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

[Guest 85555]

So, basically, you're saying that no player at your table could ever make something like CaGI work, not because it's not possible, but because you, the DM don't believe it. IOW, there's no point in trying to ever feint in such a way to draw an opponent closer, because, no matter what, I will never succeed at your table.

.

I think we just disagree here hussar. But there is no need to make assumptions abiut what happens at my table, put word in my mouth or bait me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have tried 4E many times with different groups (all great players and ZgMs) but it just isn't for me. Definitely gave it a chance. On a number of levels the game didn't appeal to me. But that is just me, my business's partner and co-designer had a much more positive reaction to 4E. I don't hold liking 4E against people and I honestly don't think others need to share my thoughts on it (I have even said many time WoTC should have tried to please the fans they have and make Next 4.5).

Yeah, its totally understandable. I think my frustration really comes from the sense I get that the vast majority of criticism amounts to "I don't want anything to ever change, nothing but what I played in (1978,1992,2003) is acceptable" and then tons of rationalizing around that. I've gotten to the point where I have just lost all taste for a D&D Community that seemed interesting and fun 4 years ago but now seems like it is mostly composed of a bizarre sort of man-children who aren't even willing to just flat out say "we don't HAVE any actual arguments, we're just never going to change one bit". Don't count yourself in that camp by any means. Quite the opposite. It is perfectly reasonable to have different tastes and maybe 2e or whatever better matches them than 4e. I mean I LIKE AD&D too. I think discussions like this feel like they get a bit tainted on my side by the experience had over on say the WotC boards where the most eye-rolling idiocy passed for debate about DDN until frankly I just finally packed up and washed my hands of the whole thing. So I hope you don't get the feeling you get picked on too much. I appreciate the intelligent discussion.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yeah, its totally understandable. I think my frustration really comes from the sense I get that the vast majority of criticism amounts to "I don't want anything to ever change, nothing but what I played in (1978,1992,2003) is acceptable" and then tons of rationalizing around that. I've gotten to the point where I have just lost all taste for a D&D Community that seemed interesting and fun 4 years ago but now seems like it is mostly composed of a bizarre sort of man-children who aren't even willing to just flat out say "we don't HAVE any actual arguments, we're just never going to change one bit". Don't count yourself in that camp by any means. Quite the opposite. It is perfectly reasonable to have different tastes and maybe 2e or whatever better matches them than 4e. I mean I LIKE AD&D too. I think discussions like this feel like they get a bit tainted on my side by the experience had over on say the WotC boards where the most eye-rolling idiocy passed for debate about DDN until frankly I just finally packed up and washed my hands of the whole thing. So I hope you don't get the feeling you get picked on too much. I appreciate the intelligent discussion.

I think it is just better to take people at their word rather than attribture motives to them.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I couldn't XP your post upthread with the 3 archers, but from my point of view that gets the play of CaGI right. The idea that it is all about luring archers out of their defended positions has little basis in actual play, as your analysis shows.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, what's actually nonsensical, unbalanced or unfun?

Whatever the people at the table decide.

After all, any group that feels that any element fits any of those criteria will simply choose not to use those rules. So, what's the problem with actually having the option?

To what option are you referring?

Isn't more options better than less? Why do your particular tastes trump mine?

I don't know where this is coming from. You appear to be merging my discussion of the role of the DM with your ongoing CaGI discussion.

But, to address your discussion, why do your tastes trump mine? Given the DM/player paradigm that I was discussing, there is absolutely nothing preventing a player from attempting some form of taunting, and there is every reason for the DM to play out the NPC's reaction to that taunt. In the absence of CaGI, there is nothing preventing that from occurring, and the rules can actually support it in some other venues. So why take away the DM's ability to do that and put it in the hands of the power and the player using it?

The absence of a restrictive ability is actually "more options" because the player can attempt to taunt or bait or manipulate his opponent in any way he chooses, and the DM can react in any way he chooses, and each of those ways are options.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Using the method I described you would just take the -1 AC for the +1 to attack to represent not doing it in a major fashion. It doesn't matter if the the GM can see the real mechanics because they are designed to give him an incentive. This is not a perfect representation of what you are describing bug for me it is close enough and far better than cagi. If you want something more tricky I am open like I said but not if it is a daily/encounter or if it gives me control of another character.

