[4e] The value of free movement

[Reinboom]

With the games I've played and DMed for, whether it be in a friend's campaign, D&D game days, or prewritten modules, it keeps feeling that forced movement isn't that powerful except against things that are obviously about to be pushed off of something. Which, doesn't honestly come up very often.
There are times where getting in to combat faster help, and situations where small maneuvers assist to gain combat advantage.

However, even when honoring these, am I mistaken in viewing that the designers have overrated movement?

[Kurald Galain]

However, even when honoring these, am I mistaken in viewing that the designers have overrated movement?

No, you are most likely correct. While pushing people around is fun to do, it isn't all that useful unless you have a fire to push them into, a cliff to push them off of, or an ally who really needs to get out of melee (and the latter is rare, because any halfway decent character is going to be able to handle himself most of the time). Many (although certainly not all) powers of the kind of "X and shift 1 square" or "X and push the target 1 square" are not nearly as useful as they seem.

Where it starts mattering is e.g. paragon wizards, who get to do combine their boosted Thunderwave with e.g. Wall of Fire or Blood Pulse to do large amounts of damage. Still, at that point it's not really the pushing that matters, it's the fact that you're damaging stuff at rates usually reserved for strikers.

[Thajocoth]

If the players are fighting on a big empty field, forced movement has limited usefulness, but I'd think there'd usually be terrain elements... Even if it's just some difficult terrain somewhere, or an occasional pillar.

Even if you push an enemy across difficult terrain, the fact that they can't shift now can have an impact on whether or not they'll take an AO to move.

Also, many characters, if next to an enemy, almost might as well drop prone and start begging for mercy. With good defenders and leaders that doesn't happen so much because the leaders can use their abilities to make sure the enemies are near the defenders most of the time.

On top of that is the significant advantage of the flank. Pushing, pulling or sliding a monster into a flank or out of flanking your allies is a lot. Rogues deal roughly 4x the damage when they have combat advantage, not to mention the increased to-hit bonus for those who're flanking.

Also, getting enemies close enough together for a controller to cast a nice blast over a group...

Pushing an enemy out from behind a pillar so the ranged striker(s) can hit them better.

Pushing an enemy into a zone somebody created.



Forced movement is very situational, but there are lots of those situations.

[Nu]

The value of forced movement depends on a lot of things--party composition, the powers in play, the terrain, and of course the positioning of yourselves and the monsters.

Pushing things into the fighter's "stick zone" is one thing that's very useful for other classes, as is pushing enemies around obstacles and combining forced movement with effects like daze or immobilization to effectively remove enemies from a fight for a turn.

Then there's the obvious examples given by the above posters.

With that said, I do feel that the 4E designers may overvalue it.

[Hal]

This must be evaluated for any given campaign. If your DM likes to put you in a variety of locales with interesting terrain features for combat, then forced movement can be helpful. On the other hand, if your DM sticks you in tight dungeons with a row of empty rooms (or an open, featureless terrain), then you'll probably find it less useful.

It can be a good way to attach enemies to your Defenders, give someone (or take away) combat advantage, or push them off of a cliff. I'm a big fan of the latter, as they fall prone if they don't fall off the cliff.

[Danger Jim]

One of the things that I don't think has been mentioned thus far is the fact that forced movement breaks a grab. Maybe this is just my campaign, but it seems like this comes up a lot. (Of course seeing as how in our campaign the most common forced move is "Thunderwave" this is slightly less helpful as the grabbee is often damaged alongside the grabber.)

[Tsotha-lanti]

If forced movement is useless, your encounter/room design is dull.

[OneFamiliarFace]

Expounding on stuff already said:

Spoiler

Show

I think that forced movement can be very useful, even in situations with less terrain or no hazards (though noticably less so). A Daily like the Rogue's Trick Strike means that everytime he hits the target he is on, he is able to break away from it (if needed), or force it to move back toward him to hit him (taking up an often valuable move action).

