Opening Shove, New Warlord at Will

[Larrin]

deleted due to bad post of dumbness

 

[Patlin]

But not a dwarf.

(since you missed the key point of my statement)

And FWIW I have much less problem with attacks vs Will which move targets than attacks vs Fort/Ref/AC

Cheers

Of course, a trip (causing the opponent to stumble back) would most properly be against reflex and if expertly done might be more effective against a giant than a dwarf due to high v. low centers of gravity.

How to explain the ooze, though...

 

[WalterKovacs]

But not a dwarf.

(since you missed the key point of my statement)

And FWIW I have much less problem with attacks vs Will which move targets than attacks vs Fort/Ref/AC

Cheers

So, if not for the fact that they gave dwarves an ability to resist things like that, it wold be ok?

Here's the explanation: You take a step back/stumble back/etc because of the powers. Dwarves, with their low speed and little legs, take a step back ... but they don't leave the square they are in.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a little odd that it's REF. If it were really a shove, I'd expect it to be FORT, like Bull Rush. Just a quibble, though. And, it's /nice/ that it's weapon keyword vs REF. Take that & Furious Smash as a resourceful warlord...

 

[Cadfan]

Given that so many warlord at will attack powers are very, very situational, I don't have a problem with the idea of taking Opening Shove and Commander's Strike, and then just doing all my own attacks with basic melee attacks or encounter powers. Viper Strike or Wolf Pack Strike are basically just basic melee attacks anyways, except in certain (unusual for my group) conditions.

I have some really great ideas for a pyrokinetic warlord* that I'll want to try once Martial Power comes out. This at will works well with the idea.

*Start with a firesoul genasi, reskin as a human with pyrokinetic powers. Take the wildfire soul paragon path, since it gives you implement free fire powers. Then multiclass into spellscarred, which again is reskinned as your pyrokinetic powers. Use your multiclass to add more implement free fire attacks. Partner with a two handed weapon Fighter, use Commander's Strike as your primary choice of action, and help maneuverability with Opening Shove. When dealing with groups, incinerate them with your fire powers, and when dealing with individual foes, use your absolutely brutal tactical warlord powers.

 

[Mengu]

I don't have my book handy, so maybe I'm wrong, but I have the idea that in order to get the effect from an attack you have to attack an enemy (and one who is a credible threat, too.) I think it's perfectly fair to use opening shove on your ally to push him or her, but I don't think you can use the shift in that case.

Why not? Target is one creature. And it's not like the attack deals any damage. It's almost an at-will utility power.

 

[Patlin]

Why not? Target is one creature. And it's not like the attack deals any damage. It's almost an at-will utility power.

Check out page 40 of the DMG under "Legitimate Targets." Is an ally a meaningful threat? If not, striking an ally to gain the free shift for another ally would be prohibited by the 'bag of rats' clause.

There's room for argument here, but I think the rules as written prohibit using opening shove in this manner.

 

[James McMurray]

Check out page 40 of the DMG under "Legitimate Targets." Is an ally a meaningful threat? If not, striking an ally to gain the free shift for another ally would be prohibited by the 'bag of rats' clause.

There's room for argument here, but I think the rules as written prohibit using opening shove in this manner.

Check the definition for "creature" as it applies to the Target section of a power (phb 57). If the target line says "One Creature" you can definitely choose an ally.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Shoving an ally, ok ... shoving a rat, not ok. Also, I'm not sure if an ally is allowed to "let" you hit them with this attack?

 

[Cadfan]

I think the whole point of the "valid target" section of the DMG where it says "no bag of rats tricks" is to reinforce that you can't completely define "valid target" with reference to the rules- you have to use the common sense of the players and the DM, because the rules won't cover every possibility invented by every person playing the game.

So, I wouldn't allow you to target an ally. There are a lot of powers which let an ally move outside of their turn, and I think the intent is for you to use those when you want to move an ally, and to use powers like Opening Shove when you want to move an opponent. That's not a Rules As Written approach, that's a The Rules Are Written to Require Interpretation approach. And I think its probably for the best.