No more forced movement please

So there has been some discussion recently about integrated "knockback" type actions into Next.  This is concerning as it seems to be going in the undesirable direction of pleasing the Gimmick Gamists that dominated recent rules design.  If the effort of the newest edition is to draw back players who have left to play Pathfinder or older editions, too much of this will not do it.  A little bit of tactical board control is ok (get a bonus on flanking, get advantage on someone prone, etc) but having abilities and spells tied up to generic "do X damage and slide the target Y squares" actions will turn off those of us who haven't been into the D&D brand the last four years.

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

To a certain extent I agree, although I don't think the knockback or manuever+damage combos alone cross that line yet.  They could...but haven't.  IMO, of course.

As they stand right now, they remind me of how i houseruled the Tide of Battle mechanic from Combat & Tactics.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

So, people who like tactical depth are 'Gimmick Gamists'?  Try being a little more condescending in the future, I actually read the rest of your post before putting you on Ignore.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

No more forced movement? 

Okay, no Bull-Rushing, no Bigby's spells, no Turn Undead, no Confusion spell, no Dominate Monster spell, and no Grease spell. Am I missing anything else?

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

No command spell.
Actually Alter_Boy, just none of the "push pull slide" nonsense.  Or at least, a drastic decrease in those things.  I am fine with the spells and abilities you listed as their primary effects were not forced movements.

Salla, I was under the impression that those that enjoyed previous editions were 'Old Grognards' and those who enjoyed the current edition were 'Gimmick Gamists'.  Is that incorrect?

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

My favorite spell. Sphere of defenestration. About 1000 other spells also caused "forced movement". The best part was each one had their own set of mechanics. Do you make a fort save, a reflex save, does it not work if you are a certain size, can you make a strength check, who knows! Certainly not the designers.
So actual forced movement is ok but not unified mechanics for it?

A special rule for each case is preferable?
Bawylie:

Calling "command" or other spells a forced movement is a stretch.  Whereas abilities that specify "Move target X squares" would not be.

The problem with this 'unified mechanic' is that it supports turning the RPG into a tactical minis game, which was a HUGE reason the majority of us left four years ago.  So in a sense, yes, having each spell provide its parameters is preferable to a return to that style of combat.

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

So there has been some discussion recently about integrated "knockback" type actions into Next.  This is concerning as it seems to be going in the undesirable direction of pleasing the Gimmick Gamists that dominated recent rules design.  If the effort of the newest edition is to draw back players who have left to play Pathfinder or older editions, too much of this will not do it.  A little bit of tactical board control is ok (get a bonus on flanking, get advantage on someone prone, etc) but having abilities and spells tied up to generic "do X damage and slide the target Y squares" actions will turn off those of us who haven't been into the D&D brand the last four years.

The only dicussion of "knockback" I've seen was for a rules module, not for anything integrated into the core.  If you object to that, what you're saying is, "Don't include options for fans of 4e tactics because I don't like them."

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Yeah. I actually enjoy the tactical stuff and I found the unified mechanics useful.

If they keep "forced movement" in the "tactical rules module" I think we can both be happy here.
Souldoubt:

As of now, we do not know what will be core or what will be module, so I do not feel it is necessary to qualify my objections on that basis.

Obviously anything can be a module.  They could add a module saying that the GM may require each player to play the game standing on one foot and it wouldn't matter to me, what matters is whats in the actual core game.

And in that regard, a return to the 'push/pull/slide' debacle would be terrible.

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

As of now, we do not know what will be core or what will be module, so I do not feel it is necessary to qualify my objections on that basis.

Actually, it is necessary to qualify your objections on that basis, because you are either saying 1) you don't want forced movement rules in the game at all, or 2) you don't want forced movement in the core.  If 1, you're a horrible person who wants to impinge on the fun of others because a totally optional subsystem that you can just ignore somehow "bothers you."  If 2, you're being perfectly reasonable, so allow me to allay your concerns:

- The only mention of "knockback" I've seen, which seems to have triggered your concern, was in the recent "Moduarlity and Combat Subsystems" article where it was expressly given as an example of a modular rule.
- A highly touted central goal of Next is to provide a very simple, streamlined base to which further tactical layers can be added (or not) at the discretion of the DM/players.  Heck, one objective of the core rules is that at least some if not all combat encounters can potentially dispense with a grid altogether.  The initial playtest didn't even have OA/AoO; they're only now moving to implement them in the core because having people dashing around the battlefield unimpeded was as much of a problem for the simulationists as it was for the gamists.

