D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Nagol]

Ahhh yes a strawmen. We aren't arguing that you are getting way to upset that maybe just maybe your character isn't a rational actor so that your argument about wanting to have everything be thought out on your end is kind of dumb.
PS:
I also forgot about this but RAW its not even a problem. It does come up from time to time but I forgot you can ignore or just plain not get yourself involved with allies riders.

This segment of the conversation started when Bluenose respnded to me and said (paraphrasing) "and your character is trampled by a Dire Boar, happy now?"

It went down the rabbit hole of combat is too intense/frightening/fast for rational decision-making only reactions.

My characters are rational actors -- that dos not mean they are unaffected by emotion or never act contrary to what an outside would consider their best interest, but rather their actions typically have explicable motivation.

The character may not have evrything thought out -- I may not have everything thought out -- but the powers, as written, allow another player to override those decisions I have made, for better or worse in a way that does not provide any external agency overriding the free will of the character affected. In short, the player usurps the control I have over the character to do an action I don't want the character to perform and then I have to internalise the result of that action with the character's motivations and feelings.

Suggestions to simply change/ignore the rules are fine and pretty much what I've done on a macro scale -- I play other games.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

The whole point is moot in any case, because any time a power targets an ally - including, but certainly not limited to - forced movement, the ally affected is free to ignore the effect if he/she wishes. Rules Compendium, page 106.

As to being targetted in a PvP situation, you are no longer an ally, and if you are affected it is because your former ally beat your defence with an attack roll, so you suffer the consequences. This is the part where the argument really breaks down to expose the dirty core of the matter.

See how well telling the DM "but, my character has Free Will!" works when you are hit by a monster or NPC with an ability like that. It's somehow ok if it's a monster, or of course a spellcaster, but not if it's a "mundane" ability from a lowly fighter. This really just seems to boil down to the old "warriors can't have nice things" argument.

Which, if that's the way you want to play, fine. Keep on doing what makes you and your group happy. Don't begrudge those who want to do it differently. Heck, even if you (hypothetical you) liked everything else about 4e, you could still just pick only the most mundane of powers for your mundane heroes. Can't do the reverse in 3e (one of the many, many reasons I prefer other systems).

Mundanes were even better off under AD&D, where at least by the time Wizards were gaining Ultimate Power, Fighters could build strongholds and attract hosts of warriors, Thieves could start guilds, etc, all of which would at least provide some agency in the game world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The whole point is moot in any case, because any time a power targets an ally - including, but certainly not limited to - forced movement, the ally affected is free to ignore the effect if he/she wishes. Rules Compendium, page 106.

As to being targetted in a PvP situation, you are no longer an ally, and if you are affected it is because your former ally beat your defence with an attack roll, so you suffer the consequences. This is the part where the argument really breaks down to expose the dirty core of the matter.

See how well telling the DM "but, my character has Free Will!" works when you are hit by a monster or NPC with an ability like that. It's somehow ok if it's a monster, or of course a spellcaster, but not if it's a "mundane" ability from a lowly fighter. This really just seems to boil down to the old "warriors can't have nice things" argument.

I don't see it that way. For me it is this: fighters are not wizards, magic and swinging a sword are two very different things. Fundamentally it is a beliveability issue. It is very easy to accept a wizard has a mind control ability that would give the pc or npc using it power over a character's movement. A fighter doing that by beckoning an opponent, snarling or even manhandling them, is a lot harder to justify.

Which, if that's the way you want to play, fine. Keep on doing what makes you and your group happy. Don't begrudge those who want to do it differently. Heck, even if you (hypothetical you) liked everything else about 4e, you could still just pick only the most mundane of powers for your mundane heroes. Can't do the reverse in 3e (one of the many, many reasons I prefer other systems).

Mundanes were even better off under AD&D, where at least by the time Wizards were gaining Ultimate Power, Fighters could build strongholds and attract hosts of warriors, Thieves could start guilds, etc, all of which would at least provide some agency in the game world.

AD&D was pretty balanced in my opinion, and strongholds are an example of something cool that is not difficult to believe. I would rather they give fighters abilities like this than powers that, at least in terms of the mechanics, feel better suited to a wizard or cleric.

Just to be clear though, I dont think any of us begrudge you for liking 4E. We are responding to claims that there is an issue with us finding these things immersive breaking, and with statements saying our reasons for not liking 4E are wrong.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I don't see it that way. For me it is this: fighters are not wizards, magic and swinging a sword are two very different things. Fundamentally it is a beliveability issue. It is very easy to accept a wizard has a mind control ability that would give the pc or npc using it power over a character's movement. A fighter doing that by beckoning an opponent, snarling or even manhandling them, is a lot harder to justify.

To you it is, or may be. You subscribe to Fighters Can't Have Nice Things. Fair enough, I guess. I disagree. This is one canyon that will never be bridged.

AD&D was pretty balanced in my opinion, and strongholds are an example of something cool that is not difficult to believe. I would rather they give fighters abilities like this than powers that, at least in terms of the mechanics, feel better suited to a wizard or cleric.

Again, this is what feels better suited to you and some others. I don't see why a game can't support *both* points of view, rather than going the Fighters Can't Have Nice Things route (since we are not likely to see AD&D-ish restrictions back on wizards, nor baked-in strongholds and followers). Inclusivity is, afterall, one of the stated aims of Next. I've been keeping up on the playtest docs, and so far, they have a long way to go in order to earn by business. I know I'm not alone.

Just to be clear though, I dont think any of us begrudge you for liking 4E. We are responding to claims that there is an issue with us finding these things immersive breaking, and with statements saying our reasons for not liking 4E are wrong.

You maybe don't but there are others who do. I largely gave up on trying to have any kind of conversation about 4e-isms in Next for that reason, especially once it became clear how much pandering WotC was doing to the lapsed 3.x crowd. I can't blame them, since there is a non-trivial amount of potential customers there. Makes good business sense, but at the same time, it also makes for a game that I (and probably many others) will not be interested in unless it supports are better cross-section of playstyles and options, including things that you and others may find hard to swallow.

You can continue to find these things immersion-breaking, and if you find the whole of 4e immersion-breaking, then you are obviously best served to continue doing that which makes you happy, as has been pointed out several times in this thread.

The other side to that coin, is the subtle implication that there is something wrong with us for *not* finding it immersion-breaking. Not just in this conversation, but in many, many others on this forum, some of which I've participated in. I am not pointing fingers, but it's there.

If you're feeling that undercurrent of "You're Doing It Wrong" - so am I.

 

[Nagol]

The whole point is moot in any case, because any time a power targets an ally - including, but certainly not limited to - forced movement, the ally affected is free to ignore the effect if he/she wishes. Rules Compendium, page 106.

As to being targetted in a PvP situation, you are no longer an ally, and if you are affected it is because your former ally beat your defence with an attack roll, so you suffer the consequences. This is the part where the argument really breaks down to expose the dirty core of the matter.

See how well telling the DM "but, my character has Free Will!" works when you are hit by a monster or NPC with an ability like that. It's somehow ok if it's a monster, or of course a spellcaster, but not if it's a "mundane" ability from a lowly fighter. This really just seems to boil down to the old "warriors can't have nice things" argument.

Which, if that's the way you want to play, fine. Keep on doing what makes you and your group happy. Don't begrudge those who want to do it differently. Heck, even if you (hypothetical you) liked everything else about 4e, you could still just pick only the most mundane of powers for your mundane heroes. Can't do the reverse in 3e (one of the many, many reasons I prefer other systems).

Mundanes were even better off under AD&D, where at least by the time Wizards were gaining Ultimate Power, Fighters could build strongholds and attract hosts of warriors, Thieves could start guilds, etc, all of which would at least provide some agency in the game world.

So give the martial-types cool things that fit their power source, special effect and sensible in-game logic with appropriate restrictions. Re-introduce morale effects and give martial power source a "Presence Attack" where if faced with it in combat, opponents shift/suffer penalties/faint or whatever. But mindless creatures are immune and martial-power types get a bonus to resist. Include vice/virtue tracking and handle offers to greed, vice, or cowardice be at least partially mechanically resolved.

That is something that can be pointed to as "I stepped away and left my loved one to die because of that."

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

CaGI *is* an example of something cool that fits their power-source. It's a ruse, or it's intimidating, or however you want to fluff it. It is essentially already a "presence attack". There are others which act like morale, pushing affected creatures away (in fear).

I agree that some additional keywording may have been beneficial in order to prevent some of the more difficult to believe cases, like having it work on oozes and the like.

