Even though many of the players tend to poke fun of the situation, many also see that there is something wrong here. Roleplaying wise, if a PC kept attacking another PC indirectly I could see there being a disagreement "in character". Out of game it has been discussed, but the player continues to damage anyone in their way. The damage being dealt at first was minimal, but as levels have increased we have seen anywhere from 15-30+ points of friendly fire per PC at times (heroic tier) - not fun! The PC in question seems to think that we should all just shut up and take the damage, if we are healthy what is the difference? The quicker the combat is over, the better..... right?
What are some good ways to convince the PC to stop including allies in attacks or ways to perhaps convince them to maybe switch up some of their powers so not every power they have is a potential damaging effect to everyone around?
1. Take it out-of-character. "Captain Blastypants, the way you keep blasting the rest of us is getting really annoying. it's taking away from the fun of the game for us, would you please refrain? Perhaps you could retrain some of your powers into ones that only target enemies?"
2. Take it in-character, and threaten his character (make it very, very clear, his CHARACTER, not the player) with explusion from the character group if he doesn't start utilizing some discretion in his targetting.
I have to believe that the ramifications of his poor tactics will catch up with your group. Tough combat encounters can have a very small margin of error. Things will probably deteriorate unless you can change the group's mindset to focus more on teamwork.
Or you could just attack him outright when it gets to a spot that him hitting you could be seen as him working with the enemy [after all you've already seen that he doesn't care who he hits friend or foe and he might just be trying to kill either side and then side with the winner]
Unfortunately, that feat is an epic-tier one.
War Wizardry at L11 is a great choice, though, if he lives that long.
I still believe that your group should have a word with the player. However, I suggest that you take into account that he might feel like his character would take these actions. You might suggest that it's OK to hit an ally, but to do it infrequently (at the very least, 1 out of every 2 attacks should hit no allies) and when he does hit your characters, he should try to minimize the number of allies he does hits (you might suggest that the number of enemies hit should be at least 1 greater than the number of allies hit, or whatever seems acceptable to your group). This way, you can meet him in the middle so that it doesn't seem like you're just trying to stop him from using area attacks.
If other players are actually getting angry or upset, then use the optional rule that Neutronium_Dragon suggested, but if they're joking around and having a good time, then let him continue doing what he's doing.
If the DM runs tight fights and the other players constantly try to get into the middle of the enemy the possibly-not-so-good Captain may have no choice beyond hitting someone or defaulting to an At Will.
I've definitely been in groups where it seems like some of the player-goals are "get into position so our controller can't cast on the enemy". It sounds crazy, but it happens. In that game I simply started warning folks, "get in the middle and you're going to eat $SPELL". Sometimes they choose to eat the spell, sometimes they don't go there, sometimes they ask me to hold off and explain why it's a better idea. (in which case I hold off)
But some groups can make an AoE based character very difficult to play.
I'm not sure Captain Blastypants is in this situation, it sounds like he isn't, but there's just the outside chance that he is.
-abs
Try this rule (and I think the RPGA uses it or something like it): You may only use use powers that will damage allies if you have the permission of the player(s) of the character(s) that will be affected. If he wants to drop the AoE on top of two party members he must get their go-ahead first, otherwise he's not allowed to.
I agree that this is the best solution.
Role-playing: It stands to reason that the character will want to avoid causing damage to his allies. Conversely it is unreasonable to expect a group of people to stick around with a guy that frequently injures them.
Tactical: Involving more players in the decision should provide a better tactical evaluation of the situation. Taking friendly fire while you're at max hp is quite different from taking damage when you're close to getting knocked out of the game.
absiliard makes a good point: It's bad party tactics for the melee fighters to crowd the battlefield when there are perfectly good AoE attacks available.
Anyone considered that Captain Blastypants (seconded on the "damn that's a great name") may not be the villain in this piece?
If the DM runs tight fights and the other players constantly try to get into the middle of the enemy the possibly-not-so-good Captain may have no choice beyond hitting someone or defaulting to an At Will.
I've definitely been in groups where it seems like some of the player-goals are "get into position so our controller can't cast on the enemy". It sounds crazy, but it happens. In that game I simply started warning folks, "get in the middle and you're going to eat $SPELL". Sometimes they choose to eat the spell, sometimes they don't go there, sometimes they ask me to hold off and explain why it's a better idea. (in which case I hold off)
But some groups can make an AoE based character very difficult to play.
I'm not sure Captain Blastypants is in this situation, it sounds like he isn't, but there's just the outside chance that he is.
