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

[Neonchameleon]

But I also run games in which other humans/demi-humans are frequent antagonists. If they're running into opposition fighters, it makes sense that some would be using powers like Come and Get It. If the PCs can do it as part of their fighting repertoire, why shouldn't NPC fighters with similar styles? Is that discouraged in 4e for some reason? Why?

It's simply not encouraged as PCs and NPCs don't work the same way.

As for NPC fighters using CAGI, it's simple maths. PCs are considered every bit as exceptional in 4e as they were in AD&D when the majority of humanoids were level 0. Very few of them are going to have non at-will PC type powers - and those that do will be elites, and almost all signature bad guys (whether the BBEG or a notable lieutenant). An NPC that signature only IME crops up every few levels. There were 25 separate PC classes even pre-essentials so using a fighter as a base is comparatively rare (even accounting for weighting I'd expect Warlocks, Blackguards, and Wizards to all outnumber fighters at this level of distinction). Then that named bad guy needs a specific level 7 (or level 23) encounter power. There are four other encounter powers at that level in the PHB - and about a further dozen in other books.

Now if a serious adversary were to have CAGI, it would be brown underwear time for the PCs - but I doubt they'd object, even pre-errata. It would either be the major villain or the villain's chief enforcer, and part of an epic fight. It would probably only happen once in an entire adventuring career, and be a defining point of a battle with a greatly feared adversary.

On the other hand if Random Thug #2 had CAGI, the players would probably object. In much they same way they would if random thugs started throwing around Hold Person or Glitterdust.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To some it is. I do find it disruptive myself. I don't expect others to share my thoughts (just like I get that some people love the diplomacy skill). But I don't understand why people are so insistent that it shouldn't be a problem for us.

I'm not insistant it shouldn't be a problem. I do, however think three things.

1: There is probably nothing you can say about it that hasn't been said at length.
2: Picking the little only power in the entire Heroic tier in the PHB that does this and mentioning it endlessly is pointless, repetative, and causes bad feeling. And is an accusation of BadWrongFun - it's the equivalent of picking on a single feat or single spell and wasting massive column ink about them*.
3: It isn't a problem for me any more than 1 minute combat rounds are for you. Neither of us are going to change.

My take on the issue is that the endless stream of CAGI abuse is nothing more than edition war trolling. Nothing in 4e says that a fighter has to take it - there are four other powers at level 7 alone. I find the Phantom Trap spell to be utterly ridiculous (and indicative of a serious problem with 3e - "Any character able to detect traps, or who uses any spell or device enabling trap detection, is 100% certain a real trap exists", no save, no SR, and using magic to trump everything else and turn skill into a weakness) - but this is literally the first time I have mentioned this on a message board. That's a spell that is an option for two classes in the 3e PHB and a wizard can have almost as many second level spells as he likes from third level. For some reason even when I feel the need to point out why I don't like 3e spellcasters I don't feel the need to mention Phantom Trap. Every single thread. Which is what the continual barrage of "CAGI ruins my immersion" feels like.

The chance of CAGI being included in D&D Next is nil (IMO unfortunately). So it simply isn't relevant to a D&D Next thread. I'm not accusing those who dislike CAGI of edition war trolling. But I am saying that by continually focussing with laser-like precision on the only power relevant in the entire heroic tier (there's one rogue daily at paragon, and Improved CAGI and a warlord power at epic) all that is being done is fanning edition war flames. CAGI is neither inherent to 4e nor inherent to the 4e fighter.

So no, I'm not insistant you like it. Different people have different tastes - I get that. I do however want those who don't like 4e and continually mention CAGI to stop complaining about it. It's aggressive, tedious, and predictable. I don't mind the anti-AEDU complaints so much; AEDU is integral to 4e. But picking on one single one of five options available to a 7th level fighter in the PHB alone is like picking on one single bad spell (like Phantom Trap) and arbitrarily elavating it to Everything That Is Wrong (TM).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think I should clarify a few things, as I did a poor job explaining myself in my original post.

