Okay, it came up during play and got deferred for later forum discussion, so here's the post. As written, area effects, including the humble melee radius, affect friend and foe alike. I'll admit; it's not ideal. Here's the crux of the problem:
How do you determine if a combatant is a friend or a foe?
It's possible that there's a simple, obvious way of doing this that we've overlooked. However, it's not always a simple case. For example, what if a monster is shapeshifted to appear as an ally? What if your friend is secretly a traitor? While you might consider them an ally, they might not think the same way.
Likewise, what if one of your allies is frenzied or commanded into attacking the party? Presumably, you'd still consider each other allies in any other context. What if you're the frenzied or commanded one and attacking your allies? Are your area effects totally ineffective against them?
The ideal solution would be for the person originating the effect to be able to define who receives it. That way, it's under the subjective control of the user to determine who is a friend or foe at the moment the action is used. The problem, of course, is that doing so would almost certainly require a hold.
Thus, we arrive at the simplest solution of having area effects hit everyone. A better solution would allow the user to control the targets without slowing down combat.
Any ideas on how to do this?
Good question. Other than the fact that saying otherwise would have made effects like Freeze and Snare worthless, I would have avoided the whole friend/foe problem there as well. It's obvious that we need a good litmus test. I'm just at a loss as to what it should be.
As the gnoll who got healed 10'd, and spawned a lot of this debate, I feel I should contribute:
I'm personally a fan of the radius effects affect everyone that is in the radius, whether positively or negatively.
It keeps things simple, while also making use of radius effects a much more calculated maneuver. Admittedly, this option does negate some of the benefits of radius abilities in a crowded situation.
Would it be a simple fix to say that some abilities do not affect pc's. For example, in warcraft I was very dismayed to find out that my pallies ability to blast undead didn't work on the horde undead in pvp. It worked great for pve but was deemed too powerful for use against one race in pvp. They have since fixed this and it's overpowered and nice.
Could we do a similar rules arbitration? Some effects do not affect pc's. Even if targeted by the other players. Effects like death wish are more for battlefields of opposing forces not pc's. Area provokes just suck if they attract everyone in the area. And that was not their intention. They were made for foes.
It is simple to say that it effects all in the area, but it's just as simple to say it only works on non pc's. I understand that this makes some abilities worthless in pvp but it's a small price to pay for abilities to work as intended. Besides we can still have the weapon strike provoke work normally.
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I can see three potential problems with limiting certain effects from being used against PCs. One, players have to keep track of a separate list of things they know don't affect them. Two, we're tying our hands from allowing monsters to use those abilities; what happens to the humble goblin Mock? Three, we're limiting options for PvP. This may sound a bit contradictory, but I want to make it less frequent, not necessarily less interesting.
My current inclination is to get rid of the area Provokes in favor of multi-strike Provokes. It's not ideal, but it would allow the user to selectively target the opponents they want without affecting allies.
"You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!"
- Bureaucrat 1.0, Futurama
Well since im the only fighter with this ability, or that I've seen use this ability, I personally feel like this menacing stance is something that would be done to foes only. If someone was going to betray me then this would set them off as well or if they seek to hurt me anyway they would attack. But the stance is in my eyes like mocking someone or flipping them off or something of that nature. I would not do that to friends and fake friends would be provoked simply because they don't like me.
It isn't that LIBERALS ARE IGNORANT. It's just that THEY KNOW SO MUCH THAT ISN'T SO. REAGAN
How is friend/foe determined for breaking someone out of effects like freeze, snare, etc. or are we still going with what the rules currently state that "any damage dealt to the affected creature immediately ends the effect"?