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

[Bedrockgames]

Rope a dope only works through tricking your opponent. Its a huge huge huge gambit but it primarily is psychological in nature.

There is certainly a psychological component, but the point is, you are not actually controlling the other person, you are just giving them the impression they are hurting you so they keep attacking and getting worn down.they still choose to attack you because they calculate they can knock you out.

Strictly speaking, it doesn't only work if you trick your opponent (it is meant to trick but it doesnt have to to work).Especially now that it is an established technique used by guys like ward and pacquiao. An opponent might well know you are pulling it, but gamble that he can take you out while you are doing so (it is a risky maneuver, and it requires either a really good ability to roll with punches and bob n weave on the ropes, or some serious endurance for blows to the head).

I think the more compelling case for your position is Ali's taunts that foreman hit like a girl. I would still be reluctant to give a pc control of an npc monster for that though.

now that I am thinking about it. I believe I might be on board for an incentive based taunt. But I really think it would be best as a maneiver or skill and not part of the aedu structure, and not something that gives full control.

 

[TwoSix]

If D&D is to continue it can't be YOUR game, or MY game. It has to be OUR game. Both the people who want to swing swords but not be superbly outlcassed by mid-levels and the people who want to wave wands and wield Ultimate Power have to come together, otherwise we'll never have anything more than we have now, multiple editions, multiple fanbases, and none of them having any desire to play together. Making the hobby, it's market, and it's voice, weak, which in business means: "don't bother".

I don't see a way to make people who want mutually exclusive things both want to buy the same game. It's why I've been anti-Next since the beginning. I WANT to like it, but I don't see how it can possibly work.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And psychological tricks that fool an opponent into doing something that isn't in their interests despite how it appears. Though apparently they're too implausible for some people's tastes.

What I object to is having such precise control over your opponent's movement. I am not saying people dont get angry and act out of their interest, but I I cannot issue a taunt that lets me govern where someone moves and actually take control of them. To me there is a huge difference between taunting someone to get them angry and hope they come at me in some way versus mentally dominating them through a spell and actually taking control of their actions.

I think the better way to model this sort of thing, rather than giving the player actual control, is just creating incentives that match what is going on, so an npc might well choose to move in on a pc performing the rope a dope. I think something like the stances system from 4E might work well for this. Let me take a stance that makes me an attractive target, but maybe gives me a bonus to attack or damage when I have been hit (or even something unusual like giving me defensive rolls not to take damage, and drain HP from my oppoinent when I make them (to emulate the tiring himself out bit). If they want to have some kind of taunt mechanic that is doable too. But having stuff like encounter powers doesnt work well for me and having powers that give me actual control of another character also dont work for me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't see a way to make people who want mutually exclusive things both want to buy the same game. It's why I've been anti-Next since the beginning. I WANT to like it, but I don't see how it can possibly work.

I think if they made good use of optional rules it could work. For example in the core they could have two colums for each class: one for 4e style abilities and one for classic abilities. I would buy a game that had 4E mechanics I could easily ignore like that. What would be more tricky is getting people to play a mixed game at the same table.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My wants, needs, and desires are the only ones I can speak to with authority. The designers have to sift through the advocated positions and decide what game they want to sell that will reverbate with enough potential customers. I don't envy them. In many ways, being small and putting out a heart-breaker is much easier.

yeah, i think both sides of this argument are starting to take the other too seriously and get too emotionally invested (myself included). I may not have been clear about this, but my opinion is WOtC should cut their losses and just continue catering to the 4E crowd. I can understand folks are angry that they are ending it and starting a new edition. The thing is, now that they have asked for those of us who lapsed to come back, I am just trying to be clear about what I like and what I don't. I agree with Nagol, that the deseigners are in a tough spot. Certainly dont envy them.

I also think there is such a split, it may never be possible to go back. 4E showed lots of gamers a version of D&D they really liked. Why would they switch to something that is more like 3E and AD&D when they have a game that better meets their needs? And why would 3E fans switch from pathfinder to 5E if it is going to undo a lot ofthings they love about third edition?

