D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[W'rkncacnter]

Also, and this is from a how-does-this-make-sense-in -the-fiction perspective, why would martial control abilities only apply to enemies rather than to whoever the controller wants them to?

i would assume the answer to that is "if you're using this ability on them, you're not friends"

 

[DammitVictor]

i would assume the answer to that is "if you're using this ability on them, you're not friends"

Drop a fireball on me, we're cool; most of my friends try to kill me sooner or later anyway. Cast an enchantment spell on me, and after I've destroyed everything you ever loved, I will make you love new things just to take them away from you.

 

[Zardnaar]

What I'm getting from this debate is apparently casting any sort of spell (helpful or harmful) could be viewed as PVP, regardless if it's the cleric healing the atheist or the wizard hasting the fighter.

I've had people get upset about bring buffed.

Or excluded from being buffed as I gave the rogue extra attacks close to 100% of the time.

Often easier to do your own thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Have you read the 1e rules? Gygax contradicts himself all over the place. DMs should do X! And in another spot DMs should never do X! Where X is the same thing.

Yes...

And what I'm saying is, when the text does that, it is not that you are suddenly furnished with infinite possibilities.

It is that you are now in a hole you have to dig yourself out of, because not only have the rules not helped you in any way, they've actually held you back. You have to first extricate yourself from them, and then invent something from whole cloth to replace it.

That's not sudden freedom. That's being dropped on a desert island with palm trees, and told to figure out your own way. You're going to have to figure out how to construct a boat without tools before you can even attempt to go anywhere else.

Because your description in that post was itself a False Equivalence, because that's not how the term "Leader" was being used. You were trying to change what "Leader" meant, so I ignored that attempt and actually responded to "Leader" as it was being used in the discussion.

Person 1: "It's horrible to be left behind by the party."
Person 2: "Being left behind isn't that bad, because you can just track the party and rejoin it later."
Person 1: " Being left behind is abandonment and that doesn't feel good."
You: "Maybe the party just went left at the intersection. Why is that bad?"
Me: "It's bad because being abandoned is emotionally harmful."
You: "False Equivalence! That's not what I said."

In 4e leaders direct others, pushing and pulling them, as well as giving other bonuses that represent the other PC doing as the leader directs.

Commander's Strike: "With a should, you command an ally to attack."
Furious Smash: "You slam your shield into your enemy, bash him with your weapon’s haft, or drive your shoulder into his gut. Your attack doesn’t do much damage—but your anger inspires your ally to match your ferocity."
Wolf Pack Tactics: "Step by step, you and your friends surround the enemy."
And on and on.

These are all examples of the leader directing the play of others. In some cases it can be ignored. In others the other PC has no choice but to do as the leader wishes.

And you yourself are also trying to control what "leader" means.

You are inserting your own control. So was Lanefan. You aren't somehow correcting for that.

And I'm sorry, if you think someone else getting a feature that helps you do something is, in any way, them taking your character away from you, then yes, I 110% believe you are antagonistic to the very concept of teamwork. Never ever even having the tiniest bit of "someone else was involved in doing it" is frankly so silly, I would have thought it a caricature if you had not just done that yourself. You are, quite literally, saying that if anyone EVER helps you achieve things, they're taking your character away from you. Do you not see how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've had people get upset about bring buffed.

Or excluded from being buffed as I gave the rogue extra attacks close to 100% of the time.

Often easier to do your own thing.

And do you not see how this is precisely what causes 5e (and 3e, and really most versions of D&D) to be actually not designed as teamwork games?

If it is often easier--better, more effective, less hassle, etc.--to "do your own thing", then it isn't a team game.

It's just a game where four to six individual adventurers happen to adventure in the same place at the same time. Which is a crying shame, when the game itself repeatedly tells us how much it's about teamwork.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah I have to agree. The very concept of a Team Leader means sat some point the team agreed to that. Just the act of joining a group is indicative of adjusting your actions to fit in. If you don't want anyone affecting your decisions there is only one clear path. Do everything alone.

And I completely disagree with that notion.

Even if it is somehow automatically a thing, why does that then mean your character is subordinate to this other character?

Seriously. Why do you suddenly feel like you are being controlled? Wouldn't Controller mean that, rather than Leader? Why does "Leader" mean you've been mind-controlled and had your character taken away from you?

I'm deadly serious here. I find this utterly baffling and not one example folks have given has changed that. It just all sounds like you pre-emptively decided "Anyone ever telling me what to do, for any reason, even if it's nothing more than offering me a benefit, HAS STOLEN MY CHARACTER!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not to that extreme, but that pretty much sums up my real-life personality as well.

I've never liked anyone telling me what to do, even less so when they can't provide a good reason or rationale for doing (or not doing) that thing if not already obvious.

Okay...

So you are, fundamentally, hostile to the idea of "teamwork". You never ever want even a whiff of being "told what to do". That's...going to make it really had to play a game where the rules require that you coordinate with your allies, aka, teamwork.

If you are not comfortable doing things because another player set things up for you, why would you play a game where the rules expect you to do that on the regular? Why would you play a game with other people at all? Just play single-player stuff. Then it's literally not possible for anyone to tell you what to do.

I'm not even joking here. What's the point of playing with other people if you never, ever want to have anyone offer suggestions, come up with plans, or coordinate?

 

[Zardnaar]

And do you not see how this is precisely what causes 5e (and 3e, and really most versions of D&D) to be actually not designed as teamwork games?

If it is often easier--better, more effective, less hassle, etc.--to "do your own thing", then it isn't a team game.

It's just a game where four to six individual adventurers happen to adventure in the same place at the same time. Which is a crying shame, when the game itself repeatedly tells us how much it's about teamwork.

You can play that way though. Its a player issue not edition

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You can play that way though. Its a player issue not edition

My point is

If you can play that way

And never actually pay any price for it

then the game isn't actually a teamwork game. Sure, teamwork might exist in it. But it was designed as a lone-wolf experience. It's just a lone-wolf experience that several people can coincidentally play at the same time.

 

[Zardnaar]

My point is

If you can play that way

And never actually pay any price for it

then the game isn't actually a teamwork game. Sure, teamwork might exist in it. But it was designed as a lone-wolf experience. It's just a lone-wolf experience that several people can coincidentally play at the same time.

Got a source for that? Any edition of D&D works better as a team based game.

How players work togather varies.