rest of the time its just silly. So yes, I would treat a dead creature as an object, even if the rules don't say so explicitly. To me, the sparcity of rules on being dead, and the fact it isn't listed as a condition, strongly suggests that a dead character isn't a character as such. After all, there is nothing in the rules that says a dead character can't take actions - which to me means that the rules intend you to apply common sense, which to me means that they can't spend actions or be an ally because they are no longer a creature/character, but an object.

To me that means that a dead ally no longer:
- can be allowed to spend a healing surge by a power allowing each/any ally to do so (after all, nothing specifically prevents that)
- can no longer give other characters boosts inherent to that character (so, the Warlord's action point boost no longer applies)
- no longer counts as sharing tribal feets/tatoos (so, no carrying around dead allies to gain that benefit)
- etc.

Or, from a DMs side:
- dead hobgoblins don't give the phalanx soldier benefit to live hobgoblins
- gnolls/hyenas don't get their pack attack bonus for having a dead gnoll next to the target
- evistros don't get their carnage bonus for having dead allies next to the target
- legion devils don't get their squad defence bonus from dead allies
- etc.

So, my standpoint is that I don't believe the RAW state one way or the other that a dead ally is still mechanically an ally except for powers that state "dead ally" - and indeed, that a reasonable reading of the rules implies the opposite. If the rules do say so, I think they are stupid, and I won't play them that way. Anyone else is happy to play them however they want...