Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 5552701" data-attributes="member: 63763">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.  "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.</blockquote>

Verification