Hoping to see the return of "Come and get it" for fighters

"Come and get it" (making the enemys move to you) was the most iconic 4E fighter power for me. My players used it all the way up to level 30.

I hope it makes a comeback for the fighter in 5E as one of his tactical options... maybe with the "tactical rules module" ?
I honestly can't tell whether you're joking or not.  You do realize that "Come and Get It" was the single most-controversial power in the entirety of 4E, don't you?

The metagame is not the game.

I'm not joking. I think it was a gret way to influence the battlefield setup. It's an aspect of tactical play that made the battlemat important. Positioning mattered.

What made it controversial was the fighter ability to stop every creature moving away from him once he lured them to him. But the 5E fighter can't do this anymore.


What made it controversial in your eyes?
Well, essentially it boils down to the fighter player taking control over the narrative and "forcing" those enemies to move in close and get hit.  Assuming that the enemies have no way of knowing that you're feigning weakness and about to attack them all (which is a perfectly fair assumption, and I've never heard any argument on that part), you're still taking away their free will because they have zero chance to decide not to close in on you.

The classic example is if you have a level 800 bouncer guarding a door, under strict orders to never move out of the way for anyone ever, and with the defenses to make sure that it can't be forcibly dislodged.  The fighter wanders up, "mind-controls" the guy away from the door, and the rest of the party sneaks in while he's busy murdering the fighter.

After significant protest, I think they "patched" it to require a Strength attack vs. Will Defense (??) in order to let them resist the temptation to close in, but by then most of the 4E detractors had long-since abandoned the edition - citing this phenomenon as one of the reasons.

The metagame is not the game.

In 5E it would make sense to allow the enemys to be pulled a wisdom-saving throw, no?
I just allow any PC the ability to scream and yell to challenge foes if they want to do that (free action).   Roll Strength (for muscle flexing "come and get some")....or  Intelligence (for witty taunts)...or Charisma (for influential repartee)....vs. monster wisdom.     If the monster fails, I'm more likely to attack that PC.


A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

... allowing the fighter to add his expertise die?
... allowing the fighter to add his expertise die?


i was already thinking about taunt as a CE ability :OP
For any given power, ask yourself: what if a DM did this to me.

"The ogre says something rather unkind about your mom.  You have to move towards it on your turns."
For any given power, ask yourself: what if a DM did this to me.

"The ogre says something rather unkind about your mom.  You have to move towards it on your turns."



This isn't necessarily true.   Monsters can work differently than PCs.    In this situation, as DM, I'd tell the player that the creature is taunting him and giving him the finger.  I'd let the player decide if he wanted to attack.   In the player's case it is roleplaying.   In the monster's case die rolling will dictate how the monster behaves.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Why should the monster have to roll play and not be role played while the player role plays and doesn't roll play?

I agree players an monsters can be played differently. But if any ole monster can be unrooted like this players should too. I called your player a lizard and now it must fight me. Weird.

I simply don't feel like any ol' monster should be unrooted in this way. I can see allowing players to make the attempt. But I'll auto-fail such things based on the monster and the situation plenty of times. I'd allow it to work on say regular goblins perhaps. 
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.

This isn't necessarily true.   Monsters can work differently than PCs.


Why should they be different?
Shouldn't a NPC fighter benefit the same way from the same power?

I understand what it is trying to model, but it just ends up feeling arbitrary and taking away any sense of agency for the characters involved, wether they're PCs or NPCs.

D&D combat system doesn't model things in a way that lets you get away with things like that. For it to fit, then there should be lots of instances when you can't attack exactly who you want to when you want to, because in the middle of the chaos of battle, you can't make optimal decisions.
I'd say the best way to handle this in Next would be to have a "taunt" skill and a manuever that lets the fighter add his dice to that check. On a success against the target's wisdom (or some relevant skill, whatever that might be) the target becomes enraged and attempts to attack the taunter. No magical mind control, just simulated emotional state, like with fear effects.

That said, I'm not sure taunting is the best way to handle the fighter's weakness at battlefield control - all it really does is make the opponent move instead of the fighter. What we really need is something that keeps the enemy from leaving base contact with the fighter. Attacks of opportunity do that to some extent, and since basic attacks actually matter in Next (at least so far) that might well be enough.

