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

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

That is a completely different thing. The PC fighter in my game has a stance something like that (from memory, he grants Cbt Adv and gets a damage bonus until he spends a healing surge). It plays nothing like CaGI. Part of the significance of CaGI is its interaction with the action economy and turn sequence - it is a way of a fighter exercising power over multiple targets at range.

I get the impression that some players treat the turn sequence as an actual model of the ingame situation - a strange stop-motion world - but I have always regarded it as a metagame abstraction. Powers like CaGI, not to mention OAs, immediate actions and the ilke, take advantage of the mechanical intricacies of the turn sequence - which is not actually modelling anything in the fiction - to give certain players more power. (For instance, immediate actions are one technique a typical ranger build can use to build up damag output. In the fiction, there is no difference between Twin Strike and (say) Combined Fire, though - it's just the archer ranger peppering enemies with arrows as fast as s/he can shoot them.)

Dropping CaGI it in order to make the figther rely on enemies using their own movement actions to close, and then the fighter having to use basic attacks (or whatever) to hit them, is just a huge powerdown for the fighter. Within the context of the 4e action economy, I just don't see that it would add anything to the game.

 

[Sunseeker]

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

Keep in mind this was a much later ruling, until it was released, powers that did not specify "enemies" and affected everyone in the area did affect your allies, regardless of their choice. But really that's not falling into this category of taking control away from players. Something explodes and pushes you.

Yeah for martial powers that allowed your allies to move but forced them to move, sure. But I don't really many that didn't give your allies the choice to do so anyway.

"Friendly fire" is fitting for certain powers from certain classes. I'd expect a warlock to be less concerned if he hits his allies than an invoker.

 

[pemerton]

The main difference between "may shift N squares as a free action" and "slide your ally N squares" is that the latter ignore difficult terrain and immobilisation - and hence is strictly better as an ability.

In the fiction, though, the two abilities will typically resolve the same way - in response to one PC doing XYZ, another PC moves somewhere.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION], we're talking about one power. In all the hoopla about losing control over your character to another player, at least in PHB 1, which is what Nagol is referring to, we're talking about exactly ONE power. Nothing else. Every other martial power allows the target the choice. Every single one.

It's no different than all the CaGI hoopla. Good grief, about 1% of the powers for martial character actually fall under the criticism, but, we've spent how many pages with people going on and on and on about it?

People really, REALLY need to learn to read rule manuals before criticising. It's funny, I got massively dogpiled whenever I was the slightest bit wrong about AD&D rules, and still got dogpiled when I could point to chapter and verse. But, here we've got multiple posters who've been talking about this sort of thing for YEARS and we're talking about such a tiny, minor bit of the rules.

Talk about focusing on the trees.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think it would be illuminating to see more detractors of CaGI break down their reasoning on this post. Its hard for me to get my head around holding these positions simultaneously:

1) It makes sense for a legendary warrior who spends his entire professional life on the razor's edge of life and death to flee in terror when faced with a very scary manifestation of a life vs death moment when he fails a Will save or an attack overcomes his Will defense. Regardless of the fact that his two homes are "in the thick of melee" and "facing down the promise of death", the brave, battle-hardened warrior being forced to move in a straight line away from the target on a fear effect that is greater than his will is ok. Forget the fact that thousands of men who had no combat experience, facing the sure death of artillery barrage and machine gun fire...while ruthlessly seasick...soaking wet...lacking leadership...and limited/lost supplies...stormed the beaches of Normandy. They were all terrified and some cowered, but the vast majority carried on and won the day.

2) It makes no sense for a hardened melee combatant to be provoked into accepting a physical challenge, or to foolishly mistake a ruse for an opening and charge a melee opponent when they fail a Will save or an attack overcomes their Will defense. It REALLY makes no sense for the archer or the wizard whose home is "away from the melee" to move 10 feet toward a warrior who feigns retreat or weakness, even when that ruse/feint overcomes the archer/wizards Will save (which shouldn't happen often given that is the wizard's strength) or the attack overcomes his Will defense. Moving those 3-5 steps forward makes no sense under any circumstances.

How are those two positions compatible;

Fear vs Will and run away = good

Ruse/challenge vs Will and engage = bad

Especially given the context. Cowardice > Bravery (for hardened warriors) is more plausible than Egocentrism/Miscalculation > Cool-Headed/Guile?

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I can see your point.

But I'm personally quite happy to defend 4e on the terrain of CaGI. Because I'm sick of post after post, year after year, that asserts or implies that the game is inimical to serious roleplaying because it has this sort of stuff in it.

I've got nothing against traditional RPGs - compared to some people on these boards, probably including you!, I'm a pretty traditional RPGer. And if people have conservative tastes in RPGing, fine - let them play what they want.

