When is an enemy not an enemy?

[DracoSuave]

This works the other way too. If you want to use an ally only power on a target, then that's your choice, not theirs. If they were your enemy, why would they refuse? So if they're your ally, it's even more of a reason to accept it.

I can think three words that say why they would refuse.

Dark. Pact. Warlock.

Your Glorious Sacrifice Warlock (Dark) Attack 1
Daily ✦ Arcane, Implement, Necrotic, Poison
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Effect: Before the attack, you can deal damage to an ally adjacent to you equal to your Charisma modifier. If you do so, you gain a +2 bonus to the attack roll.
Attack: Charisma vs. Fortitude
Hit: 3d8 + Charisma modifier damage. If you dealt damage to an ally as part of this power, the target takes ongoing poison damage equal to your Charisma modifier (save ends).
Dark Pact: The ongoing damage is instead equal to your Intelligence modifier + your Charisma modifier.
Miss: Half damage, and no ongoing damage.


Yeah, I don't see myself being allowed to deal 4 damage to that kobold as a 'cost' for dealing 8 ongoing damage to that dragon over yonder.z

Fortunately, the rules allow for that kobold to say he is unwilling to receive this power.

 

[Camelot]

It just goes to show that everything - everything - is completely situational. Diplomat, do what works for your game, whatever will make it the most fun. If you find that your decision isn't that fun, switch it up on the fly. It's the best part about tabletop RPGs.

 

[DracoSuave]

It just goes to show that everything - everything - is completely situational. Diplomat, do what works for your game, whatever will make it the most fun. If you find that your decision isn't that fun, switch it up on the fly. It's the best part about tabletop RPGs.

This is true.

Hell, I might even be tempted to -allow- the above Dark Pact warlock to -blast- the hostages so he can murder the kidnappers faster. Not because it's RAW, but because it is awesomebad, and because there would be consequences.

 

[Rothe_]

I think a good way to do this is to have the "victims" act as enemies until they are "turned". So, if you have some kind of mind control or something like that, you can just have rules for it. Lets say it makes the victim and enemy as long as it is in effect. The mind control can be reversed with a skill check (heal? Diplomacy?) and after a successful check, the victim in question becomes an ally.

The "enemy victims" can be quite harmless, but they might run around and occasionally attack the characters (perhaps just unarmed attacks). Spells that target enemies would still work on them.

No problems for your players to live with that rule, I think.

 

[Jhaelen]

A PC gets to choose whom to consider an enemy at the moment she's using a power.

 

[Starfox]

A PC gets to choose whom to consider an enemy at the moment she's using a power.

QFT

Not being your ally means it is your enemy.

Not necessarily so.

Imagine using an "targets enemies only" power on a crowd of innocent shoppers infiltrated by enemies and having the Coordinated Explosion feat.

Heroic Tier
Benefit: When you use any implement power that creates a burst or a blast, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls against the power’s targets if at least one ally is within the burst or the blast.

To continue the example of using an enemies-only burst on this mixed crowd: Fist, you state that only the guys in black robes and red sashes are your enemies and everyone else is your friend. Second, everyone in the area gets to decide if they want to be your friends. The DM is well within his rights to say the shoppers are to frightened and undecided to make this decision and thus not give any advantage trough the feat. This does not mean they are suddenly your enemies and take damage, but neither are they your allies and give you the bonus.

There exists a case were a creature is neither an ally nor an enemy. You could call this condition neutral, but for all rules purposes not-ally and not-enemy is the correct appellation. In common parlance, this would be called a neutral or bystander.

 

[Saeviomagy]

There exists a case were a creature is neither an ally nor an enemy. You could call this condition neutral, but for all rules purposes not-ally and not-enemy is the correct appellation. In common parlance, this would be called a neutral or bystander.

The rules say that if someone is not your ally, they're your enemy.

Also they say that "ally" automatically means "willing ally".

Therefore an ally is someone whom you consider a friend (<-- this is the only bit of this that's on shaky ground), and whom will allow you to target them with an "affects allies" power (which actually would include most would-be enemies).

Anyone else is an enemy.

 

[N0Man]

I think people are being too literal with the term "enemy". I don't think it's intended to literally refer to the reaction level, just like "Bloodied" doesn't literally mean that the target has to be bleeding.

From reading the rules, it appears that "Enemy" means someone who is not your "Ally", and that includes those that are neutral to you.

I think sometimes players *should* be careful about how they toss around their powers.

 

[DracoSuave]

Not necessarily so.

Necessarily so. RTFB.

Imagine using an "targets enemies only" power on a crowd of innocent shoppers infiltrated by enemies and having the Coordinated Explosion feat.

I am imagining it.

To continue the example of using an enemies-only burst on this mixed crowd: Fist, you state that only the guys in black robes and red sashes are your enemies and everyone else is your friend. Second, everyone in the area gets to decide if they want to be your friends. The DM is well within his rights to say the shoppers are to frightened and undecided to make this decision and thus not give any advantage trough the feat. This does not mean they are suddenly your enemies and take damage, but neither are they your allies and give you the bonus.

There are three states of being as a creature. You. Ally. Enemy. You are defined. Ally is clearly defined. Enemy is everything else, straight from the book.

So, the shoppers would be your allies. And you'd get +1 to hit.

1 ally? +1 to hit.
4? +1 to hit.
1000 shoppers? +1 to hit.

You're not making a strong case.

There exists a case were a creature is neither an ally nor an enemy. You could call this condition neutral, but for all rules purposes not-ally and not-enemy is the correct appellation. In common parlance, this would be called a neutral or bystander.

I think you need to reread what 'enemy' and 'ally' mean before you chime in.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Deleted. Apparently, I need to learn to read.