Self-adjacency

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Somewhere or other I picked up the idea that creatures are considered to be adjacent to themselves.

Did I pick this up from D&D 4e's RAW, RAI, or la-la land?
La-la-land Wink

You're never adjacent to yourself. It's two creatures that are considered adjacent if they are in the same square.


RC 201 Adjacent Squares: Two squares are adjacent if a side or a corner of one touches a side or a corner of the other. Two creatures or objects are adjacent if one of them occupies a square adjacent to a square occupied bor filled by the other. or if they are in the same square. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Ah, but are you in the same square as yourself?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Ah, but are you in the same square as yourself?


1 creature or object is never 2 creatures or obects.

The description of the game term "adjacent" states an explicit requirement for 2 creatures or objects.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

I remember now where I got the idea. Somewhere aroud here there's a discussion of the question whether you can use Hypnotize to have a creature attack itself. I thought the consensus was "unfortunately, according to RAW, 'yes,' since it can attack any adjacent creature and it is adjacent to itself".

But that would be faulty reasoning, correct?
Reading the text for "Hypnotism" I see it says "A creature of your choice," not "an adjacent creature," so that must not be where I got the idea. Or it is and I was just confused while reading the discussion.
I remember now where I got the idea. Somewhere aroud here there's a discussion of the question whether you can use Hypnotize to have a creature attack itself. I thought the consensus was "unfortunately, according to RAW, 'yes,' since it can attack any adjacent creature and it is adjacent to itself".

But that would be faulty reasoning, correct?



Hypnotism allow the target to make a melee basic attack against a creature of your choice... and never mention adjacency. Therefore you can make the target attack itself, since it is within its own Reach.

Hypnotism: The target uses a free action to make a melee basic attack against a creature of  your choice, with a +4 power bonus to the attack roll.


EDITED Ok I saw you remarked it by your post right after.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Me, Myself, and I disagree about not being ajacent.

We are the Holy Trinity.

Damn.....Logic just killed the Catholic faith.
Amazed at how obtuse people can be since 1972.
Yo mama's so fat, she's adjacent to herself...? :P
As far as I am aware, you're not adjacent to yourself, but you are always within your melee reach, so you can be made to attack yourself if dominated, or if a power says "make a melee basic attack against a creature". Mind you,  since most beneficial effects are allies only (you are NOT your own ally), or "you or one ally", and most harmful effects are optional. It would take something with the wording "one adjacent creature" for this ruling to matter, and that seems to only make a difference in the powers that force an enemy to make an MBA, but the intention there is probably more to prevent using it with reach than to prevent the creature attacking itself. There are a couple "push each adjacent creature", but you can't push yourself anyway (since you cant end up further away from yourself than you started).
"I am the seeker, I am the stalker, I am the walrus"
Ah, but are you in the same square as yourself?



If you are, then you cannot move 0 squares on your move action as the square is already occupied.

The rules, you are destroying them.

Edit: As for a serious point, there are some charm powers that specify hitting an adjacent creature. Possessing Spirits (Seeker 1) is a quick example I found in the Compendium. Crown of Madness (Warlock 5) is probably a more common example. But as mentioned, you cannot be adjacent to yourself as "adjacent" is clearly defined.
Yo mama's so fat, she's adjacent to herself...? :P



This is, actually, a good point.  If you occupy more than one square (if you are large, for example, or ar mounted on a large creature) you are adjacent to yourself.  At least you were pre RC, it may have changed.
Yo mama's so fat, she's adjacent to herself...? :P



This is, actually, a good point.  If you occupy more than one square (if you are large, for example, or ar mounted on a large creature) you are adjacent to yourself.  At least you were pre RC, it may have changed.



As Plague quoted earlier:

RC 201 Adjacent Squares: Two squares are adjacent if a side or a corner of one touches a side or a corner of the other. Two creatures or objects are adjacent if one of them occupies a square adjacent to a square occupied or filled by the other, or if they are in the same square. 

Since you are not two creatures or objects, you can't be adjacent to yourself even if you occupy two squares.
Yo mama's so fat, she's adjacent to herself...? :P



This is, actually, a good point.  If you occupy more than one square (if you are large, for example, or ar mounted on a large creature) you are adjacent to yourself.  At least you were pre RC, it may have changed.



As Plague quoted earlier:

RC 201 Adjacent Squares: Two squares are adjacent if a side or a corner of one touches a side or a corner of the other. Two creatures or objects are adjacent if one of them occupies a square adjacent to a square occupied or filled by the other, or if they are in the same square. 

Since you are not two creatures or objects, you can't be adjacent to yourself even if you occupy two squares.



Oops, yes, you're right.  I was thinking of the logic which allowed a rider to be adjacent to his mount before the RC added the "in the same square" verbage.