Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amaroq" data-source="post: 5120418" data-attributes="member: 15470">No, the only definition for Ally I see is the one on PHB p57 defining Target in terms of powers.As for thinking of "why CAN I move through my ally's square?", I think that's approaching it backwards. a 5'x5' square is huge when you consider the width of a person; you could easily put four people into a 5'x5' square IRL, so passing through one's friend's squares seems, to me, to be the "default" behavior: a human being doesn't fully occupy a 5'x5' square, so you can pass through one even if its occupied.So, why CAN'T one move through an enemy's square? Because said enemy is doing his level best to kill you with whatever lethal weaponry he can bring to bear: axe, claw, etc., AND you're doing the same to him.If you're looking at it that way, then an ally not being able to stop your forced movement makes perfect sense: the ally isn't willing to kill you or bring lethal weaponry to bear, so even if he attempts to stop you, the power which is pushing you pushes you through whatever non-lethal means he might wish to use to stop you.So, why can't the enemy decide to allow me through into the center of that 8-monster dogpile? Because I'M still his enemy, still trying to kill him, etc, and if I get that close to him, I'm going to try my level best to kill him .. so he can't afford to let me get that close. . . .But all that's arguing "fluff" explanations of an issue that still seems very simple to me:My friend and I are flanking a bad guy. I hit the bad guy and push him two squares. My friend can't simply "let" the bad guy through because its better for us, because I'm not allowed to force-move the bad guy into a square that he can't walk into of his own accord. Full stop.One of my other allies comes up adjacent to me, then gets pushed two squares. He can be pushed into my square, because that's a square that he's allowed to walk into of his own accord. Full stop.The "I can stop him because I'm not willing to let him into my square" argument re-introduces the 3.5e concept of movement "into a WILLING ally's square". Its perfectly fine with me if you want to play it that way; I just don't think one can claim that its 4e RAW. If it were, they would have kept the "WILLING" adjective from 3.5 in describing movement.  . . . Discussing it as a house rule, as far as game balance goes, I don't think its unbalancing, as long as your monsters play by the same rules. In fact, I think this is more likely to benefit the monsters than it is to benefit the PC's, just because there tend to be more of them, and they tend to be larger, so the monsters will tend to occupy more squares. I'd rather not "mute" the PC's forced-movement powers by giving the monsters a fairly cheap way to stop it. This interpretation also seems to require the pushing creature to state where the push goes, and then for the pushee's allies to declare whether they're willing to allow that as a reaction .. if they aren't willing to allow it, the pushing creature can't change the push, so the push should be essentially negated back to the last unoccupied square. At that point, I feel like I'm telling the players "No" to their forced-movement powers, which are, for the most part, Encounters and Dailies, and so are going to be disappointing to have them feel "wasted". At least until we've all got the hang of it, and aren't trying to push people through their allies' squares anymore.</blockquote>

Verification