D&D 5E Rant about Forced Movement

[leozg]

I was just pointing out how one could fix their unhappiness if they really wanted to... but apparently none of you do. You just enjoy being unhappy with your roleplaying game situation.

You make it seems like abandon the game is the only solution. It should be the last resort.
We can discuss here what is making someone unhappy and come out with a different solution. Maybe the unhappiness comes from a misinterpretation of a rule and a clarification can solve the problem, or a house rule if the game has a flaw, or maybe a way to use the flaw in a good way.

 

[James Gasik]

Personally, I wouldn't have a game at all without players, so I consider it to be somewhere between "joint custody" and "visitation rights". I don't particularly care to rid myself of my players, so I attempt to be as open as possible to compromises to make sure everyone is having fun.

Now I'm not speaking to anyone who has a firm hand on their game and don't have any problems, but I personally know a few "my way or the highway" GM's.

They currently have no players and no games. It's kind of sad watching them lurk around the FLGS, putting up the occasional post on the bulletin board in an attempt to recruit gamers, and sharing tales of the "good old days" with anyone who will listen, all while griping about the "entitled modern gamers".

I've tried to play with them in the past, but the combination of byzantine house rules and draconian tactics spoils the fun pretty quickly. I still recall the time I joined a 1e AD&D game one individual (we'll call him "Ken") was running. I made a Half-Orc Fighter.

Halfway through the first session, I was accosted by the town guard, refused service at the inn, and spit upon by local kids. I ended up being lynched by an angry mob when the party Thief committed a crime and it was immediately assumed that the "orc guy" must have been responsible!

When I finally asked why I was being targeted, he scoffed and said "You said you've played AD&D before. Everyone knows that Half-Orcs are universally hated!"

Again, not saying that anyone who has a firm hand on their game is anything like that! Bad GM's and bad players aren't to blame. But that's pretty much my motivation for being as accommodating as possible with my players.

 

[Stormonu]

Uh huh, and then they all quit on me because they feel (rightly) that I'm a tyrant, lol.

That having been said, under normal circumstances, I would have tabled any such discussion until after the session had concluded, since rules debates aren't really something I want to interrupt a session for. But the player was pretty steamed about the situation and I was taken aback by what I thought were fairly solid rules. It really felt to me like someone was deciding to argue with me that red was blue or something equally ludicrous.

Then they're like "well it says here that Jeremy Crawford said not only is red a shade of blue in D&D, but vermilion is a shade of lavender!" and I found myself wondering if I had gone mad!

While everybody's there to have fun, you shouldn't have to be afraid to make a ruling when you see an issue, and the players should be adult enough to accept you're doing your best to be fair.

That said, forced movement and the hokey-pokey with spells sounds like it's just going to get more troublesome at certain tables, and DMs are just going to have to step up and make a ruling on it. Fer instance, cheese-grating with Spike Growth isn't going to fly at my table, even though I've seen in my brother's game he allows it. In another case, I had a case where someone used levitate to break an ally (automatically) out of a grapple, and after some thought, going forward I'm not going to allow such things to automatic - the spell DC will become the target number for the grappler to make a Strength save to retain their grip.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In my opinion, he’s ignoring the fact that the monster and the caster’s turn is supposed to be taking place simultaneously.

The target takes damage on their turn. Not both on their turn and your turn. You want him to take damage when you move towards him? Fine, but then he doesn’t take damage at the beginning of his turn.

We actually just had this come last night in our game with my kids. My daughter cast Cloud of Daggers and, when told that the target of that spell doesn't actually take damage until their turn comes around, just told us, "That's stupid". I had to agree, so we just had the damage happen right away instead.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If this is a gamist restriction on spells to prevent pinball forced movement strategies, I guess, but why isn't that a general rule? Why do some spells instantly damage you if you "enter" them by any means, and others are like "well, hey, if you get pushed into a wall of lasers and pulled out again, you take no damage"?

