Dark Sun returns

[Kaelik]

Actually Bill, if you read the rule in question, it says "powers that target blah blah blah... ally or allies, both these terms indicate willing targets."

So since unwilling people are not allies, it is not the target of an ally status, it is the actual status that depends on willingness.

So if I am unwilling to be your ally, I am not your ally, and you can just deal, and since Wizards don't have any powers that benefit allies, that could totally just be constant.

Now can you please post Murtak's questions about what constitutes an ally and what does not by RAI? How about adding to the list:

"Bob The Fighter hates Jim the Wizard, and he even discovered that Jim killed his mother, but he's waiting to confront him on the matter after the party leaves enemy territory, where he can demand Jim leave the party or he will."

That plus the original line of questions: "Is it? The wizard just rescued a peasant - is the peasant his ally? If so, can he kill him with this power and still have him count as an ally? Is an unconscious party member an ally? An unconscious goblin? A dominated party member? The king's pet falcon?"

But add in "The Peasant is a doppleganger assassin in disguise."

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Kaelik,

Whatever needs to be said in the Wotc thread, it'd probably be better said by you.

[Lago PARANOIA]

From now on, every effect in 4E has an attack roll unless stated otherwise; this includes beneficial effects. Any conscious creature may voluntarily choose to forgo dodging the affect--this means that a beneficial affect may have a chance of missing a dying character or a dominating creature may choose to have their slave automatically become hit by an affect. 4E uses four kinds of targeting.

Exclusive/Inclusive
Fixed
All
None

Inclusive: The power only affects targets in the AoE except for creatures the user specifically chooses to include. For example, a Bless Allies power that is a ranged 10 burst 5 can be tailored to only affect the cleric and wizard, everyone wearing the color red, or everyone the target trusts. If the power has a targeting parameter that cannot be identified with the caster's current knowledge (for example, targeting the five murderers of the king) but only knows the identities of three out of five of the murderers, if only affects those three murderers. Inclusive targeting must have line of effect and sight to all valid targets; you cannot, for example, help the hidden rogue with an inclusive effect even if you want to target him or her.

Exclusive Targeting: Exclusive targets affects all targets in the AoE except for what the caster specifically wants to exclude from the effect. For example, if the warlock uses the Curse Enemies power in a close burst 4, the warlock can affect everything in the burst except for a few trusted allies. Like inclusive targeting, you may only exclude targets that the power user is aware of and has line of effect and sight to. This means that an invisible may benefit from being inside the area of exclusive targeting.

Fixed: You can only affect a finite number of targets in the AoE, anywhere from one to whatever the effect specifies. The target cannot choose to not be affected by the effect, though may initiate the usual options in an attempt to mitigate the effect.

All: You have no choice whether or not you can affect someone in the AoE. This affects targets all acceptable targets for the power, even if they are visible or hidden.

None: This power is either a personal effect (which means that it only targets you) or genuinely has no targets, such as a power that will change the weather.

Special: Some powers or expansion options have or impose a special targeting system, such as affecting all targets except for a designated square. These will be detailed on a case-by-case basis.

Zones, walls, ranged/melee and the like work as described in the book.

[Korwin]

Actually Bill, if you read the rule in question, it says "powers that target blah blah blah... ally or allies, both these terms indicate willing targets."

So since unwilling people are not allies, it is not the target of an ally status, it is the actual status that depends on willingness.

So if I am unwilling to be your ally, I am not your ally, and you can just deal, and since Wizards don't have any powers that benefit allies, that could totally just be constant.

Now can you please post Murtak's questions about what constitutes an ally and what does not by RAI? How about adding to the list:

Bob The Fighter hates Jim the Wizard, and he even discovered that Jim killed his mother, but he's waiting to confront him on the matter after the party leaves enemy territory, where he can demand Jim leave the party or he will."

That plus the original line of questions: "Is it? The wizard just rescued a peasant - is the peasant his ally? If so, can he kill him with this power and still have him count as an ally? Is an unconscious party member an ally? An unconscious goblin? A dominated party member? The king's pet falcon?"

But add in "The Peasant is a doppleganger assassin in disguise."

Posted the quote on WotC's Forum.
Didnt find Murtaks question...

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Is it? The wizard just rescued a peasant - is the peasant his ally? If so, can he kill him with this power and still have him count as an ally? Is an unconscious party member an ally? An unconscious goblin? A dominated party member? The king's pet falcon?

That was Murtak's post on Page 25.

[Kaelik]

Truly the fail in that thread makes me wish I could actually have a WotC account without having to come up with a new name and register using a different email address, or negotiate their shitty conversion system.

