Letting yourself be hit - by an ally ?

[Dice4Hire]

Overall this kind of thing bothers me, as the next step is trying to define who are allies and enemies from round to round. Or other things that are really not intended inteh rules.

But for some groups, go for it.

 

[Nichwee]

Personally I keep thinking the person being shot at should be able to "invert their stat mod". Mechanically this would mean dropping the targetted defence by 2*Utilised Stat Mod.

I feel this as a person can use their 'agility' to move into the way of a shot, they can use their 'strength of self' to go-with-it for a command or influence on them. This gets a little odder when talking about choosing to be effected again Fort, but meh.
Normally your StatMod fights the effects of an attack making it harder to effect you (upping your defense). If you want to be effectted then you should be able to use that same power to help the effect (so your defense is decreased by the StatMod instead of increased = a change of twice the StatMod compared to what it normally reads on your character sheet).

 

[Greyfeld]

Kinda sounds like everybody's thinking way too hard about this.

If the player wants to do it, the targeting on the power allows it to hit an ally, and they're willing to take the damage associated with it, just let them do it. Ultimately, it's more important for the players to feel like they did something awesome than it is to rules-lawyer them into the ground.

If your players are so incredibly abusive of any leeway you give them, it's probably time to find new players.

 

[Infiniti2000]

For the record:

Command

You utter a single command backed by divine will that requires obedience from your foe, directing it to move as you wish or to fall to the ground.
Encounter

Charm, Divine, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Wisdom vs. Will
Hit: The target is dazed until the end of your next turn. In addition, you can either slide the target a number of squares up to 3 + your Charisma modifier or knock the target prone.

Note that the flavor text says "foe" but the target doesn't. I agree with thewok that things like this sound bag of rats to me. There are other powers that allow moving allies, so I don't see a reason to allow some special consideration on this. The follow-up question would be "How about if I don't want to daze the target, can I just slide him?" I mean, that would certainly make them feel like they did something awesome. Slippery slope and all that.

 

[Greyfeld]

Note that the flavor text says "foe" but the target doesn't. I agree with thewok that things like this sound bag of rats to me.

I wasn't aware that rules discussion revolved around flavor text. As a matter of fact, I'm 99% sure that sort of conjecture is generally discouraged.

There are other powers that allow moving allies, so I don't see a reason to allow some special consideration on this.

There is no special consideration. The "Target" entry states "one creature." Per RAW, this type of entry always includes both enemies and allies as acceptable targets.

The follow-up question would be "How about if I don't want to daze the target, can I just slide him?" I mean, that would certainly make them feel like they did something awesome. Slippery slope and all that.

The power clearly states it forces the Dazed condition. Allowing them to ignore it is blatantly homeruling a power. There is no slippery slope, here.


The question proposed is not whether it's legal, but whether a PC should be allowed to willingly come under the effect of the power. Since there are no rules pertaining to this situation, it's really up to the GM. But I really don't see a reason to not allow it.

 

[thewok]

I don't really think it's a question of the target. The flavor text is immaterial. The actual Target line says "One Creature." That's not the debate.

The question is "Can a target willingly get hit by a hostile power?" By RAW, I'd say no.

That said, let's look past RAW. This is certainly a very useful power, and it does have some very good utility when used on friendly targets. Looking at it, though, I believe that this power is pretty powerful when used on friendlies/ Say you have a cleric with a +4 charisma modifier. Right off, that's a seven-square slide. Since forced movement does not provoke OAs, you effectively have given someone a seven-square shift. Also, since forced movement is not affected by difficult terrain, you now have a seven-square shift that few things can really follow, making the daze a mere annoyance.

Now imagine a multiclassed sorcerer. That seven-square shift is now 11-12 squares at level 28. Even with the daze, that's a hell of an "Oh, s---!" power.

Then there's the cleric who might want to use this power on himself. He is a creature, after all, and a range of 0 is within the range of the spell.

As I said above, I'd say they need to hit the full defense in order to use the power.

Alternatively, I'd allow them to lower their defense as a free action--not against just the one attack, but until the end of their next turn. This isn't really a problem against stuff like kobolds and orcs, but against mind flayers and the like this can prove to be a very dangerous option, which might introduce some very interesting things to a game.

 

[DracoSuave]

Let's even analyze this further.

This is a definate mind control attack that renders the target more defenseless and severely cripples their ability to raise any sort of counter attack for a while.

If the enemy has any sort of intellegence involved, that's the time they're going to take the time to play goonball with the target. After all, they were playing goonball successfully before, why not now when he's giving up Combat Advantage and has no immediate or opportunity actions that could do anything to dissuade this?

