Do you remain Stealthed if you attack yourself?

[Aegeri]

I actually really hate that as well mneme, believe me when I first saw a bloodmage run, drop prone and use a +1 implement to attack with destructive salutation I was confused at first. Then it dawned on me the goal was to get the stun UEoNT effect and not the save ends (which a solo could deal with more easily). This is of course why miss effects should not be better than hit effects (arguably). There is a similar problem with some martial powers and something that grants them the reliable keyword (IIRC). This issue is entirely separate though and really deserves its own discussion.

Regarding the topic...I don't think not letting you target allies with damaging attacks that happen to be tactically useful is at all intentional. Aegeri, how do you rule on Thunderwave vs allies? Does it matter if there's an enemy in the blast? How about Bolstering Breath, with its explicit ally effect?

Thunderwave targets creatures but generally speaking I've not seen it used without hitting enemies at the same time. If this is actually required or even useful is minimal to my thinking (that is, without enemies being affected). Actually I can't say I've ever seen anyone try to "thunderboost" (?) their allies while not attacking enemies. At the same time in this case, I'm not so worried about it because usually it's effects I want to avoiding exploiting. Not a push effect that triggers off the actual hit line. Mostly I think towards the sorts of things that daily powers do.

Dragonbreath definitely not, because I'm well aware of how easily you can abuse that (oh can it be abused). So that is one example where the way I rule things specifically gets rid of a major exploitable loophole. Dragonbreath is one of the easiest powers to get back in 4E. So much so there are entire builds dedicated to it by itself, so having a go to close blast 3 (or area burst, it's a damn malleable power) temp HP factory is not my idea of the intent of the feat. This is an example of what I want to stop: exploiting the effect line (albeit, an added one) of an attack power.

I also really disagree with case by case ruling making anything better. In my experience, it was precisely the opposite and the resulting argument (where one player felt MOST aggrieved about the inconsistency in ruling between two powers) ended a 5 hours session 30 minutes into the game (with 1:30 hours of arguing after that). I mean normally that stuff never happens, but he was really upset about the fact I let one power work that way and not something he tried to do (it's so far back, I literally cannot remember what it was). So next session, I told them I would use this consistent ruling (that I have presented in the thread) and told them it was their final chance for any commentary on the rules, after-wards once we had a group consensus to take a hike if they didn't like it. I was having no further nonsense like the incident that occurred the previous week and I got my way immediately with the consistent ruling. We went back to playing DnD.

Used it ever since without a single problem.

 

[Samir]

You should read the next sentence immediately after, which tells you to use common sense about how powers that target allies work (and in the number of allies they effect). So this isn't actually strictly true either..

The exact quote is "when a power's effect involves a character's allies, use common sense when determining how many allies can be affected." That doesn't contradict the previous "meaningful threat" paragraph in any way, it just explains that party buffs don't affect your whole army (which is what the rest of the paragraph is about).

This falls right into my points trap. When you start doing this, now you're going to have to rule every power on a case by case basis. It can be fine in one context but utterly broken in another, especially if you didn't anticipate it working with something else. So you then need to decide some powers can be used like that and others can't on arbitrary reasoning. That's just nonsensical and it's far better to enforce the general rule - which I'd like to point out works immensely well.
For some reason I thought there was a way of getting phasing from an at-will attack powers effect (but I can't remember now). I was clearly thinking something very wrong there! Context matters though, because I would not allow that effect without a meaningful threat and once you let one thing pass I'm not going to go through logic hoops case by case examining every single other power in the game.

I feel you are overemphasizing the amount of case-by-casing that needs to be done here. Can you name one or two powers that are broken from a balance perspective if you allow Effect lines to work without a meaningful threat? You seem convinced that this breaks the game, but IME it does not.

On the other hand, Thwart the Walls (which is a utility power) is fine. It's exactly what a utility power should be doing and requires taking a specific paragon path to actually use. I have no problem with utility powers performing their role as utility powers.

I am curious why you are okay with Thwart the Walls and the many other encounter utility powers that allow walking through walls, but have a no-tolerance policy for attack powers being useful in a similar fashion. What makes the effect suddenly brokenly powerful when in attack power form?

It sounds like your adherence to the RAW here is driven from a bad experience with arguing with players. I can understand that, but I'm speaking from purely a balance perspective. Effect: lines trigger regardless of hit or miss, and are balanced around that fact. Bag of Rats isn't really needed to govern it.

 

[Aegeri]

The exact quote is "when a power's effect involves a character's allies, use common sense when determining how many allies can be affected." That doesn't contradict the previous "meaningful threat" paragraph in any way

Yes it does. Think about it: If the first part was intended by RAW to block effects on allies, why would it immediately talk about affecting allies with powers immediately after. So it's pretty clear the first part does not rule out allies being affected by powers.

