Is an enemy whoever you believe is an enemy? Or is it whoever believes themselves your enemy? Can an ally by an enemy? Can you be your own enemy?
Is an enemy whoever you believe is an enemy? Or is it whoever believes themselves your enemy? Can an ally by an enemy? Can you be your own enemy?
It might be helpful to know what you are trying to do that would force this line of questions. I assume you are not wanting a philisophical debate as you posted in "rules".
Supernatural HUD, I see
So here is my thinking on this...
As "enemy" is not a defined term it is subject to interpretation. I would offer, where I a GM with a player looking for clarity, that an enemy is anyone who is actively or would intentionally mean to harm you or negatively affect you were they to discover your true purpose.
So context would be relevant.
A town guard is neutral if you are just walking around. (and you are in no way viewed as a threat, have a warrant out etc. You walk into a new town with completely reasonable laws that you have no reason to assume you have broken and they are not acting in any way to contradict that sense.)
A town guard is an enemy if you are walking around casing the next house to steal from and you would be hauled off to jail if they realized this.
Casting Bane on a 50 ft radius with town guard who you are not opposed to does nothing while casting Bane in a 50ft radius when you are casing a joint and what them to be negatively impacted would work.
I suppose this would work on yourself in context. If you are filled with loathing and mean to do yourself harm I guess you could Bane yourself just like you can Bless yourself. Technically both spells say "your allies" or "your enemies" with you as the center effect. If we assume you think of yourself as an ally, I am sure someone out there feels it necessary to think of themselves as their own enemy.
Friends aren't enemies, they are friends...or in the case of how it is stated in the core rule, allies. Allies can become enemies. Enemies can become allies. The rules seem to care about their state at time of casting. That state is subjective based on the caster's perception.
I say all these things but in a certain sense this is let about rules and more about rulings. Its about a certain philosophical debate that the rules don't assume it needs to support. Its also a clear circumstance (in my mind) where the text does not provide enough data, DMs will have to rule on this...if a player really feels the need to question beyond some basic assumed values.
|
An enemy is whoever the caster or enacter of the effect believes or decides to be an enemy. edit (2): This is not targeting and doesn't depend on line of sight. You can affect yourself as if you were your enemy.
An ally is whoever the caster believes or decides to be an ally.
edit: If the caster doesn't know the creature is in the area of effect, context and the nature of the effect will show whether the caster would consider random creatures in the area to be enemies.
An enemy is whoever the caster or enacter of the effect believes or decides to be an enemy. You can affect yourself as if you were your enemy.
An ally is whoever the caster believes or decides to be an ally.
If the caster doesn't know the creature is in the area of effect, designation goes by what the caster would think if he or she could see it.
I cannot believe I am about to say this because it seems so nitpicky but just in case, I cannot stop myself.
AS a GM, I would caution, very specifically, against not calling out a player who might "decide" that someone was an enemy for the purpose of an effect that seems contrary to basic reason. I cannot conceive an example but I can conceive a player saying "well I decide to cast this spell with Billy being an enemy" (even though Billy isn't) to get some sort of effect. My 2cp.
|
|
And of course, if the caster can choose to designate someone an enemy and someone an ally whenever they cast the spell, then "enemy and ally" basically become interchangeable with "target".
I didn't actually edit in response to this, but would urge caution: targeting is a more specific requirement. A caster, for example, can consider an invisible rogue to be his ally, even if he doesn't know where the rogue is or whether the rogue is affected.
A bad guy.
Philosoraptor much?
It might very well be that "ally" means "someone you want to aid with this effect" and enemy is "someone you want to hurt with this effect," but it's not defined, that I can tell. Even under Effect (Targets) in the Magic section.
Is an enemy whoever you believe is an enemy? Or is it whoever believes themselves your enemy? Can an ally by an enemy? Can you be your own enemy?It might be helpful to know what you are trying to do that would force this line of questions. I assume you are not wanting a philisophical debate as you posted in "rules".
The two things I've noticed in the forums recently is reacting to an "enemy's" spell (as with the arcanist) and certain discriminating spell effects, particularly evocations and enchantments on the cleric list.
Yeah I think the heart of it is about (honest) discrimination at the time of the effect. And in my mind this should be ruled by a certain level of common sense.
Suffering knowledge for the arcanist, for example, you would never fail a saving throw against an ally except by choice. Given that, at that point, you are choosing to fail it isn't so much about them being an enemy as it is about attempting to change what seems like a discriminate marker of balance for the ability.
