Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rant about Forced Movement
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9449827" data-attributes="member: 6877472"><p>The player's main beef was how he got pushed on the enemy's turn, took damage, then at the start of his turn, he'd take more damage and drop without having any real way to act. Which I get- those kinds of moments just suck, which is exactly why my group has so many reaction abilities (enough to make me dread attacking them, lol).</p><p></p><p>But I don't see how poking holes in spell effects to elude them because they were written in a less than clear manner or because someone made an off the cuff remark "clarifying" something without issuing direct errata in newer versions of the rules to muddy the issue bother me.</p><p></p><p>I mean, they've employed tactics like these before without a quibble and I just accepted it ("yes yes, your eldritch blast pushes someone into the moonbeam, they take damage"). Never before did anyone say "wait, he wasn't <em>moved</em> there!". </p><p></p><p>What bothered me the most about it was when I said "look, you obviously feel strongly about this, so ok, we'll play it this way from now on, you only take damage at the start of your turn", but the player was like "no no, I'll take the damage." And when he was pulled out of the spell area, he was like "ok, I die then because of the <em>booming blade</em> effect" and when I said no, that spell says the movement has to be willing, he as like "well, how should I know?".</p><p></p><p>I mean, you took the time between turns to look up <em>sickening radiance</em> and found some forced movement discussion that you cited to tell me I'm wrong...but didn't bother to look up this other spell? </p><p></p><p>Then he started saying "well if the rules work the way you say, then people should take damage when the Cleric approaches them with <em>spirit guardians</em>" and I was like, "no, that's been clarified. There's a difference between moving into s<em>pirit guardians</em>, and having spirit guardians dropped on top of you". To which he said "that doesn't make any sense".</p><p></p><p>"I didn't design this bloody game!" I finally said, throwing my hands up in the air. "It's a balance decision, not one that makes sense."</p><p></p><p>"Well, then, it shouldn't have to make sense how I don't get burned by being pushed into the spell."</p><p></p><p>And when someone else was rescued from the <em>sickening radiance</em> before their turn, taking no damage, which makes even <strong>less</strong> sense, lol, I could feel him glaring at me. He didn't talk much on the ride home either.</p><p></p><p>And I kept thinking that this all could have been avoided if the game's rules were clearer (or that Crawford was- this is far from the first time I've tried running the game by the book only to have some comment of his thrown at me, lol).</p><p></p><p>That irritation is what led to the OP. So far from what's been said by everyone here, I was technically correct...but I'm not going to say right, because maybe this sort of thing is kind of BS, but I can't help but think that this is what <em>sickening radiance</em> is for, since unless you can trap enemies inside, casting it leads to one round of damage, then everyone runs out, and the fact it lasts for a whopping <strong>ten minutes</strong> becomes somewhat meaningless, but I'll probably never look at the spell again because of this incident!</p><p></p><p>For me, having my player's trust is important as a DM. If they feel I'm being unfair, then I guess I have to switch tactics. This entire last battle, I took the opportunity to turn their tactics against them, which was cathartic to a degree, but given that it made the game less fun for them, I'll have to not do this in the future.</p><p></p><p>I don't see D&D as a "me vs. them" exercise, but I don't think they realize how annoying some of their shenanigans are, lol.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9449827, member: 6877472"] The player's main beef was how he got pushed on the enemy's turn, took damage, then at the start of his turn, he'd take more damage and drop without having any real way to act. Which I get- those kinds of moments just suck, which is exactly why my group has so many reaction abilities (enough to make me dread attacking them, lol). But I don't see how poking holes in spell effects to elude them because they were written in a less than clear manner or because someone made an off the cuff remark "clarifying" something without issuing direct errata in newer versions of the rules to muddy the issue bother me. I mean, they've employed tactics like these before without a quibble and I just accepted it ("yes yes, your eldritch blast pushes someone into the moonbeam, they take damage"). Never before did anyone say "wait, he wasn't [I]moved[/I] there!". What bothered me the most about it was when I said "look, you obviously feel strongly about this, so ok, we'll play it this way from now on, you only take damage at the start of your turn", but the player was like "no no, I'll take the damage." And when he was pulled out of the spell area, he was like "ok, I die then because of the [I]booming blade[/I] effect" and when I said no, that spell says the movement has to be willing, he as like "well, how should I know?". I mean, you took the time between turns to look up [I]sickening radiance[/I] and found some forced movement discussion that you cited to tell me I'm wrong...but didn't bother to look up this other spell? Then he started saying "well if the rules work the way you say, then people should take damage when the Cleric approaches them with [I]spirit guardians[/I]" and I was like, "no, that's been clarified. There's a difference between moving into s[I]pirit guardians[/I], and having spirit guardians dropped on top of you". To which he said "that doesn't make any sense". "I didn't design this bloody game!" I finally said, throwing my hands up in the air. "It's a balance decision, not one that makes sense." "Well, then, it shouldn't have to make sense how I don't get burned by being pushed into the spell." And when someone else was rescued from the [I]sickening radiance[/I] before their turn, taking no damage, which makes even [B]less[/B] sense, lol, I could feel him glaring at me. He didn't talk much on the ride home either. And I kept thinking that this all could have been avoided if the game's rules were clearer (or that Crawford was- this is far from the first time I've tried running the game by the book only to have some comment of his thrown at me, lol). That irritation is what led to the OP. So far from what's been said by everyone here, I was technically correct...but I'm not going to say right, because maybe this sort of thing is kind of BS, but I can't help but think that this is what [I]sickening radiance[/I] is for, since unless you can trap enemies inside, casting it leads to one round of damage, then everyone runs out, and the fact it lasts for a whopping [B]ten minutes[/B] becomes somewhat meaningless, but I'll probably never look at the spell again because of this incident! For me, having my player's trust is important as a DM. If they feel I'm being unfair, then I guess I have to switch tactics. This entire last battle, I took the opportunity to turn their tactics against them, which was cathartic to a degree, but given that it made the game less fun for them, I'll have to not do this in the future. I don't see D&D as a "me vs. them" exercise, but I don't think they realize how annoying some of their shenanigans are, lol. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rant about Forced Movement
Top