Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5766953" data-attributes="member: 95493">In 3e, it was a sup-par option because:1. it didn't damage the enemy as much as a full attack2. movement is a cost, not a simulationIe. The fighter can't effectively stop enemies from approaching the party wizard, not really.In OUR games we used bull rush plenty, but we used it as a means to an end. Yes the fighter did (and should) have a better chance of it than the wizard but that didn't stop the wizard from trying every once in a while.It was used when we needed to knock the enemy out the window, or to move them back. It is a mechanic which doesn't work when the point of the game is to merely "hit the enemy with my weapon until dead". That isn't what it was designed for.In 4e, it isn't an option because:A. every character can't just do it, they need a powerB. it isn't special because if you have it as a power then it is used just to move someone around the board, err, room.Ie. First Player: I knock the guy back 3 squares and he is prone.Second Player: Cool, I use my encounter power to advance 3 squares and wail on him.4e doesn't solve the root problem Hussar or Crazy Jerome seem to be having. All it does is give people who are trained in it a higher chance of succeeding. I find this part particularly laughable as that is how it worked in 3e too - with the aid of feats, buffs and picking your moment - all of which they claim are an unfair deal.Oh [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - yes, it is a crappy result if you are untrained and fail the check. But in 4e, if you are untrained you can't do it at all.</blockquote>

Verification