Just thought I would say

[The_Universe]

Wouldn't that infringe on DC's trademark? OR is WotC referring to a different kind of batman?

I'm sure it would, but, then again, they did already publish it in a book. If trademark infringement could occur, wouldn't it have happened already?

Regardless, it was not an entirely serious suggestion. I find it amusing, but I suspect we'll be better off with a more generic feat name.

 

[DandD]

A stinging blow to an enemy causes his allies to shirink back unwilling to get too close to you.

Is it just me or does there seem to be a lot of new powers that control the behavior of opponents? That sort of thing belongs in CRPGs, not tabletop. NPC behavior and tactics should be solely in the DM's hands, and how would your players like when their PCs are forced to "shrink back unwilling to attack" some NPC?

Perhaps this "I'm Batman"-thingy simply means that you can shoot and also charge-attack your enemy into melee in the same round (and get some kind of attack bonus of it), because when you shoot at him, fluff-wise, he turns to you, and this is the moment where you leap at him and pounce him to death, or whatever.
It doesn't have to mean that the enemy is suddenly magically compelled to move towards you. At least, I hope it isn't so, and the Games Developer have said that they would try to avoid this.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A stinging blow to an enemy causes his allies to shirink back unwilling to get too close to you.

Is it just me or does there seem to be a lot of new powers that control the behavior of opponents? That sort of thing belongs in CRPGs, not tabletop. NPC behavior and tactics should be solely in the DM's hands, and how would your players like when their PCs are forced to "shrink back unwilling to attack" some NPC?

You know, like when someone fails a save against a fear spell and is forced to run away or when they fail against dragon fear and are forced to run away (or at least get so scared that they get minuses to their attack rolls, damage, and saves). Or when they fail against a charm person and have to treat the enemy like a friend or when they fail against a hold person and are forced to stand still.

Or when the PCs intimidate an NPC and they have to act friendly to the PCs for as long as they are present. Or when the PCs make a high enough diplomacy check and make the NPCs friendly to them.

I personally much prefer SOME NPC reactions to be governed by in game abilities rather than entirely up to me as a DM. I have enough to worry about when running a game than having to make a ruling every second round when a player asks me "I stabbed him in the EYE...wouldn't the other goblins maybe run away when they see something like that?" when the answer either is "No, they've seen lots of violence before and aren't afraid" or "Yeah, that's so violent that they are afraid and get away." Both answers are completely valid and I could see it going either way. So it's really a toss up in my mind.

If there was an ability that specifically said "You hit someone in such a way to be SO frightening that others are afraid to approach" I would at least have some in game guidance to help me make my decision. I could say "Well, normally I wouldn't consider stabbing someone in the eye to be brutal enough to scare people, but the game system seems to be in a world where that kind of thing almost never happens so people are really intimidated by it. Ok, I can deal with that as I now know what the baseline assumption is."

 

[FireLance]

A stinging blow to an enemy causes his allies to shirink back unwilling to get too close to you.

Is it just me or does there seem to be a lot of new powers that control the behavior of opponents? That sort of thing belongs in CRPGs, not tabletop. NPC behavior and tactics should be solely in the DM's hands, and how would your players like when their PCs are forced to "shrink back unwilling to attack" some NPC?

Mechanics-wise, I have a feeling it might translate into a penalty to attack rolls if the other opponents decide to attack you, or while they are within 5 feet of you.

Writing rules that dictate how NPCs behave can get very complex, and the use of penalties to certain actions is a good way to signal to the DM (or the player, come to think of it) what are the options a PC or NPC might prefer without requiring the DM or player to take specific actions.

To elaborate: if an ability makes an opponent unwilling to attack you, a penalty to attack rolls against you encourages the opponent to attack someone else without forcing him to attack you. If an ability makes an opponent want to move away from you, a penalty to attack rolls while he is within a certain distance from you similarly encourages him to move away without making him do so.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, like when someone fails a save against a fear spell and is forced to run away or when they fail against dragon fear and are forced to run away (or at least get so scared that they get minuses to their attack rolls, damage, and saves). Or when they fail against a charm person and have to treat the enemy like a friend or when they fail against a hold person and are forced to stand still.

Or when the PCs intimidate an NPC and they have to act friendly to the PCs for as long as they are present. Or when the PCs make a high enough diplomacy check and make the NPCs friendly to them.

