Forced Movement trhough one's ally's space

[Nichwee]

Bag-o-rats is best used sparingly. If you hit an puny creature, and the bag-o-rats says no effects trigger based on that hit, do you deal any damage? It's a reminder to use common sense; that the powers were written based on the assumption that the hit creature matters. It's not something I'd invoke unless it's absolutely necessary because it's easy to apply it inconsistently.

So in a specific scenario, bag-o-rats may be needed, but as a general rule to inspire other general rules... well, it's really vague and you can reasonably expect significant table variation.

I agree Bag-Of-Rats is a rule to apply gently. But as you said, common sense is part of what decides that application.
Common sense also calls for the existance of my Catergory 4. Not everyone in the universe is Ally or Enemy - some are just Nobody/Victims/Bystanders and I feel when you have a choice of who to hit (as implied by enemy only powers) you should be able to choose not to do random collateral damage.

 

[eamon]

I agree Bag-Of-Rats is a rule to apply gently. But as you said, common sense is part of what decides that application.
Common sense also calls for the existance of my Catergory 4. Not everyone in the universe is Ally or Enemy - some are just Nobody/Victims/Bystanders and I feel when you have a choice of who to hit (as implied by enemy only powers) you should be able to choose not to do random collateral damage.

For clarity of communication, let's not call that bag-o-rats, which is a term for a specific abuse.

In terms of common sense, however, what you're saying one reaction to the very real problem this thread highlights, namely that the ally vs. enemy distinctions in the rules aren't very subtle and just don't cover complicated situations.

I agree with the need for common sense here, and I think your intuition is fine in a general fashion. For the rules, however, I think it's a bit of an over-generalization - for some effects those villagers might be enemies and for others allies - as it makes sense - they don't need to be neither in all cases.

 

[Nichwee]

True.

In our game we have had a Bystander be teleported out of harms way as tho it was an ally, then had it healed by the Leader but left out of "All Allies" combats buffs.
My Category 4 wasn't intended to stop you being treated as Ally or Enemy, it simply exists (in my thinking) to cover people in the world who you are unsure about/treat as non-combatants.
Hence they get included in a variable set of effects dependent on if the player using the effect can choose their targets at all (Enemy/Ally only implies some level of choice imo) and wants to effect the person and the person is suitably willing to be effectted where necessary.

 

[keterys]

You enter a combat and there's a number of monsters, and a hooded prisoner that looks about to be eaten.

Can you use an ability on the prisoner that slides allies?
Does it get hit by an enemies only area?

Later in the initiative, the prisoner leaps up and reveals itself as:
A Rakshasa. Does that change any answer above?
Your kidnapped wife?

 

[abyssaldeath]

You enter a combat and there's a number of monsters, and a hooded prisoner that looks about to be eaten.

Can you use an ability on the prisoner that slides allies?

No

Does it get hit by an enemies only area?

Yes

Later in the initiative, the prisoner leaps up and reveals itself as:
A Rakshasa. Does that change any answer above?

Nope

Your kidnapped wife?

Technically she wouldn't be your ally, an ally is one of your teammates, but I would allow her to be.

 

[Hawkeye]

Some of this discussion sounds like a KOTD strip.

Hawkeye

 

[DracoSuave]

Not sure I'd agree on that one completely.
If a Fighter had a "Close Burst 1 - Target: All enemies in burst" I wouldn't force him/her to attack a villager just because the villager has no clue who they are and is therefore unwilling to accept a power from the Fighter.

I would, and the fighter knows it, so wouldn't use such things in the presence of those that aren't allied with him.

The Fighter's opinion that the villager is a "poor victim" should allow the Fighter to chose to consider the villager as "not an enemy" and therefore not target them.

The Fighter's opinion is irrelevant to the rule. It is the villager that decides, not the fighter.

However, if the fighter said 'Get down' in a situation where a villager was being attacked by enemy goblins, and the fighter was clearly trying to help the villager, then the villager might make the ally choice at that time.

Basically, imo, someone can be considered your "ally" if you chose to exclude them from the "enemies" catergory when your powers allow that differentiation.

This interpretation breaks Dark Warlocks in half.