Especially the part where they call TGD unproductive.

[Jilocasin]

Well as we all know, the definition of productivity is glossing over easily correctable tidbits and claiming that you'd need four pages of legalese instead of the one sentence it would actually take to SAY WHAT THEY FUCKING MEAN!

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Truly the fail in that thread makes me wish I could actually have a WotC account without having to come up with a new name and register using a different email address, or negotiate their shitty conversion system.

Especially the part where they call TGD unproductive.

Yeah, it's pretty stupid their conversion changed Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer into Bill_bisco_average_adventurer and I was forced to choose an avatar and some other junk before I could post again.

But yeah, just make a new name like Kaelik_Reborn or something and have at it.

[Kaelik]

I can't even convert at all because my password became invalid in the conversion, and I can't convert unless I have a valid password. But I can't change my password without converting first.

Bottom line: Fuck you WotC.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Lol, just make a new account.

[Psychic Robot]

Please tell me that CielingCat did not make an account at WotC simply to bash me.

[erik]

I can't even convert at all because my password became invalid in the conversion, and I can't convert unless I have a valid password. But I can't change my password without converting first.

Is Caelic taken?

Anywho, shame on you folks for making me go back to WotC to read one more shitty thread of theirs. I let my account die in an inactivity deletion and if not for that wise decision I probably would have been incited into posting into that shitfest. Ugh.

[Kaelik]

I can't even convert at all because my password became invalid in the conversion, and I can't convert unless I have a valid password. But I can't change my password without converting first.

Is Caelic taken?

Anywho, shame on you folks for making me go back to WotC to read one more shitty thread of theirs. I let my account die in an inactivity deletion and if not for that wise decision I probably would have been incited into posting into that shitfest. Ugh.

I will destroy everything you hold dear.

[Koumei]

I will destroy everything you hold dear.

Pfft, you'd do that anyway. You destroy everything people hold dear as a hobby.

Kind of like 4E in that respect.

[RandomCasualty2]

Is it? The wizard just rescued a peasant - is the peasant his ally? If so, can he kill him with this power and still have him count as an ally? Is an unconscious party member an ally? An unconscious goblin? A dominated party member? The king's pet falcon?

That was Murtak's post on Page 25.

Pretty much if it's not part of team monster, it's your ally. So yeah, rescued peasant is an ally, unconscious party member is an ally.

The falcon would be an ally if the king himself was an ally.

The rest are not allies.

D&D 4E is really simple and thinking about it too hard only gets you in trouble. It's basically Red versus Blue. One side is team PC, the other is team monster. Pretty much if the person isn't actively trying to fuck over the PCs, he's an ally. The unconscious goblin pretty much didn't join your side, you just captured him. So he's still part of team monster. The dominated party member similarly is temporarily on the side of team monster and thus is no longer on your team.

4E really isn't designed such that there's an ironclad "computer" definition of ally. It's more just something the DM has to judge based on circumstances. But the basic definition of "it's trying to help you" makes it an ally. That's a decision a human being can rather easily make.

[Murtak]

So that wizard power drawback kills the peasant that likes you, but not the peasant standing right next to him who hates you? That is just as retarded as medieval witch trials. "He's dead, so he must have been an ally." Brilliant.

[Koumei]

So if the Wizard defiles me, and I turn around and smack him in the head with a 2x4, possibly using (Random Power Name) in the process, does that qualify as not being an ally any more?

Because if I was to be so drunk as to play 4e (luckily, I hold my booze really well), I wouldn't put up with "Yeah, you get hurt so my effectiveness improves, haha." So I would happily bring that to the character's attention, violently. And it's a stretch to call someone an ally if they'll chokeslam you the moment you drain their lifeforce to power your abilities.

[Kaelik]

RC, stop being retarded. There is in fact a team green. Like 90% of everything is team green.

If you walk into town, and start defiling, does it damage the merchant you were just buying from?

Oh shit, you are retarded.

Does defiling auto detect dopplegangers in disguise?

Oh shit, you are retarded.

[RandomCasualty2]

So if the Wizard defiles me, and I turn around and smack him in the head with a 2x4, possibly using (Random Power Name) in the process, does that qualify as not being an ally any more?

Yeah, you'll become an enemy if you attack him with the intent to kill.

Because if I was to be so drunk as to play 4e (luckily, I hold my booze really well), I wouldn't put up with "Yeah, you get hurt so my effectiveness improves, haha." So I would happily bring that to the character's attention, violently. And it's a stretch to call someone an ally if they'll chokeslam you the moment you drain their lifeforce to power your abilities.