-abs
I see where you're coming from on this one. In an ideal situation the party should use terrain and mapping to their advantage and still provide room for everybody in their party to be at their optimum effectiveness. This isn't always possible, but in those cases the party should weigh their options. On the one hand the AoE will damage all the monsters in range, and [with any luck and a some good aim] Should only hit one to two party members max. If that's the case hit points providing by all means fire away, but if your tank is just about dead and your cleric can't heal him until after your turn, then don't blast, at least not right away. Talking to your party members is also a big thing. Character wise unless they've been in the same group for their entire lives and have gotten their routine down to one, two, three, and done they will not know what you want without communication.
[oh and I don't disagree with your tactics at all just trying to provide a little more info on how it can be done.]
This isn't always possible...
No, it is not. But that is no excuse for being wanton and/or reckless in the use of wide attacks which can and do inflict damage on allies or other bystanders. Repeatedly making that kind of attack is sloppy and arrogant.
Group initiative checks should also help the situation: The PCs get a single initiative but can freely decide from turn to turn the order in which each individual PC takes his actions.
e.g.:
- Round 1: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue
- Round2: Rogue, Wizard, Fighter, Cleric
This allows the Wizard to with his AoE attacks to act before the target area gets crowded with friendlies, or after friendlies have vacated the target area.
There are lots of ways to determine group initiative. One way is to simply start with a random player. He rolls his character's initiative for the first encounter and the result applies to whole group. For each following the encounter the next player to the left makes the initiative roll.
Group initiative checks should also help the situation: The PCs get a single initiative but can freely decide from turn to turn the order in which each individual PC takes his actions.
You can accomplish the same thing with Delaying and Readying actions.
This isn't always possible...
No, it is not. But that is no excuse for being wanton and/or reckless in the use of wide attacks which can and do inflict damage on allies or other bystanders. Repeatedly making that kind of attack is sloppy and arrogant.
I've gotta agree with grumpycelt. EVEN if blasting friendlies is the best tactical solution (and it's usually not) there's no way most people would stand around and be hosed down with fire. It's one thing if it's a near death situation and blasting a friendly is the ONLY way to save the situation. (unlikely, but possible). In character, an 'ally' hurting me when the situation wasn't dire would result in face punching after the encounter was over. Out of character, blasting 2 enemies and 2 allies is a horrible tradeoff tactically. Pc's typically have lower Hp's and frequently have lower NADS than similar level monsters. So blasting two party members hurts them proportionally a lot worse than the monsters they are standing next to.
First Time it Happened:- 'woh there watch out for the rest of us before unleashing hell'
Second Time:- 'I told you to watch out for the rest of us when using that arcane stuff - do it again and im telling you now i wont be responsible for your health and well being afterwards...'
Third Time:- character picks himself up, pats out the small fires on his charred armour and proceeds to beat 'Captain Blastypants' to a pulp before tying him up and leaving him for whatever foul creatures inhabit the locale. 'If you are a bigger liability to my health than the monsters then i needed to deal with you first...'
The problem I have with that logic is that it seperates you from the illusion. I don't want to play a game. I want to be immersed in the fantasy world.
So instead, put yourself in your character's place and handle it in character.
Say I'm a fighter going toe-to-toe with some bad guy. My life is directly on the line. A comrade, standing a safe distance behind me uses some sort of aoe attack to damage the creature I'm fighting but also damages me in the process.
If it was an accident, he better be appologizing like crazy.
If it was intentional, he better be running because I'm going to hurt him.
If it were to happen a second time, one of us would have to leave the party.
As a character, is it reasonable to act in any other manner?
Group initiative checks should also help the situation: The PCs get a single initiative but can freely decide from turn to turn the order in which each individual PC takes his actions.
You can accomplish the same thing with Delaying and Readying actions.
If the party acts in a reasonably co-ordinated manner then using ready and delay actions will see them gravitate towards the lowest initiative in the party. If the players have trust issues (or are simply very impatient) I don't think it likely that they'll be willing to sacrifice their good initiative for the benefit of another player.
-DF
Friendly fire is a fact of life in 4th edition for many classes. Sorcerers and most controllers have to target all creatures in AoEs with their powers. And in my opinion, damage is generally the smallest concern when it comes to friendly fire. In a party with sufficient leader support, taking damage just means expenditure of resources in surges, and number of heals the leader can dish out, and for the most part PCs have some of this to spare in all but the toughest fights. But control on the other hand can be far more frustrating. Taking 10, 20 or even 50 damage from a friendly fire blast is upsetting, but unless it drops you, mostly it is just an annoyance. Getting immobilized as a melee character or stunned can make you feel like the other player just robbed you of your next turn!
