Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7042589">Are you suggesting that somebody in particular has "their panties in a bunch"?But, yes, the difference between magic and non-magic is important.  To me.  If you (or somebody else reading this thread) is interested, here's why:(My) Prime Directive: Nobody except the player gets to decide what goes on in the character's head.  What the character thinks, feels, desires, etc. is 100.0% the domain of the player.  Even the DM can't break that rule.  I don't ever allow social skills to be used against player characters: an NPC or another PC rolling 20 on Persuade is never (in my game) going to force another character to do something he didn't want to do.Again, you may not play that way, but I do.Now, that conflicts with things like Charm, Fear, Possession, etc.  So we explain it as loss of character control, which is caused by magic (or possibly insanity rules).  The DM doesn't say, "Oh, by the way, your character is especially afraid of undead."  (And most certainly another player is not gonna say, "Oh, by the way, because of my build your character is especially afraid of undead.")  No, the undead has a "Fear" spell or effect that causes loss of character control.  You have no choice but to behave a certain way.  Your character is not in his right mind.I'm fine with that. Likewise, when the Bard grants Inspiration, it's a magical effect and...yes...there is some loss of character control.  But the fact that it's magic means nobody else was dictating what the character thinks of the Bard.  It simply does not matter.A non-magic effect, however, that causes loss of character control, however minor, triggers my "You are dictating to me my character's thoughts and emotions" warning klaxon.  There are lots of races and classes and sub-classes (almost all of the new UA ones, for example) and feats and weapons and spells that I would just as soon not have in the game.  But I don't make a stink about it.  I don't have to play them.  If others like them they can.But some mechanics, and class concepts, transgress that line for me.  Here are some others I would be equally opposed to (I offer these as illustrative examples; as far as I know nobody is proposing them.)An "Amorist" class who, by making the other characters fall in love with him/her, is able to get them to achieve things they couldn't otherwise.A "Manipulator" class who tells really detailed lies to the other party members, convincing to go above and beyond.An "Ingenue" class who taps into the protective instincts of the other players, causing them to rise to greatness.Do you see the pattern?I think this topic is especially interesting, and at its heart may like some philosophical differences about RPGs, which is why I think it's interesting to discuss. It's evident that it's a hot button for many of you, so I'm trying to shrug off the insults and baiting.  Again, I have no 4e baggage here, and I don't really have a strong opinion about "HP as Meat" or Martial Healing.  The first time I heard of the Warlord I immediately detested it, although it took me a lot of forum discussion to fully realize why.</blockquote>

Verification