Blunder and Forced Movement

[Maleketh]

One of my players and I are having a disagreement about forced movement, specifically as it applies to the bard power Blunder.

Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier damage, and you slide the target 2 squares. During the slide, you or one of your allies can make a melee basic attack against the target as a free action, with a +2 power bonus to the attack roll.

My player wants to slide the the target 0 squares and just give his ally the free attack. Sliding 0 squares isn't a problem, as per the PHB:

The power you’re using specifies how many squares you can move a target. You can choose to move the target fewer squares or not to move it at all.

My inclination is to rule that this denies his ally the free attack - he's electing "not to move it at all," which to me implies that no slide takes place.

Rule 0 aside, which of us, if either, do the RAW favor?

 

[DracoSuave]

One of my players and I are having a disagreement about forced movement, specifically as it applies to the bard power Blunder.

Normally, I'd say the slide's nonexistance doesn't affect the power... however, I actually went to read it.

Hit: 1d6 + Charisma modifier damage, and you slide the target 2 squares. During the slide, you or one of your allies can make a melee basic attack against the target as a free action, with a +2 power bonus to the attack roll.
Virtue of Cunning: The power bonus to the attack roll equals 1 + your Intelligence modifier.

In this exact case, the free attack can only occur during the slide. No slide means there's no opportunity to make the free attack.

If the power had said, instead, that you slide them, and -then- someone can make the free attack, then the slide would be irrelevant. This power is specific tho, the slide is necessary for the attack to occur during it.

 

[Maleketh]

That was my reasoning. However, my player argues that a slide of 0 squares is still a slide. As I said, I'm inclined to disagree, but if the RAW says otherwise I'd certainly like to know.

 

[Mort_Q]

I agree with your player, a slide of 0 is still a slide. I can blunder while sitting; no reason one can't blunder in the same square.

 

[boar]

Two things.

First, I agree with your player. Remember that squares in 4e represent 5x5 foot blocks, which isn't a negligible amount of space. "Slide 0" isn't the same as "no slide;" the enemy is still slid, just not more than 5 feet. In fact, from one corner of a square to the other is over 7 feet. That's a substantial distance to "blunder" someone, all inside one square!

Second, why didn't your player just slide the enemy one square and then slide it back? You'd need an extremely far-fetched scenario to make that impossible.

 

[DracoSuave]

That was my reasoning. However, my player argues that a slide of 0 squares is still a slide. As I said, I'm inclined to disagree, but if the RAW says otherwise I'd certainly like to know.

Well, if you can have something happen during absolutely nothing, then sure.

It's not a question of whether a slide of 0 is a slide, the question is if there is anything there to happen during. When does it occur?

 

[Xyrlove Woodsoul]

I asked this same question not too long ago, along with Staggering Note, and the consensus seemed, that you don't actually need to slide them to get the free MBA. I think I side against the (apparent) consensus though, because a 0 slide, is too much like, teleporting 0 squares, which, I dunno, seems kind of, meh. But I don't think that it even takes that. I figure the term, "slide", is first-and-foremost, a mechanical term, not a flavor one. Thus, I think in order for something to be called a "slide," in mechanical terms, then x must move at least one square. Otherwise, it is only a slide, nominally-speaking.

 

[Aulirophile]

You are correct on the RAW, but he can slide it 1 square, then slide it back to the same square, so....

 

[DracoSuave]

You are correct on the RAW, but he can slide it 1 square, then slide it back to the same square, so....

Well yes, he could very well do this.

Also, sliding someone to where you think a trap is can be HALARIOUS.

 

[jbear]

You are correct on the RAW, but he can slide it 1 square, then slide it back to the same square, so....

this was what I was thinking. Why couldn't he just do this? What special interest did he have in not moving him back and forth (for all intents and purposes the same as 'slide 0') ?