Move a (willing?) (able?) ally




What's on your mind?

+ Log in or register to post
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    infocynic's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lansing, MI
    Posts
    421

    Ignore infocynic

    Move a (willing?) (able?) ally

    How would you handle pushing or pulling a willing & able ally? One could rule that it's like a bull rush (standard action str vs fort), or that you have to first grab the ally (s. act: str vs reflex) and then succeed on a str vs fort check to move them (up to half your speed).

    I'm leaning toward just str. vs fort, move up to half your speed, because if they're willing, they're not really resisting the grab. Should the willing & able PCs give a small bonus on the str vs fort check, on the assumption that they cooperate? Maybe there is no check, you can drag an adjacent ally up to half your move speed at any time?


    A more interesting version is the willing but unable (immobilized, for example) ally. Say the paladin fell victim to a gluepot from a Kobold Slinger. Forced movement is still allowed, but now there's an effect to overcome. I think I would say here that if the condition is immobilized (etc): until escape, that you use the fort of the condition OR the PC, whichever is higher. If the condition is save ends, then you just use the fort of the PC.


    Now there's the third case of unwilling & unable (e.g., helpless). PHB says "these are treated like objects, you just pick them up and move them." Of course, the rules for moving objects (PHB 222) are really terrible. Basically it seems like you can carry a helpless ally freely, with no penalty, unless the ally is too heavy compared with the rest of your load. And since there's really no advantage to weighing more, all PCs might as well design themselves with the minimum weight for their race. Perhaps the intent here was to say that helpless allies can be freely dragged up to half your movement speed, with no check, which I would certainly allow.

    Anyone with thoughts or better citations from RAW to support a ruling one way or another?

 

  • #2
    Afaik there are certain powers that lets you do this or similar to it, fighters "get over here" comes to mind, there are probably more.
    Since there are encounter powers to these effects I sort of think they would loose their value if you made a general houserule that lets your players throw eachother around haphazardly ?
    Do not argue with Dwarves, they will drag you down to their level.
    And beat you with sledgehammers.

    Please forgive any grammar or spelling errors.
    English is not my native language.

  • #3
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    Syrsuro's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lawrence, IN
    Posts
    484

    Ignore Syrsuro
    Query: Are you referring to the specific meaning of the terms "Push" and "Pull" meaning forced movement, or are you talking in general terms as in "I grab Fred and pull him out of the way"?

    As I read your post, it sounds more like the latter, but using those terms is going to make people assume you meant the former.

    Carl

  • #4
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    infocynic's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lansing, MI
    Posts
    421

    Ignore infocynic
    Quote Originally Posted by Syrsuro View Post
    Query: Are you referring to the specific meaning of the terms "Push" and "Pull" meaning forced movement, or are you talking in general terms as in "I grab Fred and pull him out of the way"?

    As I read your post, it sounds more like the latter, but using those terms is going to make people assume you meant the former.

    Carl
    I was hoping to rule it as forced movement and let the rules for forced movement apply.

  • #5
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    infocynic's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lansing, MI
    Posts
    421

    Ignore infocynic
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazydwarf View Post
    Afaik there are certain powers that lets you do this or similar to it, fighters "get over here" comes to mind, there are probably more.
    Since there are encounter powers to these effects I sort of think they would loose their value if you made a general houserule that lets your players throw eachother around haphazardly ?
    Get Over Here is a move action, anything I could come up would require at least a standard action and probably standard + move. For now I guess there's Bull Rush, and I think that RAW allows you to grab an ally and then move him like you would an enemy, and I think that there's no reason to assume the ally resists the grab so no check vs Reflex needed, just vs Fort to see if you can muster the strength to move the big dumb ally who's in the way of the boulder, etc.

  • #6
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Edenvale, San Jose, CA
    Posts
    3,755

    Ignore Tony Vargas
    My communities:

    If someone wants to help an imobilized/restrained (save ends) ally who's physically stuck in something, I suppose you could have him spend a standard action and make a STR check, DC 10 (or maybe Athletics DC 15, the same DC as using healing to grant an extra save vs ongoing damage) to grant him another save.

    Picking up or dragging a character should be perfectly workable. Picking up and carrying someone is tough, though, since you're carrying all your gear, most of his (whatever he didn't drop) and his body weight, so dragging is probably going to be the case for any but very strong characters. Being light and easy to carry is an advantage when a friend is dragging you out of danger, yes - then again, it's a disadvantage when an enemy wants to kidnap you.


