Is "you can, but at a penatly" the same as "you can't?"

[MichaelSomething]

It's a simple question, but I think I'll need to explain the context when it comes to RPGs.

One example of this is 4E marking. Mark abilities never say "you can't attack my allies." They say, "if you attack my allies, I get to do something to you." Some people feel quite constrained by that, feeling that these mark abilities stop their ability to decide how the monster attacks. The presence of the mark ability seems to simply over ride all options to them.

Another example is the 3E combat maneuvers. While they are options for disarming, tripping, etc. many people felt they were no real options all. After all, drawing an attack of opportunity for a small chance to slightly disable a monster is a huge waste of time and resources when you can simply attack for damage (of course, you could take feats to make a maneuver good, but then that generally became your default move).

So is "you can, but at a penalty" the same as "you can't?" Is this a bad question to ask?

 

[blargney the second]

It depends in large part on the magnitude of the penalty. -2 to -4 is rough but workable. -6 to -10 is often effectively unworkable.

 

[Dioltach]

I think a penalty reflects the difficulty of achieving something and the risks involved. With 3E combat manouevres, the player has to consider what risk the AoO represents and whether the manouevre is worth the risk. A character fighting for his life against a skilled opponent, for example, won't waste time and effort with fancy and risky moves that might not even pay off, but will go the standard route and play it safe.

 

[delericho]

So is "you can, but at a penalty" the same as "you can't?"

No, of course not.

Is this a bad question to ask?

No, it's fair enough.

...Mark abilities...

...3E combat maneuvers...

In principle, these mechanics are working exactly as intended. The players are making a choice not to take these actions, weighing the risks against the benefit and deciding appropriately.

However...

There is a crucial issue at work here. "Yes you can, but with a penalty" should create a tough, and therefore interesting choice - Do I ignore the mark, take the damage, but take the Wizard out? Do I take the risk of the disarm, but potentially end the fight?

It's therefore important that the penalty and the benefit are in proportion - if the risk is just too great or the reward too small, then it's not really a choice - do I do something stupid for little gain? Conversely, if the risk is too small and the reward too great, then it becomes a no-brainer.

It's quite possible (actually, almost certain) that some instances of those mechanics just weren't balanced - that some marks made ignoring them too deadly to seriously consider; that some combat maneuvers just weren't worth the risk (trip being a good example).

(of course, you could take feats to make a maneuver good, but then that generally became your default move).

And this was one of the key things that irritated me about the 3e combat maneuvers. As you suggest, the risks were probably too great for the reward (although in principle that's maybe not too tough to fix). However, the presence of the feats made the risks seem that much greater - such that players would believe that using them without the feats was never worth it.

But take the feats, and suddenly the choice was reversed - the maneuvers were always worth it. As I said, either way it wasn't a tough (and so interesting) choice.

 

[renau1g]

I said no. If you ask the DM, can my level 1 rogue jump over the castle, the answer would be no (barring anything crazy). If you asked, could my rogue, whose blindfolded try to shoot an apple out of the hand of a guy in the bar, I'd say sure, but you're probably at a penalty to hit, reflecting the difficulty of the task

 

[Zhaleskra]

No, you can't means there's no way to do it for whatever reason. "You can, but with a penalty" means yes, you can do it and it's going to be somewhat more difficult for whatever reason.

 

[the Jester]

No, and people who say that it is the same are just whining.

 

[Janx]

No, you can't means there's no way to do it for whatever reason. "You can, but with a penalty" means yes, you can do it and it's going to be somewhat more difficult for whatever reason.

I think you're speaking of the logic of the statement, whereas the OP is speaking of the perception of the statement.

I do suspect that for some people, when they hear/see "yes, but at a penalty" they eliminate that as an option because anything with a penalty is bad.

It's kind of like Attacks of Opportunity. I cannot recall a single time I've seen a player trigger an AoO. They see "I'll suffer an extra attack if I do X" and opt to do something else instead.

An AoO is the Penalty in this example.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I think you're speaking of the logic of the statement, whereas the OP is speaking of the perception of the statement.

I do suspect that for some people, when they hear/see "yes, but at a penalty" they eliminate that as an option because anything with a penalty is bad.

It's kind of like Attacks of Opportunity. I cannot recall a single time I've seen a player trigger an AoO. They see "I'll suffer an extra attack if I do X" and opt to do something else instead.

An AoO is the Penalty in this example.

I think the issue is with the wording of the question, because I don't see triggering an AoO as a "penalty." I see it as a consequence of an action. To me, a "penalty" is taking a -4 to my attack roll because I'm firing into melee combat. I can do it, but the attempt is made harder because I don't want to hit my party. Hitting my teammates is a consequence. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think there's interpretation involved.

Personally, I potentially take AoO's a fair (about 1/3 to 3/8 of combat, when deemed necessary), assuming I fail my Acrobatics check, so that I can set up a flank between my Monk and the party Rogue. But that's not the topic.

No, I do not think "Yes, with a penalty" and "No, you can't" are the same thing. I think it comes down to weighing the risk versus the potential reward, as others have said. When we were playing through Rise of the Runelords, I grappled a foe who I reasoned had a much higher CMB than I did (so they could grapple back), not because I didn't know I wouldn't get the taste slapped out of my mouth, but because doing so gave the foe a -4 to their Dexterity (-2 to AC), a -2 to attack rolls , and also made their primary weapon unusable, because it was a two-handed weapon. Could I have died? Absolutely, but to me, that was perfectly acceptable if the party achieved the goal.

I think it comes down to the player, honestly. Some people will see "Yes, with a penalty" as "No" and some people will see "Yes, with a penalty" as a decision making tool.

 

[stevelabny]

Its not the same.

That said, if the risk/reward isn't worth it, it becomes a POOR option.

But I do think that a lot of players feel that any penalty removes the option.
Its why you always see the same class-race pairings, and the same "optimal" choices made at most tables.

And the 5e pregens of halfling rogue, elven wizard, dwarven fighter and then giving the magic-user theme to the wizard and the slayer theme to the fighter are the exact kind of "fail by example" that keeps the wheel spinning.

I saw someone (don't remember which forum) comment about how the Medusa is just a monster where you will always be at a disadvantage so its not fair. Because apparently the idea of RISKING the petrification save was unfathomable.

I don't get it. But it happens.