First, I'm not suggesting that wizards should be just the way they were in past editions. I'm fine with reducing the number of spell slots, having concentration to limit spell stacking, and reducing the power of spells that were problematic in past editions. What I object to is the notion that wizards shouldn't be able to do things like fly or teleport at all. I think there are plenty of ways of balancing such powers without removing them from the game entirely.

Second, no, I don't want fighters to be able to fly or teleport (unless they have magic items, rituals or some other magical means of doing so, of course). What I want is for them to have thematically appropriate abilities for the other two non-combat pillars of play. Obviously they aren't going to do things like fly or turn people into toads. But there are plenty of things that they could do that would be amazing and powerful without being magical, such as skill tricks similar to those the rogue gets, but a different list of tricks that is thematically appropriate for the fighter class. The avantage these things would have over magic is their ease of use. You wouldn't see a fighter's "inspiring presence" have a daily limit or be able to be dispelled. That's where there's balance. Yes, a wizard can do things a fighter never can, but his powers also have limits and drawbacks that a fighter's powers don't.

I'm sure various things have been said in the bulk of the thread, but basically I am just wondering what you are asking for. It seems like it would be succinctly summed up as "I want DDN fighters and wizards to be like 4e fighters and wizards" because IMHO your OP pretty much describes 4e perfectly.

As to the question of why nobody is complaining about the inequality in 4e, 2 things... 1) People HAVE complained about it. They've complained about the fighter's too-few skills, and they have noted many times that if you really push things the wizard is a more flexible type of character, which brings up; 2) Things in 4e aren't perfection, they are just about 900x better than in 3.5 where non-full-casters were a bad joke, and 5x better than AD&D where non-casters are pretty much dead weight after level 9, though at least they can still contribute in limited ways.

Anyway, I think you basically answered the thread in the OP

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's simply not encouraged as PCs and NPCs don't work the same way.

As for NPC fighters using CAGI, it's simple maths. PCs are considered every bit as exceptional in 4e as they were in AD&D when the majority of humanoids were level 0. Very few of them are going to have non at-will PC type powers - and those that do will be elites, and almost all signature bad guys (whether the BBEG or a notable lieutenant). An NPC that signature only IME crops up every few levels. There were 25 separate PC classes even pre-essentials so using a fighter as a base is comparatively rare (even accounting for weighting I'd expect Warlocks, Blackguards, and Wizards to all outnumber fighters at this level of distinction). Then that named bad guy needs a specific level 7 (or level 23) encounter power. There are four other encounter powers at that level in the PHB - and about a further dozen in other books.

Now if a serious adversary were to have CAGI, it would be brown underwear time for the PCs - but I doubt they'd object, even pre-errata. It would either be the major villain or the villain's chief enforcer, and part of an epic fight. It would probably only happen once in an entire adventuring career, and be a defining point of a battle with a greatly feared adversary.

On the other hand if Random Thug #2 had CAGI, the players would probably object. In much they same way they would if random thugs started throwing around Hold Person or Glitterdust.

Meh, I use all sorts of powers as monster powers, and that is mentioned in several places as standard fare for 4e NPC design. The thing with powers like CaGI is just that they're complex and fiddly. There are PLENTY of standard 4e monsters that have encounter powers, even a few minions that do, but they are rarely anything like as complex as CaGI. Standard monsters are GENERALLY expected to be suitable to be used in multiples in a fight. If you look at the DMG's encounter templates you will see that most encounters have 2 or at most 3 monster types, so you would expect a standard to be suitable to deploy in 2's and 3's. A standard with CaGI probably wouldn't fill that criteria, BUT there are still extant official monsters that have equally complex powers. Presumably you just use them sparingly. Obviously an Elite or Solo with CaGI would be some sort of more significant encounter, probably with plot dimensions to it.

