This is a problem because magic has a get out of jail clause here because it gets to do anything because it's magic.
Well...yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. That clause is the problem. Either you remove the clause, or remove its favoritism toward magic over non-magic. Unfortunately, in general, the same vocal minority complains no matter which horn of this dilemma you choose, as you probably already know. If you remove the clause (so magic is no longer capable of doing
anything you can imagine but is instead restricted to a narrower, balance-able subset) they howl that you've destroyed it, that "magic is no longer magical," etc. If you remove the favoritism magic receives over non-magic, they howl that you've let Fighters shoot lightning bolts out of their hindquarters or created "Fightan Magic."
You make Martials just a different kind of magic
See, this is (part of) why I made my poll thread a couple weeks ago. Does "magic" mean "spells"? Does "magic" mean "anything supernatural whatsoever"?
If the former, then you're simply wrong, since it isn't making martial characters into spellcasters, it's just giving martial characters the ability to say some things that happen, to briefly take the director's chair for the action-movie that is the game, to overextend a metaphor--spells are not the only form of declarative ability. If the latter, you're right, but (as I argued to Maxperson and others earlier),
everyone is already "a different kind of magic" anyway, because of the wibbly-wobbly healthy-wealthy Ball of Stuff that is hit points, and saving throws (e.g. "dodging" an exploding fireball makes no sense, you can't just physically move so that the heat glides around you except in action-movie logic.)
The only way to get what you're saying and have it be meaningful is to say that
all declarative abilities are necessarily "magic," and not just...y'know, getting to describe a cool action scene because it would be a cool action scene.
We invent fictional worlds for the pleasure of it; the world is a convenience to us, a tool shaped by what we request of it. Why, then, do we request that a popular and beloved subset of the game be forced to live exclusively by the physics of our world (or, rather, a frankly laughably narrow-minded construct substituted for the physics of our world), and another subset be empowered to reject any and all limitations of the physics of our world...and then ask that these two things be equally worthy of playing?
The save attempt doesn't do enough to represent what I'm talking about. This sort of taunting would have a very, very low success rate. In the single low single digits. The success rate of saving throws is far higher and these abilities can be used multiple times a day.
Why should it have a very low success rate? I thought the whole point of the Battle Master subclass was being exceptionally good at reading opponents and having preternaturally good instincts about who/what they are and how they tick (Know Your Enemy). Why can't their battlefield prowess also extend into the field of cold-reading targets to get a pretty high likelihood of pushing their berserk buttons or their deep-seated fears?
A distinction without a difference. Being forced to attack against your will, being forced to move against your will, and being forced to sing Kumbaya against your will are all the same. Mind control.
Uh....okay. So, you do realize that now that thing you called a strawman isn't, because of this statement? Because now you
are saying that
any time you force someone to move against their will, it's mind control.
Plus? Again,
that's what failing a Wisdom saving throw means. (Or, in 4e, successfully hitting its Will defense.) It specifically
means that the target
does want to, even if only for a moment. You overcame their willpower, tricked or goaded them into a dumb move or feigned weakness that they foolishly tried to exploit. Getting the saving throw
was their chance to realize the trick or taunt or feint for what it was. They failed.
Do you have similar problems with, say, failing to know a historical fact because your character fails a History check? "No, my character
definitely would know this." Or similar problems with being deceived by something you as a player know must be an actor's disguse, but which your character fails to see through by botching the Investigation check? Aren't those things exactly the same--
forcing you to be ignorant,
forcing you to be deceived, "against your will"?
First, I already said that such abilities should be supernatural if they actually force these effects. Second, removing a choice(being able to go towards the source) is far different than forcing one single choice.
Seems like another distinction without a difference to me. What choices you're permitted to make have been controlled. Sure, in one case it's narrowed more than the other, but either way, you're taking choices away from the target. And if these things should be supernatural, doesn't that mean 5e is now exactly as bad as 4e was on this score? Worse, even, since in 4e at least it was a tiny subset (IIRC two or three powers) of the vast array of options Fighters might take, as opposed to something
literally anyone can get for the price of a single feat (or, with Tasha's, a fighting style)?
It's also not a reason to presume that they are different than creatures of earth. All it really means is that you have a poor DM. And no, the random monster tables of old were just encounters. Back in the day we talked to them(assuming someone got really lucky and rolled the monster's language) and sometimes avoided combat.
On its own, no. But when you have a consistent trend of people doing it--demonstrated by both official modules and everyday DMing--it seems to me that, whether or not it is everyone's cup of tea, it is an accepted reading of the text that creatures in D&D worlds are not required to conform to the psychology that naturalistic creatures of Earth possess. When at least as many people run things "unrealistically" as "realistically," it seems a bit hard to argue that behavioral psychology
must always work
exactly like it does in the real world, and not (as is the case with many things) up to a coarse abstraction thereof, with occasional hiccups and foibles forgiven because they are part of enabling a gaming experience.
If it's a supernatural effect, then it should work anyway. If it's not and is just a mundane skill, well we know that RAI is for social skills not to work on PCs if the player decides that they don't.
So you can decide if your character would be fooled by a mundane disguise, such as one made via the Actor feat? Or decide if you know whether a character is lying to you, Insight rolls be damned?
Because if it doesn't control my PC's mind, then I can choose to do something else.
Berserker Barbarian, level 10 feature, Intimidating Presence. Berserkers are well-known for being one of the only other subclass to be truly non-magical, since (as the Barbarian descriptive text notes) some Barbarians simply "draw from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain." Intimidating presence forces a target to make a Wisdom save, and failure makes the target frightened. The target does not get a second saving throw, but the Barbarian can choose to extend the effect as long as the target remains in line of sight and no more than 60' away--without granting additional saves. Nothing in the text indicates that it is magical in nature--meaning, if you assert it
is, you must prove it, not simply call it "mind control" because it could make you do something you don't want to do. The rules can tell you what you have to do, even if you'd rather not. That's why they're called "rules."
Narratively they aren't being forced to attack 'against their will'. They very much want to attack. Because that man just did the Jet Li 'disdainful nose wipe' at them and by gawd, this will not stand.
Or it could be a feint--feigning weakness or distraction or inability, which enemies have every reason to try to exploit (even animals; animals are quite good at capitalizing on brief moments of weakness, it's how most ambush predators feed themselves). Those that you miss with CaGI see the feint for what it is, and wisely stay away; those you hit believe it's a golden opportunity and attempt to exploit it, just as they would exploit an opportunity attack if you trigger it. Or it could be a false turncoat offer, or flashing a bag of coins at greedy mercs, or any other form of
temptation that might work on a target.
You make your attempt, and the attack rolls (=saving throws) determine whether your gambit works or not, whatever that gambit may be. If the DM feels it is a stretch for a target, they're explicitly empowered by the rules to give situational modifiers (though the respectful thing to do is to tell your player that that's the case), and if the gambit is truly completely unbelievable or goofy, then the DM should candidly just say that, ideally
before the player has irrevocably committed to the action. "This guy's unflappable--you know in your bones you won't be able to goad him into approaching you, at least not while he's feeling in control of the situation." And exactly the same thing applies (or should apply) to magical powers; sometimes, even a bit of magic just isn't the right fit to accomplish some task as the situation currently stands. (Hence why you saw
both the "they made Fighters into Wizards" canard and "they made magic unmagical" WRT 4e.)