And any of the ranged push powers (like Thundertusk Boar Strike or many wizard spells) simply require a bit of initial positioning in order to keep a far away enemy from reaching you or other allies for at least a turn (more if you can push them into the right hazards).

New Idea (for the thread):

I think forced movement only really comes into its own if you combine it with Delayed and Readied actions. This allows you to put enemies right where you want them right when you need them there. (For example, throwing an enemy into difficult terrain doesn't matter at all, unless your Defender is ready to engage it there before the enemy can move out.) It can also easily be combined with status effects like Dazed and Slowed to keep an enemy completely out of commission for several rounds (or at least prevent it from using its best attacks).

Of course, I guess if I had my choice, I'd probably pick the status effects over the forced movement, except for the fact that the latter is pretty awesome when it does work. Forced movement is probably better when you already have a strong controller in your group, and then you can use the forced movement to make the most use out of the controller's various abilities.

[Lapak]

The 4e books strongly encourage making terrain and placement decisions a critical part of most combats, whether by having natural hazards like pits, difficult terrain like swamps, running combats near trapped areas, or using extremely constrained areas like narrow intertwined tunnels. It's part of the design style that's supposed to be considered when constructing a 4e combat; if a DM isn't doing this then the forced movement powers are much less useful. Though still not useless, given how often flanking and/or combat advantage come up in monster powers.

[Darth Stabber]

If you have a Fighter in your party, Push is good. push dudes into your fighter and they have now met mr. flypaper. Wizards have a ton of zones that are great to push things into. Fighters force movement to help keep things stuck through careful manipulation of the terrain.

[Oracle_Hunter]

To summarize, I guess:

(1) Forced Movement is important if there is terrain
Everything from Slow patches to knocking people out of Cover can turn a fight around.

(2) Forced Movement is great with Readied/Delayed Actions
The Fighter with a Readied knock-down power to use on the Brute when he moves adjacent - priceless.

But there is also a third I haven't seen yet:

(3) Forced Movement is important for defensive tactics
The easy way to see this is the "movement-breaks-grabs" effect, but it can also be used to get the Lurker or Brute away from the squishies, to quickly break up a flank, or to let a badly wounded ally make a Double Move (rather than Double Shift) away from a dangerous foe.

It can also be useful on the offense. A Diabolic Grasp that drags the enemy Controller into your front line? Priceless

[Thajocoth]

It can also be useful on the offense. A Diabolic Grasp that drags the enemy Controller into your front line? Priceless

This reminds me of a time when I had Sahuagin coming out of the water & attacking the party on a beach. The Sahuagin Priest stayed way back in the water where the party would have to swim to reach her. As soon as the party realized she was the biggest threat, she was blundered forward by the Bard, knocked prone by the Rogue, marked by the Fighter and getting stabbed to death by everyone else. She had only one more turn after that. I think that's a good example of forced movement having a great effect on a battle.

[Hzurr]

Pushing an enemy into a zone somebody created.

This.

If you're in a group with a lot of controllers, or people that create lots of zones, being able to force enemies into these zones can make the difference in a battle.

Case in point: My current group has a wizard and a druid who have a lot of zone powers, particularly the druid, who created a "Wall of Thorns." You'd be amazed at how much damage can be racked up by pushing monsters into a wall of thorns.

[TheOOB]

I personally feel one of a wizards strengths over other controllers is that they are a little better with walls and zones which make forced movement much better.

A low level strategy we used wash for me to use Grasping Shadows(Dragon 364, one of the free ones) and after the enemy climbs out the fighter would tide of iron them back in for extra damage and making them slowed even longer. Later on wall of fire became a favorite.

[Awesomologist]

As mentioned before, forced movement really comes in handy when there are terrain effects. That being said, if your DM doesn't always use them you can still find way to make forced movement a tactical advantage*. Remember forced movement is a form of soft control.

Here are a couple of ways to enjoy the different types of forced movement:
1) Push: Sometimes you just need to get monsters off your back, or push them into your fighter (or heavy hitter striker). Also a nice way to let your wizard feel useful by pushing enemies into a nice bunched group for him. NOTE: Make sure you don't put yourself in the way!