So, IMHO, [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] 's question is best answered that it isn't discouraged at all. It is just most likely that the DM will find it easier and more effective to use complicated powers sparingly. As in most action films the vast majority of 'mooks' are nondescript and don't evince any specific special capability. A few of them will show some menacing looking trick or other (the big NAZI in Indiana Jones that gets killed by the propeller for instance) but will be defeated fairly easily. Then there will be that one guy, like Vizzini, who has various powers and is tricky to defeat. You wouldn't bother to draw attention to a mook by giving it CaGI, you'd give it to Count Rugen instead.

 

[innerdude]

At least for my part, there is no doubt that some players experience "dissociation". My concern, though, is whether this is a mechanical phenomenon or a psychological/experiential phenomenon. And it seems to me that it is the latter - ie a certain sort of experience that some players have when using martial metagame mechanics with karmic rather than fortune resolution.

But exactly the same mechanics don't cause "dissociation" in other players - ie don't stop them inhabiting their PC and playing the game from their PC's perspective.

Ah ah ah hah! Okay, now it's starting make sense why we're talking around each other here. One of the key premises of Alexander's entire argument is that the act of "dissociation"--players making decisions outside the boundaries of those the character can make within the milieu--is inevitably and irrevocably "leaving the PC's perspective." It's a direct 1-to-1 correlation; you make a "dissociated" decision, you are necessarily not roleplaying at that exact moment. As soon as the player "re-enters" their "PC Habitation" space, he or she is then "roleplaying" again.

In the Alexandrian's theory, the act of "roleplaying" (at least as it ties to mechanical resolution, and not merely "freeform storytelling") is inextricably tied to the association / dissociation binary. When working within an RPG's mechanical resolution structures, "roleplaying" is made possible through decision-making association.

Now, you can argue with this premise, certainly. But if you accept the baseline premise, then the act of "dissociation" is necessarily a form of removing the player from their "PC Habitation." And if you accept the premise, the question becomes, does/do the player(s) care when this happens, and how often, and how long does it last, and is their play agenda predicated on maintaining that "PC Habitation" at all? If you DO care that it happens, and you want it to happen as little as possible, and when it DOES happen it lasts as short a time as possible, then your affinity for a given mechanic or set of mechanics will vary wildly. (And likewise for the opposite. If the player doesn't care, doesn't have a preference for maintaining "PC Habitation", then things that cause "breaks" in that habitation don't bother him or her. I think most of us prefer a middle ground, where we sacrifice some "PC Habitation" time for other interesting results, to speed up play, or to make things "thematically appropriate." I personally just don't like sacrificing very much of it.)

For example, pemerton, you've widely cited the example of your player saying that the Raven Queen actually "caused" a saving throw success, citing that it was a "thematically appropriate" to the fiction, and caused the player to be more immersed, because that's what should happen when you're a paladin of the Raven Queen. An interesting conversation to me would be to compare my approach to that player's approach, and see where the similarities, and differences lie in how we view our "PC Habitation" space, and how a rules system aids or detracts from it. It would be fun to hear his perspective, to gain some understanding.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah ah ah hah! Okay, now it's starting make sense why we're talking around each other here. One of the key premises of Alexander's entire argument is that the act of "dissociation"--players making decisions outside the boundaries of those the character can make within the milieu--is inevitably and irrevocably "leaving the PC's perspective." It's a direct 1-to-1 correlation; you make a "dissociated" decision, you are necessarily not roleplaying at that exact moment. As soon as the player "re-enters" their "PC Habitation" space, he or she is then "roleplaying" again.

And I say once more "AD&D combat is incredibly disassociated." When my PC is put on autopilot (as it is for 55 seconds out of every minute in OSRIC and AD&D combat) I have left the boundaries of my PC's perspective. I have left the boundaries of my PC's perspective for literally 90% of the time in OSRIC and AD&D combat; I can neither see what is happening nor choose what I am doing. This is disassociated. Therefore I am disassociated literally 90% of the time in AD&D combat. And after that anything about 4e being disassociated feels like making mountains out of molehills.