What's you guys' experience there? How have your playtests worked out in that regard? 
IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/2.jpg)
I don't really understand why it would be in a Fighter's wheelhouse...
It sounds like something a Bard would be better at, but never have the strong urge to do.
I feel like, a Taunt is just a "contest" of Charisma vs. Wisdom or something (depending on the concept) that any player could do if they felt froggy.

I tend to resist the urge to make special rules for things that are easily accomplished with existing mechanics. A fighter using expertise dice on what is essentially acting or persuasion or something similar feels really specific and gamey... not that I hate gamey things, but this doesn't walk the tight rope for me.

If I wanted to make a fighter who did this, he might be a fighter who did THIS. Meaning, not all fighters taunt and lure foes, but my dude is known for it. He has a higher charisma than your usual fighter and a different set of skills than your average fighter. Could be a fun character concept. The cocky, tricky fighter rather than the hulk-smash fighter.

If I was the DM for a player wanting to do this, and they had a cool character concept driving it, I would probably work with them rather than opting to change all fighters in the world to guys who potentially could convince other warriors to drop their bows and "come get some" 

THAT, or as a player, I might work with my Wizard and DM to try to concoct a magic armor or something that did this 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
I honestly can't tell whether you're joking or not.  You do realize that "Come and Get It" was the single most-controversial power in the entirety of 4E, don't you?


Because you could pull Archers off 20 foot (4 square) walls to their deaths with it.  Before they patched it.

And the fact that the OP says that his players used it for the next 15 levels, despite other, higher level, and theoretically/supposedly better powers being available doesn't tell him just how over powered it was is clearly enough for me to determine that he has no idea about 'balance'. 
nope sorry can't do it. 

If by some quirk of insanity it becomes part of next, it will just be one more thing no one will ever use. 
I honestly can't tell whether you're joking or not.  You do realize that "Come and Get It" was the single most-controversial power in the entirety of 4E, don't you?



Controversial... Wow. I mean, 4e is basically a boardgame with roleplaying elements. That you play for fun. I'm not sure I would use such a strong word.
I think the fighter was one of the most fun classes to play in 4e, and that was mostly due to powers like "come and get it". I would love to see a power, or maneuvre (?) like that in Next.

Some of the examples in this thread are not that good. Take the ogre bouncer, for one. I could easily imagine a fighter taunting a big stupid ogre bully to into leaving his post, no matter what he's been told. If it was a stone golem - well that is another matter. The player would have to come up with one hell of a good reason why the golem would leave his post.
Some players have an attitude toward roleplaying that is strange to me. In my little world this is a huge part of what RP is all about -- the negotiating back and forth across the table about what could possibly happen. That's how the DM and the players create the story together, as opposed to the DM just narrating. Some players (and DMs mind you!) seem very inflexible when it comes to interpreting the rules. Why would some hobgoblin jump off the battlements of a tall wall because some fighter is yelling insults at him? I could imagine him climbing down a ladder on the other side and running out the gates instead... That's the kind of improv and bending of the rules you have to do as DM in order to reduce disbelief in your game. Otherwise the players will just laugh at you, and D&D...
Sadly, 4e was not very good for this type of play because of its very heavy MMO/boardgame influences. You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck -- it IS a boardgame! As opposed to a roleplaying game.    

I loved Come and Get It, but I agree that in a game with verisimilitude (unlike 4e), it doesn't belong so well.  It worked well in a strategic combat game.

I could see a move that taunted nearby opponents, forcing them to engage you on their next turn if they fail a Wis save, but it shouldn't be a pull effect.  The victims should still have to move under their own power.

I'd also love to see the swordmage return with effects like that.  Call it something like "Cyclonic Updraft," that pulls enemies in. 

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

Well, essentially it boils down to the fighter player taking control over the narrative and "forcing" those enemies to move in close and get hit.  Assuming that the enemies have no way of knowing that you're feigning weakness and about to attack them all (which is a perfectly fair assumption, and I've never heard any argument on that part), you're still taking away their free will because they have zero chance to decide not to close in on you.



Of course they have a chance to decide not to do that.  It's called their Will defense.
Of course they have a chance to decide not to do that.  It's called their Will defense.

Sure, now that they've patched it to be "less" offensive.  As I recall it, though, it was previously an automatic pull with the only attack being against AC after they've closed in.  Now, the "attack" is against Will defense... and is somehow powered by your Strength Undecided

The metagame is not the game.

I'd like to see this as a power with a Wisdom save targeting a single creature at low level and multiple targets at higher levels.

