Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6050083" data-attributes="member: 95493">I warn you now, it is a rather massive reply.[sblock]I do want to say, as I have before, that if you are good enough to get the batter to do something every single time, that you are going to be more than fined. You get good at something with practice, otherwise it is a one off. I'm assuming if you have a power (be it any of the AEDU) that you have figured out a technique to repeatedly do something.Otherwise it is a fluke, page 42 or something, and I have LESS problems with it but still some. That was the "accident" part I had included.Am I right in assuming this is the cake or die situation you keep talking about? Assuming, of course, for the moment that the bean-ball won't kill the batter. They can either fall to the ground OR get hit, right?Scope does matter, but as we are only talking about an instance of time (be that a single attack or the single throw of the ball) so it doesn't really factor into the example.Okay, this I think is key. As we established earlier, the batter can either take a ball to the face or fall to the ground? A. Get hit (take damage [if it were an arrow = die]) or B. Fall to the ground? Where does C. (Prone AND damaged) come in? That is what I was arguing before, and you kept bringing up coup de grace.Right, but in your own explanation the batter can either stand there and get hit, or optimally fall prone and not. The hit is a variable but the results are fairly binary, which I have been saying. The attempted results are similarly binary. If the pitcher is wants to MOVE the batter then he may bluff or outright attack but just expect/hope/want the batter to move instead. However, the batter can defy/ignore/be unaware of the incoming attack and get hit. It isn't a false dichotomy in that case to give those as the two options (A and B of above). I don't see where he gets hit AND moves (C of above). Unless falling prone somehow hurts him?Why would it be a reflex save this time, whereas all other ranged attack (including missiles and projectiles) are vs AC?The reason reflex saves cause half-damage on a fail is because they encompass the entire square. (Again based on 3.5 as my knowledge of 4e is virtually 0.)Also, not really the point, on a reflex save you DON'T end up prone after the fireball hits you. Nor do you move either way. You take full damage or take half-damage. That is really not how attacks work. It also doesn't provide a method of forced movement either.Although, since you mention it, if a fireball were to strike AND were to push a target back several feet (or knock prone) that would make sense. It would make sense not in a 'its magic' reasoning that you seem to despise so much. But it would make sense in a the force of the explosion causes pressure and you are knocked back/prone.And since regular (non-magical) attacks aren't the same as magical attacks the reflex save and the new thought experiment (fireball DOES push back due to force) don't really apply.How is he moving either way? Unless that hit were to knock him out, how is he moving EITHER way? Even then he isn't moving in a predictable pattern, nor in a way governed by the pitcher. (Unless the pitcher wanted him prone, and then, if and only if he was knocked unconscious, would the batter fall prone after being hit.)You said earlier: "Sometimes you get fined. Sometimes you provoke a brawl. On rare occasion  you send a guy to the hospital. Depending on the amount of aggression  or malice involved in the act the technique varies."I realize you were talking about actions after the attempted beaning. But why wouldn't options during the beaning also include 1. Getting hit, 2. Avoiding hit and falling prone, 3. Jumping back one square, 4. Jumping back two squares, 5. Somehow managing to hit the ball before beaning (fouled or pop fly possible), 6. Running TO the pitcher (provoking brawl immediately instead of delayed response), 7. Running to the dugout or some part thereof? At least 3 of those responses are possible and even probable with the situation given. The practicality is governed by the decision made and the circumstances but hardly by the attempted beaning action itself, so I'm not going to really dispute practicality on this level.Not what I am saying actually. I'm saying mind control = magicians, no mind control = "grogs" as you put it.For the record, I like grogs. I'm less of a fan of wizards but it has nothing to do with ability to mind control NOR ability to force actions. But if we are looking for reasons for things I think that we should look for non-magical solutions for non-magical situations.Back to the pitcher-batter example once again, if the batter started hovering in the air or managed to knock the ball off course before it ever encounter him I'd be calling foul too. It has nothing to do with it being magic or not. But if he isn't able to fly or use teleknesis then what exactly is the explanation going on of how he performed that action? That is my only reason for bringing it up.Right, which relates to my 'unaware target', but with an added 'helpless' quality. Neither the batter (expecting the ball, but not expecting a