This is why I made that comment about a player "deciding" what is an enemy in some sort of meta-textual way.
Yeah I think the heart of it is about (honest) discrimination at the time of the effect. And in my mind this should be ruled by a certain level of common sense.
Suffering knowledge for the arcanist, for example, you would never fail a saving throw against an ally except by choice. Given that, at that point, you are choosing to fail it isn't so much about them being an enemy as it is about attempting to change what seems like a discriminate marker of balance for the ability.
This is why I made that comment about a player "deciding" what is an enemy in some sort of meta-textual way.
On the other hand, I think suffering knowledge is something you should be able to willingly accept. Because otherwise it doesn't really make any sense.
On the other hand, I think suffering knowledge is something you should be able to willingly accept. Because otherwise it doesn't really make any sense.Yeah I think the heart of it is about (honest) discrimination at the time of the effect. And in my mind this should be ruled by a certain level of common sense.
Suffering knowledge for the arcanist, for example, you would never fail a saving throw against an ally except by choice. Given that, at that point, you are choosing to fail it isn't so much about them being an enemy as it is about attempting to change what seems like a discriminate marker of balance for the ability.
This is why I made that comment about a player "deciding" what is an enemy in some sort of meta-textual way.
Right, obviously they choose to activate it. I would caution a GM who would allow a team member to spam the arcanist so the arcanist could hot swap out spells because it would appear to me this effect is intended to at least be balanced with it being an option useable only when being affected by a foe. Otherwise they would have left out the "enemy" part.
I wouldn't caution the GM; I would caution a designer who thinks you can balance things by assuming they won't be used in the most logical and straightforward manner. I suspect my generous reading is what is intended, but it's not defined in the rules.
I wouldn't caution the GM; I would caution a designer who thinks you can balance things by assuming they won't be used in the most logical and straightforward manner. I suspect my generous reading is what is intended, but it's not defined in the rules.
And I would disagree.
Though issues of editing have been leveled against Pazio before, barring that I would say that in most circumstances they are good about choosing syntax that reflects basic intent. Ally. Enemies. "When you are the target of a spell". Why add "enemy" if they intended it to be simply whenever targeted by a spell regardless of origin?
Logic denotes valid reasoning. In my mind: Friends are not enemies, ergo my friends cant trigger that effect is pretty logical. I also find it straight forward. I have to step pretty far outside my own line of thought to see what you seem to think it should be. No offense, just my observation.
I think it is all well and good to make the conscious choice to let the ability function that way if everyone at the table is of the same mind but I don't read that ability the way it seems like you are.
Here's a question, would an arcanist with Suffering Knowledge be able to take advantage of the ability if they were hit by an ally who was charmed by an enemy (but not known to the characters) who cast a spell on the arcanist? Why, or why not and is the answer to that question consistent with how enemies are determined elsewhere in the rules?
Funny enough I would argue yes. The ability is reactionary. If your ally is not in control of their functions they are no longer your ally. As soon as they cast at you your instinctual ability would kick in. ASsuming of course, the cast something meant to harm you or otherwise negatively impact you.
But try this:
If we agree that spells resolve based on caster perception:
An enemy charms an ally and then forces that ally to cast a spell they would normally cast, to the arcanist's benefit, I would say no. There is no reason for the Arcanist to assume that their friend is not their friend, there is no instinctual response...
OR
You could take the view that all effects review from the "god" plane:
God sees that an enemy is in control, the ally is therefore not an ally, and then regardless of the circumstances the arcanist could use suffering knowledge because they were targeted by an "enemy".
OR
You could take the view that all effects review from the "god" plane":
God sees an enemy is control, the ally is still the ally based on God's perceived understanding of intent and then Suffering Knowledge triggers based on that intent.
It seems like a lot of mental jockeying to make a "thing" out of something that probably resolves cleanly 98% of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah and I think this is the problem when you get to this level. If you push a game to be rule and definition oriented, woe unto you if you do not define terms you come to rely on for parsing resolution of effects. So I am not unsympathetic to the dialog by any means.
This is DnD, not some MMORPG where targets divided to green allies and red enemies. If you want to blast someone with weak fire spell to activate some wierd fire resistance effect that so that he can withstend next enemie's fire attack it is more smart play than abuse. And wizards supposed to be smart with their high int, arent they?
Anyway, many harmless spells have something like "Will negates (harmless)" as their saving throw, so while this is harmless buff they still list save in case you will use it in some wierd way.