Reposition says you can't move someone into an obstacle. Is a cliff an obstacle? A barricade or railing certainly would be, but open air is literally the absence of any obstacles.
What about open flame, or a pool of lava? A big bonfire would likely be considered a physical obstacle, but simple fire on its own (such as magically conjured persistent flames) is hardly an impassable barrier. A pool of lava also would not stop physical movement if it's at or below floor level most likely. They would get repositioned OVER the pool in any event, so again, not an obstacle?
What do you think? What do the rules say?
I'm pretty sure the rules don't mention obstacles beyond the chase/infiltration rules, which wouldn't apply here.
I'd say an obstacle is anything that would completely block movement or prevent you from occupying a space. Walls, crates, pillars, barrels, that sort of thing.
A pool of lava, a big bonfire, a cliff, a pit full of spikes, and so on would not count in my games.
This is one of those places where the GM will need to make a ruling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about open flame, or a pool of lava? A big bonfire would likely be considered a physical obstacle, but simple fire on its own (such as magically conjured persistent flames) is hardly an impassable barrier. A pool of lava also would not stop physical movement if it's at or below floor level most likely. They would get repositioned OVER the pool in any event, so again, not an obstacle?
What do you think? What do the rules say?
Most of those examples are not obstacles, but hazardous locations that cause damage or other harm. I would think an obstacle would be something like a tight space that you have to use Squeeze to get into - something where you need either a specific movement type, or at least to make a check in order to voluntarily enter. A narrow walkway that requires a balance check, Up a ladder that takes a climb action, things like that.
The Forced Movement rules have this to say:
If you're pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can't put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise.
The wording hasn't been updated for the creation of the Reposition action, but it really doesn't need it. Reposition is sort-of mentioned as being not a push or pull.
So I would rule that Reposition cannot move someone into a hazardous position, while Shove can.
So you can Shove them off a ledge, into a bonfire, or over a pit of lava. But you can't Reposition (or Leading Dance) them into those locations.
Reposition says you cant move creatures into or through obstacles and shove doesn't have that language.
Neither restrict moving a creature off a cliff.
Things like bonfires, and lava dont obstruct movement, they just provide a damage consequence for moving into them so I wouldn't consider them obstacles. Things like water are no different to me than a cliff drop in terms of neither stop you from moving into those spaces. All of those are fine to reposition or shove a creature into.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you can Shove them off a ledge, into a bonfire, or over a pit of lava. But you can't Reposition (or Leading Dance) them into those locations.Standby statement that reading this rule like that is absurd, these 'pull and push' there is natural language, Reposition and Shove are basically equivalent. But definitely not Leading Dance.
If you want to rule that Reposition is a 'push' or 'pull' effect, then you can do so. The terms 'push' and 'pull' aren't defined anywhere and don't even have an example list.
It is a bit much to call it an absurd ruling to say that, "Reposition is not a 'push' or 'pull' effect and therefore can't move a creature into a hazardous location." Nothing says that Reposition is a 'push' or 'pull' effect. So... what makes the ruling absurd?
Hmm. Ok I took a look at a few pages.
PC1 pg 422
basically my take away is the square has to be a space you cannot occupy to be an obstacle. Hazardous terrain can be forced into according to the third paragraph on forced movement.
But that same paragraph says the GM has the final call on what is an obstacle if there is doubt.
Now on page 235 the side note on forced movement directly references both shove and reposition. This to me indicates those abilities are pushing and or pulling. Though reposition could be voluntary on a willing recipient.
