Any way to make a "shove"?

[aaronjreeves]

In 5e, a player can replace an attack with a shove, when doing so the player does an athletics check contested by the targets athletics or acrobatics.

Is there any way to automate this? I have a player who is specialized in using shove to knock creatures prone and I would love a way for this to be as streamlined as possible

whats the best way to go about resolving repeated shoves?

[Zacchaeus]

There isn't a way to do opposed rolls automatically in 5e within FG. Obviously you can set up a prone effect easily enough but you'd need to do the opposed rolls manually. I can't think of any particular way that you can streamline it. Most NPCs won't have any kind of bonus to their skills but those that do have them on the NPC sheet (and not on the CT). Otherwise you can just make a STR or DEX roll from the CT.

Not sure what your second question is, but if the shove succeeds and the target is knocked prone presumably it can't be shoved again. If the shove fails then you can presumably have a go again in the next round. Or is your question something different.

[aaronjreeves]

Sorry, it wasnt really a second question but more of a "TLDR" summary. Knowing theres no easy way to automate a shove answers my question. Thanks!

[Stitched]

It's pure cheese but maybe creating an "at-will" power/spell under the "Actions" tab?

[Dracius]

It's pure cheese but the way I've seen it done is creating an "at-will" power/spell under the "Actions" tab.

That's not how Shove works in 5e. Shove is a contested skill check, not a save. Building it the way you suggested will only ever check against a static value and won't factor in if the monster has higher dex or str.


The player is supposed to make a Strength (Athletics) check.
The target then makes a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to contest it based on whichever one of their stats is higher.

If the player rolls HIGHER than the target, then the creature is knocked prone or shoved back 5ft.

To automate this our player simply hotkey'd Athletics checks to F1, and the "Prone" effect to F2. As a DM, you can quickly roll checks by double clicking the monster token on the map that they have targeted. Be aware some monsters have prof with athletics/acrobatics, so you'd want to roll the skill itself rather than doing a standard check. You can also just do a straight D20 roll and glance at the CT to see if you need to add any modifiers.

Keep in mind I have a player who will make 3 or more shove actions in a turn, so I've gotten used to it and as automated as it can get.

[Stitched]

Thank you for outlining some of the underlying weaknesses of the 5e ruleset, Dracius. The way manual saves and checks/opposed checks are currently handled need retooling/fixing.

[JohnD]

Personally this doesn't seem like something that is broken.

[Stitched]

Personally this doesn't seem like something that is broken.

There currently is no way to handle opposed checks, using FG's automation. While not happening all the time, they are a part of the 5e mechanics.

[LordEntrails]

There currently is no way to handle opposed checks, using FG's automation. While not happening all the time, they are a part of the 5e mechanics.
No automated way to handle opposed checks. But there are other things that it can't handle either. Doesn't mean it's broken, it just means it doesn't have that capability (yet).

We 5E players are kind of spoiled because there is so much automation. But we do have to remember, not everything has automation. Doug and/or Moon have repeatedly stated that their intent is for 80-90% of automation.

All that said, I do think it's worth adding to the wishlist or voting on if the idea is there. It would be valuable to have, I just don't think it's required to have to play.

[Ram Tyr]

Thank you for outlining some of the underlying weaknesses of the 5e ruleset, Dracius. The way manual saves and checks/opposed checks are currently handled need retooling/fixing.


Personally this doesn't seem like something that is broken.


There currently is no way to handle opposed checks, using FG's automation. While not happening all the time, they are a part of the 5e mechanics.


Doesn't mean it's broken, it just means it doesn't have that capability (yet).
Stitched doesn't seem to have used the term broken in the posts to which you've responded... lets burn the straw man.

There is no disagreement here. All agree the ruleset does not do something that the system requires. All may not agree on the importance of the specific mechanic missing from the ruleset... but that not everyone is going to agree is... obvious.

[Beldak]

If this was me DMing, I would just have that player create a "power" that gives the target effect prone. Roll the two checks manually, and DM tells player to apply effect if it is successful.

[irish_carbomb]

Why does this not work for contesting I know it's not perfect but it does seem to work, I have compared it to manual rolls and everything seems to line up. I have made 2 different ones for my Paladins Shield Bash. One against the NPC's Str and one againt its Dex. I have tested this and it seems to work fine. Not sure what I'm missing. I know though that this will not take into account if the NPC has proficiency in Athletics or Acrobatics. But for all other situations.

18531

[Zacchaeus]

It doesn't work because you are making a saving throw rather than opposed check. The problem is that to make an opposed check you need to know what the target is. Either the PC or the NPC makes their check and then the other needs to beat that to succeed.

In order to automate this FG would need to know what it is rolling against and in many instances that could be a choice between two different skills.

[Trenloe]

Why does this not work for contesting I know it's not perfect but it does seem to work, I have compared it to manual rolls and everything seems to line up.
...
The issue here is that this will be rolled as a save, not as a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. Therefore, if there are any bonuses to saving throws (either built into the targets stats or via effects) then these will be applied to the save roll, when they shouldn't be applied as they aren't saving throws.

It's a neat approach to the issue, but needs awareness of the wrong modifiers being applied (or not being applied).

[irish_carbomb]

I guess the reason it has been working for me, is that my Paladin is pretty low level (4) and hasn't really come up against anything advanced enough to have a bonus to saving throws..

Zacch. Yes that's why I created one for Dex and one for Str. I just ask the GM what check they would use and cast the appropriate power (my str vs their str, or my str vs their dex). It then just tells me if I hit or failed, then i activate the prone effect, or tell the GM to go 5'.

Thanks for the input guys.

[JohnD]

Stitched doesn't seem to have used the term broken in the posts to which you've responded... lets burn the straw man.

There is no disagreement here. All agree the ruleset does not do something that the system requires. All may not agree on the importance of the specific mechanic missing from the ruleset... but that not everyone is going to agree is... obvious.

That multiple people respond using the "broken" term is because the post where it is stated this needs "retooling/fixing" initially said broken.

But thanks for things straight.

[Ram Tyr]

That multiple people respond using the "broken" term is because the post where it is stated this needs "retooling/fixing" initially said broken.
That post doesn't note that it was edited. The boards do indicate when posts are edited.

But thanks for things straight.
Awww.

Getting stuck fighting over whether it is broken or not is a sign that communication has 'broken down'. Trying to blame a poster that raises the issue because they care more about the issue than one or more other people is useless.

Anyway, I'm happy to help smooth things over since everyone agrees on the underlying issue.

[Andraax]

Getting stuck fighting over whether it is broken or not is a sign that communication has 'broken down'. Trying to blame a poster that raises the issue because they care more about the issue than one or more other people is useless.

Well, saying that it needs "fixing" implies that it's "broken".

[Ram Tyr]

Well, saying that it needs "fixing" implies that it's "broken".

Well, people regularly use the term 'fix' when they mean improve... which should reinforce my earlier point...



Getting stuck fighting over whether it is broken or not is a sign that communication has 'broken down'.
Why fight over whether we call it broken or not when we all agree that... 5E uses a system that is not currently automated... and the poster's point was a desire to see the ruleset changed so that it was automated. If nobody actually said it was broken and if nobody is defending the position that the ruleset is broken...

Who, precisely, benefits from the existence of the straw man?

[Moon Wizard]

Thanks for all your thoughts. The request to include specific opposed checks in 5E has been added to the wish list.

Closing this thread.

Regards,
JPG