As the rule is written, an enemy choosing to move from your threatened squares provokes but an enemy moved from your threatened or allies' threatened squares without using their movement does not. Why? If a player uses Shove and pushes an enemy 5-10 feet out of an ally's threatened squares, why not? Or uses Gust, Gust of Wind, or some affect of terrain that might cause the enemy to move involuntarily? I'm trying to understand how choosing to move versus being moved is different enough in terms of game design to make the distinction.
Secondly, because there is a distinction, is there a feat or ability already on the books that can be taken to capitalize on this missed opportunity to damage enemies strategically?
Pretty sure it is mostly game balance with a little conceptual design thrown in.
It would be pretty broken if 1 player could give 3-5 allies a reaction attack on a target without that target having an opportunity to disengage. Totally warps action economy in favor of (even slightly) large numbers.
It also makes sense that backing away yourself might create more openings in your defense than being moved back by something else (this will vary a little depending on what is moving you).
Think about monsters doing it too. It would be very difficult to gauge the potential damage of an attack when it could trigger OAs from multiple creatures.
What you're saying is that it changes the action economy of a party to offer a few extra attacks on a target after failed saves or ability checks. The pendulum swings both ways. If the PCs employ a tactic, so can enemies. Action economy gets disrupted every time a druid summons multiple creatures or a fighter uses abilities for extra attacks. I can see where it might shift the balance favorably in an instance or two but not endlessly or unlimited. I don't know, I'm just trying to think through the design decision. To me, it seems like a tactical decision that is removed. A shove offers a potential benefit to the employer but not necessarily. Maybe the target is knocked prone suffering disadvantages or being subject to advantages against it. An additional strike while it's going down or sliding past seems cinematically accurate. I would have see play testing before I could say broken or not.
Pretty sure it is mostly game balance with a little conceptual design thrown in.
It would be pretty broken if 1 player could give 3-5 allies a reaction attack on a target without that target having an opportunity to disengage. Totally warps action economy in favor of (even slightly) large numbers.
This pretty much hits the nail on the head. Sure a player could use this to their advantage, but also this would be an easy way for a DM to design an encounter that would absolutely pulverize characters. After all, anything a player can do, the right NPC can do as well.
And as a DM honestly I wouldn't want this rule because it would take away the ability to make a lot of fun encounter types without them becoming too deadly. Imagine fighting in a sort of wind tunnel which is constantly threatening to blow the characters back, or on a ship in a storm, or any number of enemies that have the ability to push back characters, or blow them around etc. These suddenly become too deadly to be fun.
I can see where you are coming from. This is a thought experiment for me so I'm not trying to argue to get my way. As a DM and player myself, I can see an enjoyment in facing greater odds sometimes. The game should present some heightened challenge every now and again. I play a half-orc druid in a game and as a racial feature he has relentless endurance which allows him to avoid being zeroed exactly one time per long rest. As a change to the basic aspect of the rule, it would put some grit into encounters but it would be a blanket. It wouldn't be every encounter and it would definitely favor players over enemies. If players want to buy in, good. And if not, good. It's a game to be enjoyed. As a feat that would allow a player to take advantage of displaced enemies, a once per short rest or long rest puts the additional rule on the same level as any other buff to action economy available to players. Currently in the game I run and the game I play, we don't use any homebrew rules.
Why do you get opportunity attacks. It’s not because a creature moves away. If they disengage and move away, you don’t get an opportunity attack. You get an opportunity attack when they completely drop their focus on dodging or parrying your attack, and you can get an easy hit.
If I am pushed, I don’t drop my focus.
If I disengage, I don’t drop my focus.
If I am riding a beast that moves without me controlling it, I don’t have to drop my focus on my defense as it moves away.
Only if I turn tail and run, dashing away without disengaging, or if I rush to do an urgent action elsewhere without disengaging, do I drop my focus.
Why do you get opportunity attacks. It’s not because a creature moves away. If they disengage and move away, you don’t get an opportunity attack. You get an opportunity attack when they completely drop their focus on dodging or parrying your attack, and you can get an easy hit.
If I am pushed, I don’t drop my focus.
If I disengage, I don’t drop my focus.
If I am riding a beast that moves without me controlling it, I don’t have to drop my focus on my defense as it moves away.
Only if I turn tail and run, dashing away without disengaging, or if I rush to do an urgent action elsewhere without disengaging, do I drop my focus.
