Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="moxcamel" data-source="post: 5466743" data-attributes="member: 67954">I stand corrected, I didn't realize they'd defined &quot;enemy&quot; in Essentials.RC pg 106:So let's go with that definition.&nbsp; Note the use of the word &quot;power&quot; in the definition.&nbsp; The enemy is the opponent of the power's user.Power has a very specific definition in this game too, so if you're going to go with the letter of the law for enemy, then you need to go with the letter of the law for power.&nbsp; A Power is not a Feature (pg 77, HotFL).Following your logic that my ally cannot be an &quot;enemy,&quot; it means I can't force a Dominated PC to use *any* power against one of his allies.&nbsp; Because if I did, that ally would be &quot;an opponent of the power's user,&quot; which would make him my enemy.In fact, given the strictest reading of this definition, the whole system breaks down.&nbsp; Sneak Attack--a class feature, not a power--depends on hitting an &quot;enemy.&quot;&nbsp; But an enemy is the &quot;opponent of your power.&quot;&nbsp; So by a completely literal reading, either Sneak Attack is broken, or &quot;enemy&quot; is broken, because both cannot coexist.And this is why I keep trying to make the point that you need to look at the spirit of the rule, and not to just parse it uncritically.&nbsp; Blame Wizards if you want, but as you can see this is not as clear cut as you insist.You're insisting that for the sneak attack to work, there would have to be some huge underlying shift on the nature of your party member's attitude towards you, that they would somehow have to become an enemy in the broadest use of the term.&nbsp; I don't see that this has to be necessarily the case, and furthermore I think I've shown that the rules don't support such a strict interpretation.&nbsp; Your ally can be your &quot;enemy&quot; within the confines of the sneak attack being performed.&nbsp; In fact, that fits perfectly within the underlying &quot;specific beats general&quot; design philosophy of 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="moxcamel, post: 5466743, member: 67954"] I stand corrected, I didn't realize they'd defined "enemy" in Essentials. RC pg 106: So let's go with that definition. Note the use of the word "power" in the definition. The enemy is the opponent of the [U]power's[/U] user. Power has a very specific definition in this game too, so if you're going to go with the letter of the law for enemy, then you need to go with the letter of the law for power. A Power is not a Feature (pg 77, HotFL). Following your logic that my ally cannot be an "enemy," it means I can't force a Dominated PC to use *any* power against one of his allies. Because if I did, that ally would be "an opponent of the power's user," which would make him my enemy. In fact, given the strictest reading of this definition, the whole system breaks down. Sneak Attack--a class feature, not a power--depends on hitting an "enemy." But an enemy is the "opponent of your [I]power[/I]." So by a completely literal reading, either Sneak Attack is broken, or "enemy" is broken, because both cannot coexist. And this is why I keep trying to make the point that you need to look at the spirit of the rule, and not to just parse it uncritically. Blame Wizards if you want, but as you can see this is not as clear cut as you insist. You're insisting that for the sneak attack to work, there would have to be some huge underlying shift on the nature of your party member's attitude towards you, that they would somehow have to become an enemy in the broadest use of the term. I don't see that this has to be necessarily the case, and furthermore I think I've shown that the rules don't support such a strict interpretation. Your ally can be your "enemy" within the confines of the sneak attack being performed. In fact, that fits perfectly within the underlying "specific beats general" design philosophy of 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification