D&D 5E Point me to the rule please:

[FormerlyHemlock]

I get all that (wow this feels like treading water). I never mentioned game balance, and I get simulationism. How about we stop talking about general simulation theory (which I understand just fine), and start talking about why you feel something is a problem if you think it will never come up - which is the only question I am asking.

Even in simulation situations, you don't need to figure out the ecology of a worm the PCs will never encounter, and nobody the PCs meet have ever encountered, and which has never had any impact on anything they will ever interact with. Your world is not perfectly realized, it cannot ever be perfectly realized, you can never have enough hours in your lifetime to work out how everything conceivable in your world could possibly work. So, and I hope we can agree on this, some things which the players will never interact with in any way will not be figured out by you in advance because they are not a priority for working out in your simulationist world. Agreed?

Assuming we agree, and since you previously said your players will never attempt something ridiculous like declaring their allies as hostile to game some benefit from a feat, that would mean that aspect of the feat never needs to be worked out by you - it's the worm. It's an minor aspect of the world that never needs to be worked out in advance, because it's not in advance of anything - nobody will care about the worm, or some silly interpretation of a feat.

Which comes down to the actual likely questions your players will ask - why does it only work on hostile creatures? So you can't think of a coherent reason why the feat only impacts people hostile to you? Is that really why you want to "fix" it, because you are having trouble coming up with a justification for why it only impacts hostiles? If so, it's likely a recurring problem, as it's the same issue inherent with opportunity attacks and several other mechanics in the game. I'd think it would be a lot easier, and more interesting, to come up with such a reason for your world rather than just change this mechanic to avoid inventing the reason on this rule (only to face the question again on other similar rules). Do you disagree?

Sigh. Yes, we're definitely treading water here, and I'm on phone so I can't go into detail. Your later paragraphs make it clear that you're aware of some issues that the rule creates, right now, today. So why do you lead by claiming that "it will never come up"?

I don't agree that the Warcaster issue would just recur with other mechanics like opportunity attacks. There's nothing that prevents you from attacking allies, it's just that no one does it in practice. That's nothing at all like being able to reflexively Polymorph people in the same round as casting other spells, if and only if the spell's target is an enemy retreating from melee with you. So yes, I disagree with your final paragraph and final question.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm curious...

Why would a player have to wonder this? Why would this be a question that is even considered?

Because simulationism as I play it and run it is all about exploring interlocking systems and discovering consequences. Figuring out e.g. what happens when you put a beholder in a lifejammer, or how much more money you could make on trade with a new trade route, or whether monks can survive a fall from orbit, is a major aspect of play. If the game were just about heroes rolling initiative and damage to kill demons I wouldn't play. It's exploring the "what ifs" that I find fun, and so do my players. Uncertainty and novelty are really important at my table. Therefore "why?" is a really important and common question.

 

[Mistwell]

Sigh. Yes, we're definitely treading water here, and I'm on phone so I can't go into detail. Your later paragraphs make it clear that you're aware of some issues that the rule creates, right now, today. So why do you lead by claiming that "it will never come up"?

There are two aspects. There is the general "why does it only work on hostile creatures" and the specific "why can't I treat an ally as hostile". The later is the one I am saying will never come up. You seemed to agree on that aspect, earlier. Do you now think it will come up?

I don't agree that the Warcaster issue would just recur with other mechanics like opportunity attacks. There's nothing that prevents you from attacking allies, it's just that no one does it in practice.

But there is. And, it's the same language Warcaster uses. "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." And this is not the only time this language comes up in the rules. In fact differentiating abilities based on whether or not there is a hostile or a hostile does something is entrenched across the rules.*

But to stick with this example, why does a hostile creature leaving your threatened area grant you an additional action (in the form of a reaction) but an ally leaving your threatened area does not trigger an additional action? That's the issue. The only difference is one is hostile and the other is not - so you must already have an explanation for your world to deal with that, right? Assuming you do, I suspect that answer can be adapted (perhaps with a minor tweak) to the mechanic in question with the Warcaster feat.

