Is "you can, but at a penatly" the same as "you can't?"

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The stakes are usually pretty high in combat. Only if PCs are completely steamrolling their opponents are they likely to take "suboptimal" actions.

I think it's basic psychology. If given a choice between $10, or a 50% chance of $20 and a 50% chance of $0, people go for the $20 because the possibility of losing $20 looms large in their mind. It only gets worse if the choice comes with actual risk (such as provoking an opportunity attack).

My players take OAs all the time in 4e; they see it as a fair risk. They were also perfectly willing to accept Disadvantages in the playtest for the same reasons, but anyone mention a "minus" to a roll and nooooooo... dismissed out of hand.

(Math is scary.)

The one PC I saw deliberately provoke opportunity attacks had a ridiculously high AC score for his level (especially vs OAs, being a halfling Charismatic rogue) and had a daily power that let him counterattack. It was actually beneficial to provoke OAs.

I might have forgotten a few examples when PCs were dealing with incredibly wimpy opponents, but I've seen them try to avoid provoking OAs from minions.

In my last session, I saw a PC provoke an OA. It wasn't really a "willing" situation but the stakes were incredibly high. A PC barbarian had been stabbed by an assassin, whose special power prevents the target from healing until an adjacent character spends a standard action making a Heal check to end the effect. The assassin then used an action point to turn invisible. Then said barbarian PC got show by archers, dropping to 3 hit points above negative bloodied (so PC was down, very likely to die). The cleric was only two squares away and could shift to Heal him and then Healing Word him for a lot. Unfortunately, difficult terrain lay between the cleric and the barbarian. The player tried to find a way to get to him while shifting but couldn't. He just walked, provoked an OA, took damage...

 

[MichaelSomething]

Generally, there's "there a big risk, but the reward is worth it," which is okay, "there's a huge/little risk, which isn't worth taking/totally worth doing," which is uninteresting, and ,"NO! I can't risk it! Something bad may happen," which is wimpy.

The first is great, the second isn't, and the third is annoying (and the reason why I made this thread in the first place).

 

[Campbell]

There's a definite psychological edge that penalties have on players. Back when I still played 3e I saw this effect in action quite frequently where when presented with point buy based character creation barely any character ever started with less than a 10 in any given ability score. There's something about negative numbers that gamers find distasteful.

 

[prosfilaes]

Back when I still played 3e I saw this effect in action quite frequently where when presented with point buy based character creation barely any character ever started with less than a 10 in any given ability score. There's something about negative numbers that gamers find distasteful.

I don't necessarily disagree with the point that people avoid penalties they should rationally take, but I think your example has problems. In any system where you could go arbitrarily low, certain people's characters had stuff like 3's or 4's or even 6's in some stats; in many places, doing that would earn you the denigration "munchkin". So there's some social opprobrium connected to low stats.

Also, in the DMG 3 system, you can't go below an 8, and you can raise 3 stats from 8 to 10 for the same points it takes to raise one stat from 16 to 18. You're trading a +1 to Will saves, a +1 to Fort saves and an extra HP a level, and a +1 to AC and Reflex saves for a two point bump (+1) in one stat.* Is that really worth it? Maybe dropping INT (but that costs you a skill point per level) or STR (but even a wizard needs to carry stuff, and even the magical backpacks can encumber someone with a low enough STR) or CHR (but... okay, there's a reason why I often see characters with sub-10 CHR). I suspect you're seeing decently high point buys, too; if you had a 14-point point buy, I suspect you'd see a lot of 8s.

(I understand that D&D 4 has most stats unlowerable below 10? So apparently someone was doing it.)

 

[Aberzanzorax]

There is a crucial issue at work here. "Yes you can, but with a penalty" should create a tough, and therefore interesting choice - Do I ignore the mark, take the damage, but take the Wizard out? Do I take the risk of the disarm, but potentially end the fight?

It's therefore important that the penalty and the benefit are in proportion.

If I could XP this, I would.

It just about perfectly answers the OP's question, and succinctly at that.

 

[Janx]

There's a definite psychological edge that penalties have on players. Back when I still played 3e I saw this effect in action quite frequently where when presented with point buy based character creation barely any character ever started with less than a 10 in any given ability score. There's something about negative numbers that gamers find distasteful.

Along that same line, all the fancy combat maneuvers are expressed as a penalty to hit to get the special effect. The unspoken part is that this is compared to the default basic attack, which has no penalty.

As a result, when players are looking for an alternative action to take, it is ultimately in reference to the basic, unpenalized attack.

Generally, people are looking for "better" actions to take, not "worse" actions to take. They see the different effect than damage as being an equal exchange and the penalty to-hit as being the WorseThan part.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's a simple question, but I think I'll need to explain the context when it comes to RPGs.

One example of this is 4E marking. Mark abilities never say "you can't attack my allies." They say, "if you attack my allies, I get to do something to you." Some people feel quite constrained by that, feeling that these mark abilities stop their ability to decide how the monster attacks. The presence of the mark ability seems to simply over ride all options to them.

Another example is the 3E combat maneuvers. While they are options for disarming, tripping, etc. many people felt they were no real options all. After all, drawing an attack of opportunity for a small chance to slightly disable a monster is a huge waste of time and resources when you can simply attack for damage (of course, you could take feats to make a maneuver good, but then that generally became your default move).

So is "you can, but at a penalty" the same as "you can't?" Is this a bad question to ask?

Functionally the two are almost identical for most gamers. Most gamers seem to avoid penalties like the plague in favor of a more sure tactic.

But to me, "No you just can't" is horribly video-gamist while "Yes but at a penalty" is part of why I don't only play Diablo.

Defender marks are awesome because I can, and do, get to provoke them fairly often. Sometimes provoking is the fun or smart or last desperate thing I can do.

3e maneuvers are somewhat less interesting due to the heavy penalties and AoOs involved, but occasionally they do come in handy. Up lycanthrope creek without a silver weapon? Grapple! And hope somebody knows the rules...

And just to throw in another example, "No you can't use an edged weapon!" is horribly immersion breaking. Really? What's to stop me from picking up a sword and swinging it? The invisible hand of the DM? Whereas "You can use an edged weapon, but at a penalty due to lack of training and oh you'll lose access to your spells because you've broken a holy vow" is almost identical functionally but much more reasonable.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

There's a definite psychological edge that penalties have on players. Back when I still played 3e I saw this effect in action quite frequently where when presented with point buy based character creation barely any character ever started with less than a 10 in any given ability score. There's something about negative numbers that gamers find distasteful.

I've seen certain players especially avoid stat penalties like the plague. Even when playing an antisocial ranger, one guy never had less than a 10 in anything including Charisma.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One of the most fun things in D&D is when you, for whatever reason, choose to attempt something with a low mathematical chance of success, and succeed.

Is a penalty the same as saying you can't do something? An emphatic no.

 

[Argyle King]

Q: Is "you can, but at a penatly" the same as "you can't?"

A: No


"You can't" contains a lack of choice.

"You can, but at a penalty" allows an assessment of risk versus reward.

One is saying something is impossible; one is saying something is possible. One is saying yes; one is saying no.