2) Pull: Arguably more useful than push, especially for defenders since this will allow you to lock down enemies. Also a nice way for a leader or striker to draw an enemy away from it's allies.

3) Teleport: Now this is fun forced movement since you can place the target anywhere within the limits of the power. Some teleports specifically say that you must place the target on a firm surface, others however do not, so feel free to teleport them up and watch them fall!

4) Slide: A more controlled version of Push and Pull without the fun of teleporting.

5) Forced ally movement: Classes who can slide/teleport allies are very useful for both control and leadership. Pair up with feats like Agile Opportunist for some extra damage.

*(I will note that as a DM I've flubbed this before when designing encounters. DM's may have a lot on their minds, and terrain is just something else to worry about. Remember to work with your DM, especially if they're new to it.)

[Sstoopidtallkid]

3) Teleport: Now this is fun forced movement since you can place the target anywhere within the limits of the power. Some teleports specifically say that you must place the target on a firm surface, others however do not, so feel free to teleport them up and watch them fall!

Another fun use of this is the fact that apparently 4.0 designers missed out on math developed 2000+ years ago, meaning that you can move the enemy anywhere within range as well as shooting them into the air and watching them fall. 50' drop through a Wall of Fire is so much more fun than just a 50' drop.

[herrhauptmann]

Another fun use of this is the fact that apparently 4.0 designers missed out on math developed 2000+ years ago, meaning that you can move the enemy anywhere within range as well as shooting them into the air and watching them fall. 50' drop through a Wall of Fire is so much more fun than just a 50' drop.

You mean the non-Euclidean geometry? Where all movement costs 1 square unless it's in difficult terrain? Makes it so much easier to figure range to someone who's flying/levitating.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

You mean the non-Euclidean geometry? Where all movement costs 1 square unless it's in difficult terrain? Makes it so much easier to figure range to someone who's flying/levitating.

It's basic math. A^2+B^2=C^2. 3.X rounded this off, which is fine. It made movement along an angle, 1.5 squares per square traveled. This is normal. 4.X makes it so that you can teleport someone 100 feet north, 140 feet northeast, or 170 feet up+northeast. How can you begin to justify that in-character?[/rant]

[Awesomologist]

Another fun use of this is the fact that apparently 4.0 designers missed out on math developed 2000+ years ago, meaning that you can move the enemy anywhere within range as well as shooting them into the air and watching them fall. 50' drop through a Wall of Fire is so much more fun than just a 50' drop.

Thats always an option... If you choose to drag a wizard along... I'm not a fan of the 4e Wizard. They're mostly dead weight and only useful for their dailies. Invokers have charmed me though so not all controllers are bad.

[Hzurr]

Thats always an option... If you choose to drag a wizard along... I'm not a fan of the 4e Wizard. They're mostly dead weight and only useful for their dailies. Invokers have charmed me though so not all controllers are bad.

In that case, you've simply not seen a well-played wizard. The one in our group is surprisingly effective. We're at level 7 now, so he only really uses his at-wills for minions (unless other things are stupid enough to bunch together), but his dailies and encounters are used with surprising effectiveness against the other monsters. While he doesn't shine, the party is far more effective with him in it.

[Reinboom]

These are considerations I haven't considered. Mostly, I believe, out of lack of a decent controller.
So, (though, I still see 2nd hand - since I have yet to experience it) forced movement against enemies is rather good. Ignoring the obvious teleport up crap. Due to created zones and natural terrain effects.

What about ally specific movement?

[TheEmerged]

In that case, you've simply not seen a well-played wizard. The one in our group is surprisingly effective. We're at level 7 now, so he only really uses his at-wills for minions (unless other things are stupid enough to bunch together), but his dailies and encounters are used with surprising effectiveness against the other monsters. While he doesn't shine, the party is far more effective with him in it.