See, I don't really find that works for me. The DM has perfect information, so HE's not going to be suckered into a bad decision (well, maybe some DM's are foolish). The DM MIGHT choose to have the NPC take the bait for RP reasons, but then why bother with the bonus/penalty thing? So, if the bonus/penalty really isn't material then we're just left with the player signaling the DM that he wants to sucker in the bad guy. This is OK, but the DM is left with a choice of either just saying "OK, it happens" in which case the PC is getting an advantage. If the PC is getting an advantage then it seems reasonable that a check with the stakes being the PC's action vs a success would be used (this is a typical way to resolve things obviously). So at that point what we have in 4e parlance is a power, an action is spent, a check is made against some sort of DC/Defense, and success yields the enemy does what the player desired. That's my logic for it. You could use Page 42 of course, but you could argue EVERY power into just being "use page 42", powers are meant to convey the MAIN tactics that a PC uses often, his go-to stuff. Page 42 can then let him do any other thing the player can think of. As for "total control", again, in my game at least the DM is in total control. If I don't think the weak cowardly wizard would leap past the burning oil to confront the fighter with is dagger then either the player will have to narrate it differently (IE come up with a plausable story for it) or it might just not happen. I know a lot of 4e advocates will scream bloody murder at that point, but I'm definitely not typical in that sense. I THINK you might find that under these assumptions and techniques that CaGI is OK. Sure, the player is doing the moving of the bad guy, but he's got very few choices, and the DM could always say "no way, Blorgzug would never do that" if he wants. In fact I think it is worded such that the target slides itself anyway isn't it?

Of course that leaves your 'leaving character stance' issue. That there is just no answer for, but it seems to me it is no worse for CaGI than it would be for "I leave a false opening, +2 to-hit, -2 AC!" and associated dice rolls is it? I think in any case it would be interesting to see what tweaks really are needed within the AEDU framework to make it more fun for everyone. I'm rather disappointed at the DDN team for not even bothering to try.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yeah, its totally understandable. I think my frustration really comes from the sense I get that the vast majority of criticism amounts to "I don't want anything to ever change, nothing but what I played in (1978,1992,2003) is acceptable" and then tons of rationalizing around that.

Personally, I enjoyed my early rpg experiences, but my game has evolved considerably. I absolutely think the game can evolve. I just don't think that many of the changes that have been previously implemented or are now being tested are the right ones.

I don't think there is an "old school/new school" dichotomy, and I don't like it when people try to create one either.

I think discussions like this feel like they get a bit tainted on my side by the experience had over on say the WotC boards where the most eye-rolling idiocy passed for debate about DDN until frankly I just finally packed up and washed my hands of the whole thing.

Personally, I was a regular on the WotC boards and then gave up on them around the 4e release. It's been impossible to have a civilized discussion there for a while.

I just hope WotC doesn't actually think their own message boards are representative of the rpg community. If they are, this hobby is toast.

 

[Garthanos]

They can use whatever word they want. They can say it is a banana, but that doesnt make it so unless I believe it. In the case of come and get it, when its used I dont feel like the character is being lured at all, i feel like he is being forced to move by a player to an adjacent square.

NPCs arent you so they dont have to deceive you to be deceiving the npc.. this generalizes and includes using mechanics to alter NPC behavior on a broad scale. I agree... It is nice when influencing the PC can be implemented as influencing the DM.. such as the fighting mans marking mechanics from 4e do you see any of that in 5e I certainly dont, which entail a strong enough damned if you do and damned if you don't element - A fighters I will harm you if you dont keep your eyes on me and I will interfere with you when you attempt to act without accounting for me works well... . I don't see how it can be twisted into working for a deception/invitation/false opening or whatever.. I think you might be able to ply its technique for a taunt where the idea is for instance the taunt enrages the enemy so that actions other than the desired ones are penalized in some fashion (... and in effect so are the desired actions)

Invitations (standard fencing move) and influences (like taunts) are so incredibly common in combat in reality and fantasy that if the game does them poorly or makes them lame or ignores them utterly... I repeat myself but I feel its very significant.

Side idea for giving the fighter his retaliatory defense :Hmm what about a Protective Riposte .. similar to a riposte but if an attack fails against an adjacent ally you are poised to exploit the opening it creates. ... later Protective Retaliation except if an adjacent enemy launches an attack no including you - you exploit the opening it creates. Or however it needs worded.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Indie still would have shot him if it had just been fifteen feet.

Scimitar Guy MISSED Indie, that's all. I think Indie's WILL defense is pretty good.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I must have missed that but I am not convinced of this. I believe you are underestimating how much space fifteen feet is between two people. It is certainly more than three steps.

Yeah, there's a whole series of "how close do you have to be to win with a knife" videos. In fact I think it was Myth Busters that did it. At 25' the knife has a very substantial probability of winning, at 20' the gun has to get lucky, at 15' forget it it's knife all the way. 15' is around 4 or so steps for someone going full out to cross it ASAP, you're talking maybe 1/2 second at most, too fast to draw and aim. Truthfully in a realistic fashion melee armed people at 15' are already within each other's controlled space, not completely, but it would be for instance dicey to turn and flee from someone at that range, or try to do something like draw or whatever unless the opponent has other things to worry about. I think this is basically what defender mechanics and OAs etc are attempting to emulate, however imperfectly.