Who is to say that a PC standing by, also focused, and his trusty druid ally, again focused, haven't cooked up a strategy where the PC keys in on the verbal and somatic components employed by the druid to cast Gust. Easily within Passive perception if not previously discussed by the party prior to combat or communicated during. The PC is aware through previous experience that the Druid can and has pushed opponents away. It seems natural that veteran adventurers, highly trained and skilled people, could take advantage of a focused foe suddenly thrown from a readied stance by involuntary force.
That being said, I think it is zero-sum whether the rule is run by the book or altered. No one has the ability or everyone has the ability. I think the initial goals of the design team were to remove complexity and bloat from the game. Adding in OAs triggered by involuntary movements would add an extra layer of arbitration during play. By limiting it to voluntary movement, it slices a little fat out of the combat system and speeds up play.
Who is to say that a PC standing by, also focused, and his trusty druid ally, again focused, haven't cooked up a strategy where the PC keys in on the verbal and somatic components employed by the druid to cast Gust. Easily within Passive perception if not previously discussed by the party prior to combat or communicated during. The PC is aware through previous experience that the Druid can and has pushed opponents away. It seems natural that veteran adventurers, highly trained and skilled people, could take advantage of a focused foe suddenly thrown from a readied stance by involuntary force.
If they PCs are waiting for the druid to cast Gust, those PCs could ready an action to take a hit at the guy as soon as the Gust goes off. This particularly being relevant if they aren't adjacent to the target before the Gust goes off.
Why do you get opportunity attacks. It’s not because a creature moves away. If they disengage and move away, you don’t get an opportunity attack. You get an opportunity attack when they completely drop their focus on dodging or parrying your attack, and you can get an easy hit.
If I am pushed, I don’t drop my focus.
If I disengage, I don’t drop my focus.
If I am riding a beast that moves without me controlling it, I don’t have to drop my focus on my defense as it moves away.
Only if I turn tail and run, dashing away without disengaging, or if I rush to do an urgent action elsewhere without disengaging, do I drop my focus.
Who is to say that a PC standing by, also focused, and his trusty druid ally, again focused, haven't cooked up a strategy where the PC keys in on the verbal and somatic components employed by the druid to cast Gust. Easily within Passive perception if not previously discussed by the party prior to combat or communicated during. The PC is aware through previous experience that the Druid can and has pushed opponents away. It seems natural that veteran adventurers, highly trained and skilled people, could take advantage of a focused foe suddenly thrown from a readied stance by involuntary force.
That being said, I think it is zero-sum whether the rule is run by the book or altered. No one has the ability or everyone has the ability. I think the initial goals of the design team were to remove complexity and bloat from the game. Adding in OAs triggered by involuntary movements would add an extra layer of arbitration during play. By limiting it to voluntary movement, it slices a little fat out of the combat system and speeds up play.
Thank you all for your input.
It’s not about the attacker being focused. Presumably attackers are usually focused, whether they have druid allies or not. It’s about the defender being focused. When both are focused, they just get their normal attacks. When one is focused and the other is distracted, the focused one gets an opportunity attack. At no point during your scenario where the druid gusts an opponent does the opponent face away or lower their defensive stance. They are pushed back. In the same way, disengaging involves keeping an eye on your opponent and watching out for lunges while you back away slowly. If you wish to run away at full speed (dash), you have to turn your back, exposing yourself to a free shot.
Its mostly for gameplay reasons. Ruling otherwise ends up warping gameplay around pushing people around, as the damage output is significantly increased. It also heavily breaks the concept of a reaction, turning it into a reliable, proactive technique. Lastly, it restricts design space by heavily increasing the cost of including movement displacement on spells and abilities.
Narratively, both options have valid explanations, so its best to go with the option that results in better gameplay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As the rule is written, an enemy choosing to move from your threatened squares provokes but an enemy moved from your threatened or allies' threatened squares without using their movement does not. Why? If a player uses Shove and pushes an enemy 5-10 feet out of an ally's threatened squares, why not? Or uses Gust, Gust of Wind, or some affect of terrain that might cause the enemy to move involuntarily? I'm trying to understand how choosing to move versus being moved is different enough in terms of game design to make the distinction.
Secondly, because there is a distinction, is there a feat or ability already on the books that can be taken to capitalize on this missed opportunity to damage enemies strategically?
Pretty sure it is mostly game balance with a little conceptual design thrown in.
It would be pretty broken if 1 player could give 3-5 allies a reaction attack on a target without that target having an opportunity to disengage. Totally warps action economy in favor of (even slightly) large numbers.
It also makes sense that backing away yourself might create more openings in your defense than being moved back by something else (this will vary a little depending on what is moving you).