So I think you're jumping at shadows here.  If a host of codified "forced movement" abilities end up in the core rules, I will eat my hat -- lightly sauteed and seasoned in the tears of a thousand 4e-haters.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Dragonspirited,
I think the whole "move target X squares" was an artifact of 4E's attempt to be predominantly "digital" with their proposed table top (which was aborted before coming to term).
I, personally, would like to see something a bit more organic and explicitly under the control of the one doing the forced movement.  Something as simple as "roll an opposed check and the victor can move the loser against his will up to five feet per point exceeded in the contest roll, but no more than the victor's regular movement" for example.

-DS
I disagree. The game just isn't D&D without forced movement.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Souldoubt:

I'm fine with some limited amount of movement control as a means to stop unimpeded movement.  It is when the movement control becomes forced movement and is so common place with the "slide/pull/push" gamist mechanics that it is too much.  And in the case that it becomes core again, you can eat your hat if you like, but I won't be around 5th related stuff like these boards to watch you do it (since I'd just take my money for RPG games elsewhere).


Dark Sphinx:


It probably was, which raises the point that the game shouldn't be designed from the 'online' gaming being paramount but rather those who are actually expected to buy the books and play table top.  I hope if that if that was why we saw so much of that previously that they don't repeat the mistake.

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

I still fail to see how "slide x squares" or "the target runs directly away from you for y squares" are any different. One uses a unified, easy to understand mechanic. The other is open to interpretation, and clunky. What exactly is "away"?. It is every square must be further away from me? If so, there is probably a defined rule for "away", meaning the unified mechanic lies there. So gamist.

I fail to see how something like bullrush being common is gamist, either. Among all of the other gamist traditions of D&D, is this what breaks immersion?
So no unified mechanics? Everything has their own potential confusing, nonsensical, or broken wording?

No thanks.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

So there has been some discussion recently about integrated "knockback" type actions into Next.  This is concerning as it seems to be going in the undesirable direction of pleasing the Gimmick Gamists that dominated recent rules design.  If the effort of the newest edition is to draw back players who have left to play Pathfinder or older editions, too much of this will not do it.  A little bit of tactical board control is ok (get a bonus on flanking, get advantage on someone prone, etc) but having abilities and spells tied up to generic "do X damage and slide the target Y squares" actions will turn off those of us who haven't been into the D&D brand the last four years.



I'm personally fine with it. I prefer if you're not knocking folks back 30 ft, but if it's 5 or 10 ft (just a couple of grid spaces in other words), then I see no problem there.

If you're worried about people using such abilities every turn, and "ping-ponging" targets around, simply instate a penalty or even Disadvantage on the attacks once somebody has used the same stunt or maneuver on a target more than a couple times in a combat, or even more than once!

Part of what led to that in 3.X was that if, as a fighter for instance, you wanted to actually be GOOD at doing anything other than basic "I swing my sword" attacks, you had to invest 3 to 5 feats in every single individual maneuver, and there weren't enough points to go around to actually be good at doing multiple different things.
Moving creatures against their will wether they are physically pushed back or psychicly compelled and pulled over is integral part of D&D and goes a great way in helping refine tactical movement. Its a form of control.

What 4E did was streamline Forced Movement in a codified way and i hope D&D Next continue in this direction.
Yeah, count us on opposite opinions on this one. I would absolutely HATE to use a tactical module that didn't use codified mechanics. There was nothing wrong with push/pull/slide as definitions. The real issue were the powers that pushed their use a bit too far (e.g.: Come and Get It for some people).