So going back to page 422 this is the important bit. there are undescribed abilities that can reposition a creature in some other way than pushing or pulling. the use of reposition in this sentence is not as a key word but common language for being maneuvered in a way that is not forceful (because all forceful movement is either pushing or pulling). Reposition the athletics action is always pulling a foe that resists and you know this because there is a roll ro adjudicate the result. A repositioning effect that is a willing reposition like the guardians playtest ability to move an ally behind them is the kind of repositioning (common language use) that wouldnt pull or push an ally through hazards. If an enemy were to voluntarily allow a reposition thinking it would be to a safe space but the player is moving them into lava, the language tells me that the creature still has the right to resist the reposition and a roll still must be made to enforce the pull effect that is not voluntary. (Imagine a player saying they are going to reposition a foe to a normal space to the left of them, GM says they dont resist so no roll needed. Then the players says oh they arent resisting then I pull them to the lava pit on the right instead. GM says ok that they will resist go ahead and roll)
Its my take. I would say that for my part I dont see the another side to this but I am open to hearing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reposition and Shove seem like the same thing, but there are significant differences.
Shove is limited in direction. You are pushing your target away from you. That's a limitation that Reposition doesn't have. On the plus side, you can follow the target, and you can push them off a cliff. The downside means that if you want to push your target into an obstacle, you may have to move into the right square to set it up.
Reposition on the other hand allows you to move the target anywhere within your reach. That's its flexibility. You can't move with your target, and you can't push them off a cliff which meets the definition of an obstacle without any mental gymnastics. If that doesn't seem useful to you, think about pulling them between you and a nearby ally for instant flanking without having to move, trigger reactions, or do anything to set it up. It only costs 1 action.
I think it would be risky to Reposition someone off a cliff instead of Shoving them. Shove wouldn't require being next to the cliff, but Reposition would. If you crit fail the Shove, you fall prone. If you crit fail the Reposition, you're getting yeeted off the cliff.
So I don't think Reposition should be prevented from doing this due to its flexibility, since it comes with incredible risk.
Being this particular about these two words in the whole game. Which aren't traits or anything like that.
You haven't seen me discussing 'your spell list' then, have you?
Undefined game terms are undefined. They can't be used in RAW debates very well since it is left up to interpretation.
As for differences between Shove and Reposition: Shove is more limited for the direction that the target can be moved, so you often have to adjust your own positioning in order to get your enemy to go where you want them to. Also, the target can end up outside of your reach at the end of Shove.
And most notably to me, there is a difference in wording of the success (and critical success) results.
Success: You push your target back 5 feet.
Success: You move the target up to 5 feet.
So again, the ruling that Reposition is a push effect and can move targets into dangerous locations is not against RAW. But at the same time, the ruling that Reposition is not a push effect and can't move targets into dangerous locations is not absurd - there is plenty of RAI and wording interpretation support for it.
Being this particular about these two words in the whole game. Which aren't traits or anything like that.You haven't seen me discussing 'your spell list' then, have you?
Undefined game terms are undefined. They can't be used in RAW debates very well since it is left up to interpretation.
As for differences between Shove and Reposition: Shove is more limited for the direction that the target can be moved, so you often have to adjust your own positioning in order to get your enemy to go where you want them to. Also, the target can end up outside of your reach at the end of Shove.
And most notably to me, there is a difference in wording of the success (and critical success) results.
Success: You push your target back 5 feet.Success: You move the target up to 5 feet.So again, the ruling that Reposition is a push effect and can move targets into dangerous locations is not against RAW. But at the same time, the ruling that Reposition is not a push effect and can't move targets into dangerous locations is not absurd - there is plenty of RAI and wording interpretation support for it.
Reposition isn't always forced movement. It can be voluntarily or forced. If there is a roll to overcome the targets save dc its forced. Thats why there is a language difference. But with both being referenced equally under forced movement rules its an odd ruling to say its not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Usually the creature or effect forcing the movement chooses the path the victim takes. If you're pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can't put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise. In all cases, the GM makes the final call if there's doubt on where forced movement can move a creature."
To me, this is pretty clear. Hazardous terrain isn't something you can reposition somebody into. You need to push or pull specifically. I take push and pull to mean away/towards the aggressor, generally requiring the aggressor to move to another spot if they want to change the direction the target moves in. Given the forced movement rules, I also take "obstacle" in the reposition rules to mean "any hazard".
Reposition and Shove seem like the same thing, but there are significant differences.
