Is it ever a good idea to hit the party?

[Umbran]

Sometimes it can be a useful tactic. We have tank-like characters for a reason.

Also, sometimes it can make for a great noble sacrifice, "I'll hold them back! Drop a fireball on your way out. Just make sure those children get to safety!"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So no one has an IC issue with friendly fire? It seems a bit metagamey to think nothing of friendly fire. Your character has a lethal power he's going to unleash hoping it will slaughter his foes yet he thinks nothing of hitting his friend with the same power. Why? Because he knows how many hit points his friend has. There's something wrong with that line of thinking. How is this any different from "I'll leap off the cliff, it's only 20d6"?

"Think nothing of it" is not really the typical "pro-stance". It's obviously a risk. it doesn't even matter if the character cannot actually die from the effect itself, he could still die a round later from another enemies lucky hit.

But in-game, these fireballs and other area effects are obviously not always deadly, despite people being caught by them. Even if people don't count hit points, they might know that with the proper precaution they can survive a blast. A character might hide behind some cover, or jump to the ground when the effect sweeps over them. Both the ally as well as the caster might be able - from experience - to determine if the risk is high.

But even knowing (at least in-game) that it might potentially kill someone, their are choices to be made, and if a large area burst can potentially kill the PC, it can also potentially kill the enemies _and_ they might also be potentially able to kill the PCs with their regular attacks each round.

 

[Dausuul]

I figure that the fighter knows how to protect himself from the wizard's fireball, and they have some signals worked out so the wizard can announce "Incoming!" and the fighter can drop and roll. Of course, this requires the fighter to be on top of his game. If he's battered and bloody and doesn't think he can get out of the way in time (read: low on hit points), he can yell back at the wizard to abort.

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

The US Army's stance is "our goal is not to minimize fratricide, but to minimize total casualties."

This is not the US Army's stance. This is your take on it.
Read the FMs. Fratricide is to be avoided. Risks are unavoidable but must be managed.

And since real soldiers don't get to roll-up a new character when they die, we should probably avoid applying real world policy to fantasy games. (Please?)

 

[Engilbrand]

4e is a game. As such, I'm not much of a stickler about it. I'm not much of a stickler in any of the games that I play. I'm pretty sure that I've been in an Exalted game and stood in the way of an ally's Death of Obsidian Butterflies. That's not a blast, but it was necessary.
There are a bunch of classes who can't avoid allies. As such, "crap happens". I definitely think that you need to agree out of character before agreeing in character. Remember, some people don't have a problem with party theft or fighting. That's fine if everyone agrees beforehand. If someone says, "No. I don't like the idea of us possibly killing each other." then you can have the characters in game hash this out. Maybe you even have a scene where the Wizard drops a Fireball that includes the Fighter. Afterwards, the Fighter gets in the Wizard's face and they have a "conversation". It doesn't happen again. That's perfectly fine for a game.
Basically, I think that it's entirely up to the players and what they agree on, then how they believe their characters would act. This is not a right or wrong topic.

 

[alleynbard]

The players of my tanks and rogues have always been willing to take a hit from the spellcasters every so often, especially if there is no other choice. In fact, they often call for the situation while in-game. That said, the spellcasters have always been good at waiting until commanded to incinerate the area. Otherwise, they try their best to avoid the party while the front line is doing its thing. In those situations I often allow the front line party members a bonus to saves/defenses when the attack is made to represent their ability to brace for the attack.

Wizards (and most controllers) are smart people. They know their spells rarely take creatures out of combat in one blow. This is especially true in 4e where the only creatures that are going to drop instantly are minions. But then, I also give visual clues for minions (which I am sure some would call metagaming) to help the controllers understand that those guys will fall easily. They don't use the term "minions" the way I do (in fact the term never enters play), but they do see weakness and take advantage of it.

Since they are aware of their powers it is not out of the question for the party to discuss this tactic while sitting around the table at the local inn. In fact, I rather presume the characters get to discuss their tactics a lot more than the players actually do. Which means I give a little leeway to in-game chatter because that discussion likely illustrates something the characters should already know.

The same goes for OOC conversation outside of the game. This is important for understanding that everyone in the group is on the same page. I imagine it is similar to how their characters might address the issue. Of course, the characters aren't using game terms, but the intent is the same. Both involve care and concern for all of those involved.

Like I said, the people calling for these tactics are always the people who play the frontline characters. In 3e this involved the rogue, though 4e has changed some of that. In any case, the idea was never perpetuated by the one casting the area effect. And it is never the first choice in any combat situation.

Now if one of my players began dropping AoEs without announcing it or discussing it with other players outside of the game, I would get irritated. I imagine my players would as well. In that situation action would be taken and if the behavior doesn't stop, the player gets shown the door. I have enough potential players in my group of friends I don't need to deal with disruptive players of any stripe. Fortunately our current group are all close friends and we are sensitive to each other.

 

[carmachu]

A pet peeve of mine is people who think it's Ok to target party members in area effect attacks. IMO, unless the characters have full immunity from the effects of the attack, then it is never a good idea.

I seem to be encountering several people who think otherwise lately, so I thought I'd see what the general consensus is in the greater online community.

Sometimes its necessary. We dont think its ok, but sometimes you do what has to be done.

 

[carmachu]

i am surprised by the response of some of the first posters who suggest that friendly fire is okay if you talk about it and agree to it ooc first. i agree with the more recent posters who are saying that what matters is ic.

would your character be willing to put other characters at risk? how will they react? are they okay with that? i think most people would not. i could see some particularly dare devil characters, or a particularly stupid barbarian who doesn't even realize where the attack comes from, but i think most reasonable people would be upset at getting hammered by a friendly fireball.

if you take significant damage from a spell, in character, you aren't thinking, oh, well, i had plenty of hps in reserve. you're thinking, damn, that hurt, and could have killed me.

but at the same time, the decision to do it, or not to do it, should be based on what your characters would think about it. i'm sure certain characters would put their companions at risk and not think twice. and others may just panic and not think of the consequences. it's a situation rife for good role playing.

so i think taking the discussion out of character robs you have some juicy in game drama.

Actually, my character routinely throws himself into danger to save the party. He's cast spells that saved the rest of the party, while getting killed. Thrown himself down holes becasue the theif is grappled by a person to cause him to drop him, and thrown himself in the way of creatures playing block.

Sometimes its a necessary evil. Player attacked by green slime? Yeah the fireball sucks, but so does disloving into green slime. There are many situations its called for.

 

[Oryan77]

I'd be pretty ticked off if someone threw a grenade at me in hopes of killing our enemy. Even if there was a magical way to heal myself afterward, I'm sure it's going to hurt like hell. If I had the chance to say "hit me with it" and prepare for the pain, then maybe I could deal with it So I'm sure my character would feel the same way.

In game, I think it's pretty cool when a mage says to the fighter, "Can I throw down a fireball?" and the fighter says, "Uhg....go for it...." Taking one for the team is what makes the front line guys badass. Those wimpy casters would never take one for the team

 

[Henry]

Hell, we used to fireball the Monk and Rogue in 3E all the time. "Eh, they've got Evasion."

The War wizard of Cormyr para-path is one who doesn't mind it, but then the party is likely not to get stung by him. In general, if the enemy is hurt far more than the allies, then I'm fine with it, as a player. Just please don't go blasting me when I'm at 2 hit points, please...