    There are actual powers that let you shift, push, pull or slide allies, or grant them the ability to move or shift as free actions, or get in the way of attacks directed at them. It wouldn't make much sense to let anyone do what some classes have powers to do, so I'd be careful with the idea. Examine powers with similar effects and make sure the universeally available option is much less effective or more risky than the powers.

  • #7
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    infocynic's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lansing, MI
    Posts
    421

    Ignore infocynic
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    If someone wants to help an imobilized/restrained (save ends) ally who's physically stuck in something, I suppose you could have him spend a standard action and make a STR check, DC 10 (or maybe Athletics DC 15, the same DC as using healing to grant an extra save vs ongoing damage) to grant him another save.

    Picking up or dragging a character should be perfectly workable. Picking up and carrying someone is tough, though, since you're carrying all your gear, most of his (whatever he didn't drop) and his body weight, so dragging is probably going to be the case for any but very strong characters. Being light and easy to carry is an advantage when a friend is dragging you out of danger, yes - then again, it's a disadvantage when an enemy wants to kidnap you.


    There are actual powers that let you shift, push, pull or slide allies, or grant them the ability to move or shift as free actions, or get in the way of attacks directed at them. It wouldn't make much sense to let anyone do what some classes have powers to do, so I'd be careful with the idea. Examine powers with similar effects and make sure the universeally available option is much less effective or more risky than the powers.
    Well, RAW Immobilized does not prevent forced movement (nor teleporting). "Forced movement" as far as I know includes Push, Pull, and Slide, and perhaps baleful teleports (swordmage).

    So there already is an at-will universally available to make a Push 1, and that's Bull Rush, which written as a power would read something like

    Bull Rush * Universal Attack 1
    At-Will * (no keywords)
    Standard Action * Melee 1
    Target: One creature
    Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude
    Hit: Push the target 1 square and shift into the vacated square.
    Special: You may charge as part of this attack. If you do, gain a +1 bonus to the attack roll.

    So RAW, I see no problem with allowing that. If you were immobilized, you still are, you're just not in the same place you were. Remember that immobilized != restrained. The former is more of a "my legs don't work right" and the latter is more "I'm being held against my will by some object or force" (restrained prevents even forced movement). Compared to Get Over Here, a Fighter Utility 2, which is a Move action, Melee 1, slides the target 2 without any sort of check, the Fighter power is certainly more powerful.

    The rules for carrying and dragging are terrible because they don't cover combat. Most PCs probably couldn't tell you how much they're carrying, or their DM has told them not to worry about it unless they're trying to carry a LOT of stuff.

    Let's go back to RAW. Grab (290) says you have to grab with Str vs Reflex (standard action) and then you can move with Str vs Fort (standard action) up to half your speed. The target of grab is "a creature that is [no more than 1 size category] larger than you." So that should include your PC allies unless you somehow got a large PC and you're a halfling. Now if you assume that the Reflex defense in the grab is wanting to avoid the grab... and a willing ally wouldn't be wanting to avoid it, you could arguably skip that check, although it should still take some time to grab the PC, maybe a minor action, like drawing a weapon. Clearly, however you work grabbing another PC, you could move him or her once grabbed with a succesful str vs fort check as a standard action.

    So I propose:
    Grab a Willing Ally * Universal Utility 1
    At-will * (no keywords)
    Minor Action * Melee 1
    Target: One willing ally
    Effect: You grab the ally.

    Move! * Universal Attack 1
    At-will * (no keywords)
    Standard Action * Special
    Target: One creature you're grabbing
    Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude
    Hit: Move up to have your speed, pulling the target with you.
    Special: This movement does not provoke OAs for your target. You do not provoke OAs from your target, but you do from other enemies.


    Except for "Grab an Ally" that seems like RAW to me.

  • #8
    Good question! I've wondered this myself. My thoughts below.

    Quote Originally Posted by infocynic View Post
    So there already is an at-will universally available to make a Push 1, and that's Bull Rush, which written as a power would read something like

    Bull Rush * Universal Attack 1
    At-Will * (no keywords)
    Standard Action * Melee 1
    Target: One creature
    Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude
    Hit: Push the target 1 square and shift into the vacated square.
    Special: You may charge as part of this attack. If you do, gain a +1 bonus to the attack roll.