Shove is limited in direction. You are pushing your target away from you. That's a limitation that Reposition doesn't have. On the plus side, you can follow the target, and you can push them off a cliff. The downside means that if you want to push your target into an obstacle, you may have to move into the right square to set it up.
Reposition on the other hand allows you to move the target anywhere within your reach. That's its flexibility. You can't move with your target, and you can't push them off a cliff which meets the definition of an obstacle without any mental gymnastics. If that doesn't seem useful to you, think about pulling them between you and a nearby ally for instant flanking without having to move, trigger reactions, or do anything to set it up. It only costs 1 action.
I would call both actions limited direction.
One can only move a creature to spaces away while the other can only move the creature to adjacent spaces. If the nearest 5ft hole in the ground is in an adjacent square shove couldn't move a creature to it. Only reposition could.
"Usually the creature or effect forcing the movement chooses the path the victim takes. If you're pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can't put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise. In all cases, the GM makes the final call if there's doubt on where forced movement can move a creature."
To me, this is pretty clear. Hazardous terrain isn't something you can reposition somebody into. You need to push or pull specifically. I take push and pull to mean away/towards the aggressor, generally requiring the aggressor to move to another spot if they want to change the direction the target moves in. Given the forced movement rules, I also take "obstacle" in the reposition rules to mean "any hazard".
Its talking about forced movement, then it says reposition in some other way. Its saying when you move something around in some way that is not forced movement then this. Its not the same as saying reposition the action is not forced movement. But reposition the action was just mentioned as an ability that can reposition you in that precise way, by force.
Reposition isn't always forced movement. It can be voluntarily or forced.
Wait, what?
If there is a roll to overcome the targets save dc its forced. Thats why there is a language difference. But with both being referenced equally under forced movement rules its an odd ruling to say its not.
That... is not the definition of Forced Movement. The Forced Movement rules do not require a check against one of the target's DCs.
The requirement for Forced Movement is that a different creature is deciding the path and distance that the target creature moves.
Leading Dance is not voluntary movement either. It is Forced Movement (it even says so specifically). And it requires a check against the target's DC. A performance check against the Will DC, but that is irrelevant.
Reposition most definitely is Forced Movement. Always. Because the effect of Reposition is what is determining the distance moved, not the target's movement speed.
What I am pointing out is that not all Forced Movement can move the target into a hazardous location. Because that is what the Forced Movement rules specify. In fact, the default for Forced Movement is that the effect can not move the target into a hazardous location. Only a limited subset of Forced Movement abilities are able to push the target off a cliff or into a bonfire. That part of my statements are literal RAW.
Unfortunately, the distinction between which Forced Movement effects are allowed to move a creature into hazardous locations and which ones are not is not well defined. The RAI comes in when deciding which ones do and don't qualify.
Shove is fairly clear that it does qualify for pushing into hazardous locations. But even that is not necessarily RAW since that ability doesn't have an override of the general rules specifically written for it. Arguments in support instead have to rely on the undefined term 'push'.
Leading Dance is reasonably clear that it does not because of the general rules in Forced Movement and because the ability doesn't have an override of that.
Reposition is more questionable. I don't think it qualifies. My opinion on the matter isn't the only ruling that is valid by RAW though. But my opinion and ruling also isn't absurd.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand not being able to
use teleportation or dance choreography to yeet someone off a ledge, as those can be explained by inherent spell restrictions and common sense respectively. But pushing someone aside? Why would the presence of a cliff stop that from working? And why would it suddenly work if it was forward instead of aside?
Reposition isn't always forced movement. It can be voluntarily or forced.Wait, what?
If there is a roll to overcome the targets save dc its forced. Thats why there is a language difference. But with both being referenced equally under forced movement rules its an odd ruling to say its not.That... is not the definition of Forced Movement. The Forced Movement rules do not require a check against one of the target's DCs.
The requirement for Forced Movement is that a different creature is deciding the path and distance that the target creature moves.
Leading Dance is not voluntary movement either. It is Forced Movement (it even says so specifically). And it requires a check against the target's DC. A performance check against the Will DC, but that is irrelevant.
