Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 6048410" data-attributes="member: 52073">I'm proposing nothing of the sort.  The reference to 3e Feint was to show an example of a mechanic that implements the effect "trick an enemy into doing something" in a way that players find acceptable and "realistic" because it covers corner cases, integrates existing mechanics, and has an explicit flavor explanation.5e mechanics are different enough from 3e and 4e mechanics that I didn't want to propose a specific mechanic for a 5e CaGI, but there are several candidates: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Make a normal attack, but you add your Bluff skill to your attack roll and your target adds his Sense Motive skill to his AC.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Make a normal attack, but use your Bluff skill in place of your weapon attack bonus.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Replace your attack roll vs. AC with Bluff vs. Sense Motive.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Add Cha to your attack roll instead of Str, and the target adds the higher of Dex or Wis.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Add both Cha and Str to your attack, and the target adds both Dex and Wis</li> </ul>The maneuver will of course be easier or harder to pull off based on the option you choose, and each implies a different flavor (specific training vs. general trickiness, ease of resisting, etc.).  In any case, though, the point remains that I'm not suggesting that martial characters have to make more rolls to achieve the same effect, nor am I suggesting that fighters should be more MAD--you may recall that Bluff isn't Cha-only in 5e--I'm suggesting that if you make certain flavor/mechanics assumptions (pushing is a Str check, tricking is a Bluff check) you need to at least pay lip service to adhering to them.I don't think that 4e players don't care about mechanic/flavor interactions, I'm saying that 4e players and pre-4e players care about them in a different way.Let's step back from D&D for a second and look at some other games.  GURPS and Mutants and Masterminds are effects-based systems: you gain an ability that says "you make a ball of fire that deals X damage in Y area" and it's up to you to determine whether that's due to casting a fireball spell, throwing an incendiary grenade, igniting the air with your mind, using a flamethrower, or something else.  Shadowrun and Exalted are flavor-based systems: you gain an ability that says "you have superhuman reflexes" and the game then determines what having superhuman reflexes lets you do.If you want to make an elf in an effects-based system, you pick abilities that make you stealthy, keen-eyed, good with bows, etc. and call yourself an elf (though often there are pre-built packages to get you most of the way there).  If you want to make an elf in a flavor-based system, you pick the race called "elf" and then see what mechanics that gives you.  In the former case, you can flavor things however you want, but only the actual mechanics apply: if your chosen abilities don't include long life, your elf isn't long-lived, even if everyone knows that elves live a long time.  In the latter case, you can reflavor things however you want, but the original flavor still applies in some cases: elves don't sleep, so if you reflavor your elf into a tall thin human, that human still doesn't sleep.Some people like effects-based systems, some people like flavor-based systems, some like both, and some like neither and would prefer something like FATE.  Neither approach is objectively better, but mixing styles in a single game or game line or trying to attract effects-based players to a flavor-based system or vice versa won't usually turn out well.Now let's bring things back to D&D.  Pre-4e D&D is more flavor-based: flavor comes first, and you figure out mechanics based on that, which is how we get complicated grapple rules and monks that can talk to plants.  4e D&D is more effects-based: mechanics come first, and you apply flavor based on that, which is how you get skill challenges that don't map single skill checks to single actions and marks that impose penalties with no obvious in-game manifestation.  Dedicated 3e players are looking at 4e players and saying "You don't care about flavor!  Mind control!  Martial dailies!  Shout healing!" while dedicated 4e players are looking at 3e players and saying "Your flavor is limited!  Alignment!  Vancian casting!  Physical HP!"That's where the disconnect is.  From your post:If asked to name a mechanic in any edition that lets you create an opening and tempt your enemies to take it, and then exploit it when they do, you'd probably name something like CaGI or LttS because that's how you see the flavor of those powers.  (Forgive me if I've put words in your mouth, I'm just using that as an example.)  If I were asked the same thing, I'd probably name something like Karmic Strike: you create an opening (you take -4 to AC), tempt your enemies to take it ("He's easier to hit now, get him!"), and then exploit it when if they do (you get a free AoO).Likewise, you say:You and other 4e fans look at it as one effect (forced movement) and use the same basic mechanics (namely Push, Pull, and Slide) for different abilities that force movement.  I and other pre-4e fans look at it as several different flavors of abilities (mind control, physical force, fear, etc.) and attempt to find mechanics to suit (namely Will saves, Bull Rush checks, and Intimidate checks).I prefer that mechanics match the given flavor like that, you prefer that flavor matches the given mechanics, and neither approach is better...but if you want mechanics introduced in the more effects-based 4e to be accepted in the more flavor-based 5e that's trying to appeal to fans of the more flavor-based pre-4e editions, you need to "translate" them appropriately.  Any 4e mechanics can work in 3e and vice versa as long as you tweak them to fit to the different expectations.There's a difference between metagame mechanics and effects-based mechanics, though.  "I use my Bust Through The Wall power; in-game, I smash a hole in the wall with my greathammer and rush through" is effects-based, while "I spend a fate point to add a door to the scene that wasn't there before; in-game, I suddenly notice a door I missed before and rush through it."  Players are, at least in my experience, a lot more comfortable with stretching the rules, breaking verisimilitude, or outright retconning things if a resource explicitly says it's an out-of-game resource and you need to change the story to fits its use than if an ability is an in-game ability but it's left open about how exactly it works.I know several people who both love FATE games and Force and Destiny points in SWSE and love Riddle of Steel and 3e's rules-as-physics-engine approach, but who don't like M&M or 4e, because they're perfectly happy to treat the plot as a collective story and rewrite it with narrative mechanics but find effects-based games too physics-y to treat them as a novel and too metagame-y to treat them as a problem solving exercise.  Again, it comes down to figuring out your audience's expectations and designing to them rather than trying to design to two sets of expectations with the same rules.</blockquote>

Verification