 

[FireLance]

I think if they made good use of optional rules it could work. For example in the core they could have two colums for each class: one for 4e style abilities and one for classic abilities. I would buy a game that had 4E mechanics I could easily ignore like that. What would be more tricky is getting people to play a mixed game at the same table.

I'd be on board with that, too. Unfortunately, I have seen little evidence that WotC intends to do this with 5e.

 

[Hussar]

No. I am telling you that I as the player don't want to surrender control of my character's motivations and actions to other players without consent. Arguments that my haracter needs to move because that guy over there is so good at yelling at you to move that it's an automatic reflex leave me cold.

Swimming a bit upthread for this, but, I think it is telling and I want to get it out before I wade through all the pages.
[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] , let's not forget something here. I went through the 4e PHB 1 and looked at the Warlord, the only non-magical leader, so the one most likely to be able to force your PC to do something by another PC.

In all the powers from 1st to 29th level, there is exactly ONE power that forces an ally to move. One. Only one. All other powers are either, "an ally can..." or "a willing ally", and that's the 1st level Encouter power Leaf on the Wind where you hit the target and "You or an ally adjacent to the target swaps places with the target".

I haven't checked the errata, but, in any case, you are arguing pretty strongly about exactly ONE power. And, all you have to do is add the word "willing" to the effect and now no PC can control you without magic.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Still doesn't apply - an ally is not obliged to be affected by another ally's powers by default. RC p. 106.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, but, even without the ruling, the problem doesn't actually exist. At least, not in the PHB 1. I can't speak to later books. There is literally ONLY ONE POWER that could possibly cause an ally to be force moved. And that's probably a mistake anyway since all other powers worded similarly include the term "willing".

And, on that vein, just how common are things like CaGI? People have mentioned this being the "tip of the iceburg" and just a convenient cover term for the problem. But, just how many powers are we talking about? Let's examine shall we?

Definition: I am only looking at powers which cause opponents to move without any tangible cause. No one seems to have an issue with something like Tide of Iron - you smack the guy with your shield and he falls back. Not a problem. We're only talking about Martial Power Source forced movement power without any in game rationale.

Gimme a few minutes, I'll be back with the tally.

Ranger: Zero. Not a single power qualifies. For one, none of the PHB 1 powers actually force movement that I could see. A couple did knock targets prone or slow or immobilize targets, but, they were all pretty easily visualized and reasonable.

Rogue: Zero. Not a single power qualifies. Rogues gain a fair number more pushing/sliding powers than rangers, but, all of them are the sort of thing you could do with feats in 3e. Hit the guy, make him stumble past you, that sort of thing. All easily explained.

Fighter: Come and Get it, Warriors Urging (Encounter Lvl 23) and that's it. Warrior's Urging is pretty much just a higher powered CaGI. Two powers. Everything else is Tide of Iron style forced movement where you whack something and it moves.

Warlord: Own the Battlefield (Daily Level 22). Again, that's it.

Holy crap. We've really been pissing around about this for THREE FREAKING YEARS OVER THREE POWERS!! Are you KIDDING ME? I never really bothered going and checking.

Three freaking powers? Out of what, 200? 300? Somewhere in there. Three years or more people have been flogging this horse. Good grief.

 

[pemerton]

This "canonical narration"? ...

"You call your oponents towards you and deliver a blow they will never forget."

You're right, in that narration the player does not control the actions of the NPC's... of course there's nothing in that narration about exerting your will to control them either, yet you seem fine asserting that this is exactly how the power works...

The power has the weapon keyword. In its post-errata version, it is an attack vs Will.

I thought the default in 4e was that the narration was up in the air and freely mutable as long as you didn't change the mechanics.

Which includes keywords and effects. Here, the weapon keyword. Plus the fact that they move towards you - so its a call to which they respond. Plus, in the post-errata version, that it attacks will - so its a call to which they respond if their will is not strong enough when confronted by your physical display.

If you don't think that the canonical narration of CaGI is the fighter imposing his/her will on his/her enemies, what do you think it is? What do you envisage the "call" as consisting in - a polite invitation to discuss matters over tea? (Maybe STR is required to carry all the invitations!)

