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

[Manbearcat]

The problem as I see it is taunt effects that require a target to aggressively close with the perpetrator push the control too far out of reasonable behavior. If the target has a loaded crossbow in hand and the PC taunts him, why can't the crossbowman just shoot at him? A taunt mechanic that allows the target to respond with an attack from where they are would, in my opinion, be a superior design capable of respecting differences in the character of the target. Getting the target to respond aggressively to a taunt is reasonable, but the result of that aggression should be more open than trying to advance into melee. If that happens to be the target's goal in the first place, fine. But if it isn't, then I'm not so keen with it being fine.

Understood. There would (and there actually is in 4e - a Druid Power is quite similar) be good design space for ranged control for a Fighter/Defender to do something to spend a minor action to "mark" a ranged attacker with the effect line: If the target attacks anyone besides the Fighter until the end of his next turn, the Fighter charges the enemy as an Immediate Reaction.

However, what about this side of things. Certainly the ranged attacker considers themselves shrewd and pragmatic and canny and in a tactically optimal position to be at range. They wouldn't fall for such a goad or a ruse even if their failed Will save/defense says they would. That completely makes no sense and destroys his agency. However...wouldn't the Fighter then say the same thing about moving out of melee? Yeah, perhaps he's unnerved, but that is ridiculous that he would just run away like a coward and give up his optimal tactical advantage of melee control. Perhaps shaken (giving up combat advantage or a - 2 attacks or some such)...but run away...a brave warrior act like a coward and simultaneously give up his tactical advantage of melee control? Never. Not even if the mechanical resolution of a failed Will save/Will defense says he would. That completely makes no sense and destroys his agency.

 

[Nagol]

Understood. There would (and there actually is in 4e - a Druid Power is quite similar) be good design space for ranged control for a Fighter/Defender to do something to spend a minor action to "mark" a ranged attacker with the effect line: If the target attacks anyone besides the Fighter until the end of his next turn, the Fighter charges the enemy as an Immediate Reaction.

However, what about this side of things. Certainly the ranged attacker considers themselves shrewd and pragmatic and canny and in a tactically optimal position to be at range. They wouldn't fall for such a goad or a ruse even if their failed Will save/defense says they would. That completely makes no sense and destroys his agency. However...wouldn't the Fighter then say the same thing about moving out of melee? Yeah, perhaps he's unnerved, but that is ridiculous that he would just run away like a coward and give up his optimal tactical advantage of melee control. Perhaps shaken (giving up combat advantage or a - 2 attacks or some such)...but run away...a brave warrior act like a coward and simultaneously give up his tactical advantage of melee control? Never. Not even if the mechanical resolution of a failed Will save/Will defense says he would. That completely makes no sense and destroys his agency.

The ranged attacker may not be tactically optimal -- he may be a coward that refuses to engage in any gorm of combat. He may know that he is completely surrounded by hidden traps and moving will subjuect him to their effects. He may know that stepping off his square will release the bomb trigger and he'll destroy the cavern.

None of that matters with the power though.

 

[Manbearcat]

The ranged attacker may not be tactically optimal -- he may be a coward that refuses to engage in any gorm of combat. He may know that he is completely surrounded by hidden traps and moving will subjuect him to their effects. He may know that stepping off his square will release the bomb trigger and he'll destroy the cavern.

None of that matters with the power though.

That's fine. Exchange "action that I'm doing is tactically optimal" for "action imposed upon me that would otherwise be outside of my standard behavior regime is tactically sub-optimal or detrimental". Same deal.

 

[JamesonCourage]

"I influenced the outcome" and "I partly controlled the outcome" strike me as synonymous in typical contexts.

In some contexts, sure. Except that sometimes when you influence something, you had no control over it. Though sometimes, yes, you do (thus it does work in some contexts).

To be frank, I find the notion that it is inherently unimmersive to play a PC who non-magically imposes his/her will on others strikes me as bizarre.

Well, I basically agree, since you used "inherently" instead of "typically".

For instance, when a police officer, bouncer or security guard looks at you and signals that something is not to be done, or a certain place not to be entered, s/he imposes his/her will on you. There would be nothing inherently un-immersive about building such a PC with a "none may pass" power.

Am I really the only poster on this forum who has experienced this phenomenon in real life?

Um, except I can (and have) ignored security guards when they've warned me. And bouncers. And even police officers. They attempt to impose their will on me, and I can choose to go along with it or reject it. My call; and that's where this disagreement happens. I'll bet that at some point in your life, someone told you not to do something, and you did it. This is basically the same thing.

That you reject the objection to immersion is fine; it's immersive to you and your group, and that's awesome. That you reject that it's this way for other people baffles me. And if you do accept it, that you argue so vehemently against their experience baffles me. Experiences differ. As always, play what you like

We seem to have some "conceptual dissonance" when it comes to the use of language as we're again on opposite ends of things Only this time, instead of fiat its the influenced vs control specrum.

