So, the Fetching Bangles ikon has a forced movement Trans ability. How useful this is does vary quite a bit based on how the GM runs this.
And there seems to be no searchable discussion on this ability Embrace of Destiny specifically.
Choose an enemy within 20 feet of you. It must succeed at a Will save against your class DC or be pulled directly toward you into a square adjacent to you.
Does this allow the Exemplar to pick any square adjacent to them, which becomes the destination square?
Is the closest adjacent square to the foe the only valid destination? When multiple are equidistant, who chooses?
How do you run the forced movement rules?
[...] 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. [...]
Is a flying Exemplar be able to yoink foes straight up?
Do they immediately fall, or is there coyote time where the Exemplar can first melee Strike, etc?
(The falling rules are surprisingly lacking. When the 500ft of falling happens is outright undefined as far as I can tell. Only on the actor's turn? As soon as there's nothing under their feet, but only once p round?)
Does a free falling foe trigger a Reactive Strike?
As Dr. Frank said, this is ask your GM Territory. Also, you might want to actually say Transcendence and not the abbreviation that you chose to ensure that people can easily tell what you are talking about.
Here is how I would rule on your questions:
1. First, the ability answers the square question: "directly towards you into a square adjacent to you.". IE: a straight line to you.
2. The ability does not say "This movement is forced movement.", so I would rule that the forced movement rules do not apply.
3. Yes, I would let someone be yanked up, though the closest square would be under the exemplar, so that the ensuing fall would only be 15 feet.
4. The fall would be, IMO, forced movement, so would not trigger Reactive Strike.
However, your GM may not agree with any of the ways I would rule it, so you'd need to chat with that person to get the answer(s) for your table.
Ugh, I cannot believe I managed to typo the post title, dang it.
I definitely agree on the drop not triggering R. Strike.
This actually came up at our table due to a lot of clambering around Wall of Stone, and checking the rules clarifies that gravity/ falls are put next to forced movement.And on that note, "Forced Movement" itself does not require text to "declare" forced movement by the way. Those are just reminders to read the rules.
When an effect forces you to move, or if you start falling, the distance you move is defined by the effect that moved you, not by your Speed. Forced movement doesn't trigger reactions that are triggered by movement. Some common causes of forced movement include the Reposition and Shove actions of Athletics. In the rare cases where it's unclear whether your movement is voluntary or forced, the GM makes the determination.
It's about it being voluntary or forced. So the Bangles / Embrace are forced movement.
I also find the text around which square is the "yoink destination" to be too much a can of worms to really run without letting the player pick any valid adjacent (the player choice actually deletes those worms).
be pulled directly toward you into a square adjacent to you.
Even in your "single line" ruling, this means both the two squares in the exact line between the user and target fit the text.
One valid square is between user and target, while the other is the square on the far side of the user. There's no "first" nor "closest" instruction, so both are fully valid in that "only the line" reading.(willing creatures can allow other creatures to move through their space)
The "only that one line" also creates just a pile of other edge case issues, if there are equidistant options, etc. Creature sizes being >1 square especially makes this hugely ambiguous, where someone has to pick how the tokens land.
IMO, the "directly toward" instruction is to script the movement as a straight line, and was not intended to further limit the "a square adjacent to you" destination option/options.
In my opinion, it would have been written differently if it was intended to only have that one square as valid.
Something like: "into the last valid square on a straight path before colliding with you."
My take on that piece of the ability is that the user is able to pick from any of and only the available squares adjacent themself to be destinations.
But your ruling does fit the RaW, (though with the * of there being 2 possible destinations in the no-complications simple case, never just 1)
"Directly toward" feels explicit. Once you start moving characters around you then at some point it's no longer directly toward you. There is some ambiguity though for
Regarding falling, that one is trickier. Forum consensus is that all falls happen instantaneously, but the actual rules are weirdly silent on fall timing and secondary sources imply inconsistent results.
|
1. It's clearly forced movement, they're not moving there of their own free will. So forced movement rules apply.
2. It involves the magic word "pull", so the presumption is you can pull them into dangerous terrain.
3. It says "directly toward you". That shouldn't allow moving them past you. I'd be looking for a straight line from their square to your square. If two straight line paths have the same distance then I'd be okay with you choosing.
