Do YOU nod to "realism"?

[Wormwood]

It was clever in AD&D to push someone over a cliff more so than it is now in 4e? .

It's been a looong time, but I can't even remember what rule one would use to push someone over a cliff in 1e. Was it as codified as (to use 4e as an example) "use power to push/slide n squares" or "see page 42 for examples"?

 

[Hussar]

AFAIK Wormwood, 1e contained no forced movement mechanics. For this, you're going to be entirely in DM fiat territory.

 

[Argyle King]

Out of curiosity, why would I improvise to push someone off a cliff rather than using thunderwave, tide of iron, or other such powers which accomplish the same thing while also doing other things?

 

[Aenghus]

As regards marking, I often have monsters ignore the defenders and attack squishier PCs, suffering the -2 from being marked and probably the defender punishment attack as well. (This is a judgement call based on how fanatical, disciplined or cowardly the monsters are).

However it often isn't worth ignoring the mark. I think if defender mark could be reliably shaken off, they would be worthless.

I'm happy with most of the defender mechanic because they are not coercive, there is a choice involved for marked monsters.

Now as for thinking outside the box, I don't see a lot of it, but to be honest I never saw a lot of it in previous editions either. A goodly proportion of such requests in previous editions were looking for a one shot kill and disallowed. A bunch of other requests got lumbered with such high attack penalties they were generally a waste of time, though they seemed to keep players ignorant of probablility happy. Much of the remainder was use of spells in non-standard ways.

 

[Wormwood]

Out of curiosity, why would I improvise to push someone off a cliff rather than using thunderwave, tide of iron, or other such powers which accomplish the same thing while also doing other things?

Assuming you had such a power available, not much. But not everyone has a forced movement power available when they need it.

 

[Wormwood]

A goodly proportion of such requests in previous editions were looking for a one shot kill and disallowed.

I remember many a time when the DM said something along the lines of ,"That is a very creative exploit you have discovered---for the sake of the game please forget you ever thought of it."

(and now I am going to have very troubled nightmares about some of the horrors I saw on rec.games.frp.dnd)

 

[KarinsDad]

Out of curiosity, why would I improvise to push someone off a cliff rather than using thunderwave, tide of iron, or other such powers which accomplish the same thing while also doing other things?

Because you're doing something clever?

At least according to people who think that forced movement into a hazard is a clever tactic. Compared to flanking or shifting or a lot of other fairly pedestrian and typical tactics. Kind of like saying that anyone who writes a sentence is being clever because monkeys cannot do it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, KarinsDad, this does shed a fair bit of light on your opinion though. Your definition of "do something clever" is really, "Do something that is not specifically allowed by the rules" and thus anything that is provided for in the ruleset is not clever play.

No. My definition of "do something clever" is "do something clever".

Something that is not done at your gaming table on a fairly consistent basis and that other players at the table would probably not think of.

In other words, clever, unprecedented, exceptional, unusual, atypical, ingenious, cunning, and/or canny.

Not normal, average, typical, pedestrian, or ordinary.

If one considers using forced movement into some type of hazard or disadvantageous position via power or bull rush to be a clever tactic, I cannot say that the person is wrong. Such a tactic might be extraordinary for that person. It seems like this type of tactic is extraordinary for you since you've written so glowingly of it and 4 of your 8 examples used it (although you claimed that your players do these extraordinary types of things a lot, so it would seem that they would be ordinary instead because they are done a lot, but I digress).

I just happen to consider using forced movement into some type of hazard or disadvantageous position via power or bull rush to be a fairly typical and ordinary tactic, one that I have literally seen hundreds of times in 4E.

 

[KarinsDad]

I remember many a time when the DM said something along the lines of ,"That is a very creative exploit you have discovered---for the sake of the game please forget you ever thought of it."

I remember a player playing a Druid PC who moved past a giant in 3.5 (walking right past his fallen ally in the process), provoked the OA, and then after the giant hit him, continued his walk to his fallen ally and cast a Cure spell on him. Since the giant had already used his OA for that PC, he could not do it for casting a spell, even though the spell casting would normally be what provoked in this situation. It was a convoluted movement, but one to exploit the rules.

I consider this to be a creative exploit the first time or two it is used. If it is used a lot in a campaign, it is a typical tactic (and also one that as DM, I would ask the player to forget he has ever thought of because it reeks of metagaming).

 

[Argyle King]

I think using terrain to your advantage is a good tactic.

With some of my questions, I've been trying to get some more insight into how others play the game.