It'd be useful and effective, a great addition to the Fighter options. 
I loved Come and Get it as a player. The reason I loved it wasn't an honorable reason. It was because it was an exploit that I could use. I loved it because it made my fighter into a controller. This power was broken and got "fixed" but nothing in 4E ever made roleplaying sense. So I don't think I would want this in 5E since I would rather have a roleplaying game again instead of a tactical board game with some roleplaying elements.
Okay, i get that it was controversial. But I liked it, and I hope it comes back. I get that not everyone would like that, and that some people will struggle on how to narrate it. But, as an advanced module, I hope it shows up. I hope that those who can't mention 4e without saying "board game" will forgive me that I like different things than they do, and they'll allow d&d to include tactical modules that they feel emotionally play "like a board game".
I don't particularly like it (as detailed in #9), but it's by no means a dealbreaker.
Why are people complaining about the Strength versus Will aspect of it? With physical persuasion even strong willed individuals can crack. Ala beating a confession out of someone etc. Also we are playing a fantasy game here. You are playing a hero characters. A figther isn't just some random schlub pulled from guard duty. You play the hero, you have a slight tinge of magic about you that sets you apart from all the other commoners and others of lesser standing.

There are also far more broken things in all editions of the game then a level 7 fighter power. (Despite it being a very, very good power) Also I forget who said it but someone said that a figther exerted such control over the battlefield...That is the role of a defender. It is a melee controller specialized in drawing enemies to oneself and then controlling their actions. Either through high defenses or punishing mark enforcement. 
Maybe you are playing a fantastic hero who is made out of magic.  I am trying to play a reasonable facsimile of a human being - a mortal creature constrained by the laws of nature.

The metagame is not the game.

I think that kind of strategy can be worked out using Bluff and Intimidate and such vs a Wisdom save, rather than a combat maneuver. Maybe a maneuver that lets the Fighter add expertise dice to the taunt roll. It should definitely not be automatic like in 4E; there must be a save, and a limited number of targets (could be tied to Charisma modifier, making that stat more useful for Fighters).
Saelorn, I think you might be brilliant - not for your thinly veiled attack on 4e, but for highlighting that the whole problem can be solved with different tiers of play. If fighter tier 0 was random schlub, and tier 1 was magical ball of magic, then 2e and 4e players would be happy - they'd play different tiers. Of course, as I understand it, tier 0 wizards would still want charm person, scry and other exploration breaking spells. Hmmm. Would we be able to play a tier 0 where wizards were also a reasonable facsimile of a human being?
Maybe you are playing a fantastic hero who is made out of magic.  I am trying to play a reasonable facsimile of a human being - a mortal creature constrained by the laws of nature.


Then why are you playing D&D???
Attack on 4E?  I'm genuinely baffled here, because I prefer to be very direct when I criticize.  Fourth edition is a fairly flexible system, if you're willing to accept that it doesn't bother itself with minutiae, so you can arbitrate the details in a reasonable manner.  It's actually the only game I'm running, at the moment.  Sure, the party is only level 2, but we haven't hit any snags yet.

I draw a fairly clean line between the magical and mundane, though, and that was my criticism here.  When a wizard casts a spell, then that is a purely magical action, and once it resolves it leaves no lasting mark on the wizard (generally speaking) - she can still only run at her normal move speed, and relies upon her muscles in order to heft a staff.  The character herself is still a reasonable facsimile of a human being, albeit operating in a world where spells and incantations actually work.

If someone tries to tell me that my fighter can compel others to attack her, merely by pure muscle power and without relying upon personality at all, then that does not logically follow; it is a violation of a purely mundane aspect of the game.  It is an error of game design which is incongruant with the rest of the narrative, and must be fixed or ignored as appropriate to bring it in line with the underlying reality of the model.  

If someone says that she can perform this task because she's a PC with innate magical ability and backed with the power of narrative causality, then that's when I pick up my dice and find another table - or another game, if the designers have made clear that this is how the system operates.  I have absolutely zero interest in playing a character who is treated any differently merely because she's a PC.

The metagame is not the game.

By the mere act of being a PC you are treated differently. Unless you are playing DnD Farmville you don't have a farm to maintain on a daily basis, or tend a bar, or cook food for a living. Call it inate magic or spark of the divine or what have you. But that ie what it is. Fighters don't just flex muscle and get people to attack them. It is in the posture, the body language, the language etc. The tavern keep couldnt do it. The guard keeping watch can't do it. But