D&D 4E Forked Thread: 4e And 4th Wall, was multiclassing - is Arcane Initiate too powerful?

[LostSoul]

Attack Cha+2 vs. Will, Burst 3
Hit: You pull target two squares.
Secondary: Attack Str vs AC
Hit: 1[W]+Str

How is this any different from Come And Get It now?

I'm using your new power. Let's say I roll a hit.
In the game world: I make the monsters chase after me.

I'm using Come And Get It.
In the game world: I make the monsters chase after me.

Rolling a d20 is not the only way to model something that has a chance of working. You can do it with a "limited resource model" as well (Come And Get It).


If you want to argue that Come And Get It lessens the feeling that you are your PC, well - that I can buy. Is that your problem with 4e - not with Suspension of Disbelief, but that in 4e it's harder to feel as though you were your character?

 

[Lizard]

How is this any different from Come And Get It now?

It give the power a specific model which works the way other effects work. The more charismatic you are (the basis for both Bluff and Intimidate, both of which CAGI has elements of), the more likely you are to succeed; the harder the monster is to trick or fool (Will defense), the more likely it is to resist. While particularly good rolls can lead to unusual events, that's part and parcel of nearly every game; it does mean that most of the time, the power as used will "make sense" in the general context of the game world.

I'm using your new power. Let's say I roll a hit.
In the game world: I make the monsters chase after me.

I'm using Come And Get It.
In the game world: I make the monsters chase after me.

But, over time, you are more likely to "hit" low-Will monsters, and more likely to hit them if you are Cha 18 than if you're Cha 8. (I also like powers which make use of unusual attributes, but that's a personal preference, not a flaw of 4e. 4e's "Any attribute can be an attack attribute" is a nice design feature which I'd like to see exploited more.)

If you want to argue that Come And Get It lessens the feeling that you are your PC, well - that I can buy. Is that your problem with 4e - not with Suspension of Disbelief, but that in 4e it's harder to feel as though you were your character?

Yes, because if I can't narrate an event the rules describe in a way which I find believable, it distances me from the game. I like to take the dice and then backfill "what happened". The harder it is to make "sense" of the results, the more I am pulled out of the game -- and as a DM, the more frustrated I am trying to describe the scene to my players. I found marking in particular extremely difficult to narrate in a consistent and believable fashion.

 

[Syrsuro]

I played a swashbuckler/rogue who was attacking seven times in a round and could duck under a dragon's belly without fear. I'd call that "something nice".



If it were slightly rewritten, it could work. How's this:

Attack Cha+2 vs. Will, Burst 3
Hit: You pull target two squares.
Secondary: Attack Str vs AC
Hit: 1[W]+Str

This makes the power very clearly a "taunt" which is more likely to affect dumb grunts. (I'd be tempted to add in that it doesn't work on anyone who has a Basic Ranged attack, but that might complicate it too much.) I upped the damage to compensate for the fact it's less effective.

I don't have a problem with CAGI, but then I'm at partially gamist at heart (I found 3.x tedious and like the ways in which I see 4E as a return to the spirit of earlier editions).

That said, even as a gamist I find some of the powers to stretch the boundaries of logic. For example, I don't object to powers like CAGI, I object to powers like CAGI being able to force move prone, immobile, stunned, unconscious, etc. foes. I think that forced movement should exist in 'physical' and 'mental' forms and a 'mental' forced movement should not be able to override a 'physical' immobilization effect. But that would add complexity and "complexity bad!".

If I were to change CAGI it would be as follows:

First - I would un-errata it back to a forced shift (since a shift does not override the above restraints). I think it was better written as such and should have been left that way (and other powers that are similar types of forced movement should have been changed via errata to become forced shifts. The difference being that, unlike a pull or slide, you cannot force shift the immobile or prone.

Second - as I would with any other forced movement, I would allow the target a save to fall prone and stop the movement. In fact, I'm giving them this one regardless. So your ranged attacker drops prone behind his cover and stays put, rising on his turn to resume his ranged attacks. Or fails his save and comes arunnin' (in which case it is not significantly different from your version with its attack roll).

