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

[Obryn]

In the case of Cause Fear... doesn't the affected player or NPC/monster still decide the particular route and means he takes if he has to flee?

Does the affected creature of CaGi get to do this? Or does the person who enacted CaGi decide exactly where and what course each of the affected creatures chose to move?

Finally, do you see a difference in the above two effects?

If the argument is "CaGI targets don't get to choose their route" vs. "My Wizard is too smart to fall for it," that's an entirely different argument.

-O

 

[Guest 85555]

I'd like to reiterate my "cause fear" example, though. The subject of the spell is made afraid. That's what it does. But they have no control over how they react to it, since it's spelled out in the description. I don't see a feint or taunt as being different at all, unless you want to go down the hoary old "a wizard did it" path. You're still either rolling a defense (insight/sense motive), making a save, or having a defense attacked.

-O

First it is a spell, and that does matter. I can buy a spell triggering any kind of state because it is magic. Hwever it is also a condition. Personally i dont think the condition rulies of 3E are not perfect. So just because they exist in 3E, that doesn't mean I fully support them. Generally what I am okay with is certain things triggering certain conditions in rpgs if those things make sense. A daily or encounnter mundane power, should not do it though. Clear markers for needing to make a fear or panic check I am fine with though in certain games (drop half your hp in an attack, make a panic check, facing an opponent that seems twice as strong as you, make a fear check, etc). Still i think these thigns rub a lot of players the wrong way. Not sure they are a great fit for standard D&D. Personally i still think these kinds of things are best left up to the players and GMs to decide. If the game is being run specifically as horror, I wuld be more inclined to agree with fear mechanics outside of spells.

However, a fear effect that gives me control of another characters precise movement? Not a fan of such things.

 

[TwoSix]

You do recognize this is a playstyle preference... right? Some people find that type of "cool" where they are basically chewing through paper tigers unsatisfying and not particularly "cool". I'm just saying different strokes and all. I might be mistaken but you seem to be trying to talk about the subjective in your last couple of posts in objective terms.

IMO. YMMV. Of course, it's a playstyle difference. I just find it distressing that my playstyle is being moved on from by the largest major RPG developer, that's all. I'd use the term "smothered in the cradle", but that hardly seems objective.

And your use of the term "chewing through paper tigers" doesn't seem particularly objective, either. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Imaro]

Mostly. If he has a spell that he can use to escape, and no other means to escape, he must use the spell. If the creature becomes panicked, they must escape via a random route, which would imply no choice on their part.

It implies no choice when you create a specific situation that in fact gives no choice, there are plenty of situations in which there will be choices to be made and they are under the control of the affected character's player ... CaGi is always like the situation you presented above.

Within the limitations of the power, yes, the enactor of CaGI decides. The target can only move 2 squares, they couldn't be more than 3 away at the start, they must end adjacent to the character (or it doesn't work), and every square they move must move them closer to the character.

So then yes the person who enacts CaGi decides the exact movement taken and the exact ending position (within the constraints of the power is a given I think). He could set up flanks, position the person so that he is close enough to be marked or otherwise affected by a different character, and so on... things that the NPC or monster under the control of the DM would most certainly try to avoid.

Sure, is one is process-driven, and the other is effect-driven.

Or how about... in one (Cause Fear) the control over and choices of the characters within the constraints of the spell are still maintained by the original player and/or DM...

While in the other (CaGi) the original player or DM has no control over the character/monster/NPC whatsoever during the time it is under the effect of CaGi and that power is given over to the player who enacted the power. Are you saying this is untrue? If so please explain.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, uh, that one's debatable. Hard to go deep into that one under ENW's politics/religion rule.

Nor would I want to. This is all personal opinion.

I'd argue that it's okay for a DM to use NPCs however he wants (including in these ways). However, IMO the only justifiable reason to use rules for NPCs at all is to create an equivalency with PCs. If you don't need to do that, you can ad hoc it. So the rules themselves have to support a fully developed character, even if you won't use every NPC in that way.

