Irresistible Force vs. Unmovable Object - Exception Based Rules?

[AZRogue]

So, with exception based rules design it seems that the Specific trumps the General. This means, from what I've seen, that a person might, for an example, only be able to make one Save each Turn but if another character has a 'specific' power that grants an ally an additional Save that 'specific' rule trumps the general one and the character gets the additional Save.

So, my question is this: If one character has a 'specific' ability that keeps him from (let's say) being Shifted, and another character uses a 'specific' ability that forces someone to Shift, which 'specific' ability wins? The irresistible force, or the unmovable object? Has anyone seen something on this? I imagine that this was considered by the designers. Have we just not seen the rule on this particular scenario?

 

[Snarls-at-Fleas]

C'mon! Don't you know? The first spell or ability goes onto stack...

 

[Crosswind]

Typically goes to the defender, at least in most examples I can think of.

-Cross

 

[arscott]

I think this one pretty clearly goes to the defender.

If "Ability to slide character" trumped "Ability to avoid being slid", then the latter is entirely useless, right?

 

[Kordeth]

So, with exception based rules design it seems that the Specific trumps the General. This means, from what I've seen, that a person might, for an example, only be able to make one Save each Turn but if another character has a 'specific' power that grants an ally an additional Save that 'specific' rule trumps the general one and the character gets the additional Save.

So, my question is this: If one character has a 'specific' ability that keeps him from (let's say) being Shifted, and another character uses a 'specific' ability that forces someone to Shift, which 'specific' ability wins? The irresistible force, or the unmovable object? Has anyone seen something on this? I imagine that this was considered by the designers. Have we just not seen the rule on this particular scenario?

I think you aren't quite looking at exception-based design the right way. It's not "the specific trumps the general," it's "a rule applies unless something specifically contradicts it."

If a power says "you slide an opponent" and your opponent has an ability that says "can't be slid," well, he doesn't slide, because he can't be slid. All the other effects of the attack would still apply.

It's a bit like asking "if I have an attack that deals fire damage, but my target is immune to fire, which wins?" Obviously, the immunity does, unless the power specifically says "this attack bypasses fire immunity."

 

[Pale Jackal]

I agree it's pretty clear...

Though arscott put it far more eloquently than I would've.

 

[malcolm_n]

Easiest way to put it is this. Can't beats can. I can't be slid, so don't slide me. I can't be hit by fire so don't hit me with fire.

 

[AZRogue]

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks guys.

The example I put forth wasn't a very good one. I was just wondering as it was a question put to me by one of my group and I didn't know the answer.

So, based upon the rules themselves in their entries, we should be able to judge the outcome.

So, I imagine that if there was an ability that allowed you to Shift opponents 'even if they could not otherwise be Shifted' that would obviously trump even the 'can't be Shifted' ability, as it states it in the description.

 

[keterys]

The problem only arises when you have things like, for instance, 3.0 Discern Location vs. 3.0 Mind Blank.

To the point where 3.5 had to specify which spell won.

 

[Belphanior]

Ok, pet peeve of mine but...

Shift is the new name of the 5' step.
Slide is forcing movement upon somebody.

I realize they sound similar, just like Burst and Blast, but they're not the same thing.

Thank you.