I just get sick of them saying that because my preferred fantasy RPG has got metagame abilities, uses karma rather than fortune resolution for fighters imposition of will (pre-errata, at least), involves stances other than actor stance, etc, then it must (to paraphrase Justin Alexandar) really be a tactical skirmish game linked by more-or-less meaningless freeform roleplaying.

I've never read a lot of actual play posts from the 4e critics, but I've posted plenty over the past few years, as well as numerous actual play examples in threads like this one. I think my game stacks up pretty well as an instance of worthwhile D&D (to the extent that there is such a thing!), and I'd like to be able to talk about apsects of it, including mechanical aspects, without being told once again that I'm playing a game in which fighters' abilities are really magical, or supernatural, or reskinned spells.

 

[billd91]

Forget the fact that thousands of men who had no combat experience, facing the sure death of artillery barrage and machine gun fire...while ruthlessly seasick...soaking wet...lacking leadership...and limited/lost supplies...stormed the beaches of Normandy. They were all terrified and some cowered, but the vast majority carried on and won the day.

No, let's not forget that. There's no reference to how likely the legendary warrior is to beat the save vs fear (in PF, for example, he's got some pretty good odds going in his favor). But sometimes, like the poor soldiers who ended up dropping their stuff and cowering on the shingle or by the cliffsides on Normandy beaches, he fails. Or how about the example of the Wehrmacht in France virtually panicking out of the country after the Allies broke out of Normandy? Quite a few units lost all cohesion trying to flee - and men died in the thousands as a result. Panic happens, even to the well equipped and well-trained.
But let's also not forget that the number of ways to send a "legendary warrior" into an unthinking panic are relatively few. Even the frightful presence of a great wyrm is going to leave a warrior of legendary status merely shaken, not panicked like he might have been in his salad days.

So yes, fear vs will and run away = good, taunt vs will and engage in futile movement into melee without a melee weapon = bad. Had you stopped at taunt vs will and engage in some readily at hand or idiomatic way, I would have said good.

 

[pemerton]

futile movement into melee without a melee weapon

With only 10' between the target and a 7th level warrior, the target was already in melee.

As I mentioned upthread (post 570), if you think the archer or caster would fall back rather than advance you can always narrate CaGI as the fighter cutting them down as they try and turn their back.

 

[billd91]

With only 10' between the target and a 7th level warrior, the target was already in melee.

As I mentioned upthread (post 570), if you think the archer or caster would fall back rather than advance you can always narrate CaGI as the fighter cutting them down as they try and turn their back.

He's within relatively reach, that doesn't mean he's actually in melee. That may have been true in 1e and 2e, but it's not the assumption at all in 3e and 4e. And why would I narrate CaGI as cutting the archer down as they try to turn and move away if the fighter, from where he uses CaGI doesn't actually reach the archer? Is the fighter really in a quantum position like an electron, or something? Worse, why would I change the effect of the power in that particular way when I would prefer to change it so that the targeted archer or other enemy behaved in a manner more in line with his normal behavior? It's just a sore thumb of a power that falls down in comparison to other taunt mechanics I've seen because it makes targets incredibly stupid rather than merely disadvantaged.

 

[Sunseeker]

The thing is, @pemerton and @shidaku , we're talking about one power. In all the hoopla about losing control over your character to another player, at least in PHB 1, which is what Nagol is referring to, we're talking about exactly ONE power. Nothing else. Every other martial power allows the target the choice. Every single one.

It's no different than all the CaGI hoopla. Good grief, about 1% of the powers for martial character actually fall under the criticism, but, we've spent how many pages with people going on and on and on about it?

People really, REALLY need to learn to read rule manuals before criticising. It's funny, I got massively dogpiled whenever I was the slightest bit wrong about AD&D rules, and still got dogpiled when I could point to chapter and verse. But, here we've got multiple posters who've been talking about this sort of thing for YEARS and we're talking about such a tiny, minor bit of the rules.

Talk about focusing on the trees.

I believe I've made this point numerous times. CAGI is a problematic power for some people, I get it. I've also, as you just did, pointed out that it's only one power.

If CAGI read:
Attack vs Will
Close Burst 3

On hit: target may shift 2 squares, but only if they move closer to you, and may take a melee basic attack at a -2 penalty against you.

There, problem solved, now the action control is squarely in the hands of the enemies, you've "taunted" them, successfully, they have fallen for your verbal assault, but still have the choice of moving closer to you, and making a rather udiciplined attack upon you.

------


Personally, I think every 4e martial maneuver could be re-created in ANY edition, but allowing a fighter to attach a single combat maneuver(such as a push, a knockdown, a wound, or disarm) rider onto a successful melee attack. I don't think that it would seriously violate anyones suspension of disbelief that a skilled fighter could do something with their attack besides damage.