Letting yourself be hit - by an ally ?

[Nichwee]

I am having trouble finding this rule in the D20 SRD. Can you point it out for me?

This would be the fact that a person could willingly "drop" any Spell Resistance they had for a spell and could choose to forgo a Saving Throw if they wanted to. This was to stop PCs with SR being prevented from getting buffs and the like, and was very important with regards to Healing Spells which were "Will Save for Half". Undead would try to save against them but living creatures would just let them hit. There was also a Pestige Class in 3.5e that hated magic, and had the downside it HAD to try to Save/Resist all spells - even those most players would "allow to hit".
If we assume NADs are the 4e equivalent of a Saves in 3.5e then we see where this idea of "i want to be affected by this spell" comes from without it having to be "I want all spells to hit me easier".
Not sure I agree this is a valid arguement considering the structural changes in powers from 3.5e-4e, but there you go.

Basically we have a million question on how "hittable" you can make yourself. Can players impose conditions on themselves temporarily and what action would it be to do so, and to undo it? If you allow blinking as a free action then a person can blink as a spell is incoming to grant CA from being blind for that spell. If you allow 'surrendering/rebeling' as a free action you may be able to grant helpless to an attack and then resume fighting straight afterwards etc. RAW never assumed you would want to be hit by your own side, so didn't write specific rules for it, but it may happen.

Consider the following:
If your players wanted to stage a fight to trick an NPC they may want to let themselves be "beaten up" by some people - are they allowed to pretend to be weaker than they are, or do they have to use all their skills even in detriment to their intent?

 

[thewok]

This would be the fact that a person could willingly "drop" any Spell Resistance they had for a spell and could choose to forgo a Saving Throw if they wanted to. This was to stop PCs with SR being prevented from getting buffs and the like, and was very important with regards to Healing Spells which were "Will Save for Half".

Noted. Is this the rule?

A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless. In such a case, you do not need to make the caster level check described above.

Emphasis mine, of course. I think that's really the major thing to consider. Third Edition allowed a target to "switch off" its spell resistance temporarily, if the spell was tagged "Harmless." I don't think it would allow it for harmful spells (attack powers, in 4E terms).

edit: Re-reading this, I have another question. Since it takes a standard action to lower spell resistance, wouldn't that need to be done on the character's turn? Then wouldn't any attack made before that harmless spell takes hold also bypass the character's spell resistance? In 4E terms, that sounds roughly similar to "until the start of your next turn" to me.

Consider the following:
If your players wanted to stage a fight to trick an NPC they may want to let themselves be "beaten up" by some people - are they allowed to pretend to be weaker than they are, or do they have to use all their skills even in detriment to their intent?

Wouldn't this be a function of the Bluff skill? I mean, they're bluffing about their skill level, right? Rather than set it up as a combat encounter, I'd ask the players to roleplay out the scene, with Bluff checks interspersed throughout. I might even add some stuff like Athletics, Acrobatics, and so on depending on what the players act out.

A person skilled in fighting is not necessarily going to be skilled in fake fighting (or choreographed fighting, or whatever you want to call it).

I think you'd want to save those attacks (and their associated powers) for actual combat. After all ...

When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a target--or reducing a target to 0 hit points--the power functions only when the target in question is a meaningful threat.

So, attack powers wouldn't work in a staged fight, anyway. You'd probably stick to basic attacks and appropriate skill checks (as mentioned above).

 

[Greyfeld]

Rules As Written, yes. And, as written, the rules make no allowance for allowing a hostile power to hit you, no matter the source.

... Are you really trying to sit there and tell me that "rules as written" extends to rulings that are blatantly absent from the rulebooks? Because if that's the case, every campaign ever created should be utterly unplayable. Afterall, there's no rule in any of the 4th edition books regulating a character's breathing cycle... everybody would suffocate and fall dead within rounds after the game started, since by RAW, characters aren't allowed to breathe.

Yes, I'm aware that not only is my argument patently ridiculous, but it's also a strawman argument. But the argument that "anything not written isn't allowed," is ridiculous in and of itself.

Hell, on page 42 of the DMG, there's a section dedicated entirely to telling the DM that "A few combat situations come up rarely enough that the rules for them intentionally aren't covered in the player's handbook... it's your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them." That statement in and of itself crushes this ridiculous argument.

It depends on what you believe I'm saying should be disallowed. Using the power on an ally is totally allowed. Willingly being hit by an attack power has no rules basis at all. According to the rules, the only way to hit with an attack is to make an attack roll and meet or exceed the defense. There is no other way.

And if an ally intentionally lowers their defenses against that attack, it would be an auto-hit. There is no problem here.

 

[thewok]

... Are you really trying to sit there and tell me that "rules as written" extends to rulings that are blatantly absent from the rulebooks?

What I am saying is there is no rules basis for the willing drop of defenses. So, while a house rule allowing such a thing to happen is great for home games, people shouldn't go to actual WotC/RPGA events (like LFR) and expect that stuff to fly.

The OP asked for opinions. I am giving mine from my interpretation of the rules. The power requires a hit. A "hit" has a set definition already. That is, by its very nature, RAW.

And if an ally intentionally lowers their defenses against that attack, it would be an auto-hit. There is no problem here.

The rules give only one way to "auto-hit," as well. That is by rolling a natural 20 (or whatever your crit range is) on the attack roll.

