Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Terraism" data-source="post: 3649479" data-attributes="member: 278">I've seen in several places lately (most recently in the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=201620" target="_blank">Experiences with None-Core Characters</a> 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?</blockquote>