D&D 5E Pushing Opponents

[Shiroiken]

Watch out. This gives a way to impose disadvantage on a third party without the third party getting to resist. Expect players to start shoving goblins into the same space as Nycaloths so they can attack the Nycaloths at advantage.

That's why one of them ha the option to go Prone. In this case, I'd have the Nycaloth force the Goblin to go Prone, so only the Goblin has Disadvantage. It's can still be a good tactic in certain situations (you'd probably just kill the Goblin with the damage) and makes the Shove action a bit better.

 

[Uller]

Watch out. This gives a way to impose disadvantage on a third party without the third party getting to resist. Expect players to start shoving goblins into the same space as Nycaloths so they can attack the Nycaloths at advantage.

The character gaining disadvantage (we'll call it the bystander) may not get an active role to resist but it does have an influence. It imposed disadvantage on the original check AND (if there is room) it allows the bystander to make a choice. So I think it is all good.

Besides...let's say you have an empty room with a box and a halfling hides in the box (since apparently this is the most common scenario in D&D). Then the ogre shoves the dwarf into the box...

It should be a bit harder to make the dwarf go into the box as it's already partially full of halfling. But once both characters are in the box, it's a tighter fit so the dwarf and the halfling should be at a disadvantage now. Eventually...you hit critical mass and there is probably some sort of explosion and then you need a mop.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's why one of them ha the option to go Prone. In this case, I'd have the Nycaloth force the Goblin to go Prone, so only the Goblin has Disadvantage. It's can still be a good tactic in certain situations (you'd probably just kill the Goblin with the damage) and makes the Shove action a bit better.

But now you're changing the rule you set forth earlier: one of them gets to force the other to go prone.

If you just make it "the smaller creature goes prone" you might have a semi-workable system. Still a little bit subject to exploitation (e.g. Paladin Shoves his Large steed into the lich's space to force the lich to go prone) but the main scenarios would probably work okay.

Even better would be if the shover had to beat the Athletics scores of both the shovee and the bystander: two points of failure instead of one. That would make it impossible to indirectly shove prone anyone that you wouldn't have been able to shove prone directly.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Watch out. This gives a way to impose disadvantage on a third party without the third party getting to resist. Expect players to start shoving goblins into the same space as Nycaloths so they can attack the Nycaloths at advantage.

Why is the Nycaloth hanging out with goblins? Was it trying to cheese the help/hinder rules, to have them impose disadvantage on the party? Because that sounds like turnabout is fair play.

Not every condition should be resistable. As an example, you can inflict disadvantage on entire groups of opponents by simply putting out the lights. This is roughly in line with that.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

This is a DM call. The question I try to ask myself is: "What type of PC behavior do I want to encourage?"

If there are 5 rolls and I'm more likely to stab myself in the foot than move the opponent, then I'm never going to try this again, and I'm probably not going to try something similar (see grappling and other maneuvers more complex than "I hit you with weapon" in 3e).

If, on the other hand, a single successful (possibly opposed) check guarantees that something cool happens, with a second check to see if the particular tactical circumstances cause an additional cool thing to happen, then I'm going to feel motivated to be creative and do all sorts of interesting things in the right situations.

If you are afraid of your players finding something you've ruled too far in their favor and repeating it endlessly in a way that outshines class abilities, then you may want to be conservative. On the other hand, you may want to let the players know that you may not always be consistent in your rulings, but that you want to try to let them be cool.

I prefer the second option I gave--making it easy to improvise cool stuff--because it encourages players to actually do that stuff, which I want to have happen. Unfortunately, I have this automatic processing that happens when someone suggests such an action, that unconsciously evaluates it against all class abilities and such for balance, as well as analyzes whether I want this happening all the time (precedent), which generally means my first response is to say you can't do that.

To counter this tendency which is at odds with my goals, I've explained the situation to the players, and encouraged them in those situations to just say, "Are you sure, DM?" (as in, "Are you sure you don't want to allow this?") as the reminder to me that I want to allow that stuff, and I can always disallow it next time if it is a problem.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I prefer the second option I gave--making it easy to improvise cool stuff--because it encourages players to actually do that stuff, which I want to have happen. Unfortunately, I have this automatic processing that happens when someone suggests such an action, that unconsciously evaluates it against all class abilities and such for balance, as well as analyzes whether I want this happening all the time (precedent), which generally means my first response is to say you can't do that.

To counter this tendency which is at odds with my goals, I've explained the situation to the players, and encouraged them in those situations to just say, "Are you sure, DM?" (as in, "Are you sure you don't want to allow this?") as the reminder to me that I want to allow that stuff, and I can always disallow it next time if it is a problem.

My solution to this tendency operates at the metagame level: the first time you allow something cool doesn't establish a precedent. It's called the Rule of Yes. "The first time someone tries a given wacky thing, it just works. The second time, I the DM will come up with actual rules for it."

That keeps players expectations in the right place while also encouraging wacky shenanigans and creativity.

 

[Horwath]

Opponent gets pushed back 5ft into his ally square.

Then the ally can make str check to negate the movement. IMO

 

[Shiroiken]

But now you're changing the rule you set forth earlier: one of them gets to force the other to go prone.

If you just make it "the smaller creature goes prone" you might have a semi-workable system. Still a little bit subject to exploitation (e.g. Paladin Shoves his Large steed into the lich's space to force the lich to go prone) but the main scenarios would probably work okay.

Even better would be if the shover had to beat the Athletics scores of both the shovee and the bystander: two points of failure instead of one. That would make it impossible to indirectly shove prone anyone that you wouldn't have been able to shove prone directly.

Ah, see by "force" I mean that I'm assuming the Nycaloth is more in charge than a mere goblin, and as DM I'm making the decisions for both. If one of them was a PC, they could choose as they see fit.

Also, you seem to have forgotten that the Shove attempt is at Disadvantage AND that the second creature can simply move to a free space as part of the shove (both from my OP). This would really limit corner cases and mostly negate the Paladin pushing his steed thing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ah, see by "force" I mean that I'm assuming the Nycaloth is more in charge than a mere goblin, and as DM I'm making the decisions for both. If one of them was a PC, they could choose as they see fit.

Also, you seem to have forgotten that the Shove attempt is at Disadvantage AND that the second creature can simply move to a free space as part of the shove (both from my OP). This would really limit corner cases and mostly negate the Paladin pushing his steed thing.

I hadn't forgotten about the Shove being at disadvantage. I just don't see it as relevant, since the Fighter is going to beat the goblin's check with or without disadvantage, even where he might not beat the Nycaloth's.

I hadn't noticed your proposal that the second creature can simply move to a free space. I agree that that would mitigate the issue in a similar way to leaving the Nycaloth standing over a prone goblin. Either way at least the Nycaloth isn't getting disadvantage.

 

[Satyrn]

Unlike much of D&D, this is something you could actually try.

You can also watch it play out every Sunday. Only you're trying to push your ally holding the ball through a half dozen ogres to get him into the endzone.