Warlord Player's job is to tell other players what to do??

[Hypersmurf]

The point is that in this context (warlord powers affecting an ally), the person who initiates the slide is most likely to be doing so in consultation with the person who gets slid. As such, it's a consensus decision, whoever actually moves the mini on the mat.

I think the consensus is entirely at the discretion of the initiator.

He can say "I get to slide you one square - where do you want to go?", and the other player can give input. But ultimately, the power says "You slide [Creature X] one square", and the person who is sliding [Creature X] is the one who points to a square on the battlemat and says "Here".

If that's where the player indicated he wanted to go, yay, consensus! If it's not, too bad, because the person with the ability to slide [Creature X] has the casting vote.

The Rogue can say to his enemy "I get to slide you three squares - where do you want to go?" as well. And the enemy can say "Anywhere but the briar patch". But the enemy's input is advisory only, and the Rogue can slide him into the damned briar patch if he chooses.

So yes, I consider it a binary case. Who picks where the shift ends up? The person shifting. Who picks where the slide ends up? The person sliding, not the person being slid. Any consensus is at the slider's discretion.

(I have no problem with the slidee's player moving his mini on the battlemat to the new position... as long as he puts it where the slider's player tells him to!)

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

I think the consensus is entirely at the discretion of the initiator.

He can say "I get to slide you one square - where do you want to go?", and the other player can give input. But ultimately, the power says "You slide [Creature X] one square", and the person who is sliding [Creature X] is the one who points to a square on the battlemat and says "Here".

If that's where the player indicated he wanted to go, yay, consensus! If it's not, too bad, because the person with the ability to slide [Creature X] has the casting vote.

And do you seriously believe that most groups will not have some sort of conversation like this (possibly abbreviated) before the action is taken? Ultimately, the point is that the person being moved has input into what happens. It's not a decision made in complete isolation by one person or another.

 

[Lizard]

Are you seriously going to enforce a binary distinction like this in any game you're in?

Uh...yeah.

Slide is usually an offensive power. You slide an enemy off a cliff, or adjacent to the fighter, or away from the wizard. If you allow the target to choose, the ability is pointless.

You may houserule that 'PC's control a slide due to the actions of other PCs', but that's about it.

 

[hong]

Uh...yeah.

Slide is usually an offensive power. You slide an enemy off a cliff, or adjacent to the fighter, or away from the wizard. If you allow the target to choose, the ability is pointless.

The entire point of the debate is that slide is, in this case, being used on an ally. As such, the hypothesis that "the target cannot choose" is a definitional characteristic of slide is what is in question.

 

[Lizard]

The entire point of the debate is that slide is, in this case, being used on an ally. As such, the hypothesis that "the target cannot choose" is a definitional characteristic of slide is what is in question.

Yup.

And I'm with those who say it is. It's a power possessed by the slider, not the slide-ee. It's like saying a PC can choose not to be affected by another PC's fireball.

If I'm the warlord and I want to slide you someplace you don't want to go, tough. About the only way to break that would be for you to declare you are not my 'ally', and lose any benefits I give to 'allies'.

I predict ally/enemy will be the new alignment debate.

 

[hong]

Yup.

And I'm with those who say it is. It's a power possessed by the slider, not the slide-ee. It's like saying a PC can choose not to be affected by another PC's fireball.

More precisely, it's like saying player A can yell at player B if B's fireball would hit A. And whether or not B can/should listen.

 

[Kordeth]

I predict ally/enemy will be the new alignment debate.

Except of course that WotC_Miko already said the DMG has a section clearly spelling out what counts as an ally or an enemy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

More precisely, it's like saying player A can yell at player B if B's fireball would hit A. And whether or not B can/should listen.

Exactly.

We agree, then?

B can listen. B, perhaps, should listen. But B need not listen.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Exactly.

We agree, then?

B can listen. B, perhaps, should listen. But B need not listen.

-Hyp.

The point perhaps is that if B habitually does not listen, then B needs to be pelted with dice.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The point perhaps is that if B habitually does not listen, then B needs to be pelted with dice.

Well, that's dependent on the group.

But a social contract that B will consult before sliding A doesn't mean that B no longer makes the final call of where A slides to.

-Hyp.