I personally much prefer SOME NPC reactions to be governed by in game abilities rather than entirely up to me as a DM. I have enough to worry about when running a game than having to make a ruling every second round when a player asks me "I stabbed him in the EYE...wouldn't the other goblins maybe run away when they see something like that?" when the answer either is "No, they've seen lots of violence before and aren't afraid" or "Yeah, that's so violent that they are afraid and get away." Both answers are completely valid and I could see it going either way. So it's really a toss up in my mind.

If there was an ability that specifically said "You hit someone in such a way to be SO frightening that others are afraid to approach" I would at least have some in game guidance to help me make my decision. I could say "Well, normally I wouldn't consider stabbing someone in the eye to be brutal enough to scare people, but the game system seems to be in a world where that kind of thing almost never happens so people are really intimidated by it. Ok, I can deal with that as I now know what the baseline assumption is."

I think part of the problem is forcing PCs to "feel" in a certain way. It works (barely) for magic, somehow. But non-magical? Not so great.

But I think it depends a lot on how it works - if you're forbidden to act against such an ability, I think it's bad (regardless whether magical or "martial). If you can, but it's a lot harder, it feels fairer.

The ability for example could cause a morale penalty to attacks and damage rolls, are just make the terrain around the enemy using it difficult, costing you more movement to get to him. You can't shrug it off entirely, but you're not a coward running away - you overcome your fear - this allows one to still play the heroic character without giving the players the ability to ignore morale effects.

This could also be applied for social encounter rules and using diplomacy on PCs.

 

[vagabundo]

If there was an ability that specifically said "You hit someone in such a way to be SO frightening that others are afraid to approach" I would at least have some in game guidance to help me make my decision. I could say "Well, normally I wouldn't consider stabbing someone in the eye to be brutal enough to scare people, but the game system seems to be in a world where that kind of thing almost never happens so people are really intimidated by it. Ok, I can deal with that as I now know what the baseline assumption is."

It is not stabbing someone in the eye that is frightening, it is how they did it. With spittle flying and gibbering like a monkey.

Anyway I concur, no problems with powers like this, watching someone cleave easily through your buddy should make you pause for thought or fearful.

I think part of the problem is forcing PCs to "feel" in a certain way. It works (barely) for magic, somehow. But non-magical? Not so great.

But I think it depends a lot on how it works - if you're forbidden to act against such an ability, I think it's bad (regardless whether magical or "martial). If you can, but it's a lot harder, it feels fairer.

The ability for example could cause a morale penalty to attacks and damage rolls, are just make the terrain around the enemy using it difficult, costing you more movement to get to him. You can't shrug it off entirely, but you're not a coward running away - you overcome your fear - this allows one to still play the heroic character without giving the players the ability to ignore morale effects.

This could also be applied for social encounter rules and using diplomacy on PCs.

Not sure why magic should get a free pass.

Still, your right, the devil is in the details. It really depends on how it works. However as a concept I have no problems with telling the PCs how they are feeling. Sometimes our bodies and mind betrays us.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

It is not stabbing someone in the eye that is frightening, it is how they did it. With spittle flying and gibbering like a monkey.

I think calmly and pleasantly doing it is scarier.

 

[Midknightsun]

Not sure why there is a problem with some effects potentially controlling PC actions. Its been around forever. Unless were advocating completely ditching enchantment/charm effects, which seems rather draconian. As an aside, I'm actually of the school that if the PCs can do it, my NPCs should be able to as well, whether magical or skillful. Alas, 3.5 specifically makes PCs immune to the diplomacy skill *sigh*, but some players seem to have this near fanatic need to have complete and utter control over all their character's decisions and emotions. Its kind of easy to argue this in the disconnected vacuum of player logic, but it almost makes the character "less real" in my opinion, if they are somehow untouched by their surroundings emotionally or mentally unless the player wishes it so. YMMV

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

Wouldn't that infringe on DC's trademark? OR is WotC referring to a different kind of batman?

I'm Desmodu-man?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not sure why magic should get a free pass.

I don't know either. Maybe it's "because it's magic". Maybe it is because folklore always makes "mind controlling" a magical thing, because no sane person would follow a witch if it wasn't for their spells. (Or the other way around: "I didn't kill them! She made me do it with her evil witchery! Burn her!") There is no room for clever lies, smart reasoning or just a clever-spun net of ideology persuading people to do things they normally wouldn't do. Even if that's exactly what happens in the real world...