I don't see why you decided to dissect my post in the way you did but whatever.
Premise 2. Everyone is always going to jump out of the way, because they don't want to get hit.
Incorrect. Everyone is assumed to at least -attempt- to get out of the way. Whether they react fast enough or not is a moot point, really.
In the example you gave, which is what I was using and WILL be using in this post, you described a pitcher throwing a ball and attempting to bean the batter. Using this example you then summarize that the batter will attempt to jump out of the way. I will concede that he may or may not be successful but the want for him to do it is not irrelevant.
If they DON'T jump out of the way it is because they don't realize that they are going to get hit.
See above. If they don't
react it is because they don't realize they are going to get hit until it is too late. Most feints and luring maneuvers normally don't work in the edge case of the enemy being completely unaware of your presence throughout the maneuver. You'd probably want to get their attention first.
Right, but my example was based on yours. My question remains the same. But let me break it down further.
Either the pitcher is TRYING to hit the batter in the head (to bean him as you say) or he isn't. If he IS trying to hit him then the pitcher does not benefit from the batter moving. If he is NOT trying to hit him, then it should be some sort of bluff check in order to get the batter to move. If it is the case where the pitcher IS trying to hit him then the batter being unaware doesn't matter (and in fact HELPs.. as per the current example you are now using). If he the pitcher IS NOT trying to hit the batter but instead trying to get the batter to move then if the batter is unaware (aka failing his perception/spot check) then he should NOT be subject to the attempt.
Either way, a simple effect of pitcher makes effect > batter moves is no longer as simple as it seems.
So, in this way isn't it more of a bluff, as opposed to an automatic effect that just happens because you made an attack.
Nope. It's just an effect that automatically fails if you use it on an inanimate object or creature.
Again, why isn't it a bluff check as opposed to an automatic effect?
I'm asking for an explanation, to explain something you cannot say 'nope'.
Also, the explanation I did get doesn't rely on the example you gave (pitcher and batter) and instead (I assume) talks about some other effect and target (as you mention inanimate objects - which the batter is not).
Premise 3. You force the target to move AND deal damage. So, harkening back to your ball = arrow idea. How many times do you successfully cause the guy to avoid the arrow but still cause them to get hurt by that arrow?
Incorrect assumption. Most of the time, unless you are sniping perfectly, you normally cause the enemy to
attempt to avoid the arrow. That's why they take 1d6 damage or whatever out of 16 HP instead of catching it in the neck and going to 0 automatically.
In the same respect, if you really want to drill a batter you throw at his center mass. If you have a good enough fast-ball the best he can do is twist to one side and take a glancing hit.
If I was wrong on the assumption that the underlying effect was designed to move someone and deal damage, then I completely understand and I'll move on.
However, your response here confuses me. Because the batter is attempting to move out of the way he is getting dealt 1d6 of 16 HP? How.
As we already extablished earlier the pitcher should either (a) be trying to hit the batter, or (b) be trying to move him. I don't see where (c) him trying to hit him AND move him happens. I certainly don't get how he expects to hit him but do less damage.
For a moment, because we are talking about a batter and a pitcher and not fighters and rogues I'm going to drop the HP = abstraction mechanism. I'm doing this because the example you gave is not abstract, and the example you gave is supposed to apply to the example of (un-free) forced movement.
Also once again, you didn't answer the questions I posed about premise 3.
Premise 4. If you force movement they'll ALWAYS move the same amount in the same direction as chosen by you. Why do YOU get the choice of how far/which direction?
Because I'm the person choosing the direction from which the threat comes from, and thus determine which areas in the abstracted melee in which the attack happens are "safe" and which ones are immediately fatal.
Okay, but saying "where the threat comes from" does not explain the following:
What EXACT action the target will take. The target (in this case a batter) will attempt to avoid getting hit by the ball. The target won't necessarily jump 10 feet away and end up prone. He MAY jump 5 feet away, he may run towards the dugout, he may drop to his knees and avoid the ball. He may end up prone (but that is another matter) if it hits him or he may end up prone if it is the best way to avoid getting hit by the ball, he may NOT end up prone. Or he may end up failing to avoid the blow entirely and end up hurt. How is the pitcher dictating ANY of this? How is he doing it EVERY SINGLE TIME? If he is able to then somehow (to many of us) he is able to telepathically control the batter so the batter does exactly what the pitcher wants and ends up where the pitcher wants. Damaged to boot.
Ex. Forced movement back 2 squares, every time. Now, why 2 squares? Why in a certain direction? Couldn't they misjudge and move forward.
They could, but then they'd impale their head on a stick. It's generally considered bad form to assume that an opponent's reaction to your attack is to willfully suicide himself on your weapon. It makes for a lousy game.
Right, and I'm not arguing if he should react. I'm not. Not even a little. I'm asking why the EFFECT that the pitcher is causing leads to the same outcome for the batter EVERY SINGLE TIME?
Again, you seem to be talking about an abstraction but I'm not because I'm talking about the very simple example of pitcher throwing a ball at the batter and attempting to bean him. That is it. If you have to get VERY abstract to answer that, and to force the batter to move, then something has gone wrong.
So, if I understood KM's recent ideas: They should have a choice of how to react, if to react and can take the damage if they choose not to.
No. Generally if they manage to make a choice that defeats the maneuver outright it is abstracted out in missing the attack completely. Remember, this isn't a one-sword-swing-a-around combat system.
No what? No, I don't understand KM's idea correctly?
I'm not saying (and as far as I understood KM isn't either) that there shouldn't be a form of forced movement. I think we are both saying that it shouldn't be entirely dictated by the "pitcher" just because he is the one initiating it. I am saying that if the "pitcher" IS going to dictate the exact terms of how an enemy is going to perform an action, especially if it is repeatable every single time in the exact same way, then it should be a physical thing. Even the ball attempting to bean the batter is a physical attack. He isn't just moving from side to side and thrusting a sword at the batter and assuming the batter WILL move back 2 squares. He isn't automatically forcing the batter to move. Perhaps batter, using this new 'swing a sword' thing has his own weapon and the proficiency to STOP what the pitcher is doing. The forced movement ideas don't elaborate on this. They just hope and assume that the abstraction should be enough for everyone and then say "screw off" if you want a better explanation.
Also, completely unrelated to this whole thread, and to your post in specific, who says it CAN'T BE or even SHOULDN'T BE one-sword-swing-a-round combat? I've run it that way and I only have a problem when I encounter things that ONLY work in abstraction, such as forced movement. Maybe they should look into that for
Next time.