Reposition most definitely is Forced Movement. Always. Because the effect of Reposition is what is determining the distance moved, not the target's movement speed.
What I am pointing out is that not all Forced Movement can move the target into a hazardous location. Because that is what the Forced Movement rules specify. In fact, the default for Forced Movement is that the effect can not move the target into a hazardous location. Only a limited subset of Forced Movement abilities are able to push the target off a cliff or into a bonfire. That part of my statements are literal RAW.
Unfortunately, the distinction between which Forced Movement effects are allowed to move a creature into hazardous locations and which ones are not is not well defined. The RAI comes in when deciding which ones do and don't qualify.
Shove is fairly clear that it does qualify for pushing into hazardous locations. But even that is not necessarily RAW since that ability doesn't have an override of the general rules specifically written for it. Arguments in support instead have to rely on the undefined term 'push'.
Leading Dance is reasonably...
Ah yeah, your right its still forced its just not always contested.
Reposition isn't always forced movement. It can be voluntarily or forced.Wait, what?
If there is a roll to overcome the targets save dc its forced. Thats why there is a language difference. But with both being referenced equally under forced movement rules its an odd ruling to say its not.That... is not the definition of Forced Movement. The Forced Movement rules do not require a check against one of the target's DCs.
The requirement for Forced Movement is that a different creature is deciding the path and distance that the target creature moves.
Leading Dance is not voluntary movement either. It is Forced Movement (it even says so specifically). And it requires a check against the target's DC. A performance check against the Will DC, but that is irrelevant.
Reposition most definitely is Forced Movement. Always. Because the effect of Reposition is what is determining the distance moved, not the target's movement speed.
What I am pointing out is that not all Forced Movement can move the target into a hazardous location. Because that is what the Forced Movement rules specify. In fact, the default for Forced Movement is that the effect can not move the target into a hazardous location. Only a limited subset of Forced Movement abilities are able to push the target off a cliff or into a bonfire. That part of my statements are literal RAW.
Unfortunately, the distinction between which Forced Movement effects are allowed to move a creature into hazardous locations and which ones are not is not well defined. The RAI comes in when deciding which ones do and don't qualify.
Shove is fairly clear that it does qualify for pushing into hazardous locations. But even that is not necessarily RAW since that ability doesn't have an override of the general rules specifically written for it. Arguments in support instead have to rely on the undefined term 'push'.
Leading Dance is reasonably...
Just to clarify for the Reposition action specifically are you saying that its not pulling a creature?
And for leading dance are you saying that cant lead a foe off a cliff?From my read the raw statement is that forced movement is pushing or pulling and leading dance is specifically called out as forced movement to signal that it acts like pushing and pulling even though its described as a dance. Also making that will save is very relevant right? Cause failure doesn't result in the forced movement.
i think a good test for what is actually an obstacle though is, Would you allow the player normally and without any rolls to jump over something or tumble under to move to or through that square if they used a stride action?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify for the Reposition action specifically are you saying that its not pulling a creature?
And for leading dance are you saying that cant lead a foe off a cliff?From my read the raw statement is that forced movement is pushing or pulling and leading dance is specifically called out as forced movement to signal that it acts like pushing and pulling even though its described as a dance. Also making that will save is very relevant right? Cause failure doesn't result in the forced movement.
That is my interpretation of the rules, yes.
To summarize for clarity:
The default for Forced Movement is that it can not move a creature into a harmful location. Only 'push' or 'pull' effects qualify.
If you're pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can't put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise.
Shove is a push effect mechanically because that is the word used in the degree of success results.
You push your target back
Reposition is not a push or pull effect because it uses the word 'move' in its degree of success results instead.
No, narrative description of pushing or pulling the creature to reposition them is not the same as a push or pull effect for game mechanics purposes.
Leading Dance also does not qualify as a push or pull effect.
So you can Shove a creature off of a cliff, but you couldn't Reposition them off the cliff or Leading Dance them off the cliff. All of those three actions are a Forced Movement effect, but only Shove is a 'push' effect as well.
|
Out of curiosity--
In first edition, Reposition would not allow you to move opponents into hazardous terrain, BUT there was a feat (Tactical Reposition) which would then allow you to do so. (It also gave them a penalty on their saves since it is a ridiculously situational feat.)
