Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storyteller01" data-source="post: 1904790" data-attributes="member: 20931">Right, but can you give a real time example, or just an example whose reasoning is not based on the 'rules don't say I can't' arguement, where you would deliberately kill (deliberately drop the hp to 0 or less) an ally to gain an extra attack out of turn on an opponent. Please note that there is a definite intent to drop the hp to 0. IMHO, it is not the same as the wizard taking the risk of a fireball on the party. If I read the response right (i apologize if I do not) the wizard is banking on the fact that some or all the players have a chance of surviving. the wizard is not hoping or betting on dropping the players hp to 0Why would a paladin say 'okay, I'll kill this celestial being in front of me, and hope the follow though will hit the BBEG'Or worse yet 'the celestial critter is in the way. I'll take the shot, since it's only a summoned critter, and being hacked in half will not cause permanent harm." Why would a good creature say "I'll stab through my buddy, whose grappling with the BBEG, into the BBEG himself [edit] without the direct consent of said buddy" ?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I can see this one (and I think I have somewhere  :\ . 'player to player': Dude, why did you do that?You were dying.But I wasn't dead yet. Oops, sorry. It's okay. You would have been anyway. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />(just a joke folks)I can see allowing it under very specific circumstances, but to allow it to be used as a standard tactic, because the RAW allows it, with no further thought or explaination as to why they do it. Just because "the rules allow it"?Also, why is attacking a summoned creature different from attacking a fellow player? (I know, I've asked before, but I'm still not satisfied with previous answers. No insult intended.) Assuming that the spell does not create constructs for these creatures to control (spell does not specifically say that it does, and this seems overly complicated for a 1st level spell IMHO), why is the creature different? Both come back from the dead (one requires a bit more effort, but most DM's don't make too big a deal of it), and the consequences they suffer from the attack have little impact on you (player may be PO'd and try to kill you later, but the lost level is easily regained).I'm not condoning either action, just want to know: why is attacking one intelligent creature who trusts you different from the other? Why is it an accepted tactic when you would not do this anywhere else? Heck, when is deliberately killing an ally able to grant extra attacks at all (not counting the RAW)? So far, the only examples that have managed not to base their reasoning soley on the RAW have been decidedly evil. Claiming that such an action is not evil is fine, But I have a hard time see that using this, is not evil, or worng, or just a manipulation of the rules.Guess this horse ain't dead yet! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification