Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6048518" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I don't really accept this premise, although you're far from the first person to put it forward.</p><p></p><p>Come and Get It, in 4e, begins from flavour (or, as I called it upthread, fiction): the fighter is a master of his/her weapon, and is at the centre of the action. And this will be conveyed, in the game, by the fighter being able to pull his/her enemies in adjacent and then whack them down.</p><p></p><p>Come and Get It is effects-based to this extent: the mechanical resolution doesn't tell you whether or not the enemies closed because they wanted to pile on the fighter, or because the fighter dragged them all in with his/her polearm. But an ordinary D&D attack roll is effects based to the same extent: the mechanical resolution doesn't tell us whether the fighter missed because s/he sucks, or because s/he is awesome but the enemy parried with equal awesomeness (contrast Runquest, which <em>does</em> answer this question via the mechanical process of resolution).</p><p></p><p>Fighter marking is primarily a metagame mechanic - a metagame debuff that gives the GM an incentive to attack the fighter, and which allows the fighter to punish the NPC/monster if it does otherwise.</p><p></p><p>The effect of this is to make the fighter the centre of the action. (Other fighter features, like combat superiority, further reinforce this - people who try to run past the fighter get stuck there - the fighter is the centre of the action.)</p><p></p><p>Another example is the paladin at-will Valiant Strike, which grants +1 to hit for each adjacent enemy. This is best analysed as a metagame ability - it gives the player of the paladin a reason to play his/her paladin as valiant - as at the centre of a multitude of foes.</p><p></p><p>It has always been a distinctive feature of D&D that it blurs the distinction between PC and player resources. Is level a metagame device or an ingame one? It's tempting to answer "metagame", until you think about the relationship between name level and stronghold-building, and also the dietary habits of wights. Hit points have combined PC and player elements at least since Gygax's essays in the AD&D rulebooks. And class is a category with both metagame and ingame dimensions.</p><p></p><p>4e takes this feature of D&D and extends its application. I'm personally rather surprised that it is so contentious, given how ubiquitous it has always been in the game.</p><p></p><p>Provided that it's balanced, I don't have any particular objection to a power like the one you describe. (The warlord At-Will Brash Assault resembles Karmic Strike, except that it is an ally who gets to take the free attack, and the warlord also gets to make an attack before providing the opening).</p><p></p><p>As I said upthread, action economy, forced movement and hit points are the relevant categories. In this case, we're talking action economy.</p><p></p><p>But that's not the same as Come and Get It - for a start, it makes you likely to be hit - whereas Come and Get It doesn't let the enemy make an attack, let alone at advantage, before they get punished by the fighter.</p><p></p><p>An ability that requires the player to forfeit an action, in return for a hope that the GM will respond to an incentive (such as reduced AC) in order to trigger out-of-turn actions by the player, seems to me a bad deal and dubious design. It puts the effectivness of the PC into the GM's hands.</p><p></p><p>You could use a Bluff check instead of GM fiat, of course, but this has its own problems:</p><p></p><p>This gets back to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s point, about multiple checks. If the player has to succeed at a Bluff check, and <em>then</em> at a to hit roll, the likelihood of success is reduced.</p><p></p><p> [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] suggested, upthread, a preference for an attack vs Will first, and then auto-hit against anyone who is tricked in. That is how errata-ed Come and Get It handles it. At my table, however, we play Come and Get It pre-errata style - the movement is auto, and then the attack has to be rolled. This approach reinforces the desired fiction - the fighter is at the centre of the action, surrounded by enemies whom s/he may or may not be beating up.</p><p></p><p>Come and Get It, played in this way, has an obvious metagame dimension - the player of the fighter gets to dictate the movement of NPCs without that necessarily being determined by the actions of his/her PC, though in many instances of the use of the power a causal narrative of that sort can be introduced easily enough ("I lured them in", "I wrong-footed them in", etc).</p><p></p><p>As I said earlier, I don't accept this characterisation. <em>I prefer mechanics that deliver the fiction that I want.</em> The fiction I want, when playing a heroic fantasy RPG, puts the fighter at the centre of the action; involves valiant paladins; and involves battle captains who can rouse and inspire their allies, and lead them into battle in a way that leaves their enemies no choice but to play out the tactical hand that the battle captain has dealt them.</p><p></p><p>The only mainstream fantasy RPG I'm familiar with that reliably delivers this fiction is 4e D&D. Strip out the mechanical features, and my prediction is that you'll lose the fiction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6048518, member: 42582"] I don't really accept this premise, although you're far from the first person to put it forward. Come and Get It, in 4e, begins from flavour (or, as I called it upthread, fiction): the fighter is a master of his/her weapon, and is at the centre of the action. And this will be conveyed, in the game, by the fighter being able to pull his/her enemies in adjacent and then whack them down. Come and Get It is effects-based to this extent: the mechanical resolution doesn't tell you whether or not the enemies closed because they wanted to pile on the fighter, or because the fighter dragged them all in with his/her polearm. But an ordinary D&D attack roll is effects based to the same extent: the mechanical resolution doesn't tell us whether the fighter missed because s/he sucks, or because s/he is awesome but the enemy parried with equal awesomeness (contrast Runquest, which [I]does[/I] answer this question via the mechanical process of resolution). Fighter marking is primarily a metagame mechanic - a metagame debuff that gives the GM an incentive to attack the fighter, and which allows the fighter to punish the NPC/monster if it does otherwise. The effect of this is to make the fighter the centre of the action. (Other fighter features, like combat superiority, further reinforce this - people who try to run past the fighter get stuck there - the fighter is the centre of the action.) Another example is the paladin at-will Valiant Strike, which grants +1 to hit for each adjacent enemy. This is best analysed as a metagame ability - it gives the player of the paladin a reason to play his/her paladin as valiant - as at the centre of a multitude of foes. It has always been a distinctive feature of D&D that it blurs the distinction between PC and player resources. Is level a metagame device or an ingame one? It's tempting to answer "metagame", until you think about the relationship between name level and stronghold-building, and also the dietary habits of wights. Hit points have combined PC and player elements at least since Gygax's essays in the AD&D rulebooks. And class is a category with both metagame and ingame dimensions. 4e takes this feature of D&D and extends its application. I'm personally rather surprised that it is so contentious, given how ubiquitous it has always been in the game. Provided that it's balanced, I don't have any particular objection to a power like the one you describe. (The warlord At-Will Brash Assault resembles Karmic Strike, except that it is an ally who gets to take the free attack, and the warlord also gets to make an attack before providing the opening). As I said upthread, action economy, forced movement and hit points are the relevant categories. In this case, we're talking action economy. But that's not the same as Come and Get It - for a start, it makes you likely to be hit - whereas Come and Get It doesn't let the enemy make an attack, let alone at advantage, before they get punished by the fighter. An ability that requires the player to forfeit an action, in return for a hope that the GM will respond to an incentive (such as reduced AC) in order to trigger out-of-turn actions by the player, seems to me a bad deal and dubious design. It puts the effectivness of the PC into the GM's hands. You could use a Bluff check instead of GM fiat, of course, but this has its own problems: This gets back to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s point, about multiple checks. If the player has to succeed at a Bluff check, and [I]then[/I] at a to hit roll, the likelihood of success is reduced. [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] suggested, upthread, a preference for an attack vs Will first, and then auto-hit against anyone who is tricked in. That is how errata-ed Come and Get It handles it. At my table, however, we play Come and Get It pre-errata style - the movement is auto, and then the attack has to be rolled. This approach reinforces the desired fiction - the fighter is at the centre of the action, surrounded by enemies whom s/he may or may not be beating up. Come and Get It, played in this way, has an obvious metagame dimension - the player of the fighter gets to dictate the movement of NPCs without that necessarily being determined by the actions of his/her PC, though in many instances of the use of the power a causal narrative of that sort can be introduced easily enough ("I lured them in", "I wrong-footed them in", etc). As I said earlier, I don't accept this characterisation. [I]I prefer mechanics that deliver the fiction that I want.[/I] The fiction I want, when playing a heroic fantasy RPG, puts the fighter at the centre of the action; involves valiant paladins; and involves battle captains who can rouse and inspire their allies, and lead them into battle in a way that leaves their enemies no choice but to play out the tactical hand that the battle captain has dealt them. The only mainstream fantasy RPG I'm familiar with that reliably delivers this fiction is 4e D&D. Strip out the mechanical features, and my prediction is that you'll lose the fiction. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
Top