Are there any feats/abilities which overcome that restriction in 2e?
Just to clarify for the Reposition action specifically are you saying that its not pulling a creature?
And for leading dance are you saying that cant lead a foe off a cliff?From my read the raw statement is that forced movement is pushing or pulling and leading dance is specifically called out as forced movement to signal that it acts like pushing and pulling even though its described as a dance. Also making that will save is very relevant right? Cause failure doesn't result in the forced movement.
That is my interpretation of the rules, yes.
To summarize for clarity:
The default for Forced Movement is that it can not move a creature into a harmful location. Only 'push' or 'pull' effects qualify.
If you're pushed or pulled, you can usually be moved through hazardous terrain, pushed off a ledge, or the like. Abilities that reposition you in some other way can't put you in such dangerous places unless they specify otherwise.Shove is a push effect mechanically because that is the word used in the degree of success results.
You push your target backReposition is not a push or pull effect because it uses the word 'move' in its degree of success results instead.
No, narrative description of pushing or pulling the creature to reposition them is not the same as a push or pull effect for game mechanics purposes.
Leading Dance also does not qualify as a push or pull effect.
So you can Shove a creature off of a cliff, but you couldn't Reposition them off the cliff or Leading Dance them off the cliff. All of those three actions are a Forced Movement effect, but only Shove is a 'push' effect as well.
Ah ok. Thanks for clarifying.
You know, one thing that kept me away from that interpretation was the glossary. defined terms are generally listed there right? makes me read push and pull as just common language usage.Like if you are moving someone else and its your force thats making it happen we would commonly say thats either pushing them or pulling them.
Taken together it makes me think that push being in the degrees of success and pull not being in the language for reposition is not actually telling us anything significant.
Reposition is described as muscling a creature around. so the movement is informed by that context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah ok. Thanks for clarifying.
You know, one thing that kept me away from that interpretation was the glossary. defined terms are generally listed there right? makes me read push and pull as just common language usage.
Like if you are moving someone else and its your force thats making it happen we would commonly say thats either pushing them or pulling them.
Taken together it makes me think that push being in the degrees of success and pull not being in the language for reposition is not actually telling us anything significant.
Yup. That is why it is ambiguous. 'pushed' and 'pulled' are not defined game terms.
But ambiguity doesn't mean that one interpretation is objectively right and another is objectively wrong. I have my interpretation, and I stand by it and will support it if asked. But I am also aware that my interpretation isn't the only one that is valid.
This actually made me consider what squares shove can actually push to.
If
C = Creature Targeted
P is player using the skill
S = Spaces the creature could be shoved to
R = Spaces the creature could be repositioned to
What squares are valid for shove pushing a creature 5-10ft away?
Is there an exemption from diagonal movement rules? if not it would make a second diagonal 15ft of forced movement required.
XSSSX
XSSSX
XRCRX
XRPRX
XRRRX
XXXXX
If looking at it in a strict way a player wanting to shove the creature to a different square would need to move first to push from a different point of origin. To move a creature in another direction would require a combination of pushing and pulling. So I read shove as more restrictive in the directions that are allowed. Reposition saying move and not just push or pull made it less restrictive in that sense but has the restriction of the ending square being adjacent to the Player using the skill.
XSSXX
SSSXX
SSCRR
XXRPR
XXRRR
XXXXX
It kind of looks to me like they are actually the same thing but they operate in different squares.
Reposition to the square directly behind the player is 15ft if pulling the creature through their own square isnt allowed right?
In the second example it seems like two diagonals even if going through the player's square.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hydraulic Push is another effect that doesn't use the word "push" in the description. It says "knocked back". But it would be ridiculous to not count that as pushing.
There's also the Pull action added in Monster Core. It doesn't say "pull" anywhere in the description except as capitalized to refer to the action itself. The Pull action is literally just performing a MAP-less Reposition.