Think about monsters doing it too. It would be very difficult to gauge the potential damage of an attack when it could trigger OAs from multiple creatures.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
What you're saying is that it changes the action economy of a party to offer a few extra attacks on a target after failed saves or ability checks. The pendulum swings both ways. If the PCs employ a tactic, so can enemies. Action economy gets disrupted every time a druid summons multiple creatures or a fighter uses abilities for extra attacks. I can see where it might shift the balance favorably in an instance or two but not endlessly or unlimited. I don't know, I'm just trying to think through the design decision. To me, it seems like a tactical decision that is removed. A shove offers a potential benefit to the employer but not necessarily. Maybe the target is knocked prone suffering disadvantages or being subject to advantages against it. An additional strike while it's going down or sliding past seems cinematically accurate. I would have see play testing before I could say broken or not.
This pretty much hits the nail on the head. Sure a player could use this to their advantage, but also this would be an easy way for a DM to design an encounter that would absolutely pulverize characters. After all, anything a player can do, the right NPC can do as well.
And as a DM honestly I wouldn't want this rule because it would take away the ability to make a lot of fun encounter types without them becoming too deadly. Imagine fighting in a sort of wind tunnel which is constantly threatening to blow the characters back, or on a ship in a storm, or any number of enemies that have the ability to push back characters, or blow them around etc. These suddenly become too deadly to be fun.
I can see where you are coming from. This is a thought experiment for me so I'm not trying to argue to get my way. As a DM and player myself, I can see an enjoyment in facing greater odds sometimes. The game should present some heightened challenge every now and again. I play a half-orc druid in a game and as a racial feature he has relentless endurance which allows him to avoid being zeroed exactly one time per long rest. As a change to the basic aspect of the rule, it would put some grit into encounters but it would be a blanket. It wouldn't be every encounter and it would definitely favor players over enemies. If players want to buy in, good. And if not, good. It's a game to be enjoyed. As a feat that would allow a player to take advantage of displaced enemies, a once per short rest or long rest puts the additional rule on the same level as any other buff to action economy available to players. Currently in the game I run and the game I play, we don't use any homebrew rules.
You make the opportunity attack due to you knowing they're moving away and trying to attack an opening.
If they are moved by external forces their movement is sudden and unexpected.
That's my reasoning, at least!
Why do you get opportunity attacks. It’s not because a creature moves away. If they disengage and move away, you don’t get an opportunity attack. You get an opportunity attack when they completely drop their focus on dodging or parrying your attack, and you can get an easy hit.
If I am pushed, I don’t drop my focus.
If I disengage, I don’t drop my focus.
If I am riding a beast that moves without me controlling it, I don’t have to drop my focus on my defense as it moves away.
Only if I turn tail and run, dashing away without disengaging, or if I rush to do an urgent action elsewhere without disengaging, do I drop my focus.
Who is to say that a PC standing by, also focused, and his trusty druid ally, again focused, haven't cooked up a strategy where the PC keys in on the verbal and somatic components employed by the druid to cast Gust. Easily within Passive perception if not previously discussed by the party prior to combat or communicated during. The PC is aware through previous experience that the Druid can and has pushed opponents away. It seems natural that veteran adventurers, highly trained and skilled people, could take advantage of a focused foe suddenly thrown from a readied stance by involuntary force.
That being said, I think it is zero-sum whether the rule is run by the book or altered. No one has the ability or everyone has the ability. I think the initial goals of the design team were to remove complexity and bloat from the game. Adding in OAs triggered by involuntary movements would add an extra layer of arbitration during play. By limiting it to voluntary movement, it slices a little fat out of the combat system and speeds up play.
Thank you all for your input.
If they PCs are waiting for the druid to cast Gust, those PCs could ready an action to take a hit at the guy as soon as the Gust goes off. This particularly being relevant if they aren't adjacent to the target before the Gust goes off.
It’s not about the attacker being focused. Presumably attackers are usually focused, whether they have druid allies or not. It’s about the defender being focused. When both are focused, they just get their normal attacks. When one is focused and the other is distracted, the focused one gets an opportunity attack. At no point during your scenario where the druid gusts an opponent does the opponent face away or lower their defensive stance. They are pushed back. In the same way, disengaging involves keeping an eye on your opponent and watching out for lunges while you back away slowly. If you wish to run away at full speed (dash), you have to turn your back, exposing yourself to a free shot.
Its mostly for gameplay reasons. Ruling otherwise ends up warping gameplay around pushing people around, as the damage output is significantly increased. It also heavily breaks the concept of a reaction, turning it into a reliable, proactive technique. Lastly, it restricts design space by heavily increasing the cost of including movement displacement on spells and abilities.
Narratively, both options have valid explanations, so its best to go with the option that results in better gameplay.