Push/pull/slide through enemies/allies?

[Jarrod]

This question came up at the last gaming session. We have a monster (called Meg) and a PC (called Paul). Paul uses a push/pull/slide power on Meg. Can that movement go through Paul's allies? Meg's allies? The RC was inconclusive.

 

[Stumblewyk]

Clear Path: Forced movement can’t move a target into a space it couldn’t enter by walking. The target can’t be forced into an obstacle or made to squeeze into a space.

So, you can be forced through your allies, but not through enemies.

 

[Dausuul]

This question came up at the last gaming session. We have a monster (called Meg) and a PC (called Paul). Paul uses a push/pull/slide power on Meg. Can that movement go through Paul's allies? Meg's allies? The RC was inconclusive.

Well, I don't have the RC handy at the moment, but going off the glossary in the online Compendium:

Occupied Squares: Ally: You can move through a square occupied by an ally.

Move: Whenever a creature, an object, or an effect leaves a square to enter another, it is moving, whether that move is done willingly or is forced.

So, by a strict reading of the rules, Paul should be able to slide Meg through Meg's allies but not Paul's.

However, this is a case where a strict reading of the rules leads to a nonsense result. The in-game explanation for allies not blocking movement has to be that the ally voluntarily gets out of your way. If you're being forced to move, there's no reason why your allies should help your enemy shove you around. On the other hand, there's every reason why your enemies should let you past.

Hence, for my own game, I would rule the opposite: Paul can slide Meg through Paul's allies but not Meg's.

 

[jonesy]

I would rule that the allies get to choose whether they allow it, or whether they 'move to block it' (without any actual moving being done).

 

[Stumblewyk]

Hence, for my own game, I would rule the opposite: Paul can slide Meg through Paul's allies but not Meg's.

Agreed. It's just a shame the RAW disagrees with us.

 

[Nichwee]

Our group uses the official rules - You can go through your allies and not your enemies.

We think of it in the following:
Your enemies don't let you past as they worry about you getting a "cheap shot" in as you go past - basically they fear (IC) an 'Opportunity Attack' as they attempt to make room for you while you are skidding by - as you are not busy moving (but being moved) and they would be busy moving out of the way a bit.

Your friends let you past as a combination of "instictive reflex" and for fear that trying to stop you would risk hurting your and/or them. They don't want to act as a wall you smack into and risk hurting you or themselves (or even worse, both) with the high-speed collision and instead hope that you wil simply end up coming to a stop somewhere not too harmful (as they don't know, IC, exactly where you may end up or the ultimate limit on how far you "could" be sent).

 

[DEFCON 1]

I rule it as written, because I usually don't want to bother trying to differentiate between the various fluff reasons why people get pushed/pulled/slid.

Some p/p/s powers are the victims moving toward/away the attacker because of anger or fear... sometimes the p/p/s powers move the victims due to "massive hits" that throw the victim physically... some are magical telekinetic-like effects that p/p/s the victims.

So while I understand the idea that in the case of forcing a victim to "run away" (due to fear or compulsion) that his allies should be able to "stop" him per se (thus not allowing a p/p/s through an ally's square)... in many other cases the magical or physical effects would be too great and exert too much force to just let an ally stop him in the split second the victim is moving past... especially when that ally is in the midst of combat and not really concentrating on his friend flying past him.

So rather than spending time trying to determine which powers are emotional compulsions to move and thus able to be stopped by allies, and which ones are physical/magical and thus not really stoppable etc... I just rule them all as being able to go through ally squares. Especially since it applies in both directions (allowing PCs to move monsters unhindered the same way) and thus evens out in the end.

 

[Dausuul]

I rule it as written, because I usually don't want to bother trying to differentiate between the various fluff reasons why people get pushed/pulled/slid.

I can see this point of view, but... to me, the RAW result is highly counterintuitive, and I see this as a problem. I'm not saying the rules should never produce counterintuitive results, but they should not do so without a damn good reason, and I don't think there is a good enough reason here.

Let's say a monster tries to slide Player X through Player Y's square. Player Y will naturally object to this; she doesn't want her ally moved through her square to a disadvantageous location! If I go by the RAW, then I have to tell her she can't stop it, and either come up with some shaky in-game justification or simply resort to "them's the rules"--both of which I feel are disruptive to immersion. Then next round, when Player Y wants to retaliate and slide a monster through Player Z, I have to do it again. It breaks immersion and it's disempowering to the player.

The way I see it, you should always have a choice whether to let someone through your square or not. That gives players more control over stuff within their reach and increases the sense of connection with their characters, as well as being a lot easier to justify in-game. As far as I can see, the main benefit of doing it the other way is that it's in strict compliance with the rules as written. That is in fact a benefit... but for a corner case like this, not a very big one.

 

[ki11erDM]

This is just a corner case were the rules can’t be so specific that they grind the game to a halt. Ether you should use the general rule as written or you should use rule 0 on a case by case bases.

As an example an honorable Knight might not want to take the Combat Advantage bonus just because his opponent is flanked. The rule says no matter what, if you are involved in a flank then you get the bonus. So should I force him to shift so he does not get it? Or just let him not take the bonus and let the player visualize his character how he wants? Clearly he should be allowed to break the rule and not take the bonus.

With movement, if someone is hit with an ogre’s club and pushed back a few squares it could be through an ally’s or an enemy’s square. If you’re pushed with a fear effect then you would not move into enemy’s squares and if you moved into an ally’s square and they wanted to use an OA on you to grab you and hold you prone (and spend a standard action during their turn to maintain it) then that’s great!

What works fast and easy at the table always wins over spending 20 minutes at the table trying to figure out if you can and can’t do something. That is how EVERY edition of D&D is designed to be played. Just make sure everything is fair and don’t obscure your reason for lettings something happen or not.

 

[Dausuul]

This is just a corner case were the rules can’t be so specific that they grind the game to a halt. Ether you should use the general rule as written or you should use rule 0 on a case by case bases.

Or I can make up a house rule--"It works this way you'd logically expect it to work, as opposed to this weird result that requires a careful technical reading of the rules"--and apply it across the board. Which I do.

The house rule is quite simple. Instead of having rules that "allies do not block movement" and "allies do not provide cover," just say: "When determining whether a creature blocks movement or provides cover, the creature can choose not to block or provide cover."

There you go. Simple, intuitive, works like the RAW in 95% of cases, and in the other 5% the result is more logical than RAW. For instance, if you're trying to shoot past an ally who doesn't know you're there, that ally provides cover, since it doesn't know it needs to get out of the way.