It does make sense. This one has been through the ringer so I'm very familiar with all of the respective positions.
Unfortunately, I don't follow all that jargon
Lets see if I can clear up the jargon for you and go from there. Lets use the classic Come and Get It as our means of probing the two design approaches.
OUTCOME BASED DESIGN - The hierarchy for the framework of the design approach works like this.
> Warriors of Legend have the ability to (i) throw down the gauntlet, challenging their enemies to pursue a prideful, perhaps reckless, course in wading into melee with them. They also have the ability to (ii) wrongfoot their foes into engaging them through their warrior acumen and veteran savvy; perhaps creating the appearance of an opening and whirling to deal death or perhaps through a well devised physical juke or fake (faking running away or seeking a better position and then turning to engage). I've seen it and read about it in plenty of action-packed movies and books within genre. ** We need to make that happen because its awesome!...it needs to be genre-relevant, its tactically deep, its fun, and its thematically compelling for this archetype. Lets do it.
> Is the system/setting filled with abstractions? Yes? Ok, lets codify an abstract means of mechanical resolution for such an ability.
> Do we want elegance, ease-of-use, and minimal overhead for handling at the table? You betcha.
> Is balance important? Absolutely. Ok, if other "of-level" abilities of the same scope of power is a singular check for hit, then we need to work off of that principle the best we can and abstractly model this interchange between hero and enemies. If we make it work off of an ability modifier that will cripple his chance to hit or if we make it a multi-check function to hit the enemy, then the genre-relevance, tactical depth, and fun is rendered obsolete...because it won't work and our hero will look like a buffoon rather than what we're going for; Warrior of Legend. Further, because of this, he won't bother taking or using this ability...and the entire point of the exercise will be wasted.
> Ok. A burst area around the warrior congruent with other "of-level" exploits. Str primary. Will to test the foes ability to resist the challenge or detect some falseness in the warrior-driven movements that outline the ruse or fake-retreat and subsequent spinning athletic fury of melee engagement. Enemies "pulled" (not literally) to the warrior and he whacks them. Got it. Here we go:
Originally posted by WotC
[h=1]
Come and Get It
[/h]
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against them all.
Encounter
Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares, but only if it can end the pull adjacent to you. If the target is adjacent to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage.
Result? Thematic, genre-relevant, tactically deep, fun awesomeness. Mission ** accomplished.
Lets take a look at an effort for
PROCESS BASED DESIGN
> What should warriors be able to do in combat? *** Well, folks in our world have an upper limit of biophysical capability so we need to have his "cool stuff to do" constrained by these bounds and there needs to be causal logic underwriting the phenomenon. Ok. Disarm, push someone a few feet, knock down, hit with his weapon, shield bash, intercept a blow with his shield, parry with his weapon. Check. That all sounds good. Hey guys. What about that cool scene we see in movies where the Legendary Warrior challenges his enemies and they're inexorably drawn to him...or he fakes an opening or taking to the high ground and wheels on them and engages? Uh. That's going to be tough because of ***. That's most important. He's not magic. Lets try it anyway...
> Is our setting fudgable enough for this? Well, we've got all kinds of setting fudges all over the place. We've got giant spiders and scorpions as big as cars that shouldn't be able to grow bigger than a chicken due to real world physical laws...why shouldn't a warrior be able to do cool things that defy our understanding of physical relationships and causal logic in our world? Uh. Well. Because some stuff has *** Um. Ok? So *** takes precedence over all other interests. Gotcha.
> Are our mechanics really super granular? Do they simulate 1st, 2nd, 3rd order physical interchanges on a moment to moment level? No way! We've got flurries and parries modeled by one roll vs target number and HPs and all the rest. But some of our stuff is kind of granular...and has causal logic from an abstract perspective. But remember, *** is our top priority.
> Do we want ease of use, user-friendliness? Yes, but not at the expense of ***
> Do we want balance? Oh yes. If we're going to spend the time to make something then it darn well needs to be cool enough and functional enough for folks to take it...but not too powerful or robust such that there is no choice; eg its too good not to take. OK. LETS DO IT!...but remember ***
> OK! TO THE MECHANICS! This needs to be an affect in an area around him. Folks need to be able to hear him or see him. Ranged characters need to be immune to this because ummmm...why would they engage a warrior wielding a melee weapon? Um, because he's wrong-footing them with his warrior acumen? What about that? Maybe he's cutting out their line of sight with a tree or a rock or a wall and they need to see him to attack...Ummmm...ok...maybe. We will have to put a caveat in for that. Strength as the attack-resolving ability score. WAITAMINUTE, HOLD THE PHONE. REMEMBER ***. Faking people is like bluffing and that is Charisma and that makes sense. Charisma is guile; hence faking. But, but, but. What about warrior acumen and athleticism being the primary causal mechanism attached to this; a defiant challenging roar, or through warrior training and body control you perform the surrender ruse or backing off or presenting opening, etc. Uhh...that kinda makes sense. Ok, another caveat entry. What about mindless creatures or hive-mind creatures...they obey protocol that sort of defies a challenge to their Will defense? But does it? They still understand their world, even if on a basic, primitive level. Maybe they perceive the weakness that the warrior presents through body movements...or the sensory input of the roar stimulates them to engage? Uh, I don't know about that. This is all making my head spin. So a Charisma (but sometimes Str) vs Will attack and then automatic damage with tons of caveats. AUTOMATIC DAMAGE? WHAT WHAT WHAT? NO WAY! HOW DOES HE AUTOMATICALLY PHYSICALLY HIT WHEN HE HAS ONLY ATTACKED WILL? WE HAVE TO MAKE HIM PERFORM A PHYSICAL CHECK TO OVERCOME PHYSICAL DEFENSES! Um, but then we would have a horrible balance issue. If he's attacking Cha vs Will, he probably wouldn't hit that much in the first place...and then, on top of that, we're going to for him to make melee attacks to hit? And then there are all of these immunities and caveats (a mental overhead nightmare). Let's give it a go anyway:
[h=1]
Warrior Challenge or Fake Out
[/h]
You brandish your weapon and call out to your foes, luring them close through their overconfidence, and then deliver a spinning strike against them all.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action 15 feet radius around Fighter
Target: Each melee-weapon-wielding enemy, who is not mostly mindless, you can see in the burst. However, if you inhibit line of sight, via adjacent blocking terrain, with an enemy who is using a ranged mode of attack, it can potentially work against them but with a - 2 initial attack versus Will. Creatures of 3 Intelligence or less are immune unless the PC can come up with a really good reason that it would provoke their primal or automotonic protocol...and the DM agrees of course (see DM discretion below).
Attack: Charisma vs. Will mostly with rarely Strength vs. Will (DM discretion).
Hit: The target moves adjacent to you or piles up aound the blocking terrain that is adjacent to you (they may not all be in melee range because of the number of spaces taken up by the blocking terrain).
Effect: Make a Melee Basic Attack against each adjacent target.
> Hmmmm...thats a bit crap boys and I think I may be ill. Forget it. It kind of accomplishes our mission statement of *** but its obnoxious and impossible to make work with that mission statement; process simulation and causal logic as our guiding principle. Its either (i) not balanced, (ii) not fun, or (iii) fiddly (inelegant with too much mental overhead/handling time) and is (iv) going to be susceptible to inconsistency in interpretation by way of DM fiat. Destroy our meeting notes and pretend this never happened. I'm taking the rest of the week off.
How do I adjudicate a fighter using "Come and Get It" on a centipede swarm? I have no idea. Neither does my player.
See above examples. There are plenty of narrative post-hoc justifications for swarms of insects (primal protocol), constructs (mindless automatons) to attack a warrior who makes a spectacle of himself (sensory input is a primary a causal mechanism for primitive creatures actions) or presenting a well feigned, athletic opening/feint (which is as much physical coordination as guile..and in this case the "guile" portion would be more Int than Cha).