-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Movement vs. Entering - Interesting CustServ Response
- Thread starter Mistwell
- Start date
Forced Movement - Individual squares or total movement
So after reading Mistwell's message, particularly about the Grease section, does it not make more sense to view Forced Movement as a whole as opposed to what effects are triggered in each square?
For example, with Grease, if you miss and you look at each square of Forced Movement, then the person is slid out of the zone, then back in and it does indeed create a new trigger for the Grease spell creating a loop that happens until a successful hit.
However, in the same example, if you look at Forced Movement as a whole, the person starts in the zone, ends in the zone and therefore does not trigger the attack again (even though he temporarily came out but since we don't look at individual squares of movement it is like he never left).
Essentially, it becomes the starting position and the end position of Forced Movement to see if effects/spells are triggered.
Doesn't that seem like a simpler way of looking at Forced Movement and really, resolves the issues with almost every spell out there that I can think of.
Is there something I am missing regarding Forced Movement? This is how our group has gamed for a while and it seems to work very well.
So after reading Mistwell's message, particularly about the Grease section, does it not make more sense to view Forced Movement as a whole as opposed to what effects are triggered in each square?
For example, with Grease, if you miss and you look at each square of Forced Movement, then the person is slid out of the zone, then back in and it does indeed create a new trigger for the Grease spell creating a loop that happens until a successful hit.
However, in the same example, if you look at Forced Movement as a whole, the person starts in the zone, ends in the zone and therefore does not trigger the attack again (even though he temporarily came out but since we don't look at individual squares of movement it is like he never left).
Essentially, it becomes the starting position and the end position of Forced Movement to see if effects/spells are triggered.
Doesn't that seem like a simpler way of looking at Forced Movement and really, resolves the issues with almost every spell out there that I can think of.
Is there something I am missing regarding Forced Movement? This is how our group has gamed for a while and it seems to work very well.
On Puget Sound
First Post
Well, if I push someone 4 squares north and there is a pit 2 squares north, that particular intervening square becomes kind of important.
True, but if you try to move him over the pit, the creature/person makes a save and ends his movement in the square prone next to the pit at which point you are done moving him thus making that square his destination square.
Edit: Pg 284 and 285 talk about Catching yourself and how movement ends if you make your save. Thus, that becomes the destination square.
Last edited:
mach1.9pants
Hero
JoeNotCharles
First Post
I haven't thought about it too hard, but I'd consider making a hit with Grease "slide 2 squares AND knock prone". Or a two-step attack (possibly with a hit bonus): first hit slides and allows a secondary attack which knocks prone. That way it's possible to get through the grease without any effect, but not easy.
Also, as DM I would make any crawling creature immune to Grease, or at least give it a large bonus to defense. (I wouldn't bother writing that up in the power, I'd just rule that o nthe spot.)
Also, as DM I would make any crawling creature immune to Grease, or at least give it a large bonus to defense. (I wouldn't bother writing that up in the power, I'd just rule that o nthe spot.)
Emil
First Post
in regards to Grease, I would rule (in my game) that the slide would have to be in the direction that the target was already moving.
Basically saying that if the attack hits, the target slips and falls, but if the attack misses, the target slides across the grease in whatever direction his momentum was carrying him.
Basically saying that if the attack hits, the target slips and falls, but if the attack misses, the target slides across the grease in whatever direction his momentum was carrying him.
The distinction between "Entering" and "Moving" seems arbitrary, especially given the piece meal way in which powers are written. As a DM, from a "fun" perspective, I would allow the damage from Storm Pillar to work on a force move, after all this going to take the cooperation of two people, or one Wizard using an Action point.
Was that not a critique of 3E that too many "keywords" had implied rules, that bogged down play? Was not 4e to allow for streamlined play, and more "Action"?
Was that not a critique of 3E that too many "keywords" had implied rules, that bogged down play? Was not 4e to allow for streamlined play, and more "Action"?
Similar Threads