^This. Wizards are better in practice than they are on paper -- this is one reason why I always differentiate in comments about what I've seen in actual play sessions versus what I've seen in 'theory' runs. I've noticed in particular that a lot of DM's are hesistant to use minions, and minions are where any controller really shows their stuff.

This *isn't* to say they can't use some help. This is to say that describing them as dead weight is an exaggeration.

--------------

Regarding the topic of forced movement powers, their usefulness goes up *greatly* if you've got a rogue in the group because of the way the forced movement powers create flanking opportunities. In our actual play group, for example, both the bard and swordmage keep the rogue busy.

[Colmarr]

What about ally specific movement?

In my experience, the main use of ally-specific movement is setting up combat advantage (which is no small matter) and getting allies out of situations they don't want to be in.

Both Wolf Pack Tactics (warlord) and Covering Attack (fighter) have each proven valuable in my campaign.

[Awesomologist]

I don't want to derail the thread with my opinions on the Wizard class but let me briefly say a few things on wizards. My local group has tried a wizard since last June when 4e came out, whether it be in brief adventures or our campaign and it has never really meshed with us. Once the swordmage came out our party found ways to fill in control effects along with some help from the party warlock.
Is "dead weight" too strong a term? Maybe. But a necessary member of the party? Hardly. These last few weeks we've gotten a lot more from the invoker and druid than we ever did from the wizard.
Now if you ask the folks from my local group if this a bad thing and no one will complain. In past editions, once you got to a certain point in the game the wizard was a one man party. No he's been put in his place and everyone else feels more useful. This is a good thing!
The controller role is nice but not a necessity, and something other classes can either do just as well or are able to multi-class and pick up the few wizard powers that really help out. Maybe around your table it's different, and thats great, but around ours we'd rather have a class that feels helpful, useful, and fun.

[Grug]

One of the most fun things I've done in 4e involved forced movement. It was level 1, I was playing my halfling rogue and a friend's dwarf fighter. We were fighting a Kobold mage that was doing nasty damage, but every time we got in close he just shifty'd away. Plus, the fighter was blocked by a pair of dragonshields and couldn't stick the mage. So I had my rogue use Trick Strike for damage. that came into play later in the fight when all that remained was an elite and the mage. so I took the rogue and Dwarf and managed to trick-strike the kobold into a corner, with the dwarf on one side and the rogue a space away. No matter where he shifted, he was going to get an OA for casting. and if he did shift we could get a flank going. Needless to say the guy was dust.

Of course, I also remember the combat because I got a crit for 39 damage against the elite. at level 1.

[Saph]

To those who are saying that it's up to your 4e DM to make forced movement useful: That's like saying that it's up to a 3.5 DM to make monks useful. If an ability requires your DM to pay special attention for it to be valuable, it's a bad sign.

Many of the other things people are saying also don't make much sense. Push the enemy next to the Fighter? A fighter can only 'sticky' one enemy at a time, and if he's close enough to have an enemy pushed into him, he's close enough to just walk up to the guy on his own turn.

The fact is, most fights don't take place surrounded by deadly terrain hazards. If your DM sets it specially up so that they do, that's nice of him, but it's not something you can really count on - and even then, the smart enemies won't stand next to the nasty terrain anyway. In all the 4e games I've seen, I think I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times forced movement has really made a difference.

That said, forced movement can be useful - but it's only really useful if you build specifically for it. It's shouldn't be a surprise that the one situation in which forced movement really is good is when the party can guarantee that there'll be deadly terrain hazards by making their own. Shoving an enemy back and forth through a damaging zone is probably the best way to use forced movement, and it can get downright abusive if you combine it with Teleport. ("I teleport the bad guy five squares north and five squares up, so he drops through four vertical squares of my Wall of Fire and takes damage four times. Oh, plus the fall. Is he dead yet?")

- Saph

[Oracle_Hunter]

To those who are saying that it's up to your 4e DM to make forced movement useful: That's like saying that it's up to a 3.5 DM to make monks useful. If an ability requires your DM to pay special attention for it to be valuable, it's a bad sign.