I haven't once claimed the people who said they could stay immersed while playing CaGi were lying or dishonest. FATE another game that often has one step out of actor stance during play also has it's proponents that have no problem staying immersed while playing the game. The problem is that you keep trying to "dis-prove" that some people have an immersion issue with a power like CaGi or other 4e mechanics

Can you provide a quote? What I'm trying to disprove is that stance has any systematic or inherent connection to immersion. Whereas critics of 4e frequently assert, or assume, that it does.

CaGi will always force me to control the decisions and movements of characters that are not mine... regardless of the narration slapped on it.

Yes. CaGI it is about a powerful warrior imposing his/her will on his/her enemies, thereby controlling their decisions and movement. That this breaks immersion for you is an important fact about your gaming preferences.

But trying to explain that in terms of inherent consequences stance, of free will, of the inability of one person in the real world to exercise causal power over other people without magic, is unconvincing. I have personal experience of myself and other preserving immersion in author and director stance. And I have real-world experience of imposing my will on others - thereby getting them to do things that they otherwise would not do - without using magic. And I have had the same done to me.

This is why the best understanding I can come up with is in terms of certain understanding about distribution of participant authority over the actions of various characters. Hostility to CaGI strikes me as very 2nd ed AD&D. (@Bedrockgames, if my memory is correct, has in the past identified that as his favourite edition of D&D.)

Suggesting that a 7th level character is as awe inspiring as a dragon feels like a huge strecth to me.

This strikes me as in the general ballpark of "fighters can't have nice things". It certainly has nothing to do with stance, that I can see.

According to Justin Alexander, Aragorn was a 6th level fighter (or ranger?) in 3E terms.

I don't have an especially strong view on ranking the LotR characters in a system that can't easily model their exploits, but I do have some sense of what a 7th level D&D fighter can do - which includes over 50' and surviving. Such a character seems pretty awe-inspring to me - 4e has the mechanics to take this sort of superheroic capacity out of the passive dimensions of play (hp, saving throws) and into the active ones.

fighters are not wizards, magic and swinging a sword are two very different things. Fundamentally it is a beliveability issue. It is very easy to accept a wizard has a mind control ability that would give the pc or npc using it power over a character's movement. A fighter doing that by beckoning an opponent, snarling or even manhandling them, is a lot harder to justify.

Whereas (i) CaGI is clearly not just "swinging a sword" - it is about the expression of personal skill and presence. and (ii) I find it eminently believable.

On the distance issue, by the way - the distance is not 15'. It is somewhere at or above 10' (there are up to two squares between the fighter and the targets of CaGI.) The idea that a mage or an archer will always coolly plink away at a mighty warrior 10' away I have doubts about. That they would turn and run is more plausible, in which case CaGI is easily narrated as the fighter lunging towards them and cutting them down at his/her feet as they try to flee. (In other words, I agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].)

the point of the text you quoted is there is a difference between magic powers and verbal taunts. I know a lot of people dont mind giving fighters abilities that are comparable to magical effects, but for me, that is a pretty big divide.

Some of us like magic to be magic, and want our fighters to be fighters. By all means give fighters extra attacks, more damage or whatever. I just dont think they need to be supernatural or have reskinned spells.

And here we see it again.

CaGI is not comparable to a magical effect, except insofar as - much like a sword stab - it can achieve a result that can also be achieved by magic (eg inflict wounds spells). CaGI is not supernatural. It is not a reskinned spell. It is the non-magical ability of a powerful and experienced warrior, though presence and technique, to impose his/her will on the situation.

By describing CaGI it as "comparable to a magical effect", or "supernatural", or "a reskinned spell", you are not communicating your inability to believe that a warrior could impose his/her will in the way that I have described. What you are doing is misdescribing the way that 4e is actually played by those who play it. You are implying that 4e players don't care about the mundane/magical divide, or about verisimilitude, instead of recognising that, for instance, people might play a game in which metagame resources and magic have no correlation. Or in which 7th level fighters are as awesome as AD&D dragons.