|
Let this be a lesson in why it is important to define ambiguous terms. In last nights D&D Encounters we had a situation come up where one of the players used Hypnosis on a lizardman. With Hypnosis you can choose to make the target slide up to three squares or make a basic melee attack against a creature of your choice with a +4 power bonus. Since the lizard was the only enemy left, the mage had him ram his spear into his own skull. The DM allowed it, although we all fully expect that option to be removed when the first errata comes out. Does anyone else feel that this is overpowered for an at will if it is allowed to stand as is?
I fail to see how its really all that incongruous. there are numerous examples in fiction and film of bad guys mind controlin/hypnotizing people into harming themselves.
It's not all that imbalanced either but more importantly...it's freaking hilarious, which is why I would allow it :P
I agree that an errata would be much appreciated here. While the power is not broken or anything it does bring up a rather odd scene where creature X is using all his skill to dodge or deflect a blow he is trying to inflict on himself.
Seems pretty out there. On the other hand this is just the kind of area where you get crazy rules bloat. Do we actually make rules for this fairly corner case circumstance presuming that we want powers that can control other creatures for short periods of time? I mean something as simple as +4 to hit yourself but you get a save to not do it in the first place is probably a reasonable rule for the effect but it does mean having yet another rule.
|
|
I fail to see how its really all that incongruous. there are numerous examples in fiction and film of bad guys mind controlin/hypnotizing people into harming themselves.
It's not all that imbalanced either but more importantly...it's freaking hilarious, which is why I would allow it :P
Oh I agree that it was hilarious, we stopped the game for more than 5 minutes we were all laughing so hard. It is more a question of if that was what the writers actually intended. Much like the question of whether they actually intended to have each party to have multiple knights each one standing exactly one square apart with the rest of the party in between them so that if the mage gets hit by an opponent the triggers at least two Guardian Rage attacks.
|
Entertainment value aside, I think the rules cover this case pretty well: This is clearly a "Bag Of Rats" situation. You can't attack yourself because you are a "meaningless" threat to yourself (pg 40 dmg). Specific beats general, so unless the power specifically says the creature attacks himself, he cannot do so. I think it's well within the "Bag of Rats" argument to state that, in general, a person is considered a meaningless target to himself, and only when specifically directed, can make attacks on himself.
Why is this a meaningless attack? Because the defender knows EXACTLY how/when/where/etc the attack is being made and knows EXACTLY the perfect counter because he is also the attacker. Ahh, but he knows the PERFECT attack as well, one he cannot counter...and so it goes, ad naseum. Meaningless.
Bag of Rats I say.
Not at all. Mind controling someone into stabbing themselves makes perfect sense (well unless they have a pole arm i guess but you get my point) with tons of precedents in sci fi and fantasy literature.
Bag of rats is a deliberqate misinterpretation and abuse of the rules in a way that totally brutalizes game balance, rules as intended, and basic human decency.
This is just a slightly liberal/creative interpretation of the targeting rules, that, in the end, doesn't do much that a regular at will wouldn't.