What is an enemy?

[xXElaDriNDrizZztXx]

–noun 1. a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent. 2. an armed foe; an opposing military force: The army attacked the enemy at dawn. 3. a hostile nation or state. 4. a citizen of such a state. 5. enemies, persons, nations, etc., that are hostile to one another: Let's make up and stop being enemies. 6. something harmful or prejudical: His unbridled ambition is his worst enemy. 7. the Enemy, the Devil; Satan.
–adjective 8. belonging to a hostile power or to any of its nationals: enemy property. 9. Obsolete. inimical; ill-disposed.

 

[mneme]

–noun 1. a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent. (etc)

So, basically, your fellow party members. Well, if you're channelling Belkar or they've done something particularly dumb lately, anyway.

Well, generally such an attack involves an attack roll to hit those enemies in that burst, which means to teleport your allies, you need to attack them.

The power I've seen this come up on is the Avenger 7, Splinter the Formation (attack one enemy, on a hit, 1w and teleport every enemy within 2 of it). So in that case, there is a substantial bump if you allow the player to consider allies enemies. (of course, it's a 1w encounter 7 power -- but if you've got someone with burst attacks in the party, a very powerful one if you stagger initiatives appropriately or ready an action).

 

[Benlo]

A miserable pile of XPs.

An XP of your own for that, made my day.

Good question, one I've had a little trouble with at times, not due to power abuse, but roleplaying concerns when a character I've had cooperate with the party had not earned their trust, but who they needed to let live for the story to progress properly. Luckily, I managed to keep him out of trouble by having him "snagged" by an enemy's whip and dragged out of where he was likely going to eat an AoE in a turn or two, since I wasn't sure what the mechanics were myself to keep him out of the explosion.

 

[Nebten]

And enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Oh man, I just turned this discussion on its head now didn't it? =v)

 

[DracoSuave]

The power I've seen this come up on is the Avenger 7, Splinter the Formation (attack one enemy, on a hit, 1w and teleport every enemy within 2 of it). So in that case, there is a substantial bump if you allow the player to consider allies enemies. (of course, it's a 1w encounter 7 power -- but if you've got someone with burst attacks in the party, a very powerful one if you stagger initiatives appropriately or ready an action).

Then in this case, you can use the rule.

Would that character be willing to allow you to teleport them? An ally would, as said teleport would mean to be in their favor. Therefore they are not your enemy. And the rule cannot be tricked by saying 'No... teehee... oh hey that worked out after all, how convenient!'

Enemies, on the other hand, are those teleported to unfavorable or unwilling positions, and therefore are unwilling, and therefore not allies.

 

[mneme]

Which is squidgy, being a matter of intent, but entirely viable for practical purposes and ruleable by any competent GM. (when you teleport your non-flying allies over a cliff, you're probably being legitimate in considering them enemies. When you teleport them to flanking positions or out of melee? Not so much).

OTOH, if one goes with that and lets a controller use an "enemies only" area spell to hit allies for the secondary effect [and damage], it's a bit inconsistent, as in the second case the attacker is pretty clearly intending to hit allies for their putative mutual benefit, rather than -really- considering them enemies.

 

[DracoSuave]

Which is squidgy, being a matter of intent, but entirely viable for practical purposes and ruleable by any competent GM. (when you teleport your non-flying allies over a cliff, you're probably being legitimate in considering them enemies. When you teleport them to flanking positions or out of melee? Not so much).

OTOH, if one goes with that and lets a controller use an "enemies only" area spell to hit allies for the secondary effect [and damage], it's a bit inconsistent, as in the second case the attacker is pretty clearly intending to hit allies for their putative mutual benefit, rather than -really- considering them enemies.

Well the entire rules of Ally/Enemy are intent and will based. Fortunately, you have a judge there to go 'Well... it's obvious this.' It's not a card game played between two people who are equals and opposed to each other, so you can afford to have interpretive leeway. In fact, that interpretive leeway is a -good thing- when it's in the hands of a single person who isn't invested in the performance of a singular character. I.E., a DM.

 

[Mirtek]

I go with ally being a mutual thing and enemy being unilateral to be decided as free actions.

So if both the user of the power and the attacked creature agree on being allies they're allies, if one of the two disagrees they're enemies.

 

[DracoSuave]

I go with ally being a mutual thing and enemy being unilateral to be decided as free actions.

So if both the user of the power and the attacked creature agree on being allies they're allies, if one of the two disagrees they're enemies.

'So you teleport all enemies within 2 squares of him 2 squares eh?'
'Yeah. Oh hey, Bob, Joe, I'm like totally turning on you now as a free action, so, like grrr.'
'Grrrr!'
'RAWR! ENEMY!'
'Okay, DM, so Bob and Doug... I'm teleporting them flanking... oh this BBEG over here.'
'You scum!'
'Scoundrel!'
'Oh, and hey, you're allies again.'
'Sweet!'
'Cool! Good thing our enemies are dumb enough to put us in flanking positions around the evil, eh?'
'Yeah. So... sneak attack time...'



Yeah. No, it shouldn't be that simple. The DM decides these things, based on -real- intent, not on what works for the moment.

 

[Saeviomagy]

'So you teleport all enemies within 2 squares of him 2 squares eh?'
'Yeah. Oh hey, Bob, Joe, I'm like totally turning on you now as a free action, so, like grrr.'
'Grrrr!'
'RAWR! ENEMY!'
'Okay, DM, so Bob and Doug... I'm teleporting them flanking... oh this BBEG over here.'
'You scum!'
'Scoundrel!'
'Oh, and hey, you're allies again.'
'Sweet!'
'Cool! Good thing our enemies are dumb enough to put us in flanking positions around the evil, eh?'
'Yeah. So... sneak attack time...'

Yeah. No, it shouldn't be that simple. The DM decides these things, based on -real- intent, not on what works for the moment.

...they were 2 squares away from where they wanted to be. It is seriously not a big deal.

Personally I think the only sensible rule is "a creature is my ally if he and I both agree that he is for the purpose of that particular power" and "a creature is my enemy if either he OR I disagree with him being considered an ally for a power". That stops all kinds of bizarre nonsense, such as ally-targeting powers being used to detect traitors, or a player who has an inkling that an ally is actually a traitor, trapping the DM as to whether he allows the targetting or not...

The number of powers where designating an ally as an enemy is problematic is slight, and the actual problems caused are going to be very minor.

As to powers versus objects? In general, a DM can probably feel free to allow it and a player should avoid assuming it. The "at the DM's discretion" rulings are merely to prevent nonsensical combinations and bag of rats rules from being par for the course.