beaning) nor someone fighting an archer (expecting the arrow) qualify as EITHER helpless or unaware. So coup de grace doesn't apply to them. As I said earlier, coup de grace has a stated effect and stated requirements (at least in 3e) and thus when I want or need it I can look at the mechanic. There is no stated requirements for forced movement outside that the power and that the user of said power wants to move someone. HOW shouldn't be my problem, that's why I pay designers to work on a book.Right, okay but the cake or die mechanic (as you keep describing it at least) is valid. It relies on someone getting hurt or avoiding that hurt.I don't get the "hurt and move" mechanic. Even when coming to the bus example (which by the way would be a reflex save afiak) they aren't forced TO get hit. Nor are they forced BY THE BUS DRIVER to jump back. They want to and circumstances dictate that they do, but the bus driver isn't activating 'special bus-driver encounter power' to be able to push the back 10 feet and end up prone and hurt. They may use 'sound horn' to WARN the person they are going to get hurt but they can't dictate what the person does beyond that. That is my problem with forced action in general and forced movement specifically.You still haven't explained the idea of granularity you keep using. For the record, when you try to explain something that someone doesn't get, try not to use the EXACT SAME TERM that they are not grasping.Okay, so the example I was using was flawed because it lacked reactions? I'm guessing because you don't actually say WHAT is wrong with the breakdown of this argument, just that I am wrong.. somehow.In the case of the batter, by the way, if he is playing in a regular game of baseball, he IS preparing an action. He is focused on the ball coming towards him and then should get an action to do something when it isn't necessarily his turn.Beyond that I'm at a little of a lost. I suppose the best I could say is that the pitcher either hits with the ball (when attempting to) or not. Attack vs. AC allows that luxury. After which the batter can move and act normally.I actually kind of solved this "all grogs" thing you kept bringing up earlier when talking about another aspect. Refer to the fireball = explosion and therefore moved thing from earlier.I don't have a problem with everyone using the same rules. I think you must but it isn't clear either way.My theory: If you are going to move someone then there are a few ways of doing it. You can either physically move them. Or you can try and feint them out or bluff them into moving. Both of these give a direct explanation on how you are moved. What neither of them does is force you, once moved, to move back or attack me or do anything other than you would choose to. The result is you are moved, because I moved you.Magic on the other hand gives different options. In magic you can convince someone to move themselves. That is the mind control. It doesn't have to be direct, you don't have to mentally take control of their body and move them, but perhaps you convince them (and I mean beyond a shadow of a doubt) that moving is in their best interest. In this method the result is they are moved. The difference is that the explanation relies on outright dictating what they'll do. I can only explain this through magic because there are no non-magical explanations for it.Also, this is true of any system or rules, so I don't see how you can argue 3e or even non-4e in their application.My problem as far as 4e goes is that most, if not all, of the forced movement I see from 4e maneuvers fall in this latter category (mind control). It isn't a bluff, its not physical. It is somehow dictating that they move 2 squares and perform X action. All without them deciding to.Actually, with attacks, you're fine with the cake with a side of eating it too; wherein you get to hurt them and decide what they do (such as move backwards 3 squares and start dancing or whatever). You want martial abilities with a side of magic. That is fine, why should non-casters do that? Be a caster-martial guy instead and solve all of my issues about using magical combat.It's funny but this is what we would both like to see. And (going WAAAAY back) I think it is kind of what KM was suggesting, and what I started this whole series about <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />I wouldn't like that any better, no.Mostly because of the coup de grace thing I pointed out earlier.Also because that isn't how hits work.And, I have repeatedly said, I have no problem with the fighter physically forcing someone to move. I take exception with mind controlling them to move.So I'd rather see:"Hit: You move the target back 5 feet.""Miss: You don't."or"Hit: You deal damage.""Miss: You don't."I could even go so far, if forced <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />, to say.."Hit: You move the target back 5 (never 10 or 20 or anything beyond your direct reach mind) and deal damage.""Miss: You don't."And never, would I like:"Hit?: You force the target to close the distance between you and him (be that 5 feet or any range) and deal damage.""Miss: You don't."[/sblock]</blockquote>

Verification