Well, remember this is 4E, so it's not really like he's draining out part of your soul or some shit. He's just making you a little tired and you'll be back to full strength in 5 minutes.

Now it's quite possible your character could take offense to this if you see the defiling as a betrayal on your allies part, but you're still considered an ally up until the point that you actually start to want to kill your friend. It's like in Diablo II where you click the PvP button.

Eveything makes more sense in 4E if you think of it like a video game. As for Kaelik. Townspeople and crap are still part of team monster, they're just nonaggroed for whatever reason. If a fight breaks out and they actually join your side, they become allies. Otherwise they're basically enemies who happen to not be attacking you right now.

If they're not part of your party, they're basically considered enemies.

[Username17]

That thread was painful to read. The "high point" was people discussing whether Good and Evil options had to be mechanically balanced in light of the roleplaying assumption that the players were going to be incentivized to choose "good" options anyway. People who say "Good needs to be better because it's going to win" have a point. People who say "Evil needs to be better, because otherwise people won't take evil options and they just waste space in the book" have a point too. Also, the people who say "Good and evil options need to be balanced because you don't know ahead of time what is going to appeal to individual players and rewarding on player for following his bliss while punishing another player for doing the same is totally unfair" have perhaps the best point of all.

The rest of it was just circle jerking of the worst kind:

• Standard Oberoni: That rule isn't badly written because the DM will change it.
• Domestic Abuse Victim: If you jerks at the den would stop finding holes in the rules, the rules would not have any holes.
• Rules Lawyer Solipsist: A baleful effect on your allies applies because there isn't a definition of allies anywhere in he rules except to define targeting, and that power does not use the word target.
• Acid Tripper: The power says the damage can't be prevented, so characters can't prevent it by not being hit by it in the first place.

Ugh. Everything in there is wrong. A priori wrong. We don't even have to pick up a book and find counter arguments, because those statements are epistemologically false on first principles.

-Username17

[Meikle641]

I found the D&D boards went retarded when 4e came out. Any intelligent or rational folks fled that sinking ship, or were chased out by 4rries.

And yeah, I found it painful to read that thread as well. Just...ugh.

[Cielingcat]

There were seriously only like a dozen intelligent people on the D&D boards at one time like, ever.

[Koumei]

Yeah, they were still pretty retarded back in the pre-4e era. That they got worse is just evidence that no matter how bad it is, people can always get more stupid.

[RandomCasualty2]

This argument feels a lot like arguing against pun pun in 3E because of the Surrukh ability or whatever. Yeah, it's horribly imbalancing and yeah the rules is badly written, but it's seriously a minor point.

Preventing PCs from raping the rules in this fashion is best off just handled by a gentleman's agreement not to, because it's pretty clear what people are doing when they play the "he's not my ally for this split second" shuffle.

As far as defining ally, it honestly doesn't matter. Seriously, so long as nobody rapes the rules and your ruling is consistent, it really doesn't matter how a DM decides to handle unconscious goblins or rescued peasants. And it's just not major enough that I even care that there's an official one. The important thing is that quite simply someone doesn't try to just make some semantic bullshit lawyering to anally rape the rules with a spiked steel pole.

Now I mean I can understand if your game has a douchebag rules lawyer like this that gives you trouble. But lemme tell you, no rules set will survive this level of douchebaggery. This is the same dude who in 3E decided to stay up all night because there were no penalties for not sleeping. The best thing to do is to slap this dude on the back of the head and tell him to stop being a jerk. RPG designs aren't contract lawyers. You can either just accept that or you can tear your hear out trying to correct every little loophole in the game.

The real problems with a rules set are when people who are trying to make effective characters end up too effective. A guy making an orbizard isn't necessarily being a jerk, he's just picking something powerful because the ability is good. There's no crazy bullshit going on here, he's playing the rules pretty much as written and as intended, and yet he breaks the game. Now, that's a serious fucking problem.

[A Man In Black]

Preventing PCs from raping the rules in this fashion is best off just handled by a gentleman's agreement not to, because it's pretty clear what people are doing when they play the "he's not my ally for this split second" shuffle.

As far as defining ally, it honestly doesn't matter. Seriously, so long as nobody rapes the rules and your ruling is consistent, it really doesn't matter how a DM decides to handle unconscious goblins or rescued peasants. And it's just not major enough that I even care that there's an official one. The important thing is that quite simply someone doesn't try to just make some semantic bullshit lawyering to anally rape the rules with a spiked steel pole.

Are you seriously arguing that the rules are fine because you can make houserules to fix them?