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

[Garthanos]

Technically Bilbo was doing a Taunt ... which may be the appearance of a CaGi but that isnt the only manner it shows itself.

There is a fencing move called... an Invitation. Its a deception that involves leaving a false opening to sucker an attack along a defined path which you are ready for and which enables you to if it works get an extra strike in.

 

[Garthanos]

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...

Some will just think of what they like as "player enabling" and "fun" without identifying the why.

 

[Guest 85555]

There is a fencing move called... an Invitation. Its a deception that involves leaving a false opening to sucker an attack along a defined path which you are ready for and which enables you to if it works get an extra strike in.

Sure and I understand this explanation works for many who like the power, but for me the fact that in this situation you are just presenting conditions to influence what your opponent does not match what come and get it does (which is force the person to move adjacent to you). If it lured opponents in by giving you an AC penalty but an attack or damage bonus, i think that would make more sense.

 

[Garthanos]

Sure and I understand this explanation works for many who like the power, but for me the fact that in this situation you are just presenting conditions to influence what your opponent does not match what come and get it does (which is force the person to move adjacent to you). If it lured opponents in by giving you an AC penalty but an attack or damage bonus, i think that would make more sense.

It did lure them to you by making it seem like you had a penalty you really didnt ... if the move doesnt work you failed to trick them in to doing what you want they dont take the bait. Its as simple as that.

 

[Guest 85555]

It did lure them to you by making it seem like you had a penalty you really didnt ... if the move doesnt work you failed to trick them in to doing what you want they dont take the bait. Its as simple as that.

I understand your position, as it is one other posters have already stated. i just find that you are still controlling the character not actually luring them in. My Approach is more incentive based and would be less immersion breaking for me. Still it isnt a mechanic I think the game needs, but if you are going to do it, for me it works better if it is something likeing taking an AC penalty and getting a bonus to attack. Again, as I have said to others if come nd get it works for your sense of belivability, that is fine. I am not saying it is objectively disruptive. Just that I find it so as do many others.

 

[Manbearcat]

If it lured opponents in by giving you an AC penalty but an attack or damage bonus, i think that would make more sense.

See but this is where the huge disconnect is. You're working off of a premise that a martial actor (in non-combat sport, in martial combat, or in fencing) is incentivizing an advance by an enemy by truly lowering their defense or their guard. The reality is that this isn't the case. They're not truly lowering their guard. They want their enemy to think they are and thus they are testing their opponent's ability to detect minor inconsistencies between a truly lowered guard or position of weakness from and a mimicked lowered and a position of strength; hence the attack vs Will.

A basketball guard putting a crossover dribble on their defender (shaking left and going right) isn't exposing themselves to a higher than normal turnover potential; they're testing the defender's ability to perceive and react (neurologically and physically). The same thing goes for a running back and a tackler...and a quarterback and running back executing a play-action fake versus linebackers or safeties...and tennis players backing off a big forehand at the last second and executing a drop shot. The exact same thing goes for martial combat.

Even if that were not true (which it absolutely is)...just for gamist interests alone (actually legitimizing these tactics so they manifest in game rather than being relegated to the dustbin of "worthless expenditures of my action economy"), you don't want to make these kinds of actions punitive for the person attempting to execute them.

 

[Manbearcat]

It did lure them to you by making it seem like you had a penalty you really didnt ... if the move doesnt work you failed to trick them in to doing what you want they dont take the bait. Its as simple as that.

We cross-posted but this is exactly right.

 

[Garthanos]

just that I find it so as do many others.

I really dont get what is disruptive about a "standard" fencing trick working or not according to a single roll there are much more elaborate activities which are done that way

You cannot decieve the all seeing DM the mechanics for decieving a npc cannot be based on trying to...

Yes sometimes inducement is fun... which is by the way is the mechanic impact of a fighters marking.

 

[Guest 85555]

See but this is where the huge disconnect is. You're working off of a premise that a martial actor (in non-combat sport, in martial combat, or in fencing) is incentivizing an advance by an enemy by truly lowering their defense or their guard. The reality is that this isn't the case. They're not truly lowering their guard. They want their enemy to think they are and thus they are testing their opponent's ability to detect minor inconsistencies between a truly lowered guard or position of weakness from and a mimicked lowered and a position of strength; hence the attack vs Will.

i am picturing a situation where you are, even if not substantially, lowering your defense in some way to provoke an attack. I have no experience in fencing but this is something you do in boxing and martial arts all the time. There are certainly more subtle maneuvers as well and pyschological approaches. But my feelings toward those are the same as my feeling toward RP, that should be handled more by role play (or at the very least the precise reaction of the foe should be handled by the GM). Again, if you disagree, that is fine. I dont think you need to agree with me. Bt nothing you are saying here is changing my mind about come and get it.

 

[Garthanos]

Even if that were not true (which it absolutely is)...just for gamist interests alone (actually legitimizing these tactics so they manifest in game rather than being relegated to the dustbin of "worthless expenditures of my action economy"), you don't want to make these kinds of actions punitive for the person attempting to execute them.

I try my awesome.. move... damn I try my awesome move... damn... I try my awesome move

No lets just hit on its toe.