Carl

 

[Nail]

This, by you, is a refutation?

Yup!

You said the goblin archer was safe! If he's less than 15 feet away from his target, and has a clear line of movement to the target (2 squares!)....that's not even close to "safe".

OK, 15 feet, then. Same problem.

Nope, not "the same problem". The artillery is now very close to the heavy hitter, and so he should expect to get pounded. And - strangely enough - the Ftr pounds him! Huh. I wonder how that happened.......

An archer only 15 feet away from a guy with a sword is *begging* for it.

You're moving the goal posts, Lizard.

 

[Nail]

Rogue manages to use poison (4e again) to kill a creature made of solid iron with no biochemistry whatsoever...uhm, say what?

FWIW, this bothers me too. I'm not sure what to do about it, other than house rule it.

 

[LostSoul]

Yes, because if I can't narrate an event the rules describe in a way which I find believable, it distances me from the game. I like to take the dice and then backfill "what happened". The harder it is to make "sense" of the results, the more I am pulled out of the game -- and as a DM, the more frustrated I am trying to describe the scene to my players. I found marking in particular extremely difficult to narrate in a consistent and believable fashion.

The thing is, in either model the effect on the game world is the same. You have to describe it the same way both times! I don't see the difference.

The only difference I can see is the auto-success with Come And Get It as it is now, but that's a metagame issue - only the players are aware of the auto-success, not the PCs. (Well, that and the fact the power is gimped. Change the Cha attack to Intimidate and I think you will have something.)

What I'm saying is, I don't see how it's an issue of something being too hard to describe. I do see a metagame issue; instead of having to suffer through the uncertainty of not knowing if the NPCs will "come and get it", just like the PC does, the player knows.

 

[Syrsuro]

Originally Posted by Lizard
Rogue manages to use poison (4e again) to kill a creature made of solid iron with no biochemistry whatsoever...uhm, say what?

FWIW, this bothers me too. I'm not sure what to do about it, other than house rule it.

As already pointed out above - this is incorrect.

No need to house rule it, because they are already immune to poison.

Carl

 

[Cadfan]

Pretty much. Especially when they make an effort to make sure you know this would be a Bad Thing.

I'll be honest.

I don't believe that you actually believe that. I don't think anyone remotely familiar with RPGs could believe that, even if they had never even heard of 4e. I think you're engaged in a light form of trolling where you take maximalist positions on subjects where you might otherwise have reasonable points, but where you enjoy the fight that results.

 

[Syrsuro]

I'll be honest.

I don't believe that you actually believe that. I don't think anyone remotely familiar with RPGs could believe that, even if they had never even heard of 4e. I think you're engaged in a light form of trolling where you take maximalist positions on subjects where you might otherwise have reasonable points, but where you enjoy the fight that results.

Wha... No one would ever do that on the internet. I'm sure all of his expressed opinions reflect deeply held beliefs.

Carl

 

[DM_Blake]

Really. REALLY really.
Explain "Come and get it!" to me.

Here's the situation: There's a Goblin Archer secure behind cover. Twenty feet away, a fighter makes a rude gesture at him. The Archer has a powerful ranged attack and a secure position; he can hurt the fighter very easily without exposing himself. Instead, he *automatically* leaves cover and runs to the fighter, even if he has no melee attack capability.

If you think that's hard, wait until the situation is reversed:

A group of bandits menaces the PCs. The brute bandits hold an action until one of them uses Come and Get It against the PC wizard (bandits know better than to just let him sit back there and blow them away from afar).

The wizard player then runs forward, past his own fighter or paladin, and takes a shelacking from the bandits with all their held actions - just a few held actions could drop him to 0 HP in the very same round he responds to the Come and Get It.

Of course, the player will yell and scream that his wizard should not be lying in the mud, dying on the side of the road, because he's way too smart to run out there in front of his sheltering defenders and get pasted like that.

And your reply?

"Well, the bandit gave you the finger and said something about your mama. Of course you had no choice, not even a saving throw. I mean, he dissed your mama for pete's sake! Now, shut up and roll your stabilization save."