Do you remain Stealthed if you attack yourself?

[mneme]

Um, no. The "you are aware of effects you are under" clause works on auras, too; players and NPCs should be aware of (and informed of) auras they're in and what their effects are.

In the story, you're in an area of bright light, and you better believe you're aware that if you stay here indefinitely, it will blind you. Run Away From the LIght! I'd call on a perception check to figure out about where the center of the light is even if it's "stealthed", but not a particularly hard one.

In game terms; the moment you're in an aura that affects you, you know that and how it's affecting you. So you know that the light is a blinding aura -- and you can see it and probably get a decent idea of where it ends (it's only a square or two away, after all). This isn't like Antipathy Gloves, where you can make an argument that it only affects you when you try to move (although I err the other way until a GM informs me that they'd rather get gotchaed); there's a nasty visible effect.

Functionally, glowing brightly simply doesn't mesh well with trying to hide.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Okay, after much entertaining and interesting discussion, I'm sticking with what I felt originally, that RAI, the Bag of Rats rule does apply here. As I posted a few messages back, I've already removed/retrained Temple of Brilliance and told my DM(s).

Thank you everyone for the input.

PS Oh, BTW - just for kicks and giggles I had contacted Customer Support <crowd groans> just to see what their take on this was. Here is their reply:

"The text you refer to sort of gives you the answer right there. The target must present a 'threat' to any or all members in order to be a 'legitimate target' So, unless the PC becomes possessed, or in some other way out of control of his faculties (in which case the DM will USUALLY assume control of the character) then one can't really 'attack' themselves. However, keep in mind that your DM may make rulings or create situation where this rules bends. This is what I call the 'Army of Darkness' example. Let's say your HAND becomes possessed, and you seek to cut it off to remove the possession, your DM MAY allow you to take this action, but may also assign penalties as he sees fit (I'd make you success a willpower roll of say DC 15 to do this). The rules we provide are a guide on how to maintain continuity and reason in the fantastic worlds of Krynn, Toril, Athas, Greyhawk, etc. and CAN be used at the DM's discretion. I , for one, don't really enforce encumbrance with my PCs when I DM... Until someone tries to stuff a two wheeled cart into their Adventurer pack..."

 

[WalterKovacs]

I hardly think most players would be more aggrieved by an answer from the DM that gives them a way to do what they're asking as opposed to a plain "no."

On the other hand, if the DM said "the answer is always no", I build my character accordingly, instead of building a character through a list of "mother may I's", or asking at the table, and getting the idea shot down and then trying to retrain the thing out at later levels, etc.

-snip- Otherwind Stride -snip-

There is an enemy in the burst. Therefore, the attack happens, and it has to attack all creatures, which includes an ally. Hit or miss on anyone, he gets the effect. Bag of Rats doesn't care if you miss the significant threat (miss and effect lines sort of count on that) ... you just have to attack one.

If he wants to nerf his attack (run into position and attack 'unarmed') he can, because he's still attacking at least one significant threat. [The whole miss is better than a hit situations with stuff that does something nasty on a miss but doesn't get expended, for example, is a seperate issue].

Now, as a DM, I might go with using "target: creature" vs "target: enemy" distinction... the creature targeting powers have to allow you to attack your allies (the 'intent' being that you can't actually avoid friendly fire in those cases, as they are normally bursts/blasts) and so, those powers just need you to be attacking someone, friend or foe ... but target: enemy is clear ... you can't just arbitrarily change sides between ally and enemy.

 

[Calzone]

There is an enemy in the burst. Therefore, the attack happens, and it has to attack all creatures, which includes an ally. Hit or miss on anyone, he gets the effect. Bag of Rats doesn't care if you miss the significant threat (miss and effect lines sort of count on that) ... you just have to attack one.

There is a strange artifact that occurs if you predicate the attack happening on there being an enemy in the burst.

