Community

Now that I've finally located the correct forum for my question, here it is:

I've heard that including other party members in attacks requires permission from the player whose character you would be attacking, but I haven't seen that in any documentation.  It's entirely possible that I'm looking in the wrong places, but could anybody help a brotha out?

pg. 3 of the LFR Character Creation Guide v 1.9. under "It's a team game" ... "If you are in control of your character and have an attack that includes PCs in its 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."

Yes. That rule exists for a reason. I know three players in my immediate area that will immediately and without hesitation attack other party members (by which I mean directly attack them, not that they happen to be in the way for an area attack). In all three cases the player was being immature, and the DM was not really able to deal with that.

Case one led to a lengthy talk of most of the table against the player to stop doing that; case two led to everybody leaving the game in question; case three was simply ignored by everyone. Even if that rule wasn't in the CCG, a DM would be well within his rights to stop it on grounds that it is not fun.

(yes, with a group of good friends, interparty backstabbing can be fun; and no, an RPGA table frequently isn't such a group)

What about if, for example, a fellow party member is grabbed by a Bugbear Strangler, and players are aware that the Bugbear can redirect one's attack to your fellow player.  Do you need permission to attack the Bugbear?

No.  That's not a deliberate attack on a player.  That's attack on amonster that has an ability to redirect the attack.

My local LFR play site follows this to the letter.  Thrice now I've been asked by a party member if he/she can center a burst on me, to which I've said 'No' and well... they did it anyway.  They asked, which meets the letter of the law. =/

Jan 30, 2010 -- 12:10PM, crabcrouton wrote:

My local LFR play site follows this to the letter.  Thrice now I've been asked by a party member if he/she can center a burst on me, to which I've said 'No' and well... they did it anyway.  They asked, which meets the letter of the law. =/

The DM should not have allowed the action and should have warned the player that the action was a violation of the CCG.  If the DM is also complicate, that is a little more complicated.  There are possible remedies, but the best is to explain to the players before the game that when they ask to center a burst on you, and you say "no", and they do it anyway, they are actively decreasing your enjoyment of the game.  Then, remind the DM of the guidelines about player behavior and making the game fun for all.  In other words, may it clear in advance to everyone, players and DM, that the action is a violation of the rules.  Do not be subtle about it.

If all else fails, find another group, or at the very least, spit in the guys food or drink who is being a jerk to you.

-SYB

Jan 30, 2010 -- 12:10PM, crabcrouton wrote:

My local LFR play site follows this to the letter.  Thrice now I've been asked by a party member if he/she can center a burst on me, to which I've said 'No' and well... they did it anyway.  They asked, which meets the letter of the law. =/

The admins have said multiple times that doing it this way is incorrect.  No matter what they may think it says, at some point common sense needs to prevail.

The rule that says you must ask the other player carries an implication that should be commonly understood IMHO that you are asking to secure their permission or concurance.  Proceeding forward without their okay is at least rude, and possibly antisocial.  People often are very attached to their PCs; don't MESS with other people's PCs--it is really bad behavior and can lead to unpleasant outcomes. 

Many players are okay with their PCs taking damage if the next benefit is good for the group.  Some PCs will have resistances or something that mitigates the damage.

Ultimately D&D is a social game that involves people interacting with other people.  Once you start to ignore common social graces, the play experience will not be good.

When I was a young lad, and I tried such literal reasoning, my mother would say I was a smart ass and usually ground me for a week.  She knew that I knew what she meant, even if her words as stated were not explicit and airtight logic.

What happened to common sense?

Keith

Jan 30, 2010 -- 7:22PM, Keith53 wrote:

What happened to common sense?

Keith

You do remember that we play with gamers, right?    Common sense and game rules don't seem to matter in my area much either ... it's the most literal interpretation of the RAW that rules the day. 

Allen.

Jan 30, 2010 -- 8:09PM, aljergensen wrote:

You do remember that we play with gamers, right?    Common sense and game rules don't seem to matter in my area much either ... it's the most literal interpretation of the RAW that rules the day.

Only if we let it, friend, only if we let it.

I'd try to avoid the direct conflict when possible but, it could be useful to remind the most bull-headed party member attacker that there are many ways that you could dramatically impact his character's well-being, experience and rewards without breaking any rules. Explain to them how you don't do it out of respect for the rest of the players at the table but, you might find that many of the worst gaming personalities can shape-up considerably if you threaten potential loot drops.

I am still waiting for my chance to "skin" a dead party member.. and then raise them.. 

I will then "shrink" their skin.. and make a puppet for a commedy act.

..
I am the warforged bard.. who has no concept of ..appropriate..

Would the raised party member be allowed to attack me? by the rules.. no.. (that's dumb.)

Jan 30, 2010 -- 2:15PM, SYB wrote:

In other words, may it clear in advance to everyone, players and DM, that the action is a violation of the rules.  Do not be subtle about it.

I think the precise interpretation of the rule is kinda beside the point.  If a DM and the group of players all believe that the proper interpretation of the rule is its narrowest literal meaning, then your only real options are to either deal with that or walk away.

