Come and Get It and Warrior's Urge: Please help me implement a change to both of these powers

[Greg K]

T
CaGI pulls in creatures with up to 2 sq between the attacking fighter and the target. Assuming a non-reach weapon, that's a gap between the fighter's sword tip and the opponent's body of around 5'. I think the power is most naturally conceived of the fighter using his/her deftness with his/her weapon to wrongfoot opponents. That is, don't pay too much attention to the power's name and treat it as a display of weapon skill. (The pre-errata version is better for this.)

To adapt this to [MENTION=5038]Greg K[/MENTION]'s purposes, I think you'd be better off leaving the power closer to its original version, and stipulating something to reflect the fact that the fighter is, in effect, moving through all the squares between him/her and the enemies that are pulled in - so the fighter will trigger any traps in those squares, for instance.

To me it is about goading or tricking opponent's (e.g.,, feigning injury/weakness) to lure them into range not the fighter him or herself moving.

 

[Greg K]

Come to think of it, I think there's precedent for powers with Stat + modifier on attack rolls.

If it bothered me that the power uses Str vs Will, I'd make it Int or Cha + 3 vs Will. But I wouldn't have a roll vs AC at all - I'd otherwise stick with the original power where the monsters which get pulled in do get hit.

To me it should be two linked attacks. One is playing using either the opponent's emotions against them or deceit/trickery to lure in. The second is the physical attack. I want the mechanics to be in two parts to reflect that division. Maybe, making the physical attack portion with a bonus.

 

[D'karr]

To me it should be two linked attacks. One is playing using either the opponent's emotions against them or deceit/trickery to lure in. The second is the physical attack.

The problem with it is that, statistically, having to roll twice or more to apply one effect makes it significantly less effective. It works as the same issue when determining adhoc effects.

Combat is not process simulation it is abstraction for that reason. For example, Armor Class is an abstract that doesn't reduce damage, it simply makes is more difficult for damage to occur.

If attacking an ogre with a kick while jumping over a balcony and grabbing on to a chandelier required a process that involved the following:

• An athletics check to clear the balcony
• An acrobatics check to grab on to the chandelier
• An attack of STR vs REF to finally connect with the ogre and do damage
• and a final acrobatics check to determine if the PC ends up prone

These type of maneuvers would hardly ever be successful, much less attempted.

With an adhoc ruling you would possibly determine that an Acrobatics check vs hard DC (ogre level) will probably do the trick, a failed check puts the PC prone at the ogre's feet. One roll takes care of the entire abstraction.

Imagine if every lunge, twist, feint and parry were to be process simulated for every attack, not just the ones that have a chance of actually doing damage. Combat would be glacially slow, and possibly rather unexciting.

I recommend simplicity for the same, though YMMV.

 

[keterys]

You can just remove the power, done. It really does work. There are plenty of other options.

You could also move the power over to any of the other defenders, say "Maaaagic", and it'll also pass muster.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yes, all of what Keterys said. You could also just say "It's maaartial magic," and leave well enough alone.

 

[Balesir]

To me it should be two linked attacks. One is playing using either the opponent's emotions against them or deceit/trickery to lure in. The second is the physical attack. I want the mechanics to be in two parts to reflect that division. Maybe, making the physical attack portion with a bonus.

I think that this is not only destined to weaken the power, it contains a misconception in concept. Think a while - what exactly does "making a physical attack" in melee involve?

It can't be whether or not your blow is physically on target; try using a stick to club a chair, sometime. You will quickly realise that it shouldn't involve a roll - it's just that easy to hit a (stationary) chair with a stick (or sword).

At the same time, realise that in an exchange between trained swordsmen, the first blow of any given sequence will rarely if ever hit - and the combatant making the blow will not really expect it to (they will be intending to follow up with a move that will hit).

Armed combat at close quarters is all about placing your opponent in a position where they cannot defend themselves - where they are that chair. Then you just disable them with an easy strike (ideally!). The mantra sometimes used is "control the weapon, then break the (wo)man".

