Indirectly Injuring Other PCs

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
From the CCG 1.99:  If you are in control of your character and want to use a power that could include other PCs in its area of effect, always ask the players controlling the affected characters if it’s OK to damage or otherwise hinder their character before you make the attack. If they agree, you may proceed, but if any of the affected players does not wish you to attack or otherwise hinder his or her PC, you must respect their wishes. This could mean retargeting the power so that it doesn't include the other PC in the area of effect, or choosing a different power altogether, depending on the situation.


The above rules seem to cover Area of Effect powers; but what happens if you know that targetting/hitting a monster will hinder other characters?

For example, a Boneshard Skeleton that may explode or a monster that redirects attacks. Does the hindered player just have to suck it up and deal with the extra damage since it was indirectly caused to them, whether the intent of the attacking player was malicious or not?
This is a can of purple worms I'd rather not see get opened up. Too many questions. For example, if the final blow was dealt by someone with a low Religion skill, he could easily argue he didn't "know" the boneshard would explode.

You could also argue that if this is passed, then arguments like "I'm going to move my defender to here!" "No you can't, that exposes me to a charge from the brute. I deny permission to make that move" are going to happen.

I think the power as stated is pretty clear that the boneshard skeleton isn't covered.

If you aren't targeting your party member then it isn't an issue just because the monster has a power that might effect your party member. My wife (who hasn't played much 4th ed) recently used her daily power against a monster that could redirect the attack and almost killed (dead, not just negative) the defender. Of course if you know or suspect a specific effect it would be nice to ask if they would be ok with the effect, but exploding monsters are hard for everyone to avoid and with redirecting monsters you learn to widdle them down slowly or prevent the redirect.
Try to follow the 'don't be a jerk rule'. If your PC is aware of the indirect damage option, double check with your fellow players, if not, than there is little point to blame the player. If the player knows, but the PC doesn't it becomes a bit more difficult to judge. Personally I would not meta-game, unless my fellow players are all in dungeon delve mode and such a level of metagaming is expected of all (including the DM). Still, if I know the indirect damage is going to actually kill a PC, I still might refraining from doing so. We can certainly not use the same rule as for purposely dealt damage. There are simply too many exceptions to this particular situation.
Try to follow the 'don't be a jerk rule'.


This, absolutely.

It goes both ways, too. Don't make monsters explode near other characters if you think this causes a big problem for them - but also, don't complain about monsters exploding near you if you've got plenty of hit points and/or surges remaining.
I can see in character communication here.  "Hey, Jonas, you look pretty hurt! If that monster dies, he will explode and that might kill you.  Move away."  If he yells back, "I will take my chances," go ahead.

Keith
Keith Hoffman LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
Player A:  Hurk!  Glack!
Player B: Cripes!  The Bugbear Strangler has Petey!  I attack it with a Magic Missile!
Player C:  No!  You can't!  You might damage Petey.  He has to give you his permission first.
Player B:  I dont' think he can talk.
Player C: Doesn't matter, it's in the CCG.
Player A: Gak!!!
Player B: Is Petey normally that color?
Player C: Just ask him if it's ok.  If he says yes, attack away.
Player B:  Petey, is it ok if I attack the bugbear?
Player A: Gggglllghhhrr... blak!
Player B:  What did that sound like to you?
Player C:  I don't know... ask him again.
Player B: Petey.  Can. I. Attack. The. Bugbear?
Player A: Ffffffffffffffffffffff................
Player B: I think he's unconcious.
Player C: Hang on.  I use Healign Word on Petey.
Player A: GLARG!
Player B:  heh... it's like some weird form of torture.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Heh, awesome post, Mr. 9.
Player A:  Hurk!  Glack!
Player B: Cripes!  The Bugbear Strangler has Petey!  I attack it with a Magic Missile!
Player C:  No!  You can't!  You might damage Petey.  He has to give you his permission first.
Player B:  I dont' think he can talk.
Player C: Doesn't matter, it's in the CCG.
Player A: Gak!!!
Player B: Is Petey normally that color?
Player C: Just ask him if it's ok.  If he says yes, attack away.
Player B:  Petey, is it ok if I attack the bugbear?
Player A: Gggglllghhhrr... blak!
Player B:  What did that sound like to you?
Player C:  I don't know... ask him again.
Player B: Petey.  Can. I. Attack. The. Bugbear?
Player A: Ffffffffffffffffffffff................
Player B: I think he's unconcious.
Player C: Hang on.  I use Healign Word on Petey.
Player A: GLARG!
Player B:  heh... it's like some weird form of torture.


Yeah I had a situtation (in a Dark Sun Encounters game) where my Ardent was immobilized, adjacent to a friendly party member, and needed to revive a dying ally five squares away. The only healing the charactor had left was Energizing Strike having used both Ardent Surges on the Battlemind. So the Ardent had to attack the adjacent party member in order to save another from death thankfully I rolled low on the damage.    
Yeah I had a situtation (in a Dark Sun Encounters game) where my Ardent was immobilized, adjacent to a friendly party member, and needed to revive a dying ally five squares away. The only healing the charactor had left was Energizing Strike having used both Ardent Surges on the Battlemind. So the Ardent had to attack the adjacent party member in order to save another from death thankfully I rolled low on the damage.    



That is actually against the rules for Legitimate Targets on DMG page 40.

Yeah I had a situtation (in a Dark Sun Encounters game) where my Ardent was immobilized, adjacent to a friendly party member, and needed to revive a dying ally five squares away. The only healing the charactor had left was Energizing Strike having used both Ardent Surges on the Battlemind. So the Ardent had to attack the adjacent party member in order to save another from death thankfully I rolled low on the damage.    



That is actually against the rules for Legitimate Targets on DMG page 40.



"When a power has an effect that occurs upon hitting a
target—or reducing a target to 0 hit points—the power
functions only when the target in question is a meaningful
threat"

To me the term "meaningful threat" simply means that the target has to be a threat to something on the battlefield    





To me the term "meaningful threat" simply means that the target has to be a threat to something on the battlefield

A meaningful threat generally needs to be a meaningful threat to you.

In any event, though, there's a reason why that rule is in the DMG.  A meaningful threat is whatever the DM says is a meaningful threat, and if he didn't think it was a bag of rats, then it's fine.


To me the term "meaningful threat" simply means that the target has to be a threat to something on the battlefield


Yeah! Because this bagful of rats I'm carrying is totally a meaningful threat to my slice of gouda!

To me the term "meaningful threat" simply means that the target has to be a threat to something on the battlefield


Yeah! Because this bagful of rats I'm carrying is totally a meaningful threat to my slice of gouda!


That is a lie. Rats don't like cheese. You need peanutbutter ;)
I'd definitely have allowed that one.
  ...but only because of the situation. If you wanted to do the same thing out of combat for some reason (eg he was regenerating anyway and it made for efficient party healing  -I don't know Ardents) it wouldn't work.


This is clearly not a case of 'bag o'rats' but I wouldn't accept the definition of meaningful threat "to something on the battlefield" as that would allow you to pour out the rats and then hit your party members (or your bag of cats!).
I think "there is a meaningful threat to the party" would be a better wording but the principle should be clear.