Your last sentence though, is entirely human and believable in my eyes. People make mistakes, and sometimes not consciously, or realizing what the outcome will be at the time.

 

[Nagol]

CaGI *is* an example of something cool that fits their power-source. It's a ruse, or it's intimidating, or however you want to fluff it. It is essentially already a "presence attack". There are others which act like morale, pushing affected creatures away (in fear).

I agree that some additional keywording may have been beneficial in order to prevent some of the more difficult to believe cases, like having it work on oozes and the like.

Your last sentence though, is entirely human and believable in my eyes. People make mistakes, and sometimes not consciously, or realizing what the outcome will be at the time.

It fits the power source right up until there are no restrictions on opponent types, when it can be used (since it is an effect and any PC event - or none at all - can be used in the fiction -- suddenly the 3 ogres abandon the elven maid and spring at the cloaked figure why? Who cares, roll damage), no way to adjust resistance based upon character personality/goals, and the player takes control of the victims and guides their movement away from the default controller without anything in the in-game fiction overriding the traditional control.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Like I said, better keywording would fix the opponent type issues.

As to your example of why the ogres break off from the elf maiden - that is up to the fiction, largely, but it seems plausible to me. They're about to have their way with her, when suddenly, a threat appears (or bekons), best deal with it first.

If you wish to model the defences based on motivations in a given situation - nothing prevents this at all. If you're the DM, you can assign ad hoc defence bonuses to the targets, and if you're the player, you can raise your objection to the DM and ask for same. Page 42 and Rule 0 pretty much cover this.

If you take issue with taking control of NPCs, solutions have been given upthread. And I would argue that something in the in-game fiction DID take control. Maybe not the degree of fine control allowed by RAW, but there is certainly a narrative construct in action here.

If you still don't like it, you don't have to use it, but there is no conceivable reason to deprive those who *do* like it of the ability to do so. Unfortunately, that's the way 5e seems to be heading so far. If so, I won't be buying it, especially since I already have something I'm pretty happy with.

 

[LostSoul]

I get that "button pushing" play is a problem, but I'm not sure what gets us clearly away from that other than going rules-lite.

Not sure what you mean by "rules-lite". My solution to this problem was to try to avoid using skill names as verbs as much as possible - for instance, instead of Nature, Stealth and Perception, the Ranger PC in my 4E game has a skill called "Trained Warrior", which the player defined as being part of a elf ranger group called the Lonely Willows. They protected their forest from intruders, hunted, lived off the land, and all those ranger sorts of things.

Obviously the player can't say "I am going to use Trained Warrior: Lonely Willows" as their action - as DM I have no idea what is going on; resolution cannot proceed. Instead the player has to state their action - "I am going to try to hunt for large game in this forest" - and then we decide if "Trained Warrior: Lonely Willows" applies.

I'm not sure if that qualifies as "rules-lite" or not.

(To keep on-topic, this is - hopefully - my solution to the wizard-fighter power issue. As the PCs move up in level, the skills the fighters and other martial characters have will become supernatural. "Trained Warrior: Lonely Willows" would, at 11th level, probably grant the ranger the ability to move through the forest as if it wasn't there, basically become invisible, "talk" to the trees (that is, just by looking at them he could sense what sorts of stimuli they had), instinctively know where animals are and what they're up to, instinctively know where all the good herbs are, and that sort of thing.

I haven't seen this in play yet, though.)

Just a question out of curiosity... do you think the pre-packaged powers in 4e lead to the same type of "button pushing" play?

Yep, I do. I like 4E because I find it very easy to adjudicate non-standard actions, and I thought that would be a big feature of play; in my experience, however, it was not. Speaking to the people I played with, they told me that they had a big list of powers that they selected for themselves and wanted to use, so they didn't spend much time thinking about other actions their PCs could take.

I came up with a solution for this, too, but it's a little trickier to explain.

 

[technoextreme]

A fighter doing that by beckoning an opponent, snarling or even manhandling them, is a lot harder to justify.

Yes because lord knows no one has ever taunted someone ever to moving in and doing something stupid from a psychological standpoint. At this point I'm trying to figure out what series of events led to you thinking that something which more or less has a Wikipedia article dedicated to it and is more or less something people my parents age is familiar with is immersion breaking.