Come and Get it. An explanation ?

[Aloïsius]

Note that I don't critic the usefulness of the power, or its balance. On a purely gamist point of view, this kind of power is perfect.

But when you are trying to describe it "in world" your DM's skill can really be challenged.
The best solution I read is the use of synchronism "they did not run that far because you yelled at them". Ok, I can live with that, when we are speaking about gobelins. But swarms ? Oozes ? They have removed the "charm" keyword in those kind of power, it makes thing really hard for the DM IMHO.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like to visualize some involuntary movement as relative out-manuevering. The Tactical Warlord didn't really cause all his enemies to slide around like chess pieces, he lead his party against them from a different direction than they expected, or tricked them into springing thier ambush too early, or some other tactical subterfuge that left them exposed - they may not have moved at all, it was really the party that was positioned differently, it's just the slide is the mechanic to model the effect.

So, if you want to visualize it, think of it that way, the goblins didn't turn around and come back, the fighter put on an extra burst of speed and they turned at bay thinking they couldn't escape. Yes, 'logically' that should put the fighter a couple squares farther away from the party or nearer the door the goblilns were running for or whatever, but that's not the point, the point is, he gets to catch them and attack them.


A lot of 4e powers are really more like drama powers rather than simulation powers, though. Come and Get It is a candidate for that. It might not the fighter /doing/ anything at all, just the fighter's player/actor going "this scene should go like an old hong-kong kung-fu flick, where the mooks come at the hero they know they can't take one at a time and he kicks the sh*t out of them, just to establish how badass he is..." And the DM/director is like "OK, but it'll get trite if we do that too often..."

 

[LostSoul]

But when you are trying to describe it "in world" your DM's skill can really be challenged.
The best solution I read is the use of synchronism "they did not run that far because you yelled at them". Ok, I can live with that, when we are speaking about gobelins. But swarms ? Oozes ? They have removed the "charm" keyword in those kind of power, it makes thing really hard for the DM IMHO.

House rule:

When you want to do something - make a skill check, use a power, a basic attack, whatever - you have to describe what you're doing and how it works "in world". If someone thinks your description is beyond stupid, then you can't do it.

However, if you don't have a power that describes what you're trying to do, but your description makes sense "in world", you'll get to roll for it. Page 42 is our guide to resolving your action.​

Basically shifting responsibility from explaining this stuff from the DM to the player, and keeping the focus on "in world" stuff.

 

[Storminator]

While in the odd place here and there it can be problematic, it can also be awesome.

I'm picturing my fighter walking to the villain's bar, throwing over a table, and starting a hell of a bar fight with that that power...

PS

 

[Lizard]

Don't think about the power in a meta sense; look at it purely by situational roleplay. You have several foes running away, when the Fighter feigns weakness. Instead of the Goblins running away, they turn about again and attempt one last swat at their foe.
.

And if the goblins are casters with ranged attacks far superior to any melee attacks?

"Hey, look, he's off-balance! Hmmm...I *could* just fry him from here, but he said mean things about my mother, so, instead of using my powerful attack, I will instead close and use an ineffective ability, 'cause I'm just that mad! Even if my int is 18 and my Will defense is my highest! Yeah!"

It might make a lot more sense if it at least required an attack vs. will....

 

[illwizard]

Or you could rename it 'Get over here', call your fighter PC 'Scorpion' and continue with Kombat. Problem solved.

 

[Danzauker]

Note that I don't critic the usefulness of the power, or its balance. On a purely gamist point of view, this kind of power is perfect.

But when you are trying to describe it "in world" your DM's skill can really be challenged.
The best solution I read is the use of synchronism "they did not run that far because you yelled at them". Ok, I can live with that, when we are speaking about gobelins. But swarms ? Oozes ? They have removed the "charm" keyword in those kind of power, it makes thing really hard for the DM IMHO.

Those kind of powers don't have a "charm" keyword because they are not compulsions. In facts they work equally well with oozes and constructs. Actually if they were charms I'd say meh at having them in the martial source.

They are out-manouvers, at least as I see them. The DM places the enemies where they wanted to go. The player places them where they actually ended, due to his powers and actions.

See it like this:

- enemy wizard casts sleep. Rolls vs. PC defence. Ha-ha! He hits! Now you are asleep!

- PC rolls saving throw. He makes. No way, dear DM, I'm just dizzy

That's the same thing. DM wanted to do something. He seemed to succeed. The player's action thwarted his plans.

The big paradigm shift in 4e is that powers represent effects, and just that, while most of the causes are left to the imagination of players.

Personally, I found that I prefer to descrive the actions of the whole round just after the monsters turn. Sort of a recap of what actually happened on the battlefield. Monsters have less "reality shifting" powers compared to PCs, so it's easy to consider all that happened in the round more or less simultaneous.

 

[wedgeski]

Indeed this all just comes down to not seeing combat as the abstracted set of rounds it is in the game, but as a melee in which the actions of all the participants move the fight from state A to state B. I have toyed with idea of narrating a combat only at the end of a round... staying in pure gaming territory while the actions of the players and their foes are played out, and then at the close of the round, narrating the 'story' of that round in a way that incorporates these actions into a logical outcome.

Having said that it's very easy to retcon the actions of a combatant to fit the logic of a subsequent attack. If you strive to imagine combat in 'reality' playing out the same way it plays out at the table, you're just going to run into trouble, and honestly it's not the game's fault if you end up in difficult, apparently illogical territory.

 

[Bagpuss]

I mean, WHY would, let say, three fleeing creatures suddenly stop, reverse their course and move so that they can be eviscerated ? If I understand this power correctly, the pull can't be resisted, as the attack happen after.

They see he's closing on them and decide to stand and fight rather than get cut down from behind.

The goblin's fleeing was just a bluff to get one of the group to chance after them and then they turn to trap him, unfortunately they didn't release the chap they 'pulled' into their trap was ready for them.

It isn't hard to do, once you realise that powers give players some narrative control over NPC actions.

 

[LostSoul]

And if the goblins are casters with ranged attacks far superior to any melee attacks?

Yep, that one's hard to see and probably one of the best uses (tactically) for the power.

It might make a lot more sense if it at least required an attack vs. will....

Attack: Str vs. Will
Hit: 1[W] + Str modifier damage, and each target must shift...