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

[Guest 85555]

I think it becomes splitting of hairs. For one second you have manipulated your enemy into moving a few feet closer to you. There's a vs WILL attack, and then one time he moves a bit if he fails. Especially given the degree to which turns in a combat round are an abstraction I never personally experienced it as controlling the other guy. The analogy would be to any of many leader powers that allow you to slide your allies around. I think we can all agree that A) the leader doesn't have total control of the other PC, and B) that this doesn't represent literally puppeting the other character around. It could represent giving advice to the other PC and changing their actions (via a slight retcon presumably) or inspiring them to extra action, etc.

This is why those leader powers trouble me as well. I appreciate none of this has the same impact on you, but for me these very much break my immersion. I definitely experience this as having control of another character. That is how these things work: certain parts of a game bother some people and not others.

 

[Garthanos]

It doesn't have to reject them.

Yes to satisfy you it has to nerf them so they really dont work or have any real impact.

I used boxing as an analogy because its a sport I understand well to basically say I am not so sure what people say is going on in tge fencing example is necessarily the case. but either way, 4E certainly doesnt feel like being immersed in combat for me. I just don't feel come and get it captures the things people are describing well, largely because you can only do it once per encounter

How often did that fellow get to do his fading back with a killer counter attack in that video...
Tricks that are easily repeated again and again with crap for chance to succeed because of it fail on both the fun factor and plausibility factor.

and it forces the opponent to move adjacent to you.

Nope it induces it only if the trick succedes... its a trick and a very normal one.

You cant trick or decieve the DM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is one approach. The other is reflect the opening by lowering the AC but provide a corresponding bonus to the pcs attack. The GM is then has a possible incentive to go in for the attack. It is just one idea though, but I do think it works better for me than cagi

I think what [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] is saying is that the DM won't be suckered in. If the tactic is advantageous to the PC then the DM knows that. The mechanism of CaGI is there for the benefit of the DM who otherwise has to do what, roll some dice? Try to decide by some choice he makes whether or not it works? The best thing I can imagine is a check made by someone against something, failure and the guy takes the bait. Frankly I appreciate how in many cases 4e has made my DMing life easier. It certainly hasn't changed much about what actually happens.

As for the Encounter timing of it bothering you, meh. An encounter is 30 seconds long on average. You'd be pretty lucky to manage to set up and use that move once in that time frame. Fighters have other ways to move enemies around as well, which can always be narrated as the same sort of tactics with slightly different outcomes. At least for me E/D powers for fighters seem more like mechanics to provide pacing than a problem. Again, I think a lot of us just have a much less literal interpretation of powers and moves and such.

 

[Garthanos]

I would like to repeat your concept of creating mechanical inducements for the DM is exactly how a fighters Marking mechanic works....

What it represents isnt however a trick.

 

[Guest 85555]

How often did that fellow get to do his fading back with a killer counter attack in that video...
Tricks that are easily repeated again and again with crap for chance to succeed because of it fail on both the fun factor and plausibility factor.
.

I have seen people lure an opponent in multiple times in a fight (as someone else pointed out earlier Ali did it to Foreman over and over again in the Zaire fight). But sure people eventually learn. I would suggest taking a penalty when you try it again on the same foe if you really want that level of detail, otherwise just set it up as a trade off as I offered in my example, so it is balanced but you can keep attempting it. To me that is way more believable than only being able to do the trick once each encounter (to me that just feels a bit artificial).

 

[Guest 85555]

I would like to repeat your concept of creating mechanical inducements for the DM is exactly how a fighters Marking mechanic works....

What it represents isnt however a trick.

i like my approach better. What it captures is creating an opening to induce an attack from an opponent do you can land a counter. It is a kind of trick. That said i am open to trick mechanics if they are not as jarring as cagi and don't use the encounter or daily power structure.

Marking always felt a bit weird to me. But again if 4E works for you that is great, I am not here to convince you my approach is better. Play the game you like.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think what @Garthanos is saying is that the DM won't be suckered in. If the tactic is advantageous to the PC then the DM knows that. The mechanism of CaGI is there for the benefit of the DM who otherwise has to do what, roll some dice? Try to decide by some choice he makes whether or not it works? The best thing I can imagine is a check made by someone against something, failure and the guy takes the bait. Frankly I appreciate how in many cases 4e has made my DMing life easier. It certainly hasn't changed much about what actually happens.

the GM might be because the tactic is a gamble. It can be to the pcs advantage if the opponent doesn't hit him, and in turn hits the opponent. But the opponent might also land a blow he might not otherwise land because of the lowered AC.

As for the Encounter timing of it bothering you, meh. An encounter is 30 seconds long on average. You'd be pretty lucky to manage to set up and use that move once in that time frame. Fighters have other ways to move enemies around as well, which can always be narrated as the same sort of tactics with slightly different outcomes. At least for me E/D powers for fighters seem more like mechanics to provide pacing than a problem. Again, I think a lot of us just have a much less literal interpretation of powers and moves and such.

like I said, I am not trying to convert you. If 4E martisl encounter powers work for your sense of believability that is wonderful. I just find them to work against mine.

 

[Garthanos]

To me that is way more believable than only being able to do the trick once each encounter (to me that just feels a bit artificial).

Its simplified and congealed ... and maybe it includes more spam protection than necessary (but yes allowing attempts to repeat with a significant penalty wouldn't probably hurt). A sword fight is far more deadly and unlikely to last the duration of a boxing match by the way, in 30 seconds to a minute of time how many times does that kind of big sucker work?

 

[Guest 85555]

Its simplified and congealed ... and maybe it includes more spam protection than necessary (but yes allowing attempts to repeat with a significant penalty wouldn't probably hurt). A sword fight is far more deadly and unlikely to last the duration of a boxing match by the way, in 30 seconds to a minute of time how many times does that kind of big sucker work?

I never said a boxing match was more deadly, it was just an analogy. I would think in a sword fight you can get that kind of trick off as much as your opponent falls for it. Like I said if you don't want people to spam it give a penalty, but timing if so they can try certain moves once per encounter just feels very artificial to me. Not everybody does feel that way but that is my reaction to martial encounter powers in practice. If you can't accept that this is my opinion or experience, I won't try to convince you otherwise.

 

[Garthanos]

I do like mechanics like Marking which induce the dm behavior with a combination of damned if you do and damned if you dont and interference with the enemy attacks against your allies...

And I would like to see more of it brought in to next but I am not seeing any of the tricks we are talking about working via that mechanism or feeling like a deception.