Area push

[Keenath]

Okay, so, if I get a push effect with an area power, which direction can I push? For example, suppose I use Fire Burst ("Area burst 2 within 20 squares") and then activate my Orb of Insurmountable Force ("...you can push the target a number of squares equal to the enhancement bonus of the orb.")

The definition of Push says "each square you move [the creature] must place it farther away from you", but it doesn't make a lot of sense; I would suppose it ought to operate like a thunderstone and push away from the center of the burst, which might well be towards the caster.

Is there a rule in the book for this, or should I just houserule that push or pull from an area attack operates relative to the origin square?

 

[Tremorsense]

Is there a rule in the book for this, or should I just houserule that push or pull from an area attack operates relative to the origin square?

I would have to say that since Thunderstone writes the exception into its power, then the push is always based on you. I can understand ruling it to be based on the area's origin, but I can also see that sometimes players will just want to push things away from themselves.

I wouldn't bother with a house rule, just (in your example) think of it as the orb pushing them away, not the fire burst.

 

[Plane Sailing]

IMC I'd just go with what makes most sense (in this case that push emanates from centre of effect).

Part of the DM's role is to adjudicate stuff for the game after all.

If you are the DM, you are empowered to handle this the way you think is best. If you are not the DM, then you've got to discuss it with him rather than us

Cheers

 

[robsenworldaccount]

Sounds like some of the people are talking about implementing a houserule.

Part of the power of the thunderstone is that push, which should be used tactically and not just as an explosion from origin.

What your talking about makes sense, but also limits the mechanical leverage that was inherent in the game design.

Just my 2 coppers

 

[Dinkeldog]

Sounds like some of the people are talking about implementing a houserule.

Part of the power of the thunderstone is that push, which should be used tactically and not just as an explosion from origin.

What your talking about makes sense, but also limits the mechanical leverage that was inherent in the game design.

Just my 2 coppers

Please don't go into the "implementing a houserule" thing. For some people it's an attempt to understand the RAI as opposed to the RAW.

 

[Grabuto138]

Please don't go into the "implementing a houserule" thing. For some people it's an attempt to understand the RAI as opposed to the RAW.

I think what Robsenworld went on to say is that since the tactical advantage of push is generally that it moves enemies away the RAI is most likely to have the push adjudicaled according to the rules of forced movement. Otherwise the caster is likely to be pulling some of his enemies toward him. Also, since the thunderstone contains specific text overriding the general rule, this also indicates that the RAI is the same as the RAW.

 

[DracoSuave]

The RAI for -every- power that pushes is that it is away from the user of the power for every square of movement. If they'd intended something else, they'd use something else, like 'slide the monster, the monster must end up farther away from the point of origin.'

-Push- is -explicitly- defined as -away from you-. Always assume the intent for such is -exactly how it reads- because the designers are not so foolish as to think we need to read their minds to figure out if a 'push' means something else.

 

[DracoSuave]

Please don't go into the "implementing a houserule" thing. For some people it's an attempt to understand the RAI as opposed to the RAW.

For the most part, 4e is pretty unambiguous. In unambiguous games, when the designers intend for something to occur as a rules interaction, they have the rules-technology to make it happen. There -are- exceptions, but they are in cases where rules-ambiguity takes place.

The rules for forced movement are not one of those cases. They are unambiguous, because the designers -want- their intent to be clear. The insinuation that to do otherwise is a house rule is quite valid; any ambiguity in this case is invented from personal desire for things to work differently rather than actually existing within the ruleset. At this point the term changes from 'Rules as Intended' to 'Rules as I'd Like Them to Be'. Which is house-rule country.

Nothing wrong with houserules, by the way--just be honest with yourself that is what is happening.

 

[Grabuto138]

I think Dinkeldog was addressing the fact that "its a houserule" is discouraged on this board. I responded because I thought Robsenworld provided enough supporting information in his post that it wasn't just one of those "it's a houserule" conversation stoppers but instead explained not just that the rules were explicit in this case (a push is push not a slide or a pull) but also why they applied in this particular circumstances and why any other interprestation is not consisitent with RAW or RAI.

So I guess we are all in agreement.

 

[Keenath]

Well, first, yeah, I'm pretty much talking about whether or not this ought to be a houserule.

I don't see any mechanical brokenness that would come of such push/pull originating from the burst's center, and it makes more sense to me that a fireball with this boost would push people away from the center rather than away from me (and thus, sometimes, towards the center of the burst).

If there's no rule I'm missing that says it works that way RAW, and if there's no compelling reason not to, I'll just act like that's what the rule is. (It's only really an issue because I have a player who may be getting one of those Orbs!)