Bull Rush, Overrun, Trip, Disarm, Reposition, Drag, Grapple/Grab/Pin, and even Sunder (used with extreme prejudice) are all maneuvers that could be used both in narrative and tactical combat. The precise effects will vary, although the intent is pretty straight foreward: gaining advantage on the target, or taking advantage away from the target.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
codefied mechanics means everyone is playing by the same rules.

let's say you have push, pull & slide, where "push" is defined clearly in a section that describes effects as one that moves the affected target away from the center of the effect, "pull" moves it towards the center and "slide" is more akin to freeform ice skating where you can reposition the target wherever and none of these effects can cause opportunity effects.

if you a have a spell or ability that reads "push the target X squares/feet/meters/yards/furlongs/units/octopusses", "push" is just shorthand so they don't have to write "the target moves X Whatever away from the center of the effect, if it moves past an ally he does not provoke opportunity attacks." all the time.

that's it. it's not "gamist" or an attempt by TEH EBIL VIZZARDS TAH MAEKS DA D UN D'Z EH VIDJA GAYME. it's using a defined term/keyword/whatever buzzword to cut down on the need to repeat typing the same basic idea over an over because D&D has always had forced movement in some fashion, so might as well put everyone on the same page and cut down on wordyness.

unless you want wordyness for the sake of wordyness in the rules. at that point there is irreconcileable differences between you and me: i want my rules clear, well understood and transparent in both their effect and intent. you can prose all around the rules, but keep that dirty mayo out of my sandwitch.

i'm a butter man, yo.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
My perspective on this topic is that it is just an extension of the grid vs theater of the mind combat debate. Mechanics that enable pushing, pulling, sliding and shifting imply a combat system that requires a grid. Although I am a player who almost always uses a grid, I think it would be best if the core rules do not require a grid. 

This is where modular rules come into play. The base game can be theater of the mind with very light combat mechanics and the tactical rules module can require a grid and therefore add design space such as pushing, pulling, sliding and shifting.  

Not really anything more to say. There is almost no common ground for grid vs theater of the mind combat, so topics like these hold little value.
yes and no.

let's look at a 3.5 spell, Gust of Wind.

This spell creates a severe blast of air (approximately 50 mph) that originates from you, affecting all creatures in its path.

A Tiny or smaller creature on the ground is knocked down and rolled 1d4×10 feet, taking 1d4 points of nonlethal damage per 10 feet. If flying, a Tiny or smaller creature is blown back2d6×10 feet and takes 2d6 points of nonlethal damage due to battering and buffeting.


Small creatures are knocked prone by the force of the wind, or if flying are blown back 1d6×10 feet.


Medium creatures are unable to move forward against the force of the wind, or if flying are blown back 1d6×5 feet.


Large or larger creatures may move normally within a gust of wind effect.


one can use the push/pull/slide to go
This spell creates a severe blast of air (approximately 50 mph) that originates from you, affecting all creatures in its path.

Tiny or smaller creatures on the ground are prone and pushed 1d4×10 feet, taking 1d4 damage. if flying, the creature is pushed 2d6×10 feet and takes 2d6 nonlethal damage due to battering and buffeting.

small creatures are knocked prone, or if flying pushed 1d6×10 feet

medium creatures are unable to move forward against the gust of wind or if flying are pushed 1d6 x 5 feet.

Large or larger creatures may move normally within a gust of wind effect.




now remember that i've previously established that a "pushed" creature does not provoke opportunity attacks using the codefied mechanics in my last post. 

does a small creature with the original wording provoke an OA if it moves past a medium or large creature in or out of the wind tunnel? it might seem like semantics but it uses a language that, if used properly, will be consistant with the rest of the game and gives the players and GM a clear idea of what is going on the with the spell once cast.

you can use the push/pull/slide words either with or without a grid. 
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
I don't know if forced movement calls for a Grid rather than TOTM.

I've pushed people off cliffs, over chairs, and into fires without grids. And lassoing harpies is fun.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

My perspective on this topic is that it is just an extension of the grid vs theater of the mind combat debate. Mechanics that enable pushing, pulling, sliding and shifting imply a combat system that requires a grid.