Of course thsi doesn't mean they have to agree, and they may refuse to be affected by an "ally buff" power from you if they don't trust your intentions, but that doesn't stop you choosing to "not target" when you have a choice on who to target (as is implied in an Enemies Only effect).

Such is a fine house rule. It's not the rule that we have to work with as baseline, however.

Exactly Aegeri.
All tho the game rarely points it out there are really 4 catergories of creature:
1) You
2) Ally
3) Enemy
4) Non-threat/Bystander/Unknown
All are creatures - so all get hit if you target "creatures" but 3 are missed if you only target enemies.

As pointed out by abyssaldeath, the rulebook contradicts you on this matter. There is: 'You' 'Ally' 'Enemy'. No other status exists.

You enter a combat and there's a number of monsters, and a hooded prisoner that looks about to be eaten.

Can you use an ability on the prisoner that slides allies?
Does it get hit by an enemies only area?

Is the creature a willing recipient of your powers? No answer to your questions is possible until that question is answered.

Later in the initiative, the prisoner leaps up and reveals itself as:
A Rakshasa. Does that change any answer above?
Your kidnapped wife?

See above. It doesn't matter what the prisoner is, it matters if they are willing recipients to your powers. A rakhasa might be if it meant helping him escape. Your kidnapped wife probably would be because she's your wife. But that doesn't mean they automatically are just because they're a tiger-man with reversed palms and more reversed morals.

 

[eamon]

Basically, imo, someone can be considered your "ally" if you chose to exclude them from the "enemies" catergory when your powers allow that differentiation.

This interpretation breaks Dark Warlocks in half.

In which way?


Your interpretation seems to be that the targeted creatures determines whether you consider it an ally or enemy. It does this by being a willing recipient of your powers or not - a distinction inherently voluntary. That interpretation breaks every single hostile "enemies only" power in the game, since to avoid being targeted, they merely need to want (i.e. be willing) to accept the effects of the power.

Of course, that's nonsense, so then you're forced to impose limitations on "willing". You can accept the contradiction in terms and impose DM says-so over whether a creature is willing (works fine in all simple cases - this basically leaves the situation undefined). You can limit the frequency with which an ally can become an enemy or vice versa, but this doesn't really avoid trouble completely, prevents some allegiance changes that would make sense, and it's not very intuitive. You could choose a different interpretation entirely - such as that allies are allies by mutual assent on a per action basis, which usually works. But you have to do something - and the rules don't say what - and I doubt a fully consistent rule-based RAI is possible, though I believe the "mutual assent" interpretation is least broken and requires the least on-the-fly DM adjustment to work.

 

[abyssaldeath]

You guys are putting way too much thought into this. The only thing you have to ask yourself is "are they a member of my team/group?" If they are then they are you ally, if not then they are your enemy. There is no mutual assent. They are either a part of your team or they are not. If a member of your team is a spy then they are your ally because they are a member of your team. Once they betray you and are no longer a member of your team they are your enemy. The DM can be more lenient on this rule if the situation calls for it, but that is a DM call.

Now there is a rule that you can refuse the benefit of a power cast by an ally, but that never makes you stop being an ally. Unfortunitaly, I can't remember where that rule is, but I think it is only in reference to benefits that targets an ally.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Actually I think the "apparently innocent bystander townsperson" is a good example of a creature that might change from ally to enemy to ally in a single combat.

As you walk through the main square of a small town in broad daylight, you and your group are jumped by a gang of ruffians. In the initial scramble, you unleash a close burst 1, enemies only attack, and deliberately exclude a townsperson who appears to be just trying to get out of the way. [ally] A few moments later, you see the townsperson take a swing at one of your party members and decide not to assist him with a tactical shift. [enemy] Finally, near the end of the battle when the noise has begun to abate, the townsperson yells loud enough for you to notice "I'm the sheriff! Everyone put down their weapons." One of the ruffians takes a huge swing with an axe that would likely decapitate the sheriff, and you use an Immediate Interrupt power to deflect the attack. [ally]

However, that scenario is a far cry from an actual party member switching the "ally flag" on and off for tactical benefit. That's the kind of behavior that I'd expect a DM to slap down swiftly and brutally.