4e, Not just your own enemy, also beside yourself :p

[Josh_Kablack]

This is minor, but my next character has Into the Fray, which has the following use stipulation:

Effect: You can move 3 squares, as long as you can end your
move adjacent to an enemy.

Okay. So what's that's mean

Adjacent Squares: Two squares are adjacent if a
side or a corner of one touches a side or a corner of the
other. Two creatures or objects are adjacent if one of
them occupies a square adjacent to a square occupied
by the other.

By the identity principle, a square touches all or its own sides and corners.

That cannot be an exclusive or, because two distinct squares orthogonally next to each other share one side and two corners.

Ergo, a square is adjacent to itself.

Ergo, every time you move you are adjacent to yourself

Since we have previously determined that you are your own enemy in 4e rules, the power just works whenever you want it to.

And geez, that's a lot of rules lawyering to get an effect half as good as boots of eagerness or having a warlord buddy.

[Gelare]

That...does appear to be logically sound. Unimpressive mechanically, since, like you said, I'd rather have a warlord buddy, but it does appear to work.

[Josh_Kablack]

Speaking as probably the biggest 4e fan on the Den: this sort of thing is pretty indicative of 4e as a whole - you're required to rules-lawyer extensively and contradict common assumptions for the sake of ending up with a power that's not even quite level appropriate.

Really, just getting a move action as a minor action as a 10th level encounter power would have been simpler to write, easier to understand and not at all game breaking - since warlords, wizards, rangers and items already do variations of this at lower level.

But since that might have been useful, the designers felt they had to add a restriction that adds complication, but doesn't actually restrict anything.

[Manxome]

On a side note, there's a good chance that having a square be adjacent to itself is exactly what you want. That means that if you can attack "adjacent opponents" or you have an aura that damages enemies in adjacent spaces or some such, it doesn't magically stop working if they enter your square. Descent has a number of rules and errata that would be simplified if they'd just say that any space is adjacent to itself.

It also means that you need to exclude yourself from stuff that shouldn't be affecting you, but that's probably a good idea anway.

[Ravengm]

On a side note, there's a good chance that having a square be adjacent to itself is exactly what you want. That means that if you can attack "adjacent opponents" or you have an aura that damages enemies in adjacent spaces or some such, it doesn't magically stop working if they enter your square. Descent has a number of rules and errata that would be simplified if they'd just say that any space is adjacent to itself.

It also means that you need to exclude yourself from stuff that shouldn't be affecting you, but that's probably a good idea anway.

Emphasis mine.

That means you'll be hurting yourself with the aura. Gross.

[Bigode]

Speaking as probably the biggest 4e fan on the Den: (...)

If you care, that's likely MartinHarper.

[Josh_Kablack]

Emphasis mine.

That means you'll be hurting yourself with the aura. Gross.

Nope, that's good to go.

Aura: An aura is a continuous effect that affects all squares
within the listed range of the originating creature’s space. An
aura does not affect the originating creature unless the text
specifies otherwise,

Now I'm wondering if having each square adjacent to itself was actually intended. There are a couple "adjacent square" attack powers which could become largely useless against tiny or smaller creatures if squares are not adjacent to themselves.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Nope, that's good to go.

Aura: An aura is a continuous effect that affects all squares
within the listed range of the originating creature’s space. An
aura does not affect the originating creature unless the text
specifies otherwise,

Now I'm wondering if having each square adjacent to itself was actually intended. There are a couple "adjacent square" attack powers which could become largely useless against tiny or smaller creatures if squares are not adjacent to themselves.

But does "all adjacent enemies" specify otherwise? I mean, it's exception based design, so that should be considered an exception, right?

[Grek]

But does "all adjacent enemies" specify otherwise? I mean, it's exception based design, so that should be considered an exception, right?

You can go two ways with this:

Either "all adjacent enemies" overrides "unless the text specifies otherwise", in which case you have to change "all adjacent enemies" to "all adjacent enemies except the originating creature". And then the second rule becomes meaningless and redundent.

Or you can have "unless the text specifies otherwise" override "all adjacent enemies", in which case you have to specifically state that it effects the originating creature and all of the rules have meaning and purpose.

I'd go for the second interpratation, simply because it is more coherent.

[Username17]

You aren't actually in the square you end you're moving into until you end your move. So really this maneuver will only take you 1 square if you don't have a real enemy to hopscotch onto.

This is an important fact about the rules (that declaration of movement and ending of movement happen before you occupy the square that your movement ended in), because otherwise you couldn't move at all - what with the limitation that you can't end your move in a space with an enemy (such as yourself) in it. Yes, you are seriously not in the square you end your move in.

But this does actually mean that you are forbidden in the rules from moving in a circle. I don't know what that's about.

