D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Not under any and all circumstances, no. There is no nonmagical way to do that in my view.

We already know that people don't act rationally yet you assume that everyone does. That's what the will save is for. If they fail the save they stop acting rationally. It's exactly like a fear effect. If they fail the save, they stop acting rationally.

But anyway, you are arguing that the targets of this ability are aware that acting on the taunt is against self preservation. That seems like a bad assumption since again it assumes they are rational. What if the point of the taunt is that it makes the taunting barbarian seem like an open target?

You are saying: Not attacking the barbarian is the rational choice, but how do you (or they) know that is the case? There is no reason to assume that, since the characters in the setting are aware of the counter attack ability.

 

[FrogReaver]

Goading people into a bar fight can still happen in my game. It's just not going to be something that happens under any situation.

This is key.

The difference isn’t between taunting with an ability that can work under any circumstance and not taunting at all.

The difference is between letting a player try to taunt anytime but only giving it a chance of working in appropriate circumstances vs an ability that forces the taunt in all circumstances.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, you can't make circumstances apply to saving throw of the taunt?


But it does result in a die roll dictating what the creature does in a non-magic way. Something you disapproved of previously.

The problem isn’t the die roll. It’s the die roll in any and all circumstances.

 

[FrogReaver]

As opposed to morale checks in earlier editions where creatures were one failed roll away from running for combat? Gee, I wonder why I find your objection silly.

I personally dislike morale checks as well.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure, but lifting 100+ tons seems like a lot for most D&D things?

A failure due to the system still pretending we should care about encumbrance.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

This is key.

The difference isn’t between taunting with an ability that can work under any circumstance and not taunting at all.

The difference is between letting a player try to taunt anytime but only giving it a chance of working in appropriate circumstances vs an ability that forces the taunt in all circumstances.

Then let's clear the taunt ability up so we don't have to bother with that kind of hangup.

Addendum: "Oppressive Taunt: Every enemy within 30 feet who is involved in combat with you or your allies, or who could be reasonably provoked into combat given the circumstances will have to roll a wisdom save. <rest of the rules go here>"

Now the ability is clearly more limited while still being useful in social situations if the GM agrees.

 

[FrogReaver]

Would you say you should apply that to say, a rogue's Sneak Attack or Evasion abilities?

I’ve had the dm narrate you swing your sword and bounces off the NPC. No attack roll or anything. No issue with that for me. In extremely particular circumstances I could see the same for sneak attack or evasion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well - that’s certainly not my view of supernatural or magical.

I imagine that’s the primary difference. There’s not a lot of disagreement on what’s happening - just a lot on how to categorize it.

But this tangent starting by asking about a PC power that lets them taunt any creature
at any time and force that creature to approach and attack provided it failed a wisdom save.

Such an ability can meet one’s definition of supernatural while the fighters fighting ability simultaneously does not. Or both abilities can be considered supernatural while one is acceptable and the other isn’t.

In any event - arguing about what is supernatural and what isn’t doesn’t actually address the issue.

Listen, in any metaphysical sense which matters for this discussion, magic and supernatural are synonymous. The only way in which they are NOT so is in terms of usage within the D&D community. So, if an argument against 'Come and Get It' (or similar) is that it violates the genre conventions of the D&D genre, that's certainly an arguable point. We might differ there, but as a genre convention I agree that 'classic TSR' D&D generally eschewed the idea of overt manifestations of magical power by some classes (IE fighters, sometimes barbarians and rangers to a degree, rogues except for a few specific exceptions, etc.).

BUT if you want to argue that D&D fighters are MUNDANE in a more general epistemic sense, baloney. That ship sailed around level 3 of original D&D. Well, maybe you can kinda stretch it to around level 7 if you squint, as an OD&D fighter would need to be around that level (assuming no serious magical equipment) to reliably kill a 6HD AC6 1-4/1-4/1-10 lion (Greyhawk P51, consistent with the general description of 'large animal' in the original 3 LBBs). However, that same level 7 fighter will already be able to off a squad of orcs (well armed experienced fighters) and will easily survive a 50' fall or being struck through with 4-10 arrow or spear shafts.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So what can wizards do in that hypothetical? It seems all 3+ spells would be off limit, as would certain level 1-2 spells and certain cantrips.

At that point, why not just play levels 1-3 and buff the monsters.

This is exactly what my sister has been doing in her D&D campaign for 20 years, running 3e and topping all the PCs at level 6. After a few years it gets boring and they just start over (or they gradually cycle in new 1st level characters during play, I'm not sure). Apparently it appeals to a couple of her players. When we played 5e to higher levels those same people decided it wasn't for them and quit. My assessment of that was the game was too 'fantastical' for them. I never quite got why they won't play other games, but I guess 3e is so burned into their brains they don't much care for other stuff? At least not for fantasy genre play, they are all happy with various systems for SF, for example.

 

[Cadence]

A failure due to the system still pretending we should care about encumbrance.

I certainly don't need anything close to exact encumbrance rules. But it feels like to each person there's a line somewhere.

Anyway, Stark might not be off in his weigh calculation here given the size of the land mass that is compressed into that ball.