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

[Hussar]

Uhm... ok, so it dictates your (possible) target but not how you attack... ranged (avoiding the "stupid Archer/Weak Melee problem of CaGi), spell (avoiding the "stupid Spellcaster problem of CaGi), or melee. It also doesn't control where or how you move. And if you have an area attack, as long as you also target the knight, you can target others as well.

On top of all that it also states that if an enemy can take an AoO in getting to the Knight... an enemy can choose to use a ranged attack and/or doesn't have to attack him at all, (avoiding another aspect of the "stupid Archer/Spellcaster/Weak Melee problem of CaGi...)

For mind control it sure leaves alot of choices up to the DM playing those creatures. Just Sayin...

You're kidding right?

Moving an archer 10 feet when you are already in effectively melee combat is totally unbelievable and total control over the archer.

Forcing an archer to attack YOU and ignore that wizard buffing you, cleric healing you and the rogue walking around behind him to stab him in the back, for a minimum of FIVE ROUNDS is totally believable and not mind control?

Wow. Just Sayin'

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm pretty much done with this conversation. I've put out there what I want to put out there and people can engage with it or not. I just wanted to clarify that there are 4e NPC effects (typically Soldiers - eg NPC Fighters) that work as CaGI. Case in point for the Centurion (Note that the title intimates martial wrong-footing while attacking Will and there is no Weapon keyword signifying that this is actual tactical footwork at play):

Positioning Style (minor 1/turn, at-will) Close burst 2; targets one enemy in burst; Attack vs Will; slide the target 3 squares.

 

[Hussar]

And, it would be REALLY helpful if people would bother to read the manual.

Pre-Errata, you don't actually get to move the target to any square. The target gets a 2 square free shift (which won't work in rough terrain) and must end it's movement adjacent to you. If it can't move adjacent, it doesn't move at all.

IOW, the baddies can move into flanking positions around you for free with this power.

So, tell me again, how this is a total control effect. The only control you exert is the requirement that the baddie must be adjacent to you. That's it. Considering the baddie can be, at most 15 feet away from you to start with, umm, you've basically started in melee combat already.

Compared to an effect that lasts for pretty much an entire fight. Yeah, that's the same thing all right.

 

[Guest 85555]

Then suggest an alternative. What mechanic can we use that will allow a non-magical method to influence the actions of another character with a reasonable (let's say 75%) chance of success?

firstly, I dont think a mechanic like this is needed. I think it is best left to the GM andpayers to role play stuff like taunting. But if you do need a feint mechanic or something similar I have already proposed several alternatives in the thread. Secondly, whether I propose an alternative or not doesn't change how I and others feel about this sort of mechanic. My point is I don't want a button that makes the other guy move where I want him. I am totally fine with stuff that increases the chances of him voluntarily going somewhere (because there is a possible advantage of doing so or what have you). But for me come and get it is enormously disruptive to my sense of immersion. We are not negotiating a system here, we are just saying this is why we don't like stuff like Come and get it. I was fine in previous editions when you didn't really have it.

 

[Guest 85555]

And, it would be REALLY helpful if people would bother to read the manual.

Pre-Errata, you don't actually get to move the target to any square. The target gets a 2 square free shift (which won't work in rough terrain) and must end it's movement adjacent to you. If it can't move adjacent, it doesn't move at all.

IOW, the baddies can move into flanking positions around you for free with this power.

So, tell me again, how this is a total control effect. The only control you exert is the requirement that the baddie must be adjacent to you. That's it. Considering the baddie can be, at most 15 feet away from you to start with, umm, you've basically started in melee combat already.

Compared to an effect that lasts for pretty much an entire fight. Yeah, that's the same thing all right.

You are effectively moving the target to a square adjacent to you. It says right in the text, if it can, it must. That is control.

 

[Guest 85555]

And, it would be REALLY helpful if people would bother to read the manual.

i would appreciate if you didn't accuse people of either not reading the book or not knowing the system. This is a conversation and there are legitimate reasons to dispute mechanics other than not having read the book. FYI i pulled out my 4E PHB long ago in this conversation and read over the power. And I just checked it again after you said this.

 

[Garthanos]

Player Character created deceptions and tricks causing enemies to do things they dont really want to ... by making it look like it is something they want is exactly how these things generally work. Even if the player is one hundred percent in control of the result that isnt what is happening in the narrative.

 

[Garthanos]

Bilbo Baggins used "come and get it" to great effect vs giant spiders..

 

[Warbringer]

I'll say one thing about this thread that I really hadn't appreciated before, Next really has its work cut out for it... The differences in the editions are not mechanical in nature, they are player stance driven.

Not seeing how Next is creating this level of player actor stance...

 

[Guest 85555]

I'll say one thing about this thread that I really hadn't appreciated before, Next really has its work cut out for it... The differences in the editions are not mechanical in nature, they are player stance driven.

Not seeing how Next is creating this level of player actor stance...

perhaps. But there are only a handful of posters actively involved in this thread so they probably want to be careful about taking such a discussion as representative of anything more than a disagreement between four to six forum members over a particular set of mechanics.