-Username17

[Crissa]

In BattleTech, running in a circle (or erratically) makes you an easier target than running in a straight line.

-Crissa

[Username17]

Since every time you move you are an enemy moving out of a square adjacent to yourself, don't you trigger an attack of opportunity against yourself by yourself every time you move?

Is there a way to actually use that?

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

Since every time you move you are an enemy moving out of a square adjacent to yourself, don't you trigger an attack of opportunity against yourself by yourself every time you move?

Is there a way to actually use that?

-Username17

As a fighter you could boost your movement very slightly (and take some damage in the process).

[Bigode]

So you self-propel by kicking yourself? More cartoon stuff.

[MartinHarper]

On a side note, there's a good chance that having a square be adjacent to itself is exactly what you want. That means that if you can attack "adjacent opponents" or you have an aura that damages enemies in adjacent spaces or some such, it doesn't magically stop working if they enter your square.

If you have a whirlwind fighter attack that attacks all adjacent enemies, I think it's reasonable that it doesn't hit the swarm of locusts running around your feet. I reckon the rules probably work better if you ignore these two definitions and have squares not be adjacent to themselves, and people not be their own enemies. Yep, it's a ruleset that works better if you don't read it too much.

The rules for auras don't mention adjacency. An "Aura 1" will effect 9 squares, including the originating square, but not including the source, either way.

[Bigode]

If you have a whirlwind fighter attack that attacks all adjacent enemies, I think it's reasonable that it doesn't hit the swarm of locusts running around your feet.

It's not. The entire point's that it hits everything around you to a maximum distance (and go ahead and refuse to auto-fail against yourself if you want) - it's not necessarily just an horizontal spin, if there was something above you, you'd attack it too.

[MartinHarper]

It's not. The entire point's that it hits everything around you to a maximum distance (and go ahead and refuse to auto-fail against yourself if you want) - it's not necessarily just an horizontal spin, if there was something above you, you'd attack it too.

Can you choose to auto-fail on an attack, by the rules?

If you want a power to hit everything around the fighter to a maximum distance, including the fighter's square, you can make it a Close Burst 1 or an Aura 1. For example, Sweeping Blow, a close burst 1 that targets each enemy in burst that you can see.

Meanwhile, Rain of Steel or Unyielding Avalanche are Stances that allow the fighter to damage enemies who start adjacent to him. I think it's fine that those stances can be countered by getting too close to the fighter, and stepping inside his weapon arc or crawling up his legs. It's a different mechanic to a Stance that grants an Aura 1 that does damage.

[Username17]

It's mechanically different than a close burst because it triggers when people are near, rather than hitting everyone who is near at a specific point in time.

-Username17

[Bigode]

Can you choose to auto-fail on an attack, by the rules?

Not that I know. But do you think you must take every attack you're entitled to?

Meanwhile, Rain of Steel or Unyielding Avalanche are Stances that allow the fighter to damage enemies who start adjacent to him. I think it's fine that those stances can be countered by getting too close to the fighter, and stepping inside his weapon arc or crawling up his legs. It's a different mechanic to a Stance that grants an Aura 1 that does damage.

I think Frank's point's that the definition of "near" doesn't change in any way between those powers, just the activation timing.

[MartinHarper]

As I read the stances, they trigger when enemies start their turn adjacent to the fighter. You can also have an Aura 1 that does damage to enemies that start their turn in the aura. Those two things are only different if a square is not adjacent to itself.
I agree that an Aura 1 is different to a Close Burst 1.

I think my point is that 4e rules make even less sense if you rule that a square is adjacent to itself. In my mind, it's probable that the designers intended "two squares" to mean "two different squares".

[koz]

I think my point should be that 4e rules make even less sense if you think about them. In my mind, it's probable that the designers intended to generate a system of fanwankery without the expertise required, and ignore all data to the contrary.

Fixed that for ya.

[MartinHarper]

I think my point is that 4e rules make even less sense if you rule that a square is adjacent to itself.

...
Ok, I take that back. If a square isn't adjacent to itself, then you can't see yourself if you are in heavy fog, even though you can see people adjacent to you. This is plainly nuts.
However, there are also bizzare and weird results if squares are adjacent to themselves, so the DM has to rule each power/effect on a case by case basis.
Good lord, that sucks.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

It is not like a 1/encounter power of "move 3 squares" is upsetting the apple cart, is it?

I mean, in 3.5e if you had a swift-action ability to add 15 feet to move speed it would be okay, and if you could only do it once per combat it would be meh.

[Sir Neil]

Good lord, that sucks.

No, that's exception-based design.

[koz]

Good lord, that sucks.

No, that's exception-based design.

Actually, no, it's WotC. And 4E. And Mike Mearls.