Inferlock Curse loop?

[DracoSuave]

No. I'm arguing that suicide attempts are not a threat to the goal of self-destruction. Narrative goals are more important in a narrative system.

4e is a narrativist system, not a system based on morality/ethics or a system based on technical simulation.

 

[cmbarona]

@Dracosuave-
Really? We aren't talking about doctors making an incision to remove a tumor here. Just because someone wants to harm himself, it does not mean he is not a threat to himself. You are essentially arguing that suicide attempts are harmless, because suicidal people want to die.

No, he's not. You've made a leap between real-world definitions and D&D technicalities. A suicidal D&D character is still not considered an enemy to themselves for the purposes of determining how powers work. That's all. And let's not get into discussions about someone commiting suicide in D&D. That's a scenario that the game is simply not designed to handle.

Edit: Ninja'd by the person I was trying to defend.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You are 1, and specifically not 2. So you have to be 3.

Bear in mind that you can never move, in this case, because "You can end your movement in an enemy's square only if the enemy is helpless"... therefore you can only end your movement in your own square if you are helpless, but if you are helpless you can't move. Therefore you can never end movement, which means you can never begin moving.

Unless someone can point to where errata fixes this by adding an additional category?

Same Targets paragraph:

"Creature" or "creatures" means allies and enemies both, as well as you.

"You" is a type of creature additional to "Allies" and "Enemies".

-Hyp.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Bag of rats applies to weak creatures that pose no threat. Clearly the warlock is not a weak creature unable to harm the warlock.

I think someone just won 4e.

No bag'o'rats, or in 4E speak: sack of rats, is mentioned under a heading called 'Legitimate Targets'. It even mentions common sense although not this specific self harm scenario...you are not a legitimate target for yourself or your allies using common sense. However if that is what you think DnD is all about, help yourself it is not my game

 

[RangerWickett]

It's the nearest enemy you can see, so you just have to make sure you cut off your nose and keep your hands out of line of sight. This is why undead skeletal warlocks are so powerful, and why they always lift their head back when they curse you; it's so they won't see any part of their own bodies.

 

[Runestar]

I suddenly have this weird flashback to the scene in starcraft where Tassadar told Kerrigan how she was her own worst enemy. Now, I have this funny mental image of Kerrigan refuting this statement using the points you all raised earlier...

 

[Voss]

No. I'm arguing that suicide attempts are not a threat to the goal of self-destruction. Narrative goals are more important in a narrative system.

4e is a narrativist system, not a system based on morality/ethics or a system based on technical simulation.

What?
Goals? Morality? Technical simulation?

Ah. I see, you're arguing something completely different and utterly irrelevant.

To go back to the actual discussion, a character is capable of doing harm to himself, regardless of philosophical issues. He is quite capable of doing damage to himself with an attack (for a specific example, see any wizard area spell that does damage to all creatures- if he is in the area, he will take damage), and therefor qualifies as a meaningful threat, regardless of his motivations or the low probability that a normal person would actually want to.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

What?
Goals? Morality? Technical simulation?

Ah. I see, you're arguing something completely different and utterly irrelevant.

Pot calling the kettle black.

You've had your fun. We both know that you wouldn't even allow this silly interpretation in your own game.

 

[Obryn]

OK, so its been established that the healing doesn't work, but there is still the problem that the rules as written clearly define every creature as it own enemy.

Well, let's take your example and assume that PCs count as their own enemies. I think this is a somewhat crazy assertion, but you are making the arguments for it, so I guess it falls on you to support how it works in-game.

If it doesn't work in-game, then I'd think we're clearly looking at an infinite oregano-style interpretation.

(1) Rangers can never mark opponents, since they are their own enemy, and they are by definition closest to themselves.

(2) Swordmages always hurt themselves with Greenflame blade.

(3) As Hyp pointed out, you cannot move because you cannot end your movement in an enemy's space.

(4) Warlocks can never curse anyone, because they need to target the closest enemy. Again, by definition, that is them.

Are you proposing that all of these side-effects are, in fact, how 4e should be played? Without ever moving, and without any strikers ever using their targeting abilities?

-O

 

[unan oranis]

could this legally happen?

suppose in the middle of a fight the warlock turns around and sees a mirror, rolls a 1 on his perception - causing him to mistake the reflection for an enemy and so he curses it.

Pointing in a mirror at yourself and issuing a potent magical curse, never mind an infernal one, would work in real life. A dm might allow it to work in-game.