Mark & Shift

[Oompa]

Question:

- Bard power Misdirected Mark, the bard can choose to mark a target with a mark of a other player.. can the other player say he doesnt want that.. or does the bard say it happens and it happens..

- Same with shifts? If a player can make another player shift, i know the other player can deny the shift, but can the other player if he accepts determine the place he shifts to?

 

[Wik]

Don't know about the first one, but regarding the second one - when a power says "and the target shifts" it's the bard's choice where it moves to, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. When it says "Can", it's the player being moved who gets to choose whether he wants to move, and where to.

Re: the first, it's kind of douchee to mark other PCs if they don't want to be marked. But then, can't an ally actually say "hey, I'm not an ally" and thus not be the target for marking effect?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In the case of the bard:

yes the ally should be able to deny the mark. The first strike comes from you, but you need your ally to cooperate to maintain the mark.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Don't know about the first one, but regarding the second one - when a power says "and the target shifts" it's the bard's choice where it moves to, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. When it says "Can", it's the player being moved who gets to choose whether he wants to move, and where to.

This isn't entirely accurate. If we're talking about an ally in both cases, it's up to the ally in both cases. The change in phrasing is purely a question of how the writer of the power phrased it. But if a power says "And an ally shifts X squares," or "And an ally can shift X squares," they both mean "The ally chooses where to shift, up to the maximum number given."

If it says "An ally slides* X squares," then it's the bard who decides where they go, but the ally can choose not to go at all.

*Or other forced movement, like push or pull, though these are rare on ally-focused effects.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, the bard can try to mark someone unwilling, but as they are unwilling they cease to be an ally and they cannot have the mark applied to them, and the bard has to pick someone else.

In practice tho, players aren't dumb like that.


Shifting is always voluntary. If the ally is -slid- however, they are not given a choice. 'Swap places' is an example of how that could occur.

 

[Oompa]

So if i am correct in an ally to ally power:

- Shifts can be denied and accepted and the player receiving the shift may say where he wants to shift to.
- Slide can be denied but the player giving the slide choses where to slide.

 

[1of3]

Yes. That's correct.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Why can a slide be denied by the target? Its forced movement - the Bard is fully in control of whether the target goes or not, just like if he/she was trying to slide an enemy.

Realistically, in most circumstances the Bard wouldn't slide an ally who didn't want to be slid, but its certainly open to the Bard to do so.

 

[Aulirophile]

Yeah... Majestic Word, for instance. The Bard slides you 1 wherever the hell he wants to. If you're a Dwarf you can force him not to, but otherwise you're being slid.

For the rest: It depends on the wording of the power. Direct the Strike, Warlord At-Will, is a perfect example.

Effect: The target makes a basic attack as a free action against an enemy of your choice that you can see and is within 10 squares of you.

The player gets no say. He makes the attack, against the target you choose.

Misdirected Mark? That enemy is marked by whoever you want them to be marked by. They get no say in it.

That is the RAW. But, realistically, sitting a table of other players if they don't want you to do something, don't do it. No matter how tactically sound you think it is, it won't be fun for their character.

 

[Saeviomagy]

An ally could not accept the majestic word power simply by being unwilling.

Personally I would say he has to either accept or reject the entire power, but there's no rule that actually states that that is the case AFAIK.