I simply disagree. Being pushed back 15 feet implies nothing IMO. Wether you play in Theater of the Mind  and picture the creature being pushed back 15 feet or you play in Tableau Vivant with 5' squares grid and move that figure 15 feet back (3 squares), its the same result happening in the game world. An enemy previously X distance from you is now 15 feet away from you. This in your mind or on the battle map.
Tableau Vivant


Most people won't know what that is, Plague...
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
My perspective on this topic is that it is just an extension of the grid vs theater of the mind combat debate. Mechanics that enable pushing, pulling, sliding and shifting imply a combat system that requires a grid.

Not even remotely accurate. While I also favor using grids, all TotM requires is that there is some non-grid-dependant effect. You can use push/pull/slide in TotM to get/remove flanking at it's simplest. "I push the creature away from the ally. Shazam! The ally is no longer adjacent to it and can move without provoking." "I slide the adjacent creature between us so we flank it."

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I guess the intent of my argument was not expressed well in my post. 

The more mechanics a tabletop game has for positioning (And the more often these mechanics are utilized by the players), the more likely a need for a grid.

A single effect that pushes back an enemy 15 feet will not break the theater of the mind, but if everyone is pushing, pulling, sliding and shifting every turn and the game also handles mechanics such as elevation and facing, the grid becomes a requirement to play. 


A complaint about 4e is the requirement of the grid. Unless I misunderstand the situation, this is due to the burden of positioning in combat. Like I said, I do not play theater of the mind combat, so if someone wants to inform me about combat from that perspective please do. 

Tableau Vivant


Most people won't know what that is, Plague...


Hence why i also said ''with 5' squares grid''  Wink


But if it can help i can further clarify for anyone:

Theater of the Mind = Play without Map
Tableau Vivant =  Play with Map
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tableau_vivant

I guess that could be associated with a grid map/miniatures.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
My perspective on this topic is that it is just an extension of the grid vs theater of the mind combat debate. Mechanics that enable pushing, pulling, sliding and shifting imply a combat system that requires a grid. Although I am a player who almost always uses a grid, I think it would be best if the core rules do not require a grid.
...
Not really anything more to say. There is almost no common ground for grid vs theater of the mind combat, so topics like these hold little value.
...
A complaint about 4e is the requirement of the grid. Unless I misunderstand the situation, this is due to the burden of positioning in combat. Like I said, I do not play theater of the mind combat, so if someone wants to inform me about combat from that perspective please do.



I almost always use a battle map when I DM (typically hexgrid, but not always. Sometimes without a grid at all.), and yet by all other definitions my method of play is still TotM. I often don't worry too much about precision of movement distance or exact mechanical placement. Rather, I use it simply because when there are 10+ combatants in play, it gets tough to keep track of where everything is, relative to each other and terrain. It makes for as much tactical thought and strategy as there is with full tactical combat rules, but allows players to think in terms of what their character would do in a given situation. I find that with full tactical rules, it leads players instead to focus on what the mechanics let them do, and how best to exploit the portions of combat that the mechanics favor.

That method definitely isn't for everybody, but it's far and away what I prefer. Forced movement mechanics still work fine there, with or without rigidly defined language and mechanics. If you want to accommodate a grid and full tactical rules however, forced movement does have to be as thoroughly regulated as any other portion of combat. I really don't know why it's a problem for anybody. Those precise distances and mechanics will simply only apply when using a hard and fast grid.

I hope that offered a slightly different perspective, though I'm not sure how much it really adds to the discussion. I'm not sure there's too much more to BE added. If the rules they're proposing will (or at least are supposed to) accommodate both methods of play, then why is anybody grumpy?

So there has been some discussion recently about integrated "knockback" type actions into Next.  This is concerning as it seems to be going in the undesirable direction of pleasing the Gimmick Gamists that dominated recent rules design.  If the effort of the newest edition is to draw back players who have left to play Pathfinder or older editions, too much of this will not do it.  A little bit of tactical board control is ok (get a bonus on flanking, get advantage on someone prone, etc) but having abilities and spells tied up to generic "do X damage and slide the target Y squares" actions will turn off those of us who haven't been into the D&D brand the last four years.