Personally, I see this rule as essentially just saying "Don't be a jerk".  I don't see it as saying that the hand of god stops other players from being jerks in this one particular instance, nor do I really see any value in enforcing that as a rule, since this is but the smallest of ways in which a player can be a jerk.

To be honest, if it is a common thing for other players to want to damage your PC, I think there are some deeper issues here--either this is not a well-adjusted group of players or you're just not meshing with their combat style.

In any event, I think stridently demanding adherence to the RPGA rules would be ill-advised.  It's not as though the original poster's group is unaware of what the rules say; indeed, they appear to be very familiar with the rule in question, they merely read it a different way than you do.  I'm sure you've already expressed your opinion; expressing it with an exclamation point at the end will merely underscore your impotence.

The RPGA doesn't punish even clear and blatant violations of its rules.  There is practically no chance that any appeal to a higher power would have any effect in a situation where those involved could claim to be following at least the letter of the rules.

Live with the fact that you're playing with jerks.  Figure out why they're being jerks and see if you can solve that.  Find a group that better meshes with the playstyle you would prefer.

Those are your only realistic options.

Jan 30, 2010 -- 7:22PM, Keith53 wrote:

Proceeding forward without their okay is at least rude, and possibly antisocial.

(Devils' advocate) fwiw: I could also envision certain cases where the person saying "no" was actually the antisocial/uncooperative one at the table (not that I would then allow the attack to proceed).

For all the bickering on this topic, I have seen very characters actually spend the feat picking up War Wizardy at paragon. I do wonder if maybe War Wizardy or a lesser feat similar to it should be available at lower levels, pehaps even type of wizard who could shape their blasts instead of specializing in orbs or wands or what have you.

I really feel that taking steps to minimize the damage would make more players likely to allow the damage but, those steps often fly in the face of offensively optimized area effect builds. A player who seems to care more about optimal blasts that party safety is not likely to see as much cooperation. While throwing a blast over a teammate might well be the optimal tactical move, alot of RP-oriented characters will bristle at it. Talking about it beforehand and taking precautions like resitance items and rituals and mitigating feats can help alleviate that tension and give RPer a chance for his character to actively make the heroic sacrifice instead of just getting blasted.

Feb 1, 2010 -- 11:16AM, mvincent wrote:

(Devils' advocate) fwiw: I could also envision certain cases where the person saying "no" was actually the antisocial/uncooperative one at the table (not that I would then allow the attack to proceed).

I find that the players could just as likely be the uncooperative one like you say.  Case in point. The BDF charges into the middle of a group after the other players tell him to delay for me to blast them. The glory hound does not.  Now, they are still standing after he misses most of them, but I can get them all (and the BDF) BDF player says "No" when I ask if I can drop a spell.  So, I could hit half of the group with my only encounter spell but waste the other half  but fine.  I tell the DM that I blast the lone mook off to the side with an at will.  BDF player now tells me how to play my wizard.  Never mind.  You want to attack the mook also?, be my guest.

Usually, when I am playing my characters which have "targets creatures in burst/blast" powers, I survey the scene carefully and then ask each player how they feel about x energy-type (this being the type of damage my power deals.)

They usually get the hint and either ask me to delay for them to move or just say Go for it.  I think the one guy who plays Tieflings all the time enjoys the fire attacks so much that he practically begs us to target him with Fireball, etc.

When I play a Fighter, I always give the party burst/blasters permission to target their stuff on me.  Some of the newer powers allow certain builds to exclude the origin square (me) or are enemies only.  This is fine, also. 

Storm: Mind if I include you in my burst?

Con Dwarf Warden: Go ahead. I just second winded and I have a Defensive Weapon. You'll probably need to crit to hit me normally.

Storm: *Rolls* 18 on the die, so thats 37 vs Fort.

Warden: HA! My Fort is higher than my AC and you missed me by 1.

Storm: Well, that's too bad.

Warden: Why's that?

Storm: I'm a Daggermaster.

Warden: Damn it.....

You still missed him. Only 20 is a auto hit.

Incorrect. A critical hit is an auto-hit.

Ever hear of expanded crit range?

Feb 24, 2010 -- 5:38PM, Hibiki54 wrote:

Incorrect. A critical hit is an auto-hit.

Ever hear of expanded crit range?

PHB: "Precision: Some class features and powers allow you to score a critical hit when you roll numbers other than 20 (only a natural 20 is an automatic hit)."

Uh, no. Only a Natural 20 is an auto hit. An 18-19 still has to hit the Defense in order to count.

In addition, even with a 20 being an auto hit, a hit is only a crit if it would have bene a hit *without* being an auto hit.
So a fighter with a +15 on his attack would normally hit AC 35 on a natural 20.
If the critter has AC 36, rolling a 20 is an auto-hit (because it si a 20), but it is not a crit (because AC 35 would have been a miss).

Either way, only at higher tiers would I allow an ally to blast me with an AoE. With the exception of my Sorc, my Wizard is all friendly spells excluding Thunderwave which is rarely used.

The social norm in our group is that defenders can be included in blasts and bursts, but we should keep everyone else out of them.  Defenders are supposed to take hits, and most of ours take steps to make sure they can handle getting included in a burst.  Stormsoul Genasi Fighter with Come and Get it, Deathcut armor, Versatile Resistance?  Why the heck not :-)