Forcing enemies to shift

[am181d]

Because in real combat people force each other back and forth all the time?

 

[Stalker0]

From my playtest experience it definately opens up a new layer of tactical complexity.

For example, hobgoblin soldiers get AC bonuses when they are next to each other. The fighter using tide of iron can lower their AC. Pull abilities can bring artillery types closer to the melee guys for easy killing. Or with terrain effects, you can knock guys off of bridges, throw them into lava, knock them into walls and pillars, etc.

 

[Zaruthustran]

A non-static battlefield makes for more interesting combats. Plus, it encourages players to synergize with each other. I think 4E is the D&D edition that most mechanically rewards player cooperation.

For example, Bob Wizard throws down a field of electrical energy, and catches two hobgoblins in it. Then on Larry Fighter's turn, Larry pushes another hobgob into the field with Tide of Iron--and advances into the hobgob's previous space, thus bringing his anti-shift powers into play against the original target and the other monsters.

Or Joe Warlord uses a power to shift Steve Rogue into a flanking position, so that Steve gets a sneak attack on his turn right away, and can use his own move action to shift out of range of any counter attack.

 

[Sir Brennen]

It depends on the power. For example, the Dwarven fighter's Tide of Iron power represents her physically pushing opponents back with her shield, and it only works on large or smaller creatures (and is size based, so if it were a halfling fighter, it would only work on medium or smaller). On the other hand, Turn Undead represents the undead being forced back by the cleric's holiness, so there's no size restriction.

It was discussed alot when the Rogue preview went up - not all "forced movement" means physically pushing a target around. Some of it is also feints and just maneuvering your self around enough that the enemy follows you where you want him to go. The warlord certainly isn't physically forcing his allies to move around; he's a superior tactician that can quickly spot an opening in a chaotic battle and communicate to his comrades effectively.

And some powers could be seen to involve a judo-esque use of an enemy's own weight and momentum against him. This is one way to explain smaller combatants pushing/pulling larger foes. (Though I wouldn't be surprised to see a size modifier applied to some of these powers.)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think the main reason is that it's boring to use miniatures if all you do is move them up to each other and then roll dice until you knock one over.

This gives more of a point to using miniatures to track tactical movement.

And it's a lot more fun.

Fitz

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I care.

I care too. I'm really tired of hearing 'the player takes control of the narrative' trotted out to excuse poor rules. It's the 4E excuse for everything.

Ken

 

[FadedC]

Because in real combat people force each other back and forth all the time?

Well....yes actually. Have you ever watched a fight or seen one on tv? People don't exactly stay still.

 

[Hussar]

I care too. I'm really tired of hearing 'the player takes control of the narrative' trotted out to excuse poor rules. It's the 4E excuse for everything.

Ken

Why do you care? I'm not being snarky, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. It's part of the game, it can be justified in any number of ways. What's the problem?

Or, in other words, why are these "poor rules"?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Or, in other words, why are these "poor rules"?

It's not the rules that are poor, necessarily.

The problem is that if you are trying to have an internally-consistent world, the idea that "oh, the dragon moved because there was a hole" makes no sense if there was no hole there to begin with. Unless we're talking about casters, you can't just magic up a hole in the floor with being awesome with a weapon.

The explanations for powers like these should rely upon the character, and the character only, doing something. Not messing around with the terrain, unless the ability is dependent upon a particular feature of the terrain, and not dictating the behavior of your enemies, unless the ability is one that explicity does so (like charm or hold person).

 

[mach1.9pants]

Then I would imagine, HH, that 4E isn't for you. It is not going to be everyone's cup of tea. However, I want our PCs/NPCs carrying out varied, interesting and (I hope) balanced actions that we can describe in any way that:
1. makes the action more exciting and/or
2. helps the story advance and/or
3. enhances the players vision of the character and/or
4. enhances role playing opportunities.
And I think leaving the fluff description of these actions vague and not hard-wired will do this. It will take more effort on our part to think of this narrative extras but, IMO, well worth it

Edit: But I can also see totally where, for example Gnome Works, is coming from. It is a fundamental shift in the priorities of DnD. Away from a rule-set that describes actions and results with the same in-game reasoning to a rule-set which allows the players to apply the in-game reasoning as fits the current encounter. The hole in the ground example is fine by me because it is only in that situation (and I haven't, as DM, previously described the floor as a smooth surface of hard marble!) when that description is used; i.e. a previously un-described by the DM small depression in the ground has caused this result. In other situations we will use whatever makes sense to describe the powers results.