I have played in a group with 2 players/characters that were "friendly-fire-happy" to varying extents. One was a sorcerer who dealt crazy high damage and one was a wizard who did pitifully low damage but fairly nasty control. I found myself MUCH more annoyed by the wizard. Why? Because I was never dropped by the sorcerer and have never run out of surges. I have however lost several turns thanks to the wizard from being slowed in difficult terrain or dazed and prone, or given a -5 to attack rolls. It ticked me off. And it didn't help that often times the only ones affected by the wizards control would be his allies, but that is mostly me just grumbling about his tactics and power usage.
Also to be fair the sorcerer has done her part to minimize the threat of friendly fire by taking the mandatory feat for an arcane blaster: War Wizardry. With it, she gets -5 to hit us and deals only half damage when she does manage to hit. And she applies her AoEs judiciously; she won't drop an AoE to hit 1 enemy and 1 ally. But to hit 2 or 3 or certainly 4+ enemies to hit an ally? Sure! Likewise, she doesn't drop AoEs on allies who are close to dropping or running low on surges. When she drops an AoE on a group that includes an ally, she is taking a calculated risk: in order to maximize her offense by including as many enemies in the area as possible, she has to include an ally or two, War Wizardry minimizes the risk to her allies while maintaining the risk to her enemies. Not to mention the fact that we have an almost excessively healing-specialized Cleric in the party who has never run out of heals in a fight and provides extra healing on top of surges that generally amount to well more than a surge worth, so again the threat from her damage is easily mitigated. Control is not so easily mitigated; saves ends conditions can be alleviated with granted saves, but end of turn effects can't. If the wizard had carefully selected AoE powers that were less of a threat to us, like prone effects on a dwarf ally or ally who can stand as a minor--that would have been an example of judicious use of AoEs.
But in the end it is all luck, sometimes a nuker rolls poorly against the enemies and while rolling well against an ally, or sometimes even crits an ally. It sucks, but should be the exception. That is the case for the sorcerer I play with, not so much for the wizard. Most of the time the sorcerer blasts through several enemies at once while leaving allies unscathed. But when you are the victim of a friendly fire crit, it is easy to forget all of the damage a nuker has saved you in the past by killing or controlling an enemy before they could hurt you.
And for those that suggest that AoE casters just hold their fire when an ally is in the burst, you have to consider that there is a cost. The way that most encounters are designed these days, finding a cluster of enemies to nuke is rare--most enemies are rather carefully spread out. PCs that have taken encounter or daily AoE powers only get so many opportunities to use them, asking them to "refrain" from using them is like them asking you to refrain from using your favorite encounter power. Since I think that it is defenders who most suffer from friendly fire scenarios, I think the best analogy is when the defender suggests an ally provoke an OA from a marked enemy in an effort to trigger their mark punishment. The defender is putting the ally at risk of being hit by the OA (and thus taking damage and occasionally suffering control) in exchange for the defending getting an extra chance to damage the enemy. And like the judicious nuker, a good defender has skewed the odds in favor of his team via the mark to hit penalty, punishment interrupting the attack, etc. But sometimes the gamble fails and the defender misses while the OA crits or includes control that costs the ally the rest of their turn, etc. These are gambles, they are higher risk for higher reward strategies. As long as you've got the odds in your favor and made sure you can afford to lose, you've done your job.
tl;dr - My take on all of this is that AoE characters have to live by the spiderman philosophy "With great power comes great responsibility." If you have AoEs you have to weigh the pros and cons before you use them. But for the allies of nukers, you have to consider whether your nuking ally is doing that. If your nuking ally hasn't spent any resources on minimizing the threat to you, then sure you have every right to complain and say that they are making a poor gamble. Likewise, if they number of enemies targetted doesn't exceed the number of allies targetted, then you can tell them that they statistically dealing more damage to Team PC than Team Monster. Or if the nuker is attacking you while you are close to death or stunning you all the time, then tell them that they are stealing your ability to contribute to the encounter and stealing your ability to enjoy the game. But if the ally isn't violating one of those rules, then there is nothing to complain about. They are contributing to the party just like everyone else.
-Malk
PS - it is pretty late as I write this, so hopefully this makes sense.
