Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Shove Poll

It's a poor choice of wording there. Agreed.

But why would you use "one" if it means "any" or "all" or "each"?

If a character has multiple attacks it is still just one action. A second shove would only work if you get another action through haste or action surge. So having 2 extra attacks a character can attack 3 times with his one action and one of those attacks can be replaced by a shove.

Thats how i read it and thats also at least a little bit logical if i think about "shoving" someone.

Beeing able to shove more than once/round will get even more ridicoulous at higher levels. Especially for certain classes...if we get monks with flurry of blows they will run around hitting like 5 times and shoving 2 or 3 times....ehhhhh.

Even right now a fighter lvl 5 could shove 6 times with haste and action surge since they have 2 attacks/action.

Same actually goes for dash or disengage. In my understanding this is a once/round thing.

Look at thiefs. 2 BA. 2 times Dash as a cunning action. that triples the movement/round. Add haste and you run like 50m and can still attack. Imo thats not how it should be. Spells like longstrider are already next to useless. Add The added distance you get by jumping. This is a pretty big disbalance.

The PHB description of Bonus Action is pretty interesting if you look at how they are treated in BG3:

B o n u s A c t io n s
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you
take an additional action on your turn called a bonus
action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows
a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus
action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature
o f the game states that you can do something as a bonus
action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so
you must choose which bonus action to use w hen you
have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your
turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and
anything that deprives you o f your ability to take actions
also prevents you from taking a bonus action.

So the way BAs are used in BG3 is already a full "homebrew" choice. That underlines that Larian just did it for laughs. My guess is that, after they designed shove, they found it so funny they decided that has to happen on a regular basis...meaning each round as much as possible. Ruining combat balance for this...
Just a guess though.

Even using a potion should be considered an action.

I of course don’t know for sure why they weren’t clearer, but to be fair to the writers, in English many short constructions of this rule are potentially going to be ambiguous. For example, if I said “you can replace each attack with a shove” or “you can replace all your attacks with shoves” someone might think that if you elected to shove you had to only shove and not attack. And “you can replace any one attack with a shove” doesn’t seem to mean anything different from “you can replace one attack with a shove” though it might have a slightly different implication.

In the clarifying tweet I linked above, Jeremy Crawford said “If you take the Attack action and have multiple attacks, you can replace any of them with a grapple/shove” which doesn’t include the word “one” at all but still seems consistent with both possible interpretations, though folk in one of the other links I posted clearly took it as definitively meaning that multiple attacks per turn could be replaced by shoves. The construction in the RPG citadel article that says fighters “can use shove to replace any and all of their attacks” is unambiguous, but I don’t think we can use the fact that isn’t said in RAW to imply that this wasn’t intended, given it’s consistent with RAW.

In case it’s not clear, I’m not arguing that one interpretation is right. I have no idea and am not qualified to make a call, and to be honest I don’t think I much care one way or the other beyond wanting to understand what the rules as intended actually were. Unfortunately I don’t think that’s going to be answered unless someone is aware of a less ambiguous WotC source somewhere that clarifies.

Isnt there written somewhere in those rules that they arent supposed to be taken by letter, but more like loose guide?
I mean ... we dont really need them to contrading themselves, do we?

Sorry, @Ragnarok, I don’t understand your last question quoted here?

Obviously any table or game can homebrew or interpret rules differently, sticking as close or not to the rules as written as they wish.

But what I’m trying to understand is the rules as intended. The rules as written, personally if absolutely forced to pick I would interpret as meaning that multiple attacks can be replaced by shoves in one turn as that is not explicitly and unambiguously ruled out, but I’m not sure if that’s how we’re expected to use RAW and don’t know if there’s guidance on this. But I’d still prefer some clarification on the rules as intended given that the rules as written have been interpreted in different ways by different folk both here and more generally, and confirmation of rules as intended could only come from the writers.

I accept that both rules as written and rules as intended might be different from rules as I (or anyone else) want to see implemented in BG3, but I still want to know what the former are! I personally like that as a starting point from which to then consider whether a departure would be better for game balance or player experience in BG3, and do see a particular implementation being in line with RAW/RAI as a consideration in favour of it, even if not always a conclusive one.

It is not if one reads more than one sentence. But try it:

Let's try it:
That would refer to the order of attacks - so it replaces any of the attacks (1st, 2nd or 3rd etc.) rather than a specific one. This part of the rules refers to action cost of using the push (attack action = push, if multiattack: 1multiattack = push) so there is no need for specifying "any". It specifies "one" as opposed to "attack action" that would include all of them.

That means that push replaces each attack in the multiattack. Uneeded addition as "attack action" already consumed whole action. The meaning of this sentence would be the same as the first sentece in the rules (attack action = push)

Again weird, and not sure what that would mean. Possible same as "all" but it just feels weird to read.

That brings us to how it is written:
One attack of the multiattack = push


I am shocked there is even discussion here. I would hate to play any boardgame with you guys. There is not a single thing said about limiting use of push - if that was the case it would be stated, possibly not in the same paragrath as it wouldn't refer to action cost of using the skill. Even if wording can seem vague without context rules will always communicate one thing. So in the context of reading:
Does the second sentence mean:
a) if you have multiattack, push will consume only of of the attacks rather than whole action
b) Regardless of multiattack you can perform one push only

It can't mean both - I have never encountered a situation when one short sentence would be used to communicate two different rules. Even if you pick "b" than we do lack a third sentence that would establish that we can use push as a part of attack action, because you just said that this sentence doesn't do that.