Returning to "Come and Get It" and the like, it seems not unreasonable that, if you have succeeded in tricking/enticeing an opponent to move close to you that you have done so in such a way that they are not in a position to defend against your strike. After all, if they were expecting you to strike they would not have come so close! A single roll for CaGI seems to me to be not only a valid choice, but actually a more "realistic" one than multiple rolls, given that a normal melee attack is one roll, too.

 

[Raith5]

It should. It's mind control. You're forcing opponents to move, and not through physical action such as wrapping a chain around their legs and yanking them around the battlefield.

To be perfectly honest, I think CaGI might have worked better as a minor action utility power, without any sort of attack. It might be a mass mark at work (a miss) and a mass pull at best (a hit).

There's a couple of somewhat similar powers where the fighter gives the victim a choice: either attack the fighter (and put yourself in a nasty position, if you're a squishy) or the fighter gets to charge you and hit you even harder. That's not martial mind control; you can choose to ignore it if you like (although you'll get pounded hard if the fighter hits).

Isnt there a difference between being "forced" and "tricked". I mean combatants create a false opening to induce a rash attack - it happens in boxing and MMA all the time.

That said the problem I have with CaGI is the number of combatants able to be tricked (or forced) in comparison to the level of the power - it has always seemed to be on the OP side of things.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Isnt there a difference between being "forced" and "tricked". I mean combatants create a false opening to induce a rash attack - it happens in boxing and MMA all the time.

I don't think a fighter could trick a wizard into getting closer. Not because the wizard is smart, but because going for an opening is a really dumb move for a squishy.

 

[the Jester]

Speaking as a 4e DM from before day 1, whose epic 4e game is still going, and who is a huge fan of 4e- and meaning no offense:

4e players and DMs, I can use your help. Fourth edition has a lot that I like through Heroic Tier. However, I never ran it, partially because paragon tier and Epic would not get used and, partially, because of a few issues. However, I am thinking of giving it a try for Heroic tier since one of my players owns the core books.
One of my Heroic tier issues involves Come and Get It and Warrrior's Urging even after the revision. I am one of those people that has a disconnect with these powers. I always wanted the pull as Cha or Int vs Will to represent trickery or cunning to lure the targets followed by a secondary Str vs AC burst to attack any adjacent foes.

So basically, you're going to make it useless for fighters, who tend to have low Int and Cha?

If you want my opinion, you're overcomplicating this, changing it from a great and iconic fighter power to one that no player with even half an eye toward making effective choices would take. Far better to figure out how to justify/accept the revised mechanics in the game in your head, in my opinion.

4e works best if you just squint and nod and say okay to a lot of things like that, and knocking oozes prone, and so on. Sometimes you need to make up appropriate fiction to justify it (the fighter taunts the foes and draws them in/uses fancy footwork/pulls the rug beneath their feet and jerks them toward him/stomps the ground so hard that the flagstones jump, pushing foes at him), and there's no reason the fiction must be the same every time. But footwork- think of sports teams, and how often a basketball player or soccer player (or whatever sport) can trick an opposing player into going left instead of forward.

Honestly, CAGI is the coolest fighter power. It would be an awful shame to emasculate it like you're talking about

If you must include two different attacks for CAGI to do anything worthwhile, for God's sake, at least let the fighter use a decent stat for it. If you can't do either of those things, you're basically leaving it in as a 'trap' option- something that sucks mechanically enough that anyone who takes it will probably regret it. Better to ban it, honestly, than to let a player saddle his character with an option that poor.

 

[the Jester]

I don't think a fighter could trick a wizard into getting closer. Not because the wizard is smart, but because going for an opening is a really dumb move for a squishy.

But the fancy footwork might trick him into thinking going forward will avoid an attack, since the fighter seems to be about to lunge forward and pin him to the wall.

Thus, "vs. Will", where Mr. Wizard ought to have a high defense.