Willing Targets

[RillianPA]

So does anyone actually have any factual evidence that it is or isnt supported?

So far no one has presented any references either way. I grant that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to give evidence that something isnt in the rules. I have done fairly thorough research and havent found any support for this.

I think Saeviomagy's idea is interesting, but really too great a penalty for the reward.

As an aside -

The shotgun example is totally inappropriate. The power I'm concerned with (follow Mort_Q's link, if you are not familiar with it), is INTENDED to aid hit allies. It allows the wizard to rearrange the battlefield by sliding all creatures that are hit (without doing any damage), and then strike an enemy and whoever the wizard left adjacent to the enemy for damage.

But how about a more interesting example - How about a target that is healed or gains temporary hit points from fire damage. He is your enemy, but when he sees the wizard casting Fireball, he chooses to "take it" so that he gets the healing / temp hps.

 

[RillianPA]

Yeah, you're out of luck on that one. There is no support for it. Even an unconscious target can't be hit automatically.

So following up on this and Saeviomagy's idea

Unconscious
You’re helpless.
You take a -5 penalty to all defenses.
You can’t take actions.
You fall prone, if possible.
You can’t flank an enemy.
You are unaware of your surroundings.

Helpless
• You grant combat advantage.
• You can be the target of a coup de grace.
Note: Usually you’re helpless because you’re unconscious.

From "Move a Grabbed target"
To move a grabbed target, you must succeed on a Strength attack. However, helpless allies are treated as objects; you just pick them up and move them.

There is the concept of automatic hit in the game.
I only have rules for moving a grabbed target that is an helpless ally, but at least this is a start. Can anyone find any better references?

 

[Ferghis]

Personally I'd allow players to apply the following negative statuses to themselves as an immediate action OR as a free action during their own turn:
helpless
blind

and to remove them as an immediate action or as a free action during their own turn (assuming they're voluntarily afflicted of course).

And the following with some effort (ie - a standard action + some required equipment)
deaf
restrained
immobilized
slowed

So if you really, really want to get hit by that aoe blast and get flung across the room, you can spend your immediate action to become helpless or blind before they do it, taking a penalty to all defenses. You'll then stay that way until your turn though, so it's a nasty risk.

This is good analysis, but I disagree with it. Saeviomagy properly quantifies the action cost of a PC imposing some conditions on him/her/itself, but I'm not sure that's the proper way of going about business of playing out a cooperative target. I hate to take a simulationist take with 4e, but it's the only way to talk about what exactly is going on. A willing target of an attack is not closing her eyes, plugging her ears, and tying herself up. She's going to stand mostly still, make herself as big a target she can, and do her best to get in the way of THAT attack. It doesn't mean she can't dodge or block other attacks she is aware of. It's the kind of thing where you might just give a flat +5 to hit and call it a day.

The power I'm concerned with (follow Mort_Q's link, if you are not familiar with it), is INTENDED to aid hit allies.

For what it's worth, I don't think the Scattering Shock was necessarily intended to target allies. I think targeting an ally is a reasonably foreseeable use, and I don't condemn that one bit. But the spirit of the power sounds like it piles up a bunch of enemies and then zaps them. And I'm not saying this just to disagree with you. I think that Wizards neglected a small part of the game where a player might want to attack another PC. The only reason I'm uncertain about just giving a flat bonus is that I'm afraid of the effect it will have on grabs, as I outlined above.

 

[frankthedm]

Can anyone find any better references?

4E DMG's notation on "Bag of rats".

 

[RillianPA]

4E DMG's notation on "Bag of rats".

I fail to see how this is a "Bag of rats" scenario. There is no misuse of the power in this scenario.

 

[RillianPA]

...
For what it's worth, I don't think the Scattering Shock was necessarily intended to target allies. I think targeting an ally is a reasonably foreseeable use, and I don't condemn that one bit. But the spirit of the power sounds like it piles up a bunch of enemies and then zaps them. And I'm not saying this just to disagree with you. I think that Wizards neglected a small part of the game where a player might want to attack another PC. The only reason I'm uncertain about just giving a flat bonus is that I'm afraid of the effect it will have on grabs, as I outlined above.

If it helps any, I would claim that grabs are a different condition from a free standing ally. A grabbed ally is held immobile by the enemy, and thus could not choose to be hit (assuming anyone rules that allies can "choose to be hit").

 

[Ferghis]

If it helps any, I would claim that grabs are a different condition from a free standing ally. A grabbed ally is held immobile by the enemy, and thus could not choose to be hit (assuming anyone rules that allies can "choose to be hit").

Setting aside the fact that grabs are not a condition, why would a grabbed person have more difficulty making themselves easier to hit than, say, someone who is restrained? I'm not necessarily opposed to the ruling, but it sounds suspiciously like it views a grabbed person as unable to act, which clashes very much with the notion that, aside from being unable to move to another square, the character can do anything they want.

 

[Jhaelen]

I fail to see how this is a "Bag of rats" scenario. There is no misuse of the power in this scenario.

Of course there is. You're getting an automatic hit instead of having to roll.

What kind of action do you suppose it would take to turn yourself into an auto-hit target? Even immobile objects cannot be hit automatically!

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

So does anyone actually have any factual evidence that it is or isnt supported?

So far no one has presented any references either way. I grant that it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to give evidence that something isnt in the rules. I have done fairly thorough research and havent found any support for this.

Yeah, your doing something that, in legal terms, is called "making us prove a negative" - which is simply something that in most cases simply can't be done.

I think you have your own answer right there - you've done your research, and you haven't found it. That's because its not there. The fact that its not there is our factual evidence that its not supported. If it was supported, the rules would say something about the topic.

As an added note, it is extremely rare for a power to need to hit your allies to benefit them - rather, most powers that affect both enemies and allies affect the allies automatically. Indeed, this is the first time I've ever heard of a power that work's differently.

 

[firesnakearies]

I was wondering about something similar myself, based on reading this NPC:


http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/monster.aspx?id=4372


Look at his Reorder Reality power. Obviously, it would useful to use this on allies and enemies both, even on himself and allies, or himself and enemies, or any combination thereof.

So I wondered, "Why couldn't allies choose not to resist this power? Or he, himself?"

Would he need to roll to hit himself if he wanted to be one of the targets?