Can you name one or two powers that are broken from a balance perspective if you allow Effect lines to work without a meaningful threat?

Dragonbreath above can be exploited to turn you into a pretty effective AoE temp healbot (bearing in mind, you can get back dragonbreath pretty trivially).

You seem convinced that this breaks the game, but IME it does not.

Allowing effects clearly intended to be used to attack or maneuver to creatures better on attack powers certainly can. For example Inexorable Pursuit came up during an example where a character bypassed an entire encounter. Attacking the wall on the way through in fact as justification for using the power. Sometimes combat powers are balanced with assumptions around how they are used in combat - not by how they are used when we declare chairs and allies as targets for them.

I am curious why you are okay with Thwart the Walls and the many other encounter utility powers that allow walking through walls, but have a no-tolerance policy for attack powers being useful in a similar fashion.

The attack power has a different role and place in the game - while Thwart the Walls is supposed to be a generalist power.

It sounds like your adherence to the RAW here is driven from a bad experience with arguing with players. I can understand that, but I'm speaking from purely a balance perspective.

I am also speaking from a balance perspective and allowing combat powers to have clearly unintended effects, makes numerous situational balance problems.

Effect: lines trigger regardless of hit or miss, and are balanced around that fact. Bag of Rats isn't really needed to govern it.

Yes, because they are designed around giving a power some effect if the power hits, or aiding in the usage of the power. They are not intended to be used as psuedo-utility powers at whim and that usage I firmly disagree with. The RCs clear ruling shows what the developers intended here: Attack powers need a meaningful threat to function and are clearly balanced around that.

 

[Samir]

Yes it does. Think about it: If the first part was intended by RAW to block effects on allies, why would it immediately talk about affecting allies with powers immediately after. So it's pretty clear the first part does not rule out allies being affected by powers.

I never said it was intended by RAW to block effects on allies. I just said that a strict reading of that (poorly worded) paragraph results in that unfortunate fact. The second paragraph is inconsistent with the first, but not contradictory. The first paragraph effectively states that Healing Word-type powers are ineffective due to bag-of-rats, and the second paragraph does not directly contradict that.

There are, after all, powers that grant allies bonuses without targeting them (e.g., Commander's Strike and most similar powers), and those are unaffected by the first paragraph and fall under the purview of the second.

Dragonbreath above can be exploited to turn you into a pretty effective AoE temp healbot (bearing in mind, you can get back dragonbreath pretty trivially).

I assume you're talking about Breath of Life? Do you consider starting an encounter with 4-8 temporary hit points to be overpowered?

Allowing effects clearly intended to be used to attack or maneuver to creatures better on attack powers certainly can. For example Inexorable Pursuit came up during an example where a character bypassed an entire encounter. Attacking the wall on the way through in fact as justification for using the power. Sometimes combat powers are balanced with assumptions around how they are used in combat - not by how they are used when we declare chairs and allies as targets for them.

Thwart the Walls would have resulted in the same encounter-skipping scenario. That's not a flaw with phasing powers, that's a flaw in the encounter design. PCs have plenty of cool mobility powers that can make some challenges trivial; that should be taken into account, whether it's because your Avenger can phase, your Sorcerer can fly, or your Warden can burrow.

In addition, skipping an encounter with a phasing power is useless unless the rest of the party can do it, too. Otherwise, you're just leaving them to fight the encounter minus one party member.

The attack power has a different role and place in the game - while Thwart the Walls is supposed to be a generalist power.

I disagree in the sense that attack powers with utility-like function should be allowed to be used as such. I don't like the idea that PCs suddenly lose the ability to use their powers when they're out of combat.

 

[Aegeri]

The second paragraph is inconsistent with the first, but not contradictory.

No, it's pretty contradictory. It either assumes effects work on allies or it doesn't. It is written with the assumption that effects do apply to allies still. The first paragraph is badly worded though, but it's intent is still absolutely 100% clear. Much clearer than the DMGs.

I assume you're talking about Breath of Life?

It's the repeated nature of it plus EVERYTHING else that can be stacked with it. I don't think you realize just how much stuff you can stack into dragonbreath (bolstering breath as another example). So it's temp HP + other bonuses. Oh and doing it all encounter long too. Personally I have no problem with these builds, because you do need to be a bit tactical with them. But spamming them and out leadering just about everyone at the same time is a little much, so having to target enemies with the power is at least reasonable.

Thwart the Walls would have resulted in the same encounter-skipping scenario.

