D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[EzekielRaiden]

Got a source for that? Any edition of D&D works better as a team based game.

How players work togather varies.

It's not a source thing. It's...it's just the meaning of what a "team based game" is.

If it's team based, you need teamwork to succeed. Otherwise, your success is blind luck.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not a source thing. It's...it's just the meaning of what a "team based game" is.

If it's team based, you need teamwork to succeed. Otherwise, your success is blind luck.

Depends. I've commented on what my groups do enough.

 

[CreamCloud0]

My apologies, I didn't mean it in a bad way.

no worries, there was no offence taken, though i am a bit surprised that Command is not on the Wizard list, feels like something they'd have, to me at least.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm deadly serious here. I find this utterly baffling and not one example folks have given has changed that. It just all sounds like you pre-emptively decided "Anyone ever telling me what to do, for any reason, even if it's nothing more than offering me a benefit, HAS STOLEN MY CHARACTER!"

tangentially, this kind of possessiveness of character autonomy is also partly why i think it's so hard to suggest a proper social mechanics system, because Oh no my character might be persuaded to do something i don't explicitly condone them wanting to do!

 

[Remathilis]

tangentially, this kind of possessiveness of character autonomy is also partly why i think it's so hard to suggest a proper social mechanics system, because Oh no my character might be persuaded to do something i don't explicitly condone them wanting to do!

But it does beg the question that if a characters thoughts and actions are both controlled by mechanics, what is the point of "roleplay"? For example, if the DM says "you believe the merchant is honest" because they rolled high on their deception, that still doesn't mean I will buy the colored water he is pawning as potions of healing. And if you tell me I have no reason to believe the huckster is anything but honest, you basically have taken away the ability to play the character in a way I see fit.

I have a very finite limit on what I deem acceptable when it comes to influencing my character. You can give me as many carrots or use as many sticks as you want, but my declared action (or my characters beliefs) are decided by me alone unless overt magical powers overrides that. You don't get to tell me that my character feels afraid or gullible or compelled to run up to a armed warrior black ninja style. You can give me super disadvantage and force me to take psychic damage if I resist, but I want the option to resist. Otherwise why am I playing a character rather than a pawn in a board game?*


* I remember once playing the Game of Life with some kids in the day care I worked at. At one point I was deeply in debt and drew the card that said I bought a helicopter. My brain initially resisted the notion saying that there is no way I would buy an expensive item like that while in debt, but I realized it's not supposed to represent a rational person acting, it's a random chance mechanic disguised as a real world action. So unless D&D is supposed to exist on the same level of logic, I refuse to buy a helicopter regardless of how well you roll on persuasion when I'm already deep in debt.

 

[Gimby]

Given the nasty side-effects of Haste (in the version I'm used to, anyway) it very much could be seen as CvC at times.

Also, and this is from a how-does-this-make-sense-in -the-fiction perspective, why would martial control abilities only apply to enemies rather than to whoever the controller wants them to? In other words, what's the difference between an ally and an enemy that makes one vulnerable but the other not?

For 4e Warlord abilities at least, the difference is physical. The warlord can push/pull/slide allies because they are doing something context dependant to make it easier for their allies to move. And if the ally doesn't want to move, they don't, because the technical definition of an ally means you are a willing target of a power.

If they want to use forced movement on an enemy, they need to be doing something that forces them to do that (the vast bulk of these abilities involve hitting the intended with something dangerous) and if you want to use one of these on a member of your party or a friendly/neutral NPC, you just designate them as an enemy first. But you'll still have to hit them to get them to move.

In general 4e, martials tend not to get Creature targeting effects - things that take effect regardless of willingness - they tend to use the Ally/Enemy split to make it clear that, in general (before someone brings up Come and Get It) it's physical force that's causing movement.

 

[CreamCloud0]

But it does beg the question that if a characters thoughts and actions are both controlled by mechanics, what is the point of "roleplay"? For example, if the DM says "you believe the merchant is honest" because they rolled high on their deception, that still doesn't mean I will buy the colored water he is pawning as potions of healing. And if you tell me I have no reason to believe the huckster is anything but honest, you basically have taken away the ability to play the character in a way I see fit.

I have a very finite limit on what I deem acceptable when it comes to influencing my character. You can give me as many carrots or use as many sticks as you want, but my declared action (or my characters beliefs) are decided by me alone unless overt magical powers overrides that. You don't get to tell me that my character feels afraid or gullible or compelled to run up to a armed warrior black ninja style. You can give me super disadvantage and force me to take psychic damage if I resist, but I want the option to resist. Otherwise why am I playing a character rather than a pawn in a board game?*


* I remember once playing the Game of Life with some kids in the day care I worked at. At one point I was deeply in debt and drew the card that said I bought a helicopter. My brain initially resisted the notion saying that there is no way I would buy an expensive item like that while in debt, but I realized it's not supposed to represent a rational person acting, it's a random chance mechanic disguised as a real world action. So unless D&D is supposed to exist on the same level of logic, I refuse to buy a helicopter regardless of how well you roll on persuasion when I'm already deep in debt.

no, but see, there's that emotional possessiveness i was just talking about, you'd like to believe your character was more sensible than that, that they'd see through the ruse, that they wouldn't buy the coloured water, but part of roleplaying is accepting the scenario you are presented with, you failed the insight check, so your character thinks those bottles are full of potion, you don't get to think better than your character because you don't like the scenario.