Damaging Allies in Combat - Is it acceptable?

[Blackbrrd]

I sometimes wish there was no such thing as "enemies only" in blast and burst powers. It would certainly take the edge of cleric powers, as they go; BOOM....<action point>...BOOM; <next round> BOOM and everything in a sizable area takes a jod load of damage, and the indignity of ongoing effects while the rest of the party (standing in the same area) are unscathed, or worse gain beneficial effects (oh the horror! )

Of course if powers that only targetted enemies were taken from players I would also have to take them away from monsters, so its just a delirious day dream. But it would certainly make things more interesting.....

A cleric? What about an Invoker with Covenant of Wrath. At level 1 and level 2 he can usually action point-kill a whole encounter worth of monsters with two Close Burst 3 enemy only attacks.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I don't find it acceptable under any circumstances. I see it as a betrayal and as just plain rude and selfish. Anyone who even asks to do it, rubs me the wrong way as I would never even consider doing it to anyone else.

See this? This is the kind of guy i would target every single round with an AoE. The hilarity potential is off the scale!!

 

[Kzach]

See this? This is the kind of guy i would target every single round with an AoE. The hilarity potential is off the scale!!

So you find ruining other people's enjoyment of the game fun.

Noted.

 

[BASHMAN]

I'm curious on people's takes on this. Is it justified to attack your allies as part of an attack in order to maximize effectiveness of powers?

If so, would the ally ever consider this attack an act of aggression against them?

My party almost entirely avoids friendly fire whenever possible. However, there are times when the paladin mass sanctions and lures creatures in. At which point the AOE powers are highly tempting to hit 3+ enemies even if one of the targets is the PC's Defender. Naturally the cleric follows this action up with immediate healing on the Defender...but does this make the actions right? Personally, as a DM and a player, I can see no justification to attack my party members.

Do people do this in your groups? Is it just considered good tactics?

There is a feat that gives you -5 to hit your allies in your AoE spells, and does reduced damage to them I think. If you attack an area I'm in, and have this feat, fine- you blew a feat on it- and it is unlikely to harm me- as your character is purposefully trying to avoid me, even though I'm in the AoE. If you DON'T have this feat, and I get burned by you, I would be really upset, however. I suppose temp HP or potion of resistance to avoid the damage altogether though would make me okay with it, though.

In Final Fantasy Tactics there was a set of boots that let you heal everytime you were hit by lightning. I remember equiping ALL my party with those boots and having the Sage (guy who could attack EVERY SQUARE sometimes) let loose with Lightning...

 

[Holy Bovine]

So you find ruining other people's enjoyment of the game fun.

Noted.

No, just yours it seems.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I'm toying with an idea for a new kind of Group Set magic item -- here is an example relevant to this thread: (note -- no names, just descriptions)

Implement(s): -2 attack penalty against allies

Boots: as Immediate Interrupt, success at saving throw allows shift 1 when caught in burst/blast from Implement in this set

Cloak: half damage from Fire or Cold burst/blast from Implement in this set

Gloves: as Immediate Interrupt, deflect 1d6 damage from self to enemy within 3 squares when hit by burst/blast from Implement in this set

As with other Set items, each item has its own standalone properties and/or powers as well -- this is just the set part.

What do you think?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, just yours it seems.

I would not be surprised to hear that your PC´s regularily don´t wake up in the morning...

or at least hear about a defender not marking those who try to attack you or a leader forgetting to heal you... actions do have consequences... and hurting for fun seems like an evil act to me...

 

[Holy Bovine]

I would not be surprised to hear that your PC´s regularily don´t wake up in the morning...

or at least hear about a defender not marking those who try to attack you or a leader forgetting to heal you... actions do have consequences... and hurting for fun seems like an evil act to me...

I'll let you know if it happens if I ever play with Kzach or anyone even remotely like him.

 

[sfedi]

Speaking of damaging allies, you (all) are damaging the thread.

 

[Turtlejay]

Speaking of damaging allies, you (all) are damaging the thread.

Too true. Take a breather you guys.

As for damaging allies, it helps if you don't think of HP=damage. The warrior caught in the edge of the fireball perhaps didn't sustain an injury, but the wash of heat maybe singed his eyebrows and threw off his honed battle concentration. The woodsman in the path of the cleric's radiant power is perhaps dazzled by the holy radiance. On and on, you get the picture.

And really, I look at this as an in-character choice. I have had PC's that surely would protest at being targeted, and some that almost welcome it, if they know it will bring pain to their enemies.

Just be careful of status conditions. I remember hitting an ally with a power that dazed, and our cleric was down to one action a round for most of a fight. In the end it was certainly not worth the cost, as the enemies died or shook it off long before.

Jay