The Gaming Den

Uh...I guess that's a reasonable reading of the rule you quoted. However, that implies:

• If a power does 20 different things, and one of them happens to be that you recover 1 hit point if you kill something with it, then you can't use that power on a rat at all, even if you only care about the other 19 effects.
• You can't ever curse a rat, even if you want to. Depending on the definition of "meaningful threat" and the set of powers in the game, you could possibly encounter an enemy that would be easy for you to kill if you had full access to your powers, but which ends up beating the snot out of you because you're not allowed to use any of your good powers on it because it's too weak.

I guess the example got me thinking about effects that affect someone other than the target and it didn't occur to me that "you deal bonus damage when you hit this target" would fall into the same category, as that is something that isn't remotely subject to bag-of-rats-style abuse on its own.

Of course, no matter how you read the rule, it still doesn't stop a "real" enemy that you happen not to want to attack at the moment from preventing you from cursing the enemy you actually want to attack that is standing 1 square further away, even if the near enemy is already cursed and the two enemies are in opposite directions. I think that warrants a "WTF!?" all on its own.

Would it really do anything other than simplify the game if the rule was not the "closest enemy you can see" but: "an enemy who is within X distance of you" (within the usual usual line of sight and line of effect rules) ?

If that's a meaningful change, what makes it undesirable?
If that's not a meaningful change, why are the designers adding needless complication?

Manxome wrote: Of course, no matter how you read the rule, it still doesn't stop a "real" enemy that you happen not to want to attack at the moment from preventing you from cursing the enemy you actually want to attack that is standing 1 square further away, even if the near enemy is already cursed and the two enemies are in opposite directions. I think that warrants a "WTF!?" all on its own.

Ah. Thats a function of the boardgame emphasis of the rules. The squares on the battlemat are the most important part of the system, and you aren't really allowed to ignore them. (without a serious amount of rules fudging up and down the system).

I had that WtF reaction months ago, and was threatened by the ENworld mods for not sucking enough mearl's cock.

Voss wrote:The squares on the battlemat are the most important part of the system, and you aren't really allowed to ignore them. (without a serious amount of rules fudging up and down the system).

Wait, what? How is that relevant?

My point was that you need to be closer to your desired target than to any other enemy, including enemies that aren't even valid targets and enemies that couldn't conceivably do anything to physically interfere with your targeting. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you measure distance in squares or some other units.

Sorry, went off on a tangent. In some ways I consider it a simplification that goes hand in hand with the board game-style system, however. Its all very gamist in some ways- the game rules don't interact with anything else- 'immersion', common sense, fluff, or genre. The game rules are the game rules, and that seems to be the only thing that matters to the 4e designers.

I suspect nearest target is both an attempt at something resembling balance, and to encourage movement on the battlemat, since the devs have mentioned repeatedly that static combat is badwrongfun.

Am I the only who noticed that one retard actually said specifically

If A then B. Not B therefore not A.

What a freaking retard.

Kaelik wrote:Am I the only who noticed that one retard actually said specifically

If A then B. Not B therefore not A.

What a freaking retard.

That seems like an odd thing to complain about, especially given the level of stupid in some of the preceding posts. Specifically pointing out that you're making a contrapositive argument is perhaps excessive, but it's not wrong (even if other parts of the post are dubious).

Re: movement: Warlocks generally move all the time anyway, so they can get the concealment bonus from their shadowy... thing.

Re: the logic:

I didn't even notice that. I just glanced over the "If A then B" thing, figuring "Not actually relevant, but they're trying to seem smart by showing a logical flowchart and where you are wrong. Whatever." Had I actually looked, I might have noticed that, in their attempt to seem smart, they said something stupid.

But no more stupid than the rest of the shit that goes on. I mean, sure they messed up their logic in an attempt to answer your logic, but they speak truckloads of bullshit on a daily basis.

I think draco gets extra stupid points for dragging narrativism in to justify his asinine position. Particularly in a system thats so heavy-handedly caught up in its own rule systems, and is willing to snap storytelling like a twig whenever its easier for the devs.

I find it amusing that it took the EN World community a page and a half to finally get to the one legit line of argument about this loophole: the question of when you "see" yourself.

And about the "bag o' rats' rule: It's not as broad as the EN Worlders seem to think it is. Basically, there are two paragraphs under "Legitimate Targets" on DMG p. 40:

1. The "bag o' rats" paragraph quoted above. But note that it only applies to powers with effects that trigger when you hit a target or reduce it to 0 h.p.

2. A second paragraph excluding hirelings from powers with "all allies" target lines.

Really, nothing in that section is the kind of blanket prohibition on "things that defy common sense" that people seem to think it is.

Someone seriously needs to post this there:

Nah. I want to see how far they actually take it. I suspect its going to wander into 'La-la-la, can't hear you' land pretty soon, but really, I think hypersmurf got it right (cheater that he is, poring over the exact text in the book) by pointing out that a later clause in the paragraph says

""Creature" or "creatures" means allies and enemies both, as well as you."

That 'as well as you' pretty much covers the major gaping hole.

But I don't think anyone else noticed. They're still off in the land of logic fail.

There was also the one who pointed out that you still fall over, because below 0 HP you're still knocked out and dying, just, you ALSO have temporary HP in case someone decides to stab you while you're down.

Everyone else, however, misses the point and argues "I don't think it should work like this, therefore it doesn't!", "Bag of rats clause, Mearls can't be wrong, La la la!" and such.

Voss wrote:Nah. I want to see how far they actually take it. I suspect its going to wander into 'La-la-la, can't hear you' land pretty soon, but really, I think hypersmurf got it right (cheater that he is, poring over the exact text in the book) by pointing out that a later clause in the paragraph says

""Creature" or "creatures" means allies and enemies both, as well as you."

