Inferlock Curse loop?

[castro3nw]

And according to the Threefold Law common in (real world) ceremonial magick, any curse you inflict will affect you at thrice the strength it affects the victim, so perhaps they are correct.

Can it be correct though? If it affects you at thrice the strength in addition to the original effect, isn't 3+1=4 and you end up affected quadruply?

And if you're affected 1x, 3x and 4x... the only amount you can be affected, that they're all equal is zero.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Can it be correct though? If it affects you at thrice the strength in addition to the original effect, isn't 3+1=4 and you end up affected quadruply?

And if you're affected 1x, 3x and 4x... the only amount you can be affected, that they're all equal is zero.

Which would fit the observations in the real world, right?

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.

Well, it sure would make a fine houserule. Shadowrun always allowed Line of Sight to be affected by mirrors and stuff for magic. It might be a good idea to mention these possibilities to your players before it happens, though. And be prepared for the "abuses". (Like the Fighter carrying a Mirror so that Wizard and Warlock can shoot around corners)

 

[TheLordWinter]

To begin with, it would seem that what Genowhirl is initially beginning with is a fallacy of converse accident. Just because the exception seems to exist does not make it true. While there is no rule to dictate that you cannot name yourself your own enemy, it is obviously not the intention of the system despite his "clear" readings (the source of which I'm still a bit puzzled over, I admit). It would seem to be mostly a thought exercise and probably an effort to prod people and get a reaction.

By extension (and in the same vein) using a mathematical formula I can make the numbers 1 and -1 balance. Does this mean that having a penny and not having a penny is the same thing (regardless of the potential phase out of the American penny)? No, obviously not. Being in debt one hundred dollars and having one hundred dollars are clearly not the same thing, yet the basic underlying math could be used to prove that they are.

Now on the subject of suicidal D&D characters. Have you ever had a character try to kill himself in game? Do you know, as per the RAW, how long it will take? Or how ridiculous it is for a fighter with a greatsword to attempt to stab himself and miss? Throwing yourself off the world's tallest cliff simply couldn't kill an epic level character in 2nd or 3rd edition. You'd hit terminal velocity, and even if you rolled maximum damage you'd be able to not only survive but then get up and start climbing the cliff for the next throw.

Numerous examples have been provided of how broken the game would become were a character to be considered their own enemy (regardless of what 90's band Lit would have us believe). Based upon the game's exception based design though, I would say the basic rule is (clearly) that a character does not count as his own enemy for targeting purposes unless he specifically elects to target himself with his own power. There is no reason, logically or by the rules, that a character cannot nominate an ally as an enemy if he wishes to betray them, so I see no reason he or she couldn't nominate himself as an enemy for the purpose of an attack.

 

[Metaphorazine]

If I was DM'ing, I'd allow the OP's interpretation of the rule to apply. Might be a short campaign for that character though. Round 1, the Warlock curses himself, starts moving, is unable to stop and thus unable to attack, as they havn't completed their move, and OAs themself to death. Needless to say, I wouldn't be holding any other players to that interpretation...

 

[chaotix42]

Numerous examples have been provided of how broken the game would become were a character to be considered their own enemy (regardless of what 90's band Lit would have us believe).

 

[cmbarona]

By extension (and in the same vein) using a mathematical formula I can make the numbers 1 and -1 balance. Does this mean that having a penny and not having a penny is the same thing (regardless of the potential phase out of the American penny)? No, obviously not. Being in debt one hundred dollars and having one hundred dollars are clearly not the same thing, yet the basic underlying math could be used to prove that they are.

In a similar fashion, it is possible to prove that 1=2, except for the fact that at some point in the hidden logic of the formulae that get you there, you must divide by zero. In fact, there's a lot of weird stuff you can do if division by zero were possible. I get the feeling this is a similar case: if you are your own enemy, then the game breaks.

If I was DM'ing, I'd allow the OP's interpretation of the rule to apply. Might be a short campaign for that character though. Round 1, the Warlock curses himself, starts moving, is unable to stop and thus unable to attack, as they havn't completed their move, and OAs themself to death. Needless to say, I wouldn't be holding any other players to that interpretation...

Of course, they can only provoke OAs once per turn, and even then OAs are a choice. But the infinite movement will have them fall off a cliff at some point.

 

[Caliban]

I think this falls under the category of "Don't feed the trolls"...

Or "the only winning move is not to play"

 

[chaotix42]

I think this falls under the category of "Don't feed the trolls"...

Or "the only winning move is not to play"

The only way to do this is to not post (in the thread) at all.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

I don't think that stops them from moving. If only because a creature is considered to occupy the square or squares within its space, and the squares you move into aren't actually in that space until you after you move.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think that stops them from moving. If only because a creature is considered to occupy the square or squares within its space, and the squares you move into aren't actually in that space until you after you move.

It doesn't stop them from moving into the space... but once they've moved into the square, it's no longer a legal square for them to end their move in, and neither is any other square.

You can't end your move in a square without having moved into the square, and once you've moved into the square it's a square within your space, which means it's a square you occupy, which means (according to the premise of the original post, at least) that it's an enemy's square. So you can't end your move in a square without it being an enemy's square... which is a square you aren't allowed to end your move in.

"You aren't in that space until after you move", true, but you can't end your move until after you move either.

-Hyp.