| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"In all cases, the GM makes the final call if there’s doubt on where forced movement can move a creature."
This part is incredibly important. Apply the principle of the Froced Movement rule, and distinguish between things physically propelling the target (Shove, Hydraulic Push, Whirling Throw) as opposed to baiting them into moving there (Leading Dance). Don't play "Hunt The Keyword" without applying the built in GM discretion. The results of doing that don't make sense way too often.
I see no reason to think either:
A. That Hydraulic Torrent isn't intended to be an effect that can push creatures into a hazardous place.
B. That it works like an effect that can't knock a creature into a hazardous place right now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Forced Movement rules state that there's a distinction based on the type of Forced Movement. But "effects that push or pull" is expressing a concept in plain English. Taking this to mean that exact keywords are required is reading the rules in a more legalistic way than they are written.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, again... I appreciate your insight.
'Pushed or pulled' do seem like states that characters (or monsters) can be in and there are specific rules to apply to them when they're in those states. So I'm curious if anybody else has any insight.
My insights are that "In all cases" is pretty clear...
Pushed or pulled could in theory be a key word in some cases, but it doesn't really matter, because we have an absolute statement right afterward. "In all cases, the GM makes the final call if there’s doubt on where forced movement can move a creature"Yes, there's the qualifier "if there's any doubt", but first of all that's a very generic qualifier that can apply to pretty much anything, and secondly, you're asking about it here, soooo... there's doubt. Otherwise there'd be no reason to ask.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the GM asking for additional opinions so he's better informed to make that call.Well, again... I appreciate your insight.
'Pushed or pulled' do seem like states that characters (or monsters) can be in and there are specific rules to apply to them when they're in those states. So I'm curious if anybody else has any insight.
My insights are that "In all cases" is pretty clear...
Pushed or pulled could in theory be a key word in some cases, but it doesn't really matter, because we have an absolute statement right afterward. "In all cases, the GM makes the final call if there’s doubt on where forced movement can move a creature"Yes, there's the qualifier "if there's any doubt", but first of all that's a very generic qualifier that can apply to pretty much anything, and secondly, you're asking about it here, soooo... there's doubt. Otherwise there'd be no reason to ask.
Okay, but that doesn't really change what I'm saying. It sounds like you're looking for a definitive answer as to what counts as "pushed or pulled" while my whole point is that it says pretty clearly that that's decided by the GM. There's nothing I can do to help you make a more informed RAW decision when the RAW is that you should use your own judgement.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Context:
With the Forced Movement rules, it seems that Hydraulic push cannot be used to send an enemy off of a ledge or into a snare, but Pushing Gust can. Just trying to see if that's working as intended.
Pushed and knocked back are equivalent things in game: when it's not capitalized it's natural speech. Add to that that is falls back on DM fiat [as does a lot of the game] and there isn't much to say other that I can't really see a reason to assume that knocked back is in any way different from push.
For an example of the terms being used interchangeably, look at Hammer of Forbiddance.
"Description: An enormous hammer at an edifice’s entrance swings down in an attempt to damage a creature entering an area, push it back, and prevent it from going any further."
"Melee hammer +28, Damage 6d8+20 bludgeoning plus the target is knocked back 10 feet"
SO it says it pushes the target back and the effect says that is a knock back. Seems interchangeable to me.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the example pointed out, I think that the OP is being rules lawyery to the point that is destructive to the game.
Why would Pushing Gust work any differently than Hydraulic Push? They do nearly the same thing with a different element.
As the OP has a odd fixation on wording over purpose, I would point out the wording in the 'Push' entry in the universal monster rules.
The monster automatically knocks the target away from the monster. Unless otherwise noted in the ability description, the creature is pushed 5 feet. If the attack was a critical hit, this distance is doubled.
While this could definitely be considered the flavor text part, the wording of "knock(s)(ed) x" does not seem unique to Hydraulic Push.
Also, I would point out that the CRB and other books are notorious for having wording inconsistencies that lead away from intent. My favorite example is the old Stave wording in regard to property runes. It was specifically called out to be allowed. With the errata and now even the SoM, it has been made abundantly clear that property runes on Staves were unintended.
Hinging rulings on word minutia over sensibility is an odd way to play. But, if that is your cup of tea, have at it!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're getting the correct answer to the question you asked, but you're pushing back against that response. That's the negative response you're getting. You're looking for a rules lawyer-y explanation for something that doesn't need it as it's already covered in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're getting the correct answer to the question you asked, but you're pushing back against that response. That's the negative response you're getting. You're looking for a rules lawyer-y explanation for something that doesn't need it as it's already covered in the rules.I'm literally thanking people for their responses, at every step. The only negativity in my responses is me reacting to the negativity and not understanding why I'm getting this kind of response. I think this conversation has run its course. Thank you for everybody that participated.
Yep, don't worry about it, man. Sometimes people can read into things in pure text format. Personally I saw one post in this whole thread that was a little aggressive (not from you, btw), but I wouldn't past someone to see 0, or to see many more.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're getting the correct answer to the question you asked, but you're pushing back against that response. That's the negative response you're getting. You're looking for a rules lawyer-y explanation for something that doesn't need it as it's already covered in the rules.I'm literally thanking people for their responses, at every step. The only negativity in my responses is me reacting to the negativity and not understanding why I'm getting this kind of response. I think this conversation has run its course. Thank you for everybody that participated.
When you say things like "Thank you, but..." it comes of as disingenuous and confrontational. Next time try saying "Thank you for the clarification! I'm still confused about X though." This shows your gratitude without coming off as confrontational. Works in real life too.
Yeah, I agree Yeah I agree Hammerjack, thenobledrake, Aw3som3-117, graystone, Leomund, and Ruzza here. And you should know, it's really unusual for this crowd to all agree this easily on something :P
I know right !!
I mean I agree too that knocked back=push but I was surprised that the usual devil's advocate agreed.
|
Yeah, I agree Yeah I agree Hammerjack, thenobledrake, Aw3som3-117, graystone, Leomund, and Ruzza here. And you should know, it's really unusual for this crowd to all agree this easily on something :PI know right !!
I mean I agree too that knocked back=push but I was surprised that the usual devil's advocate agreed.
For several values of "the usual devil's advocate", no less.
(I didn't list Cordell because he was only talking about the debate, not the content. Although I agree with his point about the debate.)