eriktheguy
First Post
It's ok. I'm sure they will release a feat to fix that in PHBIII.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Movement vs. Entering - Interesting CustServ Response
- Thread starter Mistwell
- Start date
When will they release an optional book that isn't a fix?
eriktheguy
First Post
I am SO taking push/pull/slide expertise when the zone/polearm users power book comes out!
I thought DDI was going to fix errors in the rules and balance issues like a patch for Starcraft or Diablo II. The recently released optional books have pretty much trashed that dream.
I thought DDI was going to fix errors in the rules and balance issues like a patch for Starcraft or Diablo II. The recently released optional books have pretty much trashed that dream.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Yes, I know. I was saying there are times when you can, for example, block an entire corridor with grease. You move the opponent out, and they voluntarily expend movement to move back in. If you miss, you move them back out. Eventually they either stop trying to move in, or expend all their movement, or you decide to move them in and out.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
I don't see this as the kind of thing that can be addressed through a feat...and while your complaint about other issues might be valid, I don't see how it's germane to this topic.
Tony Vargas
Legend
The move/enter distinction reminds me of many of the problems with 3e. 'Enter' isn't a keyword with a special game definition. Treating it like it is a keyword might make any prior use of it broken, inapropriate or nonsensical, potentially requiring reams of errata. Since it's not already a keyword, it falls upon anyone writing a power to make sense. You can't just say 'enters' or 'moves' or some other normal language phrase without spelling out, in game terms, what sort of movement counts. "If a creature moves into the area on it's turn,' for instance, is fairly precise. 'Enters' is not. Making it precise after the fact will fix some rules, while breaking others. It also validates the sort of reasoning by example that so screwed up 3e rules interpretations - which 4e's exception-based design was supposed to avoid.
Since 4e is meant to be exception based, it makes sense to evaluate each rule on it's own, refering only to terms with defined in-game meanings, rather than looking for similar phrasing in other rules and infering a general rule from the preponderance therof. In other words, it one power works better if 'enter' includes involuntary movement, and another works better if 'enter' includes only voluntary movement, then that's how you should rule them. It's not contradictory, because the rules aren't written as a cohesive, infallible whole, but as a series of individual rules that can be exceptions to eachother.
Since 4e is meant to be exception based, it makes sense to evaluate each rule on it's own, refering only to terms with defined in-game meanings, rather than looking for similar phrasing in other rules and infering a general rule from the preponderance therof. In other words, it one power works better if 'enter' includes involuntary movement, and another works better if 'enter' includes only voluntary movement, then that's how you should rule them. It's not contradictory, because the rules aren't written as a cohesive, infallible whole, but as a series of individual rules that can be exceptions to eachother.
Last edited:
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Quick question somewhat related to this topic.
The rule as articulated by CustServ again is: "When a character "moves" into an area, it implies action (like a move action would) and refers to intentional movement. When a character "enters" an area, this refers to entering an area by any means, including forced movement."
Polearm Gamble states: "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn."
So if a foe is forced to move to a square adjacent due to the power of a fellow player character's power, does that movement trigger an opportunity attack?
The rule as articulated by CustServ again is: "When a character "moves" into an area, it implies action (like a move action would) and refers to intentional movement. When a character "enters" an area, this refers to entering an area by any means, including forced movement."
Polearm Gamble states: "When a nonadjacent enemy enters a square adjacent to you, you can make an opportunity attack with a polearm against that enemy, but you grant combat advantage to that enemy until the end of the enemy’s turn."
So if a foe is forced to move to a square adjacent due to the power of a fellow player character's power, does that movement trigger an opportunity attack?
I don't think so. I don't have my PHB in front of me, but either the forced movement, the opportunity action, or the opportunity attack section contains text saying something along the lines of "forced movement never provokes opportunity attacks".
Polearm Gambit is more specific and would be an exception from the wording you have in the previous post.