That's precisely what it is, yes. This is one of the (extraordinarily few) lessons the 5e designers did, in fact, actually learn from the design choices of 4e. I can't really call this one a "mistake" because it was fully 100% intentional for 4e. They wanted to reward tactical (re)positioning and forced movement of enemies. 5e, on the other hand, is not, and the designers wanted to pretty heavily shut down forced movement as a behavior for players. You'll see references to this in a variety of spells.

Of course, what you're asking for here is exception-based design, which the 5e team all but explicitly rejected because it smelled too much like 4e.

But it was really irritating to me that "reading the spell" did not "explain the spell". So much for "natural language"!

That is what natural language does. It doesn't actually explain anything. This is what 5e--both 5.0 and 5.5--has always had on offer. And the people cheered.

argh, even worse… anyone who proposes that ‘moves into’ and ‘enters’ are different things should not be allowed to write rules. Sorry JC, you seem like a nice guy, but this way lies madness

I mean, I think one can draw a useful distinction: willing vs unwilling. "Entering" refers to willing motion. Instead of "moved," since that's already pretty loaded, how about "propelled"? Then "move" is just a generic term for any kind of motion (forced or willing), "entering" can only be done willingly, and "being propelled" happens regardless of the recipient's intent.

Of course, 4e already had stuff like this, it's essentially keywords again, so of course 5e fans will shout it down. Can't have big bad WotC telling you how to play!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

That's precisely what it is, yes. This is one of the (extraordinarily few) lessons the 5e designers did, in fact, actually learn from the design choices of 4e. I can't really call this one a "mistake" because it was fully 100% intentional for 4e. They wanted to reward tactical (re)positioning and forced movement of enemies. 5e, on the other hand, is not, and the designers wanted to pretty heavily shut down forced movement as a behavior for players. You'll see references to this in a variety of spells.

Of course, what you're asking for here is exception-based design, which the 5e team all but explicitly rejected because it smelled too much like 4e.


That is what natural language does. It doesn't actually explain anything. This is what 5e--both 5.0 and 5.5--has always had on offer. And the people cheered.


I mean, I think one can draw a useful distinction: willing vs unwilling. "Entering" refers to willing motion. Instead of "moved," since that's already pretty loaded, how about "propelled"? Then "move" is just a generic term for any kind of motion (forced or willing), "entering" can only be done willingly, and "being propelled" happens regardless of the recipient's intent.

Of course, 4e already had stuff like this, it's essentially keywords again, so of course 5e fans will shout it down. Can't have big bad WotC telling you how to play!

Of course, the game uses the terms basically the opposite. "Move into" means voluntarily go into, while "enter" means happen to find yourself in the area if effect by any means.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course, the game uses the terms basically the opposite. "Move into" means voluntarily go into, while "enter" means happen to find yourself in the area if effect by any means.

God damn I hate how 5e is written.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It kinda seems lie it does if they're a big enough threat to try to remove from discussion in such a heavy-handed way.

Heh heh... you really seem to want to think people are trying to drive you from your land. Like you're outside yelling "Get off my lawn!" to all the people who are merely driving by on the street.

That's okay. Believe whatever you like.

 

[ezo]

Personally, I wouldn't have a game at all without players, so I consider it to be somewhere between "joint custody" and "visitation rights". I don't particularly care to rid myself of my players, so I attempt to be as open as possible to compromises to make sure everyone is having fun.

So your games don't look like this?

with the DM ruling over his players???

Huh...?

 

[DEFCON 1]

You make it seems like abandon the game is the only solution. It should be the last resort.
We can discuss here what is making someone unhappy and come out with a different solution. Maybe the unhappiness comes from a misinterpretation of a rule and a clarification can solve the problem, or a house rule if the game has a flaw, or maybe a way to use the flaw in a good way.

If I actually believed most people were just looking for a house rule solution and then would go merrily on their way once they got it... I wouldn't say anything. But we all know that's not the case. No one actually wants house rule solutions, they want to just complain about it in the mistaken hope that WotC might eventually listen to them. Which of course isn't happening.

Go count the number of people who say they aren't switching to 5E24 or even aren't playing 5E at all, and yet still post here daily complaining about the current D&D game. It's wacky. All these people venting and venting and venting about something they don't even play. I find it quite amusing.