Excepting that a level 7 character won't have a paragon path. That's a bit of a complication for getting that to work. There is a level 3 encounter power that grants phasing, but it's a combat power. A warlock can get phasing as well with a pact boon, but that triggers off an enemy dying and therefore is a combat power. Walk Through Darkness is a level 6 utility and fully deserves to work as intended (because that's what it does, give you phasing and doesn't try to do anything else). It also gives you a fixed amount of squares, is shifting movement and only while it lasts as a daily. That's more than reasonable.

Actually this is a good point, are you saying that a level 3 avenger should have a power that is generally better than higher level utility powers? Not to mention that the level 7 one is better than a level 6 daily and better than a level 12 enounter utility on a paragon path (you do get movement as a part of your Inexorable Advance and it comes 5 levels lower). You don't see the obvious and incredibly glaring issue there (because I sure do). It's pretty clear that Inexorable Advance gets away with what it does because it's NOT intended for out of combat use. While the level 6 and level 12 powers you quoted are.

There aren't a lot of powers at heroic that grant phasing. There are TWO that have phasing every encounter and one that is a pact boon. These three things all trigger off combat powers. To me, there is a HUGELY obvious balancing factor here.

I don't like the idea that PCs suddenly lose the ability to use their powers when they're out of combat.

This has resulted in the best balanced and generally consistent way the rules work. Plus it means there aren't clearly wonky side effects, like level 3 avengers having an entirely superior encounter based phasing power to some classes features/dailies. By paragon tier, phasing is a lot more common but you act like it's everywhere in heroic tier. This simply put isn't true. Let alone encounter based phasing. For all intents and purposes, you are turning an attack power into TWO powers. A very VERY powerful utility power that easily outdoes another classes level 6 DAILY and an incredibly useful attack power.

Edit: It's actually four attack powers. I forgot that the Psions level 9 daily Phantasmal Killer also has phasing attached to it.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Actually, as revealed in this thread, you are your own enemy, and so you can attack yourself. However, this discovery has other ramifications - for one thing, once you start moving, you must keep moving forever, since you can't end your move in an enemy-occupied square.

See? Infinite oregano!

 

[Aegeri]

And what's even worse is that my cook book doesn't tell me how to interact with my party guests? What kind of cheap, crappy cook book doesn't tell me essential information like that? I demand a refund and this edition of Cooking with Oregano is utterly ruined forever.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Okay, so what is being said is that, in the case of Temple of Brilliance, I could use it against myself, but because of the difference in hit line and effect line, I couldn't do the hit damage, or the half damage on a miss, but the effect, a zone2 would still go into effect?

Is this what the majority of posters here think?

Thanks much.

 

[Nullzone]

No, you can't do any of it. The effect simply doesn't happen because you're not a tangible threat to be attacked.

 

[mneme]

Darklord: No, that matches pretty much none of the posters, and I beilive all the respondents would be unified in disagreeing with that idea, as it gives you -extra- benefit from attacking yourself.

There's a division in the ranks, which stands on the question of whether RC prohibits you from making attacks that only include allies or yourself. Those who believe it does (Aegeri, Nullzone, erleni) have a common reasoning that allies and yourself do not present a credible threat (as they are on your side) and so fall into Bag of Rats.

Those on the other side are much more varied, but either believe that the BoR rule isn't intended to apply to allies and yourself (who are, after all, a threat even if they aren't a threat to you) but to non-factors in a combat. (There's also a strong line of improvisational flexibility here, but it isn't necessary to take that line to take this side).

If you take the hardliner side, you simply cannot do it at all; you must attack an enemy with Temple of Light or not use the power at all.

If you take the oppositional (but still rules-strict) view, you may use Temple of Light on yourself or an ally, but must roll to hit yourself and or your ally and possibly do damage to them.

If you take the interpretive view, there's more likelihood of the GM making a situational ruling (like "sure, you can do that. But you'll automatically hit (or even crit) yourself; it's not like you're dodging.") and you're pretty much at the mercy of the GM's judgement and whim.

If you're looking for the most consistent (and most numerous in terms of posts -- though in fact I think the respondents who didn't specifically support the BoR ruling here or believed it should be left up to the GM outnumbered the three I list above) ruling, it's that this is disallowed by BoR.

Back to Aegeri: I think GM situational judgement comes out of a different philosophy of play than pure rules judgement. Clearly, pure rules judgement with consistent rules avoid most long rules arguments; GM situational judgement also avoids long rules arguments -- as GM rulings in that case aren't expected to be consistent or fair; to play using that style, the players must yeild some rules authority to the GM (just as they do if the GM is allowed to frame skill challenges on the fly; deciding whether a fight against the Town Guard is a combat or a skill challenge based on what's dramatically/timing appropriate)