Actually, I lost sight of the forest for the tree. (not even trees)
I agree that you have solved the CaGi mechanics first issue. But the encounter based design issue remains. Can you tell me how you have put narrative first with your incredibly annoying character who is incredibly annoying once per encounter because the mechanics say so? I expect you have an answer, as you had me covered last time. I'd just like to hear it.
Out of curiosity, what is "CaGi?"
To answer your question, I would probably decide around character creation no matter what character I was why certain things I could only do at-will, certain things encounter, and certain things daily. For Wizards it could be a simple enough port from 3E. Daily is writing a scroll in your head, then using that scroll from memory (thus losing 'the scroll.') I forgot what edition had Vancian casting worded in this way, but I'm pretty sure that's from something. Encounter would be simpler spells, commitable to memory in only 5 minutes, but must be spent like scrolls the same way. At-will is actually recalling, memorizing, and spending magic on the fly. Explains why it is generally less powerful.
Unfortunately, like Tequila Sunrise says, the Come and Get It is a corner case thing as far as narrative goes. I would say that even automatons have some amount of intelligence in order to fight, and would detect the annoying fighters annoyingness as threat. By the way, this isn't a character of mine, just a spur of the moment thing here.
I feel like the line between narrative and realism is blurring a bit here, though. I'm not sure if this is the kind of answer you want. Realistically, I can't imagine why a guy with a sword
would not constantly be using his best tactic if it was effective. Narratively, he
is using best tactic constantly. He's constantly taunting and constantly being an ass, or whatever, I wish I would said a more interesting example to begin with. Only once during every encounter does the straw break the camels back and the enemies just want to shut him up. That is when Come and Get It is used.
I use a similar idea for making any kind of attack. Basically, two melee enemies locked in combat aren't trading blows with 6 seconds in between each blow, because that doesn't fit my narrative. But 1 attack every 6 seconds, assuming they spend their turn to attack, has the potential to cause the receiver of the attack to become closer to the point where they can no longer fight. This could be wounds, resolve, morale, you know, whatever. Insert whatever you want from HP=abstraction threads. The same applies to encounter powers. Only once every 5 minutes, even trying every round, will the attack have the potential to work.
Maybe you've misunderstood me from my first post: any 4E concept must still enter the 4E framework and inevitably be changed (more than likely,) just like any 3E character will go through the same process. For instance, if I want a Arcane caster who wears plate and casts effectively and has a weapon, I wouldn't be able to go straight wizard in either edition. So, what I do, like I described before, is reskin in order to not compromise on narrative. I play a swordmage, say his warding feature is plate mail and move on. If it's 3E I'm actually not sure, maybe a duskblade, it's been awhile. If you want a fighter that can behead someone every turn, and you have an interesting sleepy hollow esque story written out, no version of D&D (or DM) is going to allow you to do that. So, the point here is that mechanics can trump narrative in any edition of D&D no matter how narrative focused you are.
If the point you want to make is that 3E requires less compromise, whatever, I don't see the point of arguing it. My final stand is that all versions require compromise, and it is significant, but all versions of D&D allow you to place narrative at the forefront.
hehe
.. the powers are not even a limit to the effects that you can narrate either in spite of what some folks seem to think. Your best results are if you can combine narrating something the DM included in the environment right in to the use of your powers. A rangers twin strike can blind two enemies in 4e terms by knocking the curtains the dm just described on top of two enemies heads... Very robinhood style. Even though twin strike doesnt include blinding enemies with it. Do it situation-ally and when your players realize yes they can do cool stuff based on what is being jointly visualized they will. This isnt house ruling its liberal use of page 42 effects.