If the warlock cannot ever use Otherworld Stride unless an enemy is in the burst, then if the enemy removes himself as a valid target of the attack (i.e. he uses an immediate interrupt to leave the attack's area of effect), then the attack must immediately fail, even if there are allies in the burst, because there is no longer any legitimate targets for that attack available. Also, since targets that are not a meaningful threat are not legitimate, you cannot even target allies in burst if you do hit an enemy.

Basically, if allies are not meaningful threats, they cannot be the targets of powers that target creatures, because they are not legitimate targets.

Some consequences on allies and you not being meaningful threats:

• Paladins can only use Lay on Hands on enemies.
• Leaders can no longer use many abilities to heal allies.
• Wizards can no longer use feather fall or similar magic on themselves or allies.
• Warlord abilities like Guide the Charge no longer work.
• Allies are immune to effects of area and close attacks by allies targeting creatures.

There are others, too.

The fix? Allies are considered meaningful threats.
Side effects? The game works, and allies can make new, sub-par tactical decisions, such as attacks allies and wasting encounter powers on non-enemies.

 

[keterys]

All of those abilities work, with allies not being meaningful threats. Honest

Don't get too hung up on the semantics. It's a method to keep the game sane. Should you be able to attack a regenerating ally with a "hit and heal an ally" power like Invigorating Strike, outside of combat? Maybe even repeatedly, to generate as much extra healing as you need?

Nope. Good. Move on!

 

[mneme]

Ok, abilities like Invigorating Strike are a good point re BoR and allies--that specific power is clearly designed only with the assumption that you're hitting an enemy with it. Are there examples that can't be fixed by saying "all attacks where the target is stated as "one creature" should be treated as "one enemy?"

This is, of course, separate from the idea of allowing exceptions that the GM finds cool and is willing to charge for as appropriate. Because no competent GM will allow Invigorating Strike to be used outside of combat via a "GM's whim" exception of any sort.

 

[Calzone]

@ Keterys

What does Invigorating Strike do? It is my understanding that invigorating powers only grant THP, so no biggie there.

The reason I am getting into the semantics, is a lot of DMs will say "You can't use <some power> in <some situation> because the rules don't allow it," escpecially for really cool stuff like "I want to use Thunderwave to hit the fighter and rogue to knock them away from the falling boulders." I think the rules allow for this kind of play, however.

If a power says it targets creatures, by RAW that should extend to allies, regardless of whether an enemy is being targeted too. Indeed, if you assume that isn't the case, you can't use a whole host of utility powers, class features, and other abilities as they should be used, and a lot of feats don't make sense to boot. Since the game is out-of-whack that way, I think I have good support for my stance.

If a power grants surgeless healing, then there is an issue with targetting allies, but I think any DM worth his socks will fiat abuse of that poor power design into the ground anyways.

Because of this, I am of the opinion that allowing allies to be legitimate targets for creature-targetting powers is correct, and I hope you are, too.

[MENTION=59248]mneme[/MENTION]

I know many utilities and a class feature or two are affected, but I don't know of any attack powers that target one creature that would be horribly affected.

The real question is, is it worth adding the additional rule and potential unforeseen consequences to prevent problems with surgeless healing? Why no just say "you cannot target allies with powers that grant surgeless healing?"

 

[WalterKovacs]

If a power says it targets creatures, by RAW that should extend to allies, regardless of whether an enemy is being targeted too. Indeed, if you assume that isn't the case, you can't use a whole host of utility powers, class features, and other abilities as they should be used, and a lot of feats don't make sense to boot. Since the game is out-of-whack that way, I think I have good support for my stance.

A big problem is that the creature/enemy distinction only really comes up with bursts and blasts ... other powers allow you to pick each target/the number of targets/etc ... and therefore just assumes you are targetting enemies instead of allies.