If intention would be to limit use of push per attack action it would go as follow:


Structuring is clear - first paragraph of each skill refers to action cost of using it. Push and grapple communicate only that in case of multiattack pushing/grappling consumes precisely one attack of the multiattack. There is nothing said about limitation of that exchange, so by the rules such limitation doesn't exist.

93% to change to an action seems definitive to me...

Well, that is exactly what i was saying.

Not sure if you got me wrong there but i read it the same as you...thats why i said "why write "one" of them if the meaning is "more" or "all". I was talking about the meaning...there was no intention to replace the word

To your question (and again, how i understand it):

Indeed the only limit stated is that you can replace one attack from the attack action with a shove. If you have more than one action (Haste/Action Surge or similar). You can of course replace one of your attacks from each action with a shove.

As i have stated before the "extra attack" is not an extra action. It means you have an extra attack during your attack action. That is why it is stated as is in the PHB i think because if you choose to use your action for something else than attacking, you cannot attack at all. Even if you have an extra attack.

So in the PHB you could either attack or drink a potion. Not both. You can not replace one of your attacks with drinking a potion or using an object or item. Same with Dashing or dodging.

That part of the 5e rules classifies shove as an attack or part of an attack action. Otherwise you would only be able to shove or attack. Maybe thats why larian made it a BA. It would have to be coded differently than other full actions.




As for this...the last sentence is not needed. The rules states you can replace one attack of your attack action with a shove. Not two, not three, ONE. Why do you have to say it again in an additional sentence?

True,

what came to my mind while writing the post above before this is that maybe they really have problems coding it like it is intended in 5e. Since shove is not a standard action. If you use dash, you cannot attack anymore and vice versa. But if you attack while having extra attacks shove just reduces your attacks by one.

So if you shove you can still attack or the other way around (given you have multiple attacks). Maybe they were not able to make it work properly and decided to make it a BA instead.

I strongly doubt this. For one, Larian's a big boy game developer now: work it out.

But mainly, Shove was a bonus action way back at the release of the EA, before level 5 and extra attacks were implemented. Larian could just have implemented it to cost your Action Point at that time. Plus: currently level 5 extra attacks seem to work properly, no? And it works fine when you smite (or other attack-equivalent icon ability) on certain attacks? Just make shove work similarly to that, costing the same resource.

My assessment (as a dev) is that changing Shove wouldn't be hard to do, nor would it require a lot of time.

Or they are doing something seriously wrong when coding 😅 (like hardcoding everything).

Ah yes, the infamous forum expert who knows exactly how easy it would be for another group of people to do something.

Larian have already changed (I think it was) dash from a bonus action to full action, so I agree with MelivySilverRoot.

As i mentioned above shove is not a normal standard action since it has to interact with the attack action in a way that no other action does. It is not simply changing from BA to action.

If they cannot do it, do not want to do it or just think it is too much effort for that change remains speculative.

It's more likely that they just don't plan on doing it, or that if it is on any plan at all it is on a future balance pass post-launch.

Shove interacts with the attack action in the exact same way that the attack action works, and Larian has already gotten the attack action (specifically, Extra Attack) to work in BG3. Thus, they could get the Shove action to work properly by having it cost the same resource as an attack.

I do not think that is correct.

I wrote it before but here it is again:

Actions like dash, disengage etc. will not allow you attack in that round. Shove on the other hand just "uses up" one of your attacks from the attack action (if you have multiple). As long as we do not have an extra attack declaring shove exactly as any other action would work i guess.

As soon as a character gets more than one attack per his attack action, that would fail because normally actions cancel each other out. You attack, you cant dash anymore and vice versa. If you use shove, you would not be able to execute your second attack anymore. Given shove is coded as any other action.

I still hope they change it.

I wish it was like in the PHB:
- Shove 5ft or shove to prone
- Shove is an action that replaces one attack

I interpret that as: If you have 2 attacks you can attack twice OR you can attack once and shove once in any order OR you can shove twice.
You cannot attack twice and shove and you cannot cast a spell and shove.

The problem is the long distance combined with the fact that you can do it on top of attacking or casting a spell.
Reducing the distance alone would already be great. So targets have to stand very close to cliffs to be shoved down.
I also agree that these changes would make other abilities that can move targets more meaningful.

I do not think that is correct.

I wrote it before but here it is again:

Actions like dash, disengage etc. will not allow you attack in that round. Shove on the other hand just "uses up" one of your attacks from the attack action (if you have multiple). As long as we do not have an extra attack declaring shove exactly as any other action would work i guess.

As soon as a character gets more than one attack per his attack action, that would fail because normally actions cancel each other out. You attack, you cant dash anymore and vice versa. If you use shove, you would not be able to execute your second attack anymore. Given shove is coded as any other action.
[/quote]
In recent patch Larian made special weapon attack and throw work as multiattack (there are some kinks to iron out, but it almost works), so there is already a way to tag different skill cost as part of multiattack. There are mods that made shove a full action, so it shouldn't be a problem to tag shove as attackaction/multiattack. Probably more effort would take to create a properly coloured icon for the skill .