On the other hand I do not accept Justin Alexander's thesis that stepping beyond your character's physical boundaries is necessarily disassociated. When experiencing flow in a chess game or a boardgame I could tell what my opponent was going to do before they did. I can even manipulate them into doing it. I'm not looking at just myself at my limits, I'm looking at the whole board with myself as a piece on it. And I'm certainly better able to deal with things and control them than five foot abstractions would indicate.

 

[TwoSix]

On the other hand I do not accept Justin Alexander's thesis that stepping beyond your character's physical boundaries is necessarily disassociated.

I don't think JA is making an argument, he's framing a definition. Disassociation = "stepping beyond the boundaries of the character." I freely admit that you can define the word in other ways, because we're discussing what is, for us, technical jargon.

 

[Guest 85555]

On the other hand I do not accept Justin Alexander's thesis that stepping beyond your character's physical boundaries is necessarily disassociated. When experiencing flow in a chess game or a boardgame I could tell what my opponent was going to do before they did. I can even manipulate them into doing it. I'm not looking at just myself at my limits, I'm looking at the whole board with myself as a piece on it. And I'm certainly better able to deal with things and control them than five foot abstractions would indicate.

But you are not actually contolling your opponent. He or she is still making decisions. All you are doing is shaping the environment in which those decisions are made. Just like if you taunt me, then i get mad and type a profanity in big screaming letters. You didnt control my behavior, i did. I chose not just to type big screaming letters but also to let your post provoke my anger. You are still very much inhabiting yourself and not experiencing the world from my point of view (you might try to guess what I am thinking or how I will react, but it is just an estimation). There is a huge difference between having chess rules that liiterally allow you to move my pieces versus the current rules where you can try to create conditions where i will move some place you anticipate.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think JA is making an argument, he's framing a definition. Disassociation = "stepping beyond the boundaries of the character." I freely admit that you can define the word in other ways, because we're discussing what is, for us, technical jargon.

If that's what he's trying to say (distinct from innerdude's summary) then I'm saying that making decisions beyond physical boundaries is an entirely orthoganal concept to leaving the character's perspective. And that if I don't make decisions beyond the physical boundaries of my character then I've left my character's perspective because my character knows what is around them in ways not directly communicated to me. If I'm restricted to the narrow pipe based on information conveyed by my DM then, no matter how good my DM, I'm walking round wearing earmuffs and blinders. If I can work on OODA loops and see and as a consequence of seeing act, I'm in my character's head however I got there rather than being locked away from the gameworld.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But you are not actually contolling your opponent. He or she is still making decisions. All you are doing is shaping the environment in which those decisions are made. Just like if you taunt me, then i get mad and type a profanity in big screaming letters. You didnt control my behavior, i did. I chose not just to type big screaming letters but also to let your post provoke my anger. You are still very much inhabiting yourself and not experiencing the world from my point of view (you might try to guess what I am thinking or how I will react, but it is just an estimation). There is a huge difference between having chess rules that liiterally allow you to move my pieces versus the current rules where you can try to create conditions where i will move some place you anticipate.

All tabletop RPG rules are, of necessity, a simplification. If you take away my ability to strongly influence an opponent, you take away my ability to play effective chess. I accept the idea that I (or you - I don't care) should have to roll for CAGI - but unless you want to zoom in to a level of detail where I roll at least every second I do not accept the idea that I can not strongly guide your actions. This objection comes under the heading of "Combat rounds are every six seconds. Do you only make one sword stroke in that time or are we abstracting to get to the outcome?" If we're in stop-motion, only acting once every six seconds, I find the whole thing ridiculous. If I'm not allowed to try to bring you where I want as part of a block of time then you've effectively nullified my ability to influence the world around me. If you want to go into enough detail, we're going to, as I say, need rolls every second.