The thing is, while people can go over the semantics of the Bag of Rats wording, it's pretty simple. If there is a reason someone wants to attack their allies or attack nothing at all, odds are they want the benefit/side effect of making the attack without actually making an attack. The default in those cases should be no, but the DM can allow it. Stuff like the thunderwave is an example where the DM will probably allow it because it does require you hit and damage your allies in order for it to work. However an attack that gives you movement that is arguably better than similar options for utility powers around those levels (like the heroic tier phasing, or the potentially long distance teleport of etherwind stride). Dropping a temple of light on your defender, so that any enemies he goes up to and locks down via stickiness will be suffering the extra damage ... compared to a single enemy that will probably be on it's own, and when it drops, the zone stops moving (assuming the DM allows the zone to persist) and most enemies would easily avoid.

The real question is, is it worth adding the additional rule and potential unforeseen consequences to prevent problems with surgeless healing? Why no just say "you cannot target allies with powers that grant surgeless healing?"

"And any other effect we haven't decided yet, but will rule on when it comes up". It's a lot easier for the default answer to be be "no", and then the DM can allow it instead of the DM having to say "yeah, by RAW it's allowable, but not at my table". Much better for the DM to be the good cop then forcing him to be the bad cop. Even if he's both, starting with the base assumption of it not being allowed means that people aren't picking their powers thinking they can use them that way, and don't end up feeling cheated or stuck with subpar powers when they get told no in game. On the other hand, a once in a while "sure why not" during the game with the knowledge that it's not normally allows means that going back to the default if the person tries it again, or keeps doing it, etc ... is less of a shock. In that case it can be treated as a stunt, 1/encounter you can get a non-traditional use of a power, subject to DM approval ... so you can get some interesting stuff without it becoming a recuring, potentially abusive tactical element, etc.

 

[keterys]

@ Keterys

What does Invigorating Strike do? It is my understanding that invigorating powers only grant THP, so no biggie there.

Invigorating Smite heals. "If you are bloodied, you regain hit points equal to 5 + your Wisdom modifier. Bloodied allies within 5 squares of you also regain hit points equal to 5 + your Wisdom modifier."

If a power says it targets creatures, by RAW that should extend to allies, regardless of whether an enemy is being targeted too.

Correct.

Bag of Rats doesn't change the target line at all. It says:
"Legitimate Targets
When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat. Characters can gain no benefit from carrying a sack of rats in hopes of healing their allies by hitting the rats."

So, whenever the DM feels like you're trying to game the system with a power... he can declare it not a legitimate target and the power fails. Whether that's a squirrel or badger, a kobold or bar thug too far below the level of the party, or a regenerating or high surge party member. Use attack powers in combat, against enemies, and you're in good shape. Everything else, get your DM's permission.

Indeed, if you assume that isn't the case, you can't use a whole host of utility powers, class features, and other abilities as they should be used, and a lot of feats don't make sense to boot. Since the game is out-of-whack that way, I think I have good support for my stance.

Bag of Rats doesn't affect those, so it's not out of whack, so there is no support for that statement.

Because of this, I am of the opinion that allowing allies to be legitimate targets for creature-targetting powers is correct, and I hope you are, too.

Of course they're targetable. And whenever desired, the DM can say you just get the damage, and not the side benefits of attacking (healing, teleports, whatever)

 

[Calzone]

Bag of Rats doesn't affect those, so it's not out of whack, so there is no support for that statement.

The text I've seen for Bag of Rats says

"When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting, missing, or otherwise affecting a target, the effect takes place only if the target in question is a meaningful threat."

As a quick rebuttal, Lay on Hands is a paladin class feature power that "otherwise affect a target" and has an effect line. I think, therefore, it falls under the purview of Bag of Rats. Similarly, many utility powers, etc. operate under the same assumptions. The last clause of Bag of Rats causes a number of powers that can effect allies to no longer be able to affect them. I think I have reasonable support for that statement.

In terms of the rest of your argument, however, I generally follow your thought process when I DM. I think your view is great RAI to follow. However, I believe that regardless of how you interpret it, RAW powers that target creatures + the Bag of Rats rule result in a ruleset that contradicts itself.

Note: I actively support the intent of BoR and do not allow my players to exploit broken powers, such as ones that grant surgeless healing. Obviously, opinions of what is broken will vary from table to table, and that's OK.