    So RAW, I see no problem with allowing that. If you were immobilized, you still are, you're just not in the same place you were. Remember that immobilized != restrained. The former is more of a "my legs don't work right" and the latter is more "I'm being held against my will by some object or force" (restrained prevents even forced movement). Compared to Get Over Here, a Fighter Utility 2, which is a Move action, Melee 1, slides the target 2 without any sort of check, the Fighter power is certainly more powerful.
    That makes sense to me when the ally is immobilized. But in the general case, I feel like this is stepping on the turf of the warlord's Wolf Pack Tactics a bit... It's not as good, of course, but then Bull Rush also allows you to shift, which WPT does not.

    I think the thing that bothers me most about this approach is the Fortitude defense, though. According to p. 274, defenses are "your ability to avoid injury and other ill effects". Unless the push is against the ally's will, I don't think using Fortitude is appropriate. See below.

    Quote Originally Posted by infocynic View Post
    The rules for carrying and dragging are terrible because they don't cover combat. Most PCs probably couldn't tell you how much they're carrying, or their DM has told them not to worry about it unless they're trying to carry a LOT of stuff.
    Well, they sort of include combat for helpless allies. As pointed out earlier, helpless allies are treated as objects. On page 289, "Pick up an item" is a minor action to "pick up an object in your space or in an unoccupied square within reach". (It could be argued that the ally's square isn't really occupied if they're helpless, since you can end your turn there etc.) This involves both hands, though, so you'd have to sheathe or drop weapons. And I would say it involves more than a minor action, considering the size of the "object".

    Anway, pushing is another story.

    Quote Originally Posted by infocynic View Post
    So I propose:
    Grab a Willing Ally * Universal Utility 1
    At-will * (no keywords)
    Minor Action * Melee 1
    Target: One willing ally
    Effect: You grab the ally.

    Move! * Universal Attack 1
    At-will * (no keywords)
    Standard Action * Special
    Target: One creature you're grabbing
    Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude
    Hit: Move up to have your speed, pulling the target with you.
    Special: This movement does not provoke OAs for your target. You do not provoke OAs from your target, but you do from other enemies.

    Except for "Grab an Ally" that seems like RAW to me.
    I mostly like this, but again there's the Fortitude issue. And grabbing someone to push them seems a bit redundant...

    I think the best approach using RAW would be to make a strength check for pushing (willing) allies, as suggested on p. 222: "Your DM can also ask you to make a Strength check to push ... something heavy in a stressful situation, such as in the middle of combat". So a DC (as in DMG, p. 42) replaces Fortitude. Weight shouldn't really be an issue, since no PC should be more than Strength x 50 (e.g., Strength 8 x 50 = 400 lbs), though fully-geared Dragonborn might be an exception. The DC could be higher in such cases.

    I haven't seen any guidelines about ability checks and type of actions, but a standard action would be balanced and logical.

    What do you think?

  • #9
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    infocynic's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lansing, MI
    Posts
    421

    Ignore infocynic
    Well, most skills require a standard action so I think it safe to say that an ability check would as well, unless it was part of a move action (although often these get lumped into athletics or acrobatics).

    My rationale for fortitude is that it nicely scales: as strength checks increase (+1/2 level modifier) so does fort defense. And fort defense represents "the inherent toughness, mass, strength, and resilience of your physique." (PHB 274). So I think it is fair to use it here as representing the mass you're trying to move. A bulky character with a high CON or STR is more muscular and should be harder to move.

    I'm not that attached to requiring the minor action to grab, but it seems helpful to make this somewhat difficult.

    As for WPT, remember that it doesn't require a check and this does.

  • + Log in or register to post

    Similar Threads

    1. Is dominated ally still an ally for purpose of powers?
      By Alnag in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 27
      Last Post: Tuesday, 8th December, 2009, 08:45 AM
    2. Double Move Action: Prone and Move
      By SparqMan in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: Saturday, 30th May, 2009, 07:55 PM
    3. Are you your own ally?
      By hennebeck in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 5
      Last Post: Monday, 26th May, 2008, 09:24 PM
    4. Move-bite-move?
      By Dagredhel in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Monday, 11th June, 2007, 01:27 AM
    5. Spend Standard Action, Move to take AoO, Get Reduced to 0 Zero: Still get to move?
      By jeffman in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 27
      Last Post: Friday, 28th July, 2006, 12:00 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •