BryonD said:Right, but they can ALSO shift. And this power takes that away. That isn't the same thing.
Fallen Seraph said:It isn't so much that the Warlord is calling out commands as much as he through his attack has allowed two PCs to position themselves adequately to engage the target if it tries to shift/move.
As for them being simply adjacent, well it is not like the two PCs in-game would be simply standing there going, "oh it went that way, guess we can't hit it", it would be more along the lines, of
"The fighter swung around to the side as the dragon turned to run. His sword swing makes the dragon veer again into the sword of the second fighter."
For that to happen they don't have to be flanking.
I think by leaving it more open, WoTC is giving us permission to be more dramatic and narrate our own combat more.
Spatula said:Hopefully the bigger picture will prove that fear unfounded.
No one, I was just picturing that in my head when I wrote my reply. Surrounding has nothing to do with it as I said a poor choice of words I should of used allies not surrounders.BryonD said:Who said allies have to "surround" it?
No, it does not. If the enemy wants to move one square (as with a shift) he can; if he wants to move more than one square, he can. What does happen to him is that it provokes AOs if he does move away from the allies.BryonD said:Yes they are. It isn't required that ALL movement be prevented. On the dragons' turn it may desire to shift and that movement is prevented. It prevents movement.
DDXP rules said:...you can also use a move action to shift; this lets you move one square without suffering an opportunity attack from adjacent enemies.
BryonD said:Are you houseruling already? Cause I don't see that in the article.
In no way is this irrational, IMO.DDXP rules said:Moving away from an enemy adjacent from you usually provokes an opportunity attack.
JoelF said:Just to throw another hypothetical, the same two allies using Pin the Foe against a fine opponent (say a half-fiend intelligent housefly warlock 6, just for kicks), I'm not sure how they could pin something that small in any way that would restrict its movement (or cause it to provoke OAs if it did move, depending on your point of view.)
Sure this example is a lot sillier than my earlier dragon one, but the general point I'm trying to make is that it seems very odd that a tactical manuver has zero restrictions related to relative sizes of the foes. Or other ways that it wouldn't work. As someone mentioned, what about silence if the allies can't coordinate their attacks, or in darkness where they can't see each other to coordinate. Or what about if one of the allies is a summoned monster (which admittedly PCs won't have in the PH1 probably), or an animal intelligence companion or pet? How do those creatures coordinate through the warlord's powers if he can't communicate with them?
But how does that work? If there's a total of six people on three sides of a large dragon, he could shift back and keep his defense up, but if there's a single warlord and an ally, he can't? What's the warlord secret? "Hey, Ally Bob, um, I know you've never possibly considered this scenario, so if you see him trying to take a step back to get out of range of us, hit him." Or "Hey, Mr. Dragon, if you take a step back out of range, kindly drop your defenses. We won't hit you, I swear."FadedC said:Yeah remember a shift is spending a move to go 5' without drawing an AoO. This power doesn't stop the dragon from spending a move to go 5'. He just can't do it without drawing an AoO.
So really there is no movement prevention here. Just defense prevention.
??? You can use your move action to shift (move 1 square without provoking AOs) You can also use your standard action to move or shift. You cannot move and ALSO shift without using your standard action. As shift differs from a 3E 5' step in that it is just a different use of you move action NOT an added extra.BryonD said:Right, but they can ALSO shift. And this power takes that away. That isn't the same thing.
KarinsDad said:Allow to position?
Your rational fails. This power occurs until the end of the encounter (as long as any two allies are adjacent). Why? Because the rules says so. Your rational does not describe why that long duration of this "superior postioning" would exist. Nor does your rational describe a 2 square wide corridor scenario where the opponent is merely backing away.
And why could the allies not get this superior positioning without the Warlord's help?