Manbearcat
Legend
Unfortunately, it creates a disjunction between effect and source.
Wizard: I create an illusion of a monster, and all the foes charge it and get ripped to shreds.
DM: How'd you do that?
Wizard: Magic.
Fighter: Well, I should a boasting challenge, and they all rush me and I whack them.
DM: How'd you do that?
Fighter: Because I want to.
Who would actually distill the causal logic and frame the post-hoc narrative to nonsense like "because I want to"? Who would do that? And why would they willfully destroy their game? No one would. I don't even know why that would come to mind for you. Its never manifested like that in any game I've run or any testimony I've born witness to. I've outlined multiple lines of causal logic and post-hoc narrative to map to it. I've seen others applied that are just as, if not more, functional. Why do we have "Because I want to" which, as far as I can tell, serves no purpose but to mock and make caricature of something we don't like...when we can have:
2) Str for attack; representing either
- primal roar of defiance/challenge
or
- martial athletic training/warrior acumen/muscle memory/coordination at reproducing the movements of a feigned retreat or repositioning.
3) Will for the defense being attacked; the enemy's physical body is not being imposed upon (Fort), its armor/defensive postures/coordination is not being circumvented (AC), its not an attempt to touch the physical body (Ref). It is testing mental resolve to resist either:
- the compulsion to engage a challenger at the beckon of your ego
or
- testing mental acuity/insight in detecting slight imperfections within the coordination of the athletic movements that may betray the feigned retreat/repositioning.
4) Enemies are slid ("repositioned" in Pathfinder...any jargon used to express the flow of movement, forced and unforced, in combat) to be adjacent (or as close to it) to the warrior after losing the Str vs Will test as they are drawn in.