But we never disagree

Consider these three dominant athletes of the last 25 years; Micheal Jordan, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer. What do they all have in common? Almost universally, their competition would wilt even before they got on the court/course and would specifically and inevitably wilt in the big moments. Yes, those three would raise their level of play but the wiliting of their opponents (and the surity of it ocurring before it even came into being) was a product of the imposition of will which, in their case, moved "influenced" much further along the continuum toward "fully controlled" without any physical imposition. The uniformity of opponents' wiliting shows that. Opposition and expert spectators would regularly comment on how the battle was won before it even began. That is "the imposition of will" that passively moves "influenced" along that continuum such that it manifests as a spectra infinitely closer to "fully controlled" than "fully autonomous" without their being any physical imposition.

I skipped the first paragraph, so I may not have the correct context, but in no way do I see "fully controlled" here, and see the "battle was won before it began" as mostly unrelated. Sorry if I'm missing context from skipping that first paragraph.

MSo there I was, a heady, pragmatic guy (and at that point much more than I used to be as a kid), knowing full well that what I was doing was "tactically foolish", but I failed my Will save and did it nonetheless.

I guess because of all of those things above, things like CaGI not only don't bother me, they make sense; not only in real life but certainly in the heroic action/adventure genre.

Based on my own personal anecdote of a potentially deadly fight (my crowbar against his knife), I think people get a lot more pragmatic when lethal weapons are drawn against them. Come And Get It doesn't require a deadly weapon (as far as I know), but that's certainly its most widely used context. And here we come again to your anecdote covering warriors (which most people don't object to with the Will save, to my knowledge), but failing against the "outliers" (unintelligent creatures, casters, ranged attackers, noncombatants, tactical and calm warriors, etc.). But that topic has been covered over and over, and I don't know what else I can add to it. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's what I think is so cool about CaGI and other powers like it-- because they are discrete, independent rules that don't actually have to be used by those who don't like them (you just don't allow players to choose those powers) but ARE there for those who do. Both sides get what they want.

Why that was never good enough for some people though, I'll just never understand.

I want to answer this, because I see it a lot.

First, let me say that it's not an unreasonable position. So, there's that.

Second, I think my objection is that, like most people, I want a game that I don't have to change much (even if I will change it). I want the base mechanics to match up with what I like. And, when something is in the core books, from my experience, players expect it to be fine to use. It's much more an acceptable and understood baseline than any splat book ever will be (again, from my experience). And, from most builds I've seen of Fighters online, Come And Get It is on the large majority of those builds (possibly because it's an excellent Defender power, and 4e Fighters are Defenders). So it's a popular power. Also, since it might not work for some players due to immersion, but not others, it can cause some friction in the group (and yes, this can apply to most things, but Come And Get It seems quite a but more controversial than, say, the 3e Barbarian's Rage/day mechanic).

Anyways, as I said, your view isn't unreasonable, but that's something that at least might answer this question, for you or others. As always, play what you like

The way I see martial powers in 4e, including everyone's favorite, CaGI, it's a different implementation of a critical hits system, where instead of a small chance each round of achieving an exceptional result, the PC is assured of an exceptional result a fixed number of times per encounter and day. Six of one, half a dozen of another.

That's close to my view. I don't particularly like it, but I have nothing against it.

If you can except a person killing a dragon or a dinosaur with a sword blow --without inquiring overly much as to how that happened, exactly-- why is something like CaGI so problematic?

Well, personally, the "how" is big for my group. We want to know how it happened, and don't just say "hit, 36 damage; the dragon is dead." We listen as the GM tells us how the dragon is killed.

And as for pulling players out of the actors stance, all I can say is, "How's that gods-eye view of combat over the battle mat, with near-perfect coordination with your teammates and a marked absence of things like the fog-of-war/occluded vision, etc. working out for you?"

I don't use a battle mat, and my players try not to metagame and coordinate perfectly without communicating in-game. Problem solved! As always, play what you like

 

[Siberys]

Um, except I can (and have) ignored security guards when they've warned me. And bouncers. And even police officers. They attempt to impose their will on me, and I can choose to go along with it or reject it. My call; and that's where this disagreement happens. I'll bet that at some point in your life, someone told you not to do something, and you did it. This is basically the same thing.

So, in those cases their attack didn't beat you Will defense. They did not successfully cow or trick you. Hrm?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Because if you've ever had it pulled on you its not all that mundane. It requires a bit of finesse and a bit of right timing to actually pull it off in a narrative context. The problem with your argument and how I've had CAGI used on me flawlessly is that sometimes people don't think. Sometimes they do something irrational and quite frankly slightly stupid.

