Is it legal? is it allowed?

[Simm]

I the 4e campaign I play in my half-elf paladin has reached level 8. I'm looking ahead to the level 9 daily powers and came to the conclusion that Radient Pulse is the best one for my character. Looking at this power I found a rather interesting alternate use for it. If I targeted and hit myself or one of my party members with it I could discourage any enemy geting close to them. So I have two questions about this power.

1. Is it legal by RAW to target an ally with radient pulse and use the secondary hit and sustain to attack all adjacent enemies?

2. Would you, personally as a DM, allow a player in you campaign to do this?

 

[Fede]

The target line says "one creature", so by RAW it's possible to attack an ally or even oneself.
I, personally as a DM.... i wouldn't allow on oneself, not sure about using it on an ally (maybe if the player can make up a good in-game reason i may allow it)

 

[1of3]

RAW it's acceptable.

Next time, though, when you are planning to inquire about IT, it would be very nice, if you said in title what exactly IT is.

 

[themilkman]

I agree that RAW seems to permit using Radiant Pulse on yourself or an ally. I'm not sure whether I would allow it or not. It seems a bit on the cheap side, so I probably wouldn't. In thinking about this power, though, a question occured to me. I'd love to know what you guys think...

So let's say that a player uses Radiant Pulse on himself. The sustain minor allows him to make secondary attacks against adjacent creatures. If there are not adjacent creatures, can he spend the minor action to sustain the power, even if there are no targets to attack?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

The rules text says "you can make a secon...when you sustain it."

So sustain the power if you like and make the attack if you can.

 

[Mr. Teapot]

Definitely legal and I'd definitely allow it in game.

Clever thinking should be rewarded, and this usage isn't over-the-top more powerful. You're losing the initial damage from the effect, or worse harming your own ally, and in exchange all you're doing is keeping enemies away from one ally (very defender-y) instead of forcing enemies apart from one another.

Also, it's a Daily power, so it's supposed to change the way the battle goes. And it isn't going to become a standard battle tactic because it is a Daily power.

 

[Engilbrand]

If the ally allowed it, I would probably have it be an automatic hit and, quite possibly, crit. Then again, I'd probably also have it backfire because it's not the purpose of the power. Gods don't give a Paladin power to smite a foe just so that the Paladins can hit their allies.

 

[Storminator]

Why would it be different from dropping a fireball at ground zero?

You should definitely be able to do it, but if you miss you've hurt your friend (or self) for no secondary attack. Now that's funny! Oh, and you draw AOs too.

PS

 

[Starglim]

I see no problem with a paladin targeting this on himself. He's accepting some damage (with all the bonuses he stacked on it to affect his enemies) to activate the secondary effect without a chance of missing. It's a daily power, so it should be effective, flexible and reliable. edit: I agree with Storminator that this provokes OA because it's still a ranged power.

Targeting an ally is a bit off for a paladin, though. I'd require an attack roll against the ally (no automatic hit), partly to represent the possible loss of certainty in his cause and displeasure of his patron that might sour the effect.

 

[Danceofmasks]

"But my paladin is chaotic evil!"
Really, paladins aren't paladins anymore.
Even if they have to worship a deity (and they don't), they can worship bane.

So ethical arguments against the use of the power is only character-specific.

But mechanically, if a power says you have to make an attack, you have to make an attack.
If the DM decides to grant bonuses (or penalties to defense for being "helpless" or whatever), that's fine, but auto-hitting is a bit much IMO.