Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Graf" data-source="post: 4470890" data-attributes="member: 3087">This is just my opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I just don't see the arguement as being particularly well supported.I realize that 3.x was the era of pun-pun; I just don't think that continuing that was a design goal of 4e.[sblock=kibbitz]I kinda see your map as an example of "reading tiny little bits of text is weird ways".1. I don't think that's what people think of when they think of push2. For that matter, my reading of push is that you have to keep moving glib further away with each pushed square. There are multiple squares that are the same distance from the origin, which would require slide, no?Maybe it's an abusive combination and will get errata'd at some point. But I think it probably works the way it'd work if you think about it.I'm not sure why say... a wall of fire is supposed to have this special rule that overrides the normal forced movement rules (which override the normal movement rules) but say... cloud of daggers doesn't.(if that's what your saying...)If that was the intent... wouldn't they say it somewhere? Generally when an exception has an exception they call it out in the books (not always but...); If that were really a design goal they would probably just say "you can only take damage from a wall/area of effect once per turn".Like with the whole Come-and-Get=slide arguement that everybody was so excited about. Effectively it grants a free attack to all adjacent foes. I kinda made the arguement that that made no sense and that powers that grant adjacent allies free attacks say so... but there was the fixation on the word shift to the exclusion of thinking about how the system works.Again here, if you were only supposed to do damage with a power once a round, instead of burying that "rule" in some sort of arcane structure of exceptions I think they'd just say. "Only does damage once a round" or Under Forced Movement they'd just say "you can't push your target into a given effect that causes damage more than once with a single forced move".The whole "OK, so now this exception is going to interact with push in some way that isn't mentioned in any direct way in the rules to prevent this abuse" arguement seems.... to me.... to sort of miss how 4e works.Some power combos are better than others. If this is abusive it'll be errata'd in some fashion but I don't think they'll "errata" it with a complicated, obscure multi-tiered system consisting of a bunch of interlocking (but never explicitly explained or stated) power exceptions.[/sblock]</blockquote>

Verification