"Move! Move!"

"Thanks, but I'm fine where I am."

*Get run down by a charging Dire Board"

"Still fine, are you?"

One thing that you might want to consider is that carefully considering what you want to do at any particular moment gets you killed in combat. The whole idea that your character will only do what the player wants is about as antithetical to realism, immersion and role-playing as you can get. The implication that you're so special that you can't be manipulated into doing something against you r best interests... I don't know how anyone takes that seriously.

Um, I know you're different posters, but wouldn't the person saying "no" to the movement be doing something irrational? Something illogical? I mean, he's saying no, and a "charging Dire Board" is now going to run him down! Depending on why he made those reasons, it could either help or hurt immersion.

I think the "manipulated" thing gets questioned depending on context. While people still had a problem with the 3e Knight's taunt ability (I certainly did), you still see a lot of objections disappear (unintelligent creatures, ranged attackers don't move, creatures are in control and will try to avoid getting hurt if that's what moving means, being attacked by anyone else breaks it, etc.). And while some people have problems with it, like I said, it's a matter of degree. Come And Get It has a lot of "outliers" where it might make certain people blink. The 3e Knight's taunt made certain people blink (myself included). Hit points do to a lot of people. And so on. The "manipulation" bit is just where people draw that line. That's it. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

So, in those cases their attack didn't beat you Will defense. They did not successfully cow or trick you. Hrm?

This is one way to run it, yes (though I'd much prefer to see a skill check than a Will save). Though, it should be noted, CAGI didn't originally allow that, and the argument seems to revolve around the "narrative control" aspect for many posters, which almost necessitates no Will save. As always, play what you like

 

[Obryn]

Yes but it also touches on the difference between the causal power argument, and the actor to author/director stance argument... which is something certain posters conflated earlier in the thread even though they are not the same thing. If you want to stay as close to actor stance as possible a power like CaGi forces you to step out of it and into director/author stance because you are now controlling the actions that the affected PC/NPC/monsters are taking.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I think it'd be fine if it worked the way you're proposing. It's the same in probably 85%+ situations given the restrictions on "pulling." I like it when the Fighter's doing the pulling because it ends up more disadvantageous, and I think that matches the fluff of a taunt or trick better, but if that's all it takes for you, I don't think that's a big deal.

but this is largley about the goal of playing in the first place. If your goal is to simulate a character, that makes sense. If your goal is to feel like you are a charcater, mechanics that seperate your experience from the character's like this can actually be jarring. There is always going to be a degree of seperation (no one is advocating inducing delusions) but i find the more mechanics there are between my experience and the character's, the less immersed I tend to feel. I am not totally against such things. For example, there are moments where mechanics causing you to be paralyzed with fear actually helps replicate the experience of being paralyzed by fear.

Like I mentioned before, I'm not Immersion Guy. I don't need to feel like my character would. However, I like it when my characters (and the characters I'm running as a DM) work kind of like real people in the situation and when the narrative results of the game's mechanics are cool and interesting. Powers like CaGI hit the mark on both of these. If it's used against a hyper-intelligent defiler successfully, I love it. Because I can just imagine a sneering, "I have you now!"

I mentioned in another thread, though, that I prefer powers similar to CaGI to involve actual compulsion when used against PCs, because my players deserve a higher degree of agency over their PCs than I do over the NPCs. This isn't to say it couldn't work in a weird PvP situation - but my preference is to do otherwise.

This is one way to run it, yes (though I'd much prefer to see a skill check than a Will save). Though, it should be noted, CAGI didn't originally allow that, and the argument seems to revolve around the "narrative control" aspect for many posters, which almost necessitates no Will save. As always, play what you like

No, I think the attack vs. Will was appropriate. I didn't mind it when it was automatic either, mind, but I like the other effect of making it an attack vs. Will - hit or miss, it's a big Burst 3 Mark, so the enemies are paying attention to the Fighter even if they weren't conned.

-O

 

[Guest 85555]

Like I mentioned before, I'm not Immersion Guy. I don't need to feel like my character would. However, I like it when my characters (and the characters I'm running as a DM) work kind of like real people in the situation and when the narrative results of the game's mechanics are cool and interesting. Powers like CaGI hit the mark on both of these. If it's used against a hyper-intelligent defiler successfully, I love it. Because I can just imagine a sneering, "I have you now!"

-O

I can absolutely see how if your concerns are primarily about the story, then this is going to work for you. This is why I have tried to be clear I don't question your experience of the mechanic, saying you should use it if you find it adds to the game. This is why things like diplomacy, bluff, come and get it, tend to be disruptive to play for me. Do I want my character to act like a real person? Sure, but within the scope of my immersive experience (which in its own way usually leads to realistic portrayals of character).