That is a false analogy. It is closer to saying that a 3.5 DM should aim to make balanced encounters; the DM is supposed to take in a major feature of the system (terrain effects or CL) into account when designing adventures. In 3E terrain was often an afterthought - a -1 to missile attacks in strong winds or somesuch. But in 4E movement is a central part of every battle and things that affect movement - like terrain - must be considered.

And is it so much to ask DMs to consider the effect that terrain would have on combat? Pits, ice patches, rubble, statues - these are all common features of dungeons that should have some effect, no? The terrain need not be deadly to make it important to the battle - and therefore exploitable through forced movement.

As for ally movement - it is very useful, though usually on the defensive. By giving allies a free shift before their turn, you can let them run away without risking OAs; or shift them out of zones that trigger on the start of their turn; or get them out of grabs and other "sticky" spaces. On the offensive, things like Wolf Pack Tactics are great for setting up flanking, or helping to move the Heavy Armor Fighter into base-to-base contact with a bad guy. Even without Marking, their Combat Superiority makes it very costly for bad guys to run away from a Fighter - and hard to accomplish.

[Saph]

In 3E terrain was often an afterthought - a -1 to missile attacks in strong winds or somesuch. But in 4E movement is a central part of every battle and things that affect movement - like terrain - must be considered.

I really wish you wouldn't make these vague edition comparisons. Terrain is sometimes important in 3e. Terrain is sometimes important in 4e. In both cases it depends upon the DM. Saying that a 4e DM "must" use terrain while for a 3e DM it's an "afterthought" is just your own preferences generalised to a rule.

Like I said, in 4e enemy movement is mainly useful when you can guarantee that dangerous terrain will be present - by making it yourself.

- Saph

[Oracle_Hunter]

I really wish you wouldn't make these vague edition comparisons. Terrain is sometimes important in 3e. Terrain is sometimes important in 4e. In both cases it depends upon the DM. Saying that a 4e DM "must" use terrain while for a 3e DM it's an "afterthought" is just your own preferences generalised to a rule.

Hmm... perhaps I'll expand a bit then.

The reason why I said terrain is less important in 3E is because there weren't many ways to interact with it - unless you were a wizard. It was difficult (and rare) to have abilities that allowed you to move enemies about freely, or to better position your own allies. At best you used a collection of scrolls and items to achieve battlefield superiority (by flying, usually) - things like moving bad guys out of cover or placing difficult terrain between you and your opponents weren't really optimal strategies.

In any case, I see little mention of terrain effects in the 3E Core, and none of the modules I've played make substantial use of terrain effects. It just never seemed to be a central concern of the system as a whole. Has your experience been different?

[Saph]

In my experience it's purely down to the DM. Some DMs enjoy tactics and make complex battlefields littered with all sorts of stuff from ice floors to flame jets. For other DMs, every battle seems to take place in an empty room. Regardless, the edition doesn't have much to do with it.

It's also worth bearing in mind that for a 4e DM to set up battlefields where the PCs can use forced movement to shove monsters into dangerous terrain often requires major sacrifices to the intelligence of the monsters in question. Why on earth are the monsters going to build a bunch of ice floors and flame jets in their own bedroom? And if for some reason they do, are they really going to stand within convenient pushing distance of a terrain hazard that they know is dangerous? Remember, in 4e everyone and his dog can push, pull, or slide. It's not some sort of secret.

That's not to say that there isn't a reason for monsters to use hazardous terrain; they should. But they should set it up so that it's going to hit the PCs. They are not going to stand 5' away from the pit with their back turned to the shield-armed Fighter - well, not unless you're making a joke out of it, which I admit I've done before. Luckily none of the players thought to ask why the goblins had filled their lair with convienently-sited ten-foot pits, maybe for the same reason no-one ever asks why the goblins only attack in numerical groups carefully measured to be moderately challenging but not seriously effective . . .

- Saph