Wizards Win, Fighters Drool?

[Terraism]

I've seen in several places lately (most recently in the Experiences with None-Core Characters thread) some comments about video game mechanics cropping up in D&D. In this case, the commentary was specifically about the PHB2 Knight's taunt style abilities that force people to target him, and it's a complaint I remember hearing quite a lot when the PHB2 was released.

So, here's my question. If a wizard casts dominate person and forces someone to attack a single target, it's okay, yes? Or if a cleric greater commands a target to approach for [caster level] rounds? How about a bard tossing out a wave of fear that sends the staunchest of warriors running if they fail their save?

So, how come when the Knight taunts someone into attacking him, red flags go up and people start protesting? Mechanically, there's no real difference, after all - Will Save or be forced to take only one type of action for the duration - so that's not the problem. Is the concern that only magic should be able to change minds? If so, doesn't that essentially say that the mechanics of magic are inherently superior to those of skills?

 

[Wik]

I like how you look at things. And you're pretty much right.

People are always complaining about how, especially at higher levels, skills are trumped by magic. But, when a method comes up for skills to succeed over magic, there are inevitably complaints.

Similar complaints arose with ToB: Bo9S, with people upset that fighters could really dish out the same amount of damage as an equal level wizard.

Now, all that being said, I still don't like the Knight class. The taunt ability, to me, seems stupid, whereas someone blowing a spell slot to keep an enemy occupied does not.

Really, why use Greater Command to say "approach" when you could use Hold Person and deny that foe an action entirely?

 

[Nifft]

I'm one of the Knight-haters, but it's because I'm the DM.

I hate mechanics that take away the player's choices. I dislike Fear effects; I dislike dominate, but when a PC is dominated, he at least gets to choose how he kills his friends (and some players even enjoy that aspect... ).

In the hands of a PC, I have no problem with the Knight. But if the setting had NPC Knights... ewww.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There is nothing intrinsically illogical about a skill or major class ability having an effect that seems magical. To the eye of a commoner, surely accomplishing anything with a skill DC of 30 or greater is practically magic.

I am not entirely happy with taunt, although I think the kernel idea is sound. I agree that forcing action tends to make for problematic mechanics.

It is true that a Wizard could theoretically do as much, but I would consider it a major pain if a PC were opening every single combat with Confusion as well.

Taunting is a meat and potatoes tactic for a Knight which can be done as a Free Action many times per day. You can expect to see this every single combat.

I would prefer to see a consequence that allows a bit more wiggle room, e.g. attack the taunter or be Shaken (or something similar).

 

[Particle_Man]

What is the alternative if you want a defensive style warrior that the enemies don't simply ignore?

You can't always place yourself in choke points.

I like the Knight's taunt. And it does have a saving throw, and a built in factor that the power of the taunt breaks if anyone else targets "your" opponent, which stops certain cheesy beatdowns.