I think your opinion of NPCs as either PC equivalent or ad-hoc might not be shared with the majority of gamers. <Citation needed>

My opinion is that NPCs need a rules construct to interact with the PCs and with the fiction. How you get them there is a function of the game system. I prefer one that's easy to remember and easy to implement.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think that's a difference in viewpoint. "Free will" really isn't, which is why I have no problem with something happen that influences the narrative.

And again, in a narrative game, the NPCs don't have to be simulated as having free will. It's perfectly OK to use them as scenery, or props on which to make your character cooler. Just like the thousands of orcs in the LOTR movies.

But most people are not determinists though. In fact a lot of people passionately believe in free will, and even if they are open to debate about it, certainly don't want to be told by a game mechanic (or its designer) that they are wrong. I had four years of this debate in college, and I think its interesting. I get the determinist point of view (you can probably tell I don't share it) but I think it is a tough sell as a basis for a game system that appeals to such a wide variety of peple. Most believe they have some degree of free will, and telling folks they are just effects in a deterministic universe, when they say they don't like come and and get it, is probably not going to win over any skeptics.

 

[TwoSix]

Or how about... in one (Cause Fear) the control over and choices of the characters within the constraints of the spell are still maintained by the original player and/or DM...

While in the other (CaGi) the original player or DM has no control over the character/monster/NPC whatsoever during the time it is under the effect of CaGi and that power is given over to the player who enacted the power. Are you saying this is untrue? If so please explain.

No, IMO, you're correct. YMMV, but I believe the second option(CaGI) makes for a more fun playstyle.

 

[Guest 85555]

My opinion is that NPCs need a rules construct to interact with the PCs and with the fiction. How you get them there is a function of the game system. I prefer one that's easy to remember and easy to implement.

That is a perfectly fine preference. The problem is this is a point of contention at a lot of tables and between gamers. In my group, I never even really like diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate for example because I was more accustomed to playing those out in real time and going by what the PCs and NPCs were doing (rather than die rolls). I can live with this stuff in the game, because it is possible to work around, and really diplomacy is a modified version of reaction rolls (which are a bit "soft" in changing actual npc behavior because they are more about shifting attitudes). However, the further the game goes in that direction, the harder it is for me to play the way I like.

 

[Imaro]

IMO. YMMV. Of course, it's a playstyle difference. I just find it distressing that my playstyle is being moved on from by the largest major RPG developer, that's all. I'd use the term "smothered in the cradle", but that hardly seems objective.

Was just checking...

And your use of the term "chewing through paper tigers" doesn't seem particularly objective, either. In my opinion, of course.

I'm not understanding this. A paper tiger is exactly the term for the tons of fierce appearing orcs who are easily slain by the dozens by the heroes in the LotR movies... that you yourself referenced.

 

[Obryn]

First it is a spell, and that does matter. I can buy a spell triggering any kind of state because it is magic. Hwever it is also a condition. Personally i dont think the condition rulies of 3E are not perfect. So just because they exist in 3E, that doesn't mean I fully support them. Generally what I am okay with is certain things triggering certain conditions in rpgs if those things make sense. A daily or encounnter mundane power, should not do it though. Clear markers for needing to make a fear or panic check I am fine with though in certain games (drop half your hp in an attack, make a panic check, facing an opponent that seems twice as strong as you, make a fear check, etc). Still i think these thigns rub a lot of players the wrong way. Not sure they are a great fit for standard D&D. Personally i still think these kinds of things are best left up to the players and GMs to decide. If the game is being run specifically as horror, I wuld be more inclined to agree with fear mechanics outside of spells.

However, a fear effect that gives me control of another characters precise movement? Not a fan of such things.

I don't buy the "magic can do anything" explanation, but we can fortunately bypass it with dragons, whose fear power is specifically (Ex) or non-magical.

Charging or flying over targets makes those targets afraid. And when afraid, they do certain things set down in the rules. This is probably not the only time they are afraid, and some classes have outright immunity to "fear effects." Still, exact movement paths aside, you don't get to choose how your character reacts to being afraid from an explicitly non-magical source.

So in those cases - My Fighter is brave. Why don't I get to choose how he reacts to being scared?

-O