What is an enemy?

[DracoSuave]

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...

How is that a question?

Is the creature in question a willing recipient of your powers -in general-? Yes? Ally. No? Enemy.

His eventual plans to destroy you and betray you have nothing to do with that question. When he does betray you, then OBVIOUSLY he becomes your enemy.

The DM doesn't have to do any sort of trapping or being on the spot.

You're making it seem a lot more complicated than it really is.

And if he doesn't trust you, and you know it, then the DM is well within his rights to say 'Enemy' and your powers work on him in that way.

The 'are you willing for this power as a free action' is abusable as noted above. The rule's not supposed to be used to interchange your status on an action to action basis.

It's simple, and the DM has more than enough power to execute it properly.

 

[Flipguarder]

Yeah draco is right. If you are being legalistic enough that this is an issue. It is certainly not your biggest issue.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Just as an aside dracosuave... why exactly were you expecting a question?

And on the main topic:
So you're both of the opinion that players never ever figure out who the traitor is before the DM does the reveal?

This isn't rules-lawyering. It's a situation that could come up, and it's a lot less preventable than, say, not writing dumb-ass powers that work better if you hate your friends.

 

[DracoSuave]

Just as an aside dracosuave... why exactly were you expecting a question?

Meaning that there's no rules question involved, no grey space. No corner case. The default rule works -perfectly.-

And on the main topic:
So you're both of the opinion that players never ever figure out who the traitor is before the DM does the reveal?

I never said that players could never figure it out.

I never implied that players could never figure it out.

However... if the question you are asking is:

'Do you believe that players could have the information revealed before the information is revealed?' I will reply 'Your question is rediculous.'

If your question is 'Don't you think the players could figure it out and attack him before he does his reveal?' my reply is 'Well yes, and at that point, I'd say he's pretty unwilling to get blasted in the face, and so he's OBVIOUSLY the enemy.'

And again, there's no rules problem.

This isn't rules-lawyering. It's a situation that could come up, and it's a lot less preventable than, say, not writing dumb-ass powers that work better if you hate your friends.

It's a situation that could come up that doesn't have anything to do with any corner case of the rule. The rule works in all cases you've given so far, AND counters the 'dumb-ass powers' example you just mentioned now.

 

[Akaiku]

Ah, well, then Shamen's positioning of their pet got a bit eaiser with the rule that enemies are creatures. You can only Attack of oppertunity enemies. Enemies are a type of creature, which a shamen pet is not. Therefore you can't AOO them and then can float around with impunity.

 

[DracoSuave]

Ah, well, then Shamen's positioning of their pet got a bit eaiser with the rule that enemies are creatures. You can only Attack of oppertunity enemies. Enemies are a type of creature, which a shamen pet is not. Therefore you can't AOO them and then can float around with impunity.

It's not like positioning a Shaman's pet was (minor action, minor action) difficult to begin with tho.