Player 1 'grabs and pulls' player 2, then claims it's 'Forced movement, no AtOp'

[Kzach]

Sounds to me, this is a perfect time to invoke DEFCON 1's Rule Of Thumb 1 and Rule of Thumb 2.

1 - If you find yourself arguing a 4E rule with someone, take a look at both your and your discussion partner's Post count. If his/her count is more than 1000 above yours... assume that you are probably incorrect and should really pay closer attention to their argument and the sources they present to prove it.

2 - If you find yourself arguing a 4E rule, take a look at how many people are on both sides of the argument. If there are five times as many people on one side as the other... assume that the lower side is probably incorrect.

Post-count has so little to do with rules knowledge you may as well say, "Anyone with more peanut butter on their scalp during a full moon at high tide in August," and use that as the definition of who to listen to about rules.

And the majority of people arguing a point on one side does not make them all automatically right, either. It just means they're all sheeple who like to congregate around whoever seems to be winning the argument so that they look smart and can hang with the 'in' crowd.

 

[Obryn]

Frankly, I'd say this falls under the "do something cool" rules.

I'd let the ally do it with a Standard action, and say it didn't provoke an OA.

Seriously. The trapped guy's ally is burning his Standard action to do this. That's not a negligible cost. Requiring two standard actions may be more RAW, but I think it's excessive.

-O

 

[Mummolus]

Frankly, I'd say this falls under the "do something cool" rules.

I'd let the ally do it with a Standard action, and say it didn't provoke an OA.

Seriously. The trapped guy's ally is burning his Standard action to do this. That's not a negligible cost. Requiring two standard actions may be more RAW, but I think it's excessive.

-O

I would do the same - I tend to think grabbing a creature is a standard action only because it's assumed they're resisting you. An ally obviously wouldn't be, so grabbing them shouldn't be as difficult.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Post-count has so little to do with rules knowledge you may as well say, "Anyone with more peanut butter on their scalp during a full moon at high tide in August," and use that as the definition of who to listen to about rules.

And the majority of people arguing a point on one side does not make them all automatically right, either. It just means they're all sheeple who like to congregate around whoever seems to be winning the argument so that they look smart and can hang with the 'in' crowd.

agree on post count - mine is over 2,500 and I suck with my rules knowledge beyond the basics... and, I'm DMing a 4E campaign. Most of the threads I respond in are related to plot/story.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Kzach and NewJeffCT... you obviously did not read the entirety of the other thread, because all your points were discussed up over there.

But the biggest thing to remember is that I said probably. Not absolutely. Yes, occasionally we will get someone or some group completely turned around on a rule, but usually the longer you're argued the rules here on ENWorld, the more you've gotten the rules correct. Otherwise, you stop arguing the rules and let the experts show up to do it (like DracoSuave).

 

[OnlineDM]

Frankly, I'd say this falls under the "do something cool" rules.

I'd let the ally do it with a Standard action, and say it didn't provoke an OA.

Seriously. The trapped guy's ally is burning his Standard action to do this. That's not a negligible cost. Requiring two standard actions may be more RAW, but I think it's excessive.

-O

For what it's worth, I'm with you when it comes to how I'd play it at my table as a house rule. If the rescuer uses a standard action to pull the ally away but only a minor to do the grabbing, I'd say "Good enough" and not have it provoke an opportunity attack.

But I'd be doing that as a house rule, not RAW.

 

[DracoSuave]

Post-count has so little to do with rules knowledge you may as well say, "Anyone with more peanut butter on their scalp during a full moon at high tide in August," and use that as the definition of who to listen to about rules.

And the majority of people arguing a point on one side does not make them all automatically right, either. It just means they're all sheeple who like to congregate around whoever seems to be winning the argument so that they look smart and can hang with the 'in' crowd.

That's why he's speaking of tendancies.

The higher post count -tends- to be right, the majority -tend- to be right. It's not arbitrary at all, it's the idea that the longer you've been debating the rules, the more familiarity you have with their quirks. And the common understanding tends to be the more correct one.... that's natural and cogent.

Which isn't to say any of these things are always right. When I'm wrong, I'm five times as wrong.

 

[S'mon]

agree on post count - mine is over 2,500 and I suck with my rules knowledge beyond the basics... and, I'm DMing a 4E campaign. Most of the threads I respond in are related to plot/story.

I'm not that great on a lot of the rules, but I generally know when to shut up, and/or accept correction.

And of course I strongly feel that everyone with a lower post count should respect us 10,000+ers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Which isn't to say any of these things are always right. When I'm wrong, I'm five times as wrong.

Now, now... don't sell yourself short, Draco. When you're wrong, you're usually at least SIX times as wrong.

 

[malraux]

Postcount++, so my next post will be more authoritative.