Rule "Yes"

[Mark]

Thats not what I have been talking about.

The description you posted without the explanation of how it works mechanically in gameplay was overreaching. From your post, I was under the impression that there was a variant of the power in the 4e PHB that allowed much more than the rule as written.

Even without the auto-kill that seemed to be implied by your original post, I am not sure that the power was meant to allow two targets to be forced to fall from a tree prone at the feet and mercy of the character. Seems a bit much, no?

 

[jensun]

The description you posted without the explanation of how it works mechanically in gameplay was overreaching. From your post, I was under the impression that there was a variant of the power in the 4e PHB that allowed much more than the rule as written.

Even without the auto-kill that seemed to be implied by your original post, I am not sure that the power was meant to allow two targets to be forced to fall from a tree prone at the feet and mercy of the character. Seems a bit much, no?

I did not post the description.

One of the benefits of the various forced movement powers is to shove people into different dangerous terrains, like your Wizards wall of fire or over a cliff or out of a tree.

 

[The Little Raven]

Even without the auto-kill that seemed to be implied by your original post, I am not sure that the power was meant to allow two targets to be forced to fall from a tree prone at the feet and mercy of the character. Seems a bit much, no?

The power grants forced movement.

Forced movement can cause an enemy to go over an edge, such as falling from a tree branch or falling off a cliff.

If you take falling damage, you go prone.

 

[Fifth Element]

Even without the auto-kill that seemed to be implied by your original post, I am not sure that the power was meant to allow two targets to be forced to fall from a tree prone at the feet and mercy of the character. Seems a bit much, no?

I think your critiques of the hypothetical narration presented are overreaching. Forced movement is part of the 4E rules, and sometimes clever narration is required to make it make sense. And no auto-kill was implied, not sure why you'd think that. Particularly if you're familiar with the power in question.

 

[Mark]

I did not post the description.

Sorry. I should say, "The description that was posted," not "The description you posted." Doesn't seem overpowered to you, though?

Nevertheless, this gets off topic for this thread so I'll read your response and move on before we are simply attracting the usual edition defenders from both sides and ruining an otherwise interesting thread.

 

[jensun]

Doesn't seem overpowered to you, though?

I think perhaps you are reading too much into the description.

If it were me running the scene the player would receive the mechanical benefits of the successful effect. How he narrates it is up to him and if he wants to make himself look cool doing so I have no real problem with that.

The issue of forced movement and dangerous terrain is an issue that lots of people have talked about since the game came out almost. There are some very damaging things you can do with stuff like Wall of Fire, Blood Mage powers and any sort of forced movement.

Different people fall into different camps on quite how they work and those camps have more or less support from different parts of the DMG.

At the end of the day you simply have to go with what works best for your game.

 

[Mark]

I think perhaps you are reading too much into the description.

If it were me running the scene the player would receive the mechanical benefits of the successful effect. How he narrates it is up to him and if he wants to make himself look cool doing so I have no real problem with that.

The issue of forced movement and dangerous terrain is an issue that lots of people have talked about since the game came out almost. There are some very damaging things you can do with stuff like Wall of Fire, Blood Mage powers and any sort of forced movement.

Different people fall into different camps on quite how they work and those camps have more or less support from different parts of the DMG.

At the end of the day you simply have to go with what works best for your game.

Always true. Thanks for the reasoned response.

Anyway, sorry to the rest of the thread for the departure from strictly Rule "Yes" discussion. Thanks for the indulgence.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's been around since my DMing 2e, to be honest.

But that's my background in theater talking. It's one of the core principles of improv, and since I've long been holding up the NO PRE-PREP torch, it meshes well with what I do.

I am glad 4e has finally made it official. This continues a pattern 3e set up with rejecting 2e's restriction-heavy language.

It's a VERY FUN rule to use, as a DM. Results in the delightfully unexpected all the time, and I love it when my players surprise me and I have to weave them into the game.

 

[pemerton]

The only bit I mgiht quibble about with the descriptions given is the second one seems to leave the enemy prone. The enemies in the first example would fall out of the tree and, IIRC, falling leaves you prone.

Fair enough. Let's add "As as she gets to her feet I carve her with my sword."

Even without the auto-kill that seemed to be implied by your original post, I am not sure that the power was meant to allow two targets to be forced to fall from a tree prone at the feet and mercy of the character.

In D&D, how does the phrase "I carve them with my sword" suggest an auto-kill? It's synonmous with "I swing at them with my sword." The dice rolls tell us whether the attempt at carving is successful.

As to what the power permits, it permits forced movement followed by an attack. That's what Hypersmurf's suggested narrations (as paraphrased by me) describe.

 

[Celebrim]

In D&D, how does the phrase "I carve them with my sword" suggest an auto-kill? It's synonmous with "I swing at them with my sword."

They are not synonmous. 'I swing my sword' is a proposition. It is an action that does not dictate an outcome. The player that states, "I swing my sword at my enemies" lacks narrative control beyond his own in game avatar.

'I carve my enemies with my sword' is an outcome and a game which permits or encourages this sort of language it is fundamentally different than a game that encourages the first in several ways.

The dice rolls tell us whether the attempt at carving is successful.

This is misdirection. "I carve my enemies with my sword" is not the same as "I attempt to carve my enemies with my sword." "I attempt to carve my enemies with my sword" is a proposition. The outcome is not dictated, only the desired goal. "I attempt to carve my enemies with my sword" is very much like, "I swing my sword at my enemies", only the first proposition is more specific as to intent - 'why' the character is swinging the sword.

A game that lets players say, "I throw my enemy off the cliff" is very different than one that says, "I attempt to throw my enemy off the cliff". In the former, the enemy going off the cliff is always at least a possibility. In the latter, it might not be.