Forced Movement

[Infiniti2000]

Yeah, but the respective characters could choose to become allied or hostile for this particular effect.

To be clear, this isn't a defined rule. I wouldn't allow it, for example, and I doubt the majority would here as well. Just you and eamon!

 

[Kingreaper]

To be clear, this isn't a defined rule. I wouldn't allow it, for example, and I doubt the majority would here as well. Just you and eamon!

Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and both terms assume willing targets.

You can move through an ally's square, but the term ally assumes that they're willing.

It's quite justifiable from that to state that you can't move through the square of someone not willing to allow you.

Of course, it could be that the term "ally" doesn't require that except for when targeting.

 

[Mort_Q]

I mean, think about it. You can move through your friends' squares because they let you.

My gut reaction is ... Meh, but that's not based on any text, nor do I see it as being abusive. Having a creature decide who is an enemy and who is an ally when they use a power on their turn is one thing, having them flip-flop on some else's turn is another. As I said, gut reaction.

However, if the PCs can do it, so can the NPCs.

If the PCs can decide enemies are allies and allow them through squares, then NPCs can decide that their allies are enemies and not allow them through squares.

 

[Amaroq]

I think the recent errata on Dominate makes it pretty clear that one can't just flip-flop whether they're an ally or not based on what's convenient at the time.

Mind, I think its a pretty heavy-handed ruling, but applying it consistently it does prevent this sort of debate.

In practice, I don't really want to use the errata as written and would rather leave it up to the DM's discretion as to when a creature is considered an ally of another creature, an enemy of said creature, or when to leave it up to the creature .. and this is a case where I'd rule "You're allies, your friend can be forced to move through your space whether you want him to or not."

 

[AllThatRemains7]

Yeah, but the respective characters could choose to become allied or hostile for this particular effect.

I mean, think about it. You can move through your friends' squares because they let you.

I would say that you can not choose to push and enemy through an allies square because you push them.. you are not dragging them through all those squares.

It's as if the enemy is stumbling backward a certain distance and his enemies are still his enemies.

 

[N0Man]

I think the recent errata on Dominate makes it pretty clear that one can't just flip-flop whether they're an ally or not based on what's convenient at the time.

Mind, I think its a pretty heavy-handed ruling, but applying it consistently it does prevent this sort of debate.

In practice, I don't really want to use the errata as written and would rather leave it up to the DM's discretion as to when a creature is considered an ally of another creature, an enemy of said creature, or when to leave it up to the creature .. and this is a case where I'd rule "You're allies, your friend can be forced to move through your space whether you want him to or not."

I was about to bring up the Dominate example as well.

I've yet to see anyone want to try to play with the definition of Ally vs Enemy for any reason other than to gain some additional advantage that appears not to be intended by a power, or avoid a disadvantage or limitation that does seem intended.

I might allow exceptions in special cases, but I'd prefer to stick with the rules for the most part.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yeah, but the respective characters could choose to become allied or hostile for this particular effect.

I mean, think about it. You can move through your friends' squares because they let you.

No, because the respective characters aren't unreceptive to your powers just because you're being pushed. You're not using a power on them to test this.

If I push you, your friend's receptiveness to MY power is not relevant to whether or not they are YOUR ally; only their receptiveness to YOUR powers.

 

[Legildur]

Hindering terrain is terrain that damages, or otherwise punishes movement.

Is the term 'hindering' or 'hazardous'? I thought it was 'hazadous'.

 

[DracoSuave]

Is the term 'hindering' or 'hazardous'? I thought it was 'hazadous'.

Definately hindering.

It doesn't need to be hazardous-- for example, terrain that gives you the slowed condition if you enter it is also hindering terrain, because it is punishing you for movement.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You can move through an ally's square, but the term ally assumes that they're willing.

It's quite justifiable from that to state that you can't move through the square of someone not willing to allow you.

Of course, it could be that the term "ally" doesn't require that except for when targeting.

I completely disagree because this isn't about willingness, it's about the sudden change in categorization of ally vs. enemy. In other words, if the forced movement provoked an OA, then you're saying that your ally should take it. The sudden recategorization is nothing more than an attempt at tweaking the mechanics and ignoring the words. Instead of ally and enemy you want to call them apples and oranges. "You can't move through a square containing an orange." "No problem, I'll just call it an apple."