Forced movement and immobilized targets

[Fieari]

In a PbP I'm DMing, there's a rogue who's trying to use Tornado Strike to move someone immobilized by some Black Tentacles. Is this possible?

Page 285 doesn't seem to offer any help. The closest thing that hints at a ruling is that a slide is "Not a Move", not counting against a target's ability to move on it's turn, but says nothing about being able to move a creature being prevented from moving.

As for further ramifications, imagine the scenario is that someone is trying their hardest to PREVENT someone else being moved by such abilities. Is that even possible?

 

[Dalzig]

PHB 277, Conditions, Immobilized.

Forced movement works. Shifting, Moving, Crawling, etc. do not work.

The rogue still has to roll to hit, and still does full damage when he hits. [Unless you rule otherwise, of course.]

 

[Anthony Jackson]

Currently, other than the 'restrained' condition, or the existence of a wall that forbids movement, you can't actually stop a push/pull/slide. This is fairly nonsensical for a number of immobilizing powers, but sense doesn't always enter into the picture. I would say the following effects really should block or resist forced movement:

• crushing titan's fist (wizard 17)
• entangling smite (paladin 13)
• evard's black tentacles (wizard 19)
• forcecage (wizard 27)
• iron spike of dis (warlock 9)
• necrotic web (wizard 25)
• otiluke's resilient sphere (wizard 15) (though the sphere itself should be movable)
• pinning strike (ranger 13)
• steel entrapment (rogue 23)
• tartarean tomb (warlock 25) (blocks LOS, so rarely an issue)
• tendrils of thuban (warlock 15)
• thorns of venom (warlock 23)
• web (wizard 5)

 

[Syrsuro]

Currently, other than the 'restrained' condition, or the existence of a wall that forbids movement, you can't actually stop a push/pull/slide. This is fairly nonsensical for a number of immobilizing powers, but sense doesn't always enter into the picture. I would say the following effects really should block or resist forced movement:

• crushing titan's fist (wizard 17)
• entangling smite (paladin 13)
• evard's black tentacles (wizard 19)
• forcecage (wizard 27)
• iron spike of dis (warlock 9)
• necrotic web (wizard 25)
• otiluke's resilient sphere (wizard 15) (though the sphere itself should be movable)
• pinning strike (ranger 13)
• steel entrapment (rogue 23)
• tartarean tomb (warlock 25) (blocks LOS, so rarely an issue)
• tendrils of thuban (warlock 15)
• thorns of venom (warlock 23)
• web (wizard 5)

I haven't looked at the specific powers you list, but I definately agree in principle.

If 'common sense' were the issue I'd say that there are two forms of immobilized, one that locks down the immobilzed target, preventing forced movement but without the additional penalties of restrained and the other of which permits pushing, etc. The effect of a ghoul bite ought to be different from the effect of a web (shouldn't a web restrain, anyway?).

But I also think that moving immobilized targets makes more sense for some powers than others - there are some forced movement powers that have a physical 'push' component, while others are more of a taunt, charm or enabled movement (e.g. Fighter L2 Utility: Get Over Here).

Would it have added too much complexity to have added a more restricted version of immobilized that prevented forced movement as well, and have redefined a few of the forced movement powers as forced shifts, rather than slides? The idea of a forced shift exists (Fighter L7 Enc Come and Get It), so why isn't it used more for non-physical forced movement where it would make sense?

Carl

 

[Dalzig]

The idea of a forced shift exists (Fighter L7 Enc Come and Get It), so why isn't it used more for non-physical forced movement where it would make sense?

Carl

Actually, they destroyed that with the new updates. Come and Get It is now a pull.

 

[Runestar]

For an even funnier situation, have your cleric command a fighter to escape from an immobilizing condition.

 

[eamon]

I'd say that some of the immobilizing abilities should be errata'd to grant the restrained condition instead. However, restraining is slightly more powerful, so the rest of the power might need to be tweaked to retain balance.

In any case, it's not really very logical that immobilization does not grant combat advantage as is, but those are the rules.

 

[Syrsuro]

Actually, they destroyed that with the new updates. Come and Get It is now a pull.

Well....at least that makes it consistant.

Carl

 

[On Puget Sound]

I haven't yet decided whether to fluff away the inconsistencies ("The cleric's command reaches deep into your soul, animating your legs to move despite the ghoul's immobilizing toxin") or go with common sense ("The cleric's command burns in your mind, but your paralyzed body refuses to obey"), which will make some powers more or less powerful than intended. I may ask my players for a vote, BEFORE a situation comes up.

 

[Otterscrubber]

Normally I like to follow the rules even if they don't necessarily fit with common sense or logic, but in these cases I would recommend just trying to find some common agreement between the DM and players on a case by case basis. Use your best judgment based on the nature of the immobilization and either allow/disallow it accordingly.

Hopefully the group you play with can come to reason about it, but if not then just go by the rules and allow pushes, pulls and slides to work and just keep the game moving. It's all about the the flow......