I've given my reasoning why I wouldn't allow this, based on 4E rules and an interpretation of 3E's rule for such a thing. You're totally free to play it the way you want, but my games will not have such a feature.

 

[Greyfeld]

What I am saying is there is no rules basis for the willing drop of defenses. So, while a house rule allowing such a thing to happen is great for home games, people shouldn't go to actual WotC/RPGA events (like LFR) and expect that stuff to fly.

There are no rules for mounted or underwater combat either, but that doesn't mean that one person's opinion on how situations "not in the book" should be ruled is wrong, just because it disagrees with yours.

Obviously, one GM is going to rule differently from another. We're not talking about official events, we're talking about gaming in broad terms.

The OP asked for opinions. I am giving mine from my interpretation of the rules. The power requires a hit. A "hit" has a set definition already. That is, by its very nature, RAW.

You're absolutely right, a hit has a set definition already. A character being willing to take an attack, however, does not. If my character wants to step in the way of an enemy's sword for some reason, it's ridiculous to expect that attack to still have to roll against full AC.

I've given my reasoning why I wouldn't allow this, based on 4E rules and an interpretation of 3E's rule for such a thing. You're totally free to play it the way you want, but my games will not have such a feature.

It's a good thing I don't play in your games, since it's obvious that you're more concerned with rules lawyering than allowing your players to be creative and do things that are out of the ordinary. "Sorry, I can't let you do that, it's not specifically covered in the rulebook," is a horrible excuse for not letting players do something interesting and awesome.

In my very first ever 4e beginner game, I was playing a premade paladin. As I closed in on an enemy with one of my javelins in-hand, I stepped on a hidden spike pit trap. Failing my reflex save to avoid the trap, I fell in. Being new to the game, I didn't know the mechanics that well, and I asked my GM, "Can I hold my javelin cross-ways as I'm falling so it catches on the mouth of the pit before I fall on the spikes?" He thought about it for a second and said, "If you spend an action point, I'll let you make an athletic or acrobatics check to see if you manage to pull it off."

I ended up rolling something like a 3 on the check so I fell anyway, but the GM actually let me try it. It's not something that's covered by the rules, but he thought the idea was awesome, and as somebody who wants his players to feel like they can do the awesome, he allowed me a chance to pull it off. That's what I'm talking about. He could have just said, "Sorry, it's not in the rules, you fall," but he didn't, because he knew that it was important that the players have control over their characters' actions.

 

[thewok]

There are no rules for mounted or underwater combat either, but that doesn't mean that one person's opinion on how situations "not in the book" should be ruled is wrong, just because it disagrees with yours.

This is incorrect. Both underwater combat (DMG 45) and mounted combat (DMG 46) have rules. Aerial Combat has rules, too (DMG 47).

You're absolutely right, a hit has a set definition already. A character being willing to take an attack, however, does not. If my character wants to step in the way of an enemy's sword for some reason, it's ridiculous to expect that attack to still have to roll against full AC.

It's just as ridiculous to expect that enemies cannot take advantage of your drop in defenses.

It's a good thing I don't play in your games, since it's obvious that you're more concerned with rules lawyering than allowing your players to be creative and do things that are out of the ordinary.

You like to point out straw man arguments. Here's one for you: ad hominem. You have no idea how I run my games, or what I do at my table. When my players want to do something, I try to think of a way to make it happen. I just happen to think that wanting to be hit by an attack is a ludicrous concept. Sure, defenders might want to take an attack for an ally, but there are powers that allow that already.

Regarding the pit trap, here is the text of a typical pit trap:

Trigger
The trap attacks when a creature enters on of the trap's four squares.

Attack
Immediate Reaction Melee
Target: The creature that triggered the trap.
Attack: +4 vs. Reflex
Hit: Target falls into pit, takes 1d10 damage, and falls prone.
Miss: Target returns to the last sqaure it occupied and its move action ends immediately.
Effect: The false floor opens and the pit is no longer hidden.

There is no reflex save. The trap attacked you and hit, therefore you take damage. If your DM allowed a saving throw when the trap hit you, then he used a house rule, which is perfectly okay. You would be entitled to a saving throw if you were being forced into the trap's square after it is triggered. Failing that save would signify a fall; success would stop the movement.

However, presented with the idea of using a javelin to stop your fall, I might allow you to spend an action point to roll a saving throw. On a 10 or higher, you successfully save for half damage, as the sudden stop tries to pull your arms out of socket. On a 2 through 9, you'd fail to get your javelin up in time. On a 1, your javelin would snap in two.

I live by Page 42 (now my deluxe DM screen). If someone wants to try something off the wall, I try to let it happen. Next time you feel the need to attack someone based on a flawed assumption, don't.

 

[wlmartin]

The whole letting yourself suffer a negative effect thing often gets some debate but as long as you can come up with a good reason why, it can sometimes be interesting.

It all comes down to what it says.
If it says Creature, you can do it to an ally, an enemy but not an object (like a door)
If it says Target, you can do it to an ally, an enemy or an object
If it says Enemy, you can do it only to an enemy, not an ally or an object
if it says Ally, you can do it only to an ally, not an enemy or an object

Pretty much most of the time it would say enemy or creature, if it says creature it would work how you suggest