I think what Dragonspirited is most concerned about is the potential over-abundance of push/pull/slide effects for every character on every turn.

As someone already said, "ping-ponging" (push/pull/slide enemies all over the combat area on each turn) is undesireable. OTOH a well timed and used spell (like command, ghost sound, or turn undead) or combat tactic (like bull rush, grapple or trip) is perfectly OK.

On this I agree.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
As I mentioned before, it's not difficult to throw in some disincentives to keep the ping-pong effect from getting out of hand. Either give the attack causing it Disadvantage, after it's been used a time or two on an opponent, or even in a combat (the guy next to him saw you pull that trick, and he's ready for it) or make it easier for the target to save or whatever. If players REALLY want to abuse it, you can throw in some extra bonuses to the enemies when they retaliate as well.
Forced movement is awesome. In fact, it is super awesome.
It is a HUGE reason the majority of us keeps playing 4E, pays money to WotC and forms a loyal customer base today.

We are also really nice. Those who do not like forced movement can have a module in 5e so they can play without it. In fact, they already have exactly that in the playtest material. How about that? We can all have our way. Isn't life wonderful?  
Forced movement abilities is actually one of the things in 4e that I liked.

There was just something cool about a wizard slamming his staff into the ground knocking everyone near him back 5 feet. Granted it could get crazy, but forced movement in and of itself I don't think is an issue. It became more of an issue when forcing movement allowed others to react, and possibly even the target to react to it.

I expect to see some forced movement, and the one reaction a round may keep the interupts to a minimum.

I may be a minority because I want alot of the tactical options 4e has, but I'd rather go back to a more free form game in general as I had in 2e and 3.x
Forced movement is awesome. In fact, it is super awesome.
It is a HUGE reason the majority of us keeps playing 4E, pays money to WotC and forms a loyal customer base today.

We are also really nice. Those who do not like forced movement can have a module in 5e so they can play without it. In fact, they already have exactly that in the playtest material. How about that? We can all have our way. Isn't life wonderful?  

Far easier to have a module that ADDS it than one that removes it.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
it might not be easier to have a basic game that assumes these things and builds not just a "module" but integrates this design into monsters, items and other features to provide a fun and cohesive experience then slap on a simple sticky note and calling it a day while hoping things don't go south.

simply having a module that goes "YOU CAN PUSH DA PEEPLES!" without considering interactions beyond giving people ability to push and shove (and take advantage of that to some extent) is simply doing a disservice to the 4th ed experience. if you build the core of the game without it, this will reflect not just in the combat rules but other aspects like monster design, item design, class design, etc...

if they want to do the push/pull/ect.. tactical game justice, this isn't just the matter of a small sticky note or blurb, and i know i won't accept that if that's what i'm given.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
I am a fan of forced movement.  I don't think it will be presented as such in 5th, it will just be parts of individual spells, features or effects.
@Jim: cource not, that'd be a 4ism.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
I'm fine with some limited amount of movement control as a means to stop unimpeded movement.  It is when the movement control becomes forced movement and is so common place with the "slide/pull/push" gamist mechanics that it is too much.  And in the case that it becomes core again, you can eat your hat if you like, but I won't be around 5th related stuff like these boards to watch you do it (since I'd just take my money for RPG games elsewhere).

I think you missed my point.  My point is that your fears are unfounded and push/pull/slide isn't going to be in the core game.  It just won't.  I provided some exampes of why that is clearly the case, but if you want more evidence just look at absolutely everything WotC has presented and said about tactical combat in Next.  You are going to get what you want, and fans of 4e-style tactics are going to have to take a backseat and hope the modular tactical rules are sufficient.

if they want to do the push/pull/ect.. tactical game justice, this isn't just the matter of a small sticky note or blurb, and i know i won't accept that if that's what i'm given.

Tactical combat will not be in core.  Whether its modular inclusion will be a "sticky note or blurb" tacked on or something more fully realized is yet to be seen.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Sign In to post comments