That 'as well as you' pretty much covers the major gaping hole.

I noticed that a while after I initially quoted the paragraph. Though it pretty clearly shows the intent of the rule, it really doesn't change anything in terms of the RAW. The wording doesn't directly contradict the explicit definitions of ally and enemy. I figure when determining the RAW, the explicit trumps the implicit.

That said, it's still a better argument than 90% of EN World has mustered so far.

Now I'm just waiting for you to get banned from EN World (big loss, I know) for calling somebody on confusing RAI with RAW. I mean, if you get warned for slamming people for confusing their houserules with RAW, that must be a hanging offense.

Also, somebody in the WotC thread is e-mailing customer service about this question.

I'm waiting for the modhammer too.
I got threatened with it back during the preview period last year, when my sig was anti-4e. (Something about 4e being a superheroes boardgame rather than D&D).

So what is the full text of the paragraph? We're shooting in the dark a bit at this point.

But at this point, I'm not sure my refutation of recursive movement rules is confusing enough. I do like the fact the fact that I've got someone (a mod, in fact) seriously arguing with the idea that you occupy a square before you finish moving into it. I didn't even have to suggest that kind of crazy- he came up with it on his own.

That roger bloke at ENWorld liked it at least. Unless hes from here.

I think Hypersmurph has an even better way for this to fuck things up with the 'you can never move' argument. Thats good stuff.

Right. A creature is an ally, an enemy, or you. An ally is a unit which is reciprocally willing that is not you. An enemy is a creature that is not an ally. See reasoning, circular.

Yes, creature is defined by enemy and enemy is defined by creature. But since they didn't bother to have a statement for "you" in enemy, and "you" are specifically a creature and "you" are specifically not an ally - it's very open and shut. You are your own enemy, and there is no RAW argument that can be made against that.

The real question is whether the fact that you can't curse a target who is already cursed allows you to skip over a cursed enemy when determining who the closest enemy is. I would say yes, but it's really unclear.

-Username17

Voss wrote:So what is the full text of the paragraph? We're shooting in the dark a bit at this point.

Here it is, taken from my post on page 1:

4e PHB, p. 57 under "Target" (bolding mine) wrote:When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects
you and one or more of your allies, then you can take
advantage of the power’s effect along with your team-
mates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include
you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy”
or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t
your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward
you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and
enemies both, as well as you.

Though it's not bolded, that last sentence is in there. And that's the entire second paragraph under the "Targets" heading, and there's nothing relevant to this discussion in the first paragraph.

Draco wrote:I think Hypersmurph has an even better way for this to fuck things up with the 'you can never move' argument. Thats good stuff.

I agree. He's got a great argument for how nonfunctional this rule makes things. Really, a lot of people have pointed out the ways this rule screws the game six ways from Tuesday. The problem is the people arguing that it can't be RAW because of this.

Oh nice. Unless someone here is actually Leatherhead, they are now honestly debating the ability to move at all among themselves.

On the other hand... the WotC thread is just as amusing . Especially with the custserv response:

Inquiry
seems the an error in the rules set has been found.

Page 57, Definition of Enemy and Ally
"When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not)."

By the defintion of enemies above you would be your own enemy.

This isn't usually important, but a few class features target the enemy that nearest to you that you can see such as the warlock's curse on page 131.

Warlock's Curse
"Once per turn as a minor action, you can place a Warlock’s Curse on the enemy nearest to you that you can see."

By a strict reading the warlock would only be allowed to curse themselves as long as they can see themselves.


response
Hello David,

Thank you for contacting us. I apologize if you misunderstood our rules, but you are not your own enemy. A Warlock cannot target themselves with their own curse. I hope this information is useful.

Helpful, naturally. There is nothing quite like a fiat response with no explanation for clearing things up.

I do like it when strangers give me amusing presents for no reason.

custserv wrote:Thanks, David. The rules don't work that way because we say they don't. Now stop annoying us and go away.

Did I translate it correctly?

Talisman wrote:

custserv wrote:Thanks, David. The rules don't work that way because we say they don't. Now stop annoying us and go away.

Did I translate it correctly?

You forgot the clouds of bong-smoke.

OK I see two things here, one is a nit pick and the other is more what I think is intitutively obvious to WoTC:

"Once per turn as a minor action, you can place a Warlock’s Curse on the enemy nearest to you that you can see."

"You" are not technically "nearest to you." Nearest is sort of an approach to zero condition but where zero is never reached. Since you are always at point zero with respect to yourself you are never the nearest thing to you.

"When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your team-mates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include
you, and both terms assume willing targets."

One might argue that there is poor wording here. Apart from rules lawyers the statement is clear. There is A (You) and B (Your Allies) and unless it says A & B then B doesn't imply A. Now we get to the definition of C

"“Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you."

Using the first part C is !B. But look at the bold part. D is A or B or C. If A is a subset of C then this statment is redundant. The bold statement implies that C is !B and !A and that an enemy is "not You."

You are neither an ally nor an enemy. A spell only affects you if it includes you as well as an ally (common) or an enemy (which isn't in the rules so it doesn't need to be stated).

Guys, guys, guys.

You're forgetting something: why the fuck are we even arguing this when we can just laugh at the rules fail? Clearly, you aren't actually your own enemy, but Mearls et al. fail so hard that the game says you are.

Psychic Robot wrote:Guys, guys, guys.

You're forgetting something: why the fuck are we even arguing this when we can just laugh at the rules fail? Clearly, you aren't actually your own enemy, but Mearls et al. fail so hard that the game says you are.

Touche.