Worse, a manipulative enemy is going to THEN go 'Alas, a traitor has shown his true colors! For Bane! WWWAAAAAAGH!' or whatever villainous bs villains do.


Now granted, a lot of D&D players have absolutely no concept of why one should not metagame, and why the above should actually be a turning point in the campaing. Judging from how a lot of people react to and ask the OP's question, most of it will be handwaved. After all, he's a PC, he couldn't POSSIBLY be a traitor!...


But at the very least, you've tactically (and without metagaming) rendered what is in essence firing a paralysis blast at your party members into something that could easily backfire.

And yes, using powers that have 'Attack' on them, offensively, against your own team, should probably have some potential to backfire.


At the end, isn't it MORE effective to take the monster causing the problem, command HIM, maybe even knock him prone, and then use him as a pinata, rather than dazing your own team?

 

[Greyfeld]

The question is "Can a target willingly get hit by a hostile power?" By RAW, I'd say no.

There is no RAW ruling that would indicate one way or the other. You can't just state "by RAW" when there is nothing to read on the subject, since RAW literally means "read as written."

That said, let's look past RAW. This is certainly a very useful power, and it does have some very good utility when used on friendly targets. Looking at it, though, I believe that this power is pretty powerful when used on friendlies/ Say you have a cleric with a +4 charisma modifier. Right off, that's a seven-square slide. Since forced movement does not provoke OAs, you effectively have given someone a seven-square shift. Also, since forced movement is not affected by difficult terrain, you now have a seven-square shift that few things can really follow, making the daze a mere annoyance.

So, your argument is that it shouldn't be allowed, because once per encounter it's actually useful?? That sounds extraordinarily misguided at best. You help one ally with positioning in exchange for screwing them out of most of their actions on their next turn. Sounds pretty fair to me.

Now imagine a multiclassed sorcerer. That seven-square shift is now 11-12 squares at level 28. Even with the daze, that's a hell of an "Oh, s---!" power.

At level 28, you're nearly a god. I fail to see this as a problem.

Then there's the cleric who might want to use this power on himself. He is a creature, after all, and a range of 0 is within the range of the spell.

I can't seem to find any rules concerning the Charm keyword. You seem to be correct in that this is RAW-acceptable, though it seems a bit silly. But this is also a strawman argument, because it has nothing to do with the original question.

As I said above, I'd say they need to hit the full defense in order to use the power.

Alternatively, I'd allow them to lower their defense as a free action--not against just the one attack, but until the end of their next turn. This isn't really a problem against stuff like kobolds and orcs, but against mind flayers and the like this can prove to be a very dangerous option, which might introduce some very interesting things to a game.

If you're DMing, you can rule it however you want. But I have to respectfully disagree, simply on the grounds that previous editions allowed for willingly taking attacks from allies without being forced to lower their defenses for all enemies. The ally in question already has to lose most of their actions during their next turn for taking this shot; making them a sitting target for every enemy in the area on top of it is just overkill.

 

[Incenjucar]

I do hope that, many years from now, when the next edition is released, they make powers more solid, so that their effects on allies can be defined within the system. Though this will require extra text for many effects... or a shortcut symbol of some sort.

 

[thewok]

There is no RAW ruling that would indicate one way or the other. You can't just state "by RAW" when there is nothing to read on the subject, since RAW literally means "read as written."

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

So, your argument is that it shouldn't be allowed, because once per encounter it's actually useful?? That sounds extraordinarily misguided at best. You help one ally with positioning in exchange for screwing them out of most of their actions on their next turn. Sounds pretty fair to me.

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.

If you're DMing, you can rule it however you want. But I have to respectfully disagree, simply on the grounds that previous editions allowed for willingly taking attacks from allies without being forced to lower their defenses for all enemies. The ally in question already has to lose most of their actions during their next turn for taking this shot; making them a sitting target for every enemy in the area on top of it is just overkill.

I am having trouble finding this rule in the D20 SRD. Can you point it out for me? Also, if my talking about a cleric hitting himself with the power is a "strawman argument," then so is this. The discussion is about Fourth Edition--not any previous edition of the game.

In any case, my idea for lowering defenses willingly until end of your next turn comes from considering how that would have to come about. On an attack targeting AC or Reflex, the target would have to stop moving enough to allow an attack to hit. By doing that, he's not fully defending against any other attacks because he has to make sure the attack in question hits him. An attack against Will would mean that the person lowers defenses in his mind so the attack can go through, and anyone could take advantage of that. Fortitude cannot really be willingly reduced, as it is purely a function of someone's natural hardiness.

Even so, I firmly believe that no one should ever want to be hit with anything labeled an attack, no matter the source. It just doesn't make sense, despite whatever possible benefit might be gained.