*Rage: "It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then."
*Totem Warrior, Wolf: While you're raging, your friends have advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature within 5 feet of you that is hostile to you.
*Bear Warrior: While you’re raging, any creature within 5 feet of you that’s hostile to you has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you or another character with this feature.
*Dark One's Blessing: Starting at 1st level, when you reduce a hostile creature to 0 hit points, you gain temporary hit points...
*Targeting yourself: If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you.
*I am skipping more references, including a ton of spells that only specify things for hostile creatures.

 

[Inchoroi]

For my two cents, I think the idea that the question of "Why can't I make opportunity attacks on allies?" is just silly. I mean no offense, truly, but you're way of gaming is so far out there from mine and my group that I can't even get my head around it. Oh, well. To each his own.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For my two cents, I think the idea that the question of "Why can't I make opportunity attacks on allies?" is just silly. I mean no offense, truly, but you're way of gaming is so far out there from mine and my group that I can't even get my head around it. Oh, well. To each his own.

But the post you're responding to doesn't involve treating allies as hostile. You asked why a player might ask why Warcaster isn't usable on friendlies. I answered. Why change the subject back to treating allies as hostile, a thing which nobody in this thread would seriously contemplate doing? You're fixated on a scenario not under consideration.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There are two aspects. There is the general "why does it only work on hostile creatures" and the specific "why can't I treat an ally as hostile". The later is the one I am saying will never come up. You seemed to agree on that aspect, earlier. Do you now think it will come up?

In practice, no. Why do you ask? And yes, I know you think that the latter is the real problem. You know that I think the former is a symtom of the real problem and a problem in its own right. We disagree. Is there any point in beating the dead horse any more? What's your objective here?

And no, an opportunity attack isn't an additional action. It's just a melee attack, possibly as little as 1/4 of an action. Not so with Warcaster.

 

[Inchoroi]

Because the question you asked was "doesn't the world only exist when it actually comes up at the table?" Hence my confusion at your seeming incomprehension.



See again post #23, and I reiterate that your definition of problem is different in scope than mine. It is already a problem in my world, and it will become a bigger problem the instant a player asks, "How does that work? Why does it only work on hostiles?" You seem to think that it only becomes a problem when it affects game balance, but I don't care about game balance. To me it's a problem if it doesn't cohere, because running a coherent world is MY JOB as DM.

If that doesn't make sense to you, reread the thread. It's frustrating because I've answered your questions multiple times. It's cool if you just don't "get" simulationism, but maybe asking the same questions over and over isn't going to get you any closer. Feel free to ask a new, different question though.

This. This is why I asked. To quote you, "It is already a problem in my world, and it will become a bigger problem the instant a player asks, 'How does that work? Why does it only work on hostiles?'" (Emphasis mine.) But, yeah; your gameplay style is just too different from me to even grasp.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This. This is why I asked. To quote you, "It is already a problem in my world, and it will become a bigger problem the instant a player asks, 'How does that work? Why does it only work on hostiles?'" (Emphasis mine.) But, yeah; your gameplay style is just too different from me to even grasp.

I'm glad the discussion accomplished something at least then, even if it was just establishing what WASN'T being said.

Peace,
Max

 

[Mistwell]

In practice, no. Why do you ask?

Can't really ask that when you cut the part that answers the question. You know, the whole part about how no world is perfect and time is focused on priorities which include things the players will encounter, and the analogy to the worm, etc..you know, most of the post which was devoted to answering that question?

And no, an opportunity attack isn't an additional action. It's just a melee attack, possibly as little as 1/4 of an action. Not so with Warcaster.

Why do you get an opportunity attack only for a hostile creature leaving your threatened area (that's the rule, in black and white, no question about it), and not for an ally leaving that area? All of a sudden you seem focused on balance issues (1/4 vs 1 action), which you earlier claimed was not your concern...

 

[cmad1977]

If anyone in my game tried to declare themselves hostile to their own party in order to gain some minute advantage they would be laughed at at ridiculed by the rest of the group. In a good/friendly way... Cuz we're friends... But it would be pretty ruthless.

But none of us would come up with something so inane.