Can Prone Ally be shifted?

[Nifft]

These are written differently, but is the spirit of the rule that they are the same, and any small semantic difference between the two is not relevant?

Or is the semantic difference significant and the wording here is critical?

The semantic difference is huge and critical.

For example, consider difficult terrain instead of prone. Many PCs can't Shift in difficult terrain; however, forced movement (like Slide) ignores difficult terrain.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Goumindong]

Yes you can shift while prone, you can even get up during that shift iirc.

 

[fba827]

Let's say I used a Warlord's Steel Monsoon. Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and one ally within 5 squares of you can shift 1 square.

But I also have Surround Foe. Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage. Effect: You slide one willing ally who is adjacent to the target to any other square adjacent to the target. The ally can move through the target’s square.

These are written differently, but is the spirit of the rule that they are the same, and any small semantic difference between the two is not relevant?

Or is the semantic difference significant and the wording here is critical?

Although similar in end-result on the board, the mechanics are very different based on the simple wording of shift vs. slide.

Slide you can do to a target (regardless of terrain difficulties and in my own interpretation regardless of being prone). you can even slide someone who is held/immobilized/slowed/etc

Shift requires the the person to not be immobilized and otherwise free to move. And you can't shift in to difficult terrain.

So the question really boils down to whether a prone person can shift or not (the fact that you cause the shifting is irrelevant for the purpose of the question).

As to the answer to that, I have no idea (books aren't nearby, though guessing it's not spelled out explicitly since no one else has said so... but if you want to take the "rule by exception' concept, since there is nothing in prone about _not_ being able to shift (and shifting being a regular rule) then you could say that the prone person can shift within the normal confines of shifting rules (i.e. can't be immobilized, can't shift in to difficult terrain, etc).

 

[rob626]

OP- this is not so much a rules question as a game question.

This is EXACTLY what killed 3.x for me. We are not playing Lawyers and Lawsuits. (I forget who said that originally but it is so fitting it bears repeating. Might even sig it.)

What is the intent of the power? Does the situation make sliding the prone ally a good and/or cinematic thing? If so, let it work. If not, then it doesn't work. My inclination is to say go ahead.

Seriously people, there is no reason to dive into the rules and disect them word for word. A general guide of "does it make sense" and "is this the intent of the rules" and "does it make the game fun" should suffice for just about every situation.

If the players start to abuse previous rulings then the power no longer works that way. Explain that to them, that they are starting to abuse your trust and the power doesn't work that way anymore. If they are friends they will understand. Have the stones to stand up to the players and say either yes or no.

 

[Vegepygmy]

This is EXACTLY what killed 3.x for me.

And just goes to show that the problem isn't 3.x, but rather those players who insist on turning whatever system they're using into "Lawyers and Lawsuits."

 

[keterys]

The game doesn't have rules for being prone.
Money says it _eventually_ will.

Obviously, make whatever decision you want your game to use for now. Personally, I think that allowing a 'run' action while prone is clearly not intended, because why otherwise include crawl? At which point, I question whether shift works. Could go either way.

I like prone being of some consequence (it's pretty low), so for my game I'll let you shift at half speed. Matches well with crawl, doesn't remove the option, doesn't make prone not matter.

I'd _really_ suggest against allowing someone to shift _and_ stand as the same move action. Talk about no consequence at all.

 

[keterys]

Oh, and I was wrong, even while slowed, half max speed for crawl is the same as double movement cost. Under what situations is it not? Anyone have any?

 

[Hypersmurf]

The semantic difference is huge and critical.

For example, consider difficult terrain instead of prone. Many PCs can't Shift in difficult terrain; however, forced movement (like Slide) ignores difficult terrain.

Or the Fighter's Combat Challenge. If your ally is marked by an adjacent enemy fighter, and you use Steel Monsoon, your ally can shift one square... and the fighter whacks him for it. If you use Surround Foe, and you slide your ally one square, Combat Challenge doesn't trigger, and the fighter doesn't get to whack him.

-Hyp.

 

[catsclaw227]

Right, and as I understood that shift and slide have quite different meanings, it does boil down to what can a person do while prone. The rules already state that they can slide, but I would rule that they can be shifted if the shift was for 2 or more squares, since 1/2 move is then at least one square.

Also the spirit of the maneuver will be followed if it comes up in a cinematic way, in game.

 

[Vermonter]

I agree that it is no fun to make the game a bunch of rules lawyering, and for specific power effects I agree that just making a ruling on 'common sense' and moving on works best.

However, these aren't specific or unusual situations in the rules, and the utter lack of any mention in moving restrictions while prone is absurd. Either it is an error (my thought) or they should have a specific explanation somewhere about why it is okay to move at full speed, run while prone, etc.

My rules will likely be:

Prone Effects Add:
Cannot take walk or run movement actions.

Shift Add:
If prone, movement is halved.

Crawl I am ok with leaving alone. I don't even mind a 'running crawl' because I think it is realistic to scramble more quickly, leave yourself defenseless and get a little farther.