Tell Me Everything There Is To Know About Push, Pull & Slide

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, early on CS was all over the map on the topic. That is not true anymore and hasn't been true for quite a while. They are certainly far from perfect and often come up with some fairly poor rulings on new things, things that are edge cases, or some specific areas where they seem not to want to decide. Nowadays though in well covered areas they are pretty uniformly consistent.

If you ask CS about a power in regards to forced movement they WILL as of right now rule based on the enter/move distinction. Yes they have been slowly making errata to some of the most problematic cases but they have also been publishing new material with this terminology in mind. The issue is that a lot of older material was written in a haphazard way. You can't count on a power in PHB intending not to be triggered on forced movement into a zone simply because it says "move" instead of "enter". Newer material you can. In a lot of cases where it was hard to say what RAI was CS has simply come down on the side of whichever interpretation fit within their after-the-fact terminology. This isn't true in every case, but it is still the way to rule if you want to be consistent with CS and don't feel like asking them about a specific power.

 

[abyssaldeath]

@abbysaldeath, you can complain about it and dismiss CS out of hand all you want. Sit down at an event where the official rules are used and guess what? It will be played exactly as I outlined. Protest it all you want, them's the rules of the game. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Of course you can do anything you want at your table, but the theory that it isn't the rules according to WotC will still be wrong.

I will complain about it because the FAQ completely contradicts what CS ruled and the changes to Storm Pillar reflect the decision made in the FAQ. CS is wrong and is consistently so. As far as move vs enter there is nothing in the books that even suggest that there is a difference. There are a few rules, on the other hand, that suggest that there is no difference. Take the Avenger for instance. If "move" required a "move action" then it would not have been nessesary for the Pursuit Avenger's feature to specify that the target of their Oath of Amenity has to "willingly move away".

You can ignore the FAQ all you want, but it is not going anywhere.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Tell Me Everything There Is To Know About Push, Pull & Slide

It's fun when you do it to them; it's annoying when they do it to you.

 

[Atreides]

No, forced movement ignores difficult terrain.

Also, you can't change the altitude of the target using forced movement.

Forced movement doesn't count as "willingly moves"

And there is some debate as if forced movement counts as "moves".
Common houserule is that it doesn't (i.e. moves = willingly moves).

Is there a rules quote that Forced movement can not change altitude? We have allowed Come and Get It! to pull a flying monster down to ground level (so the other PC's could then wack on them) - is this illegal?

 

[eamon]

Yes, early on CS was all over the map on the topic. That is not true anymore and hasn't been true for quite a while. They are certainly far from perfect and often come up with some fairly poor rulings on new things, things that are edge cases, or some specific areas where they seem not to want to decide. Nowadays though in well covered areas they are pretty uniformly consistent.

If you ask CS about a power in regards to forced movement they WILL as of right now rule based on the enter/move distinction.

So, you say that if we ask them now about forced movement (say, tide of iron) into a wizard's wall of fire CS will now rule that the creature does not take damage?

 

[sfedi]

Is there a rules quote that Forced movement can not change altitude? We have allowed Come and Get It! to pull a flying monster down to ground level (so the other PC's could then wack on them) - is this illegal?

PHB Page 285:

Distance in Squares: The power you’re using speci-
fies how many squares you can move a target. You
can choose to move the target fewer squares or not
to move it at all. You can’t move the target vertically.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Is there a rules quote that Forced movement can not change altitude? We have allowed Come and Get It! to pull a flying monster down to ground level (so the other PC's could then wack on them) - is this illegal?

Yes, but it is pretty much universally admitted (by the design team at WotC even) that it was simply meant to make it explicitly illegal to do things like push an opponent up into the air where they would fall and other similar nonsense. It wasn't intended to prevent things like the example of a flier being pulled down to ground level or pushed upwards if it was already flying. At worst it makes these kinds of things "not legal by default" so that the DM can look at it and decide if its abusive or not.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, you say that if we ask them now about forced movement (say, tide of iron) into a wizard's wall of fire CS will now rule that the creature does not take damage?

You can ask them, but as I've already said, older material is a total guessing game. I know how it has been ruled, but its pretty clear they will not use the word move in that context anymore. That's the whole problem, they aren't willing to errata half of the wizard powers out there to make them all consistent. They still say "enter" NOW when they mean "got there by any means". This debate has already been long and extensive in other places. Unfortunately you have to keep in mind the vintage of the material you're looking at. On top of that, yes lots of people forbid forced movement from causing a creature to take damage from a Wall of Fire. While CS certainly doesn't hold with this they have also never explained the logic as some kind of general concept and now rule differently on newer powers, so what are we to say? Apparently the rules mean something that lots of other rules are apparently grandfathered not to say. Ah well.

 

[Camelot]

You can push, pull, or slide a prone target.

Example: The bard's ally drops to 0 hp and falls prone as he starts dying. The bard uses majestic word, healing the ally and sliding him away from the enemy so he won't get bashed by melee while prone.

 

[eamon]

You can ask them, but as I've already said, older material is a total guessing game. I know how it has been ruled, but its pretty clear they will not use the word move in that context anymore. That's the whole problem, they aren't willing to errata half of the wizard powers out there to make them all consistent. They still say "enter" NOW when they mean "got there by any means". This debate has already been long and extensive in other places. Unfortunately you have to keep in mind the vintage of the material you're looking at. On top of that, yes lots of people forbid forced movement from causing a creature to take damage from a Wall of Fire. While CS certainly doesn't hold with this they have also never explained the logic as some kind of general concept and now rule differently on newer powers, so what are we to say? Apparently the rules mean something that lots of other rules are apparently grandfathered not to say. Ah well.

This discussion has been had before; the conclusion I remember is that forced movement and teleportation are both considered movement - albeit forms of movement with specific rules (the descriptions of both forced movement and teleportation refer to movement).

I agree that the word "enters" leaves less room for interpretation. You say that in new material the word "moves" has essentially received a newer, more narrow usage; that it is currently typically only used for willing movement. Do you have an example?

In any case, for context, this distinction is luckily only rarely relevant; in most powers it's quite clear whether or not forced movement can serve as a trigger. So while I don't currently see the basis for rejection the notion that forced movement is a type of movement, I'll concede that it doesn't much matter for balance.