4. If none of the possible ending squares are legal to end a move in (because there's other characters standing there for example) the enemy would stop in the last square they could legally end in.
5. If there are people in the middle of the route that don't want to let the enemy past, that would block the enemy there, because you can only freely move through the space of willing creatures.
6. If you're flying, sure, you can pull them up. They'd immediately start falling though since there's no clause about "unless their next action..." like you have in many Jump-like effects. You don't really get a chance to hit them because you don't get another action before they fall, and forced movement doesn't cause reactive strikes.
(I wouldn't actually push this at a table, just playing devil's advocate)
"directly toward you" is only an indicator of direction, not distance, nor destination.
If you dodge an arrow flying "directly toward you" it keeps moving past you.
I want to point to the use of "into a square adjacent" instead of "into the square" which would have indicated a singular default outcome for an equal word count.
Other alt phrasings like "into [the closest] square adjacent" would add a single word to make clear the RaI being that "no choice" reading.
It is also true that the "choice of valid adjacent" reading could have been locked in RaI with an addition like " ... [of your choosing]" etc.
.
To help get a view of what's normal in the system, we can look at Shove.
You push a creature away from you. Attempt an Athletics check against your target's Fortitude DC.
Critical Success You push your target up to 10 feet away from you. You can Stride after it, but you must move the same distance and in the same direction.
Success You push your target back 5 feet. You can Stride after it, but you must move the same distance and in the same direction.
Critical Failure You lose your balance, fall, and land prone.
I think my more permissive reading is coming from comparisons like this one. The game system tends to leave variable outcomes as unwritten player choices.
I cannot say how universal it is, but thus far, every GM I've played with has allowed the actor making the Shove to choose between 3 possible destination squares, even though the only support for that player choice is due to a "vague" or non-specific procedure allowing Shove to work at an angle.
|
|
I think "a square adjacent" instead of "the square adjacent" is reasonable to say, because there can be multiple squares that are both fair choices for that.
For example, consider this situation, with you 🧙♂️ and a spider 🕷️.
.
◻️◻️🟥◻️◻️◻️◻️
🟥🧙♂️🟦◻️◻️◻️◻️
◻️◻️🟦◻️◻️◻️🕷️
The blue spots would be reasonable, they're the shortest to you. The top red one is not the shortest path so can't be direct. The left one goes past you, which doesn't survive a good-faith plain text reading of the ability.
I think "a square adjacent" instead of "the square adjacent" is reasonable to say, because there can be multiple squares that are both fair choices for that.
For example, consider this situation, with you ♂️ and a spider ️.
.◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️
♂️◻️◻️◻️◻️
◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️️The blue spots would be reasonable, they're the shortest to you. The top red one is not the shortest path so can't be direct. The left one goes past you, which doesn't survive a good-faith plain text reading of the ability.
Corner squares are also adjacent.
I think "a square adjacent" instead of "the square adjacent" is reasonable to say, because there can be multiple squares that are both fair choices for that.
For example, consider this situation, with you ♂️ and a spider ️.
.◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️
♂️◻️◻️◻️◻️
◻️◻️◻️◻️◻️️The blue spots would be reasonable, they're the shortest to you. The top red one is not the shortest path so can't be direct. The left one goes past you, which doesn't survive a good-faith plain text reading of the ability.
Unfortunately, fetching bangles has a limit of 20 feet, and that spider is 25 feet away, so the ability doesn't work! :p
Jokes aside, I agree with you. Pull the spider the shortest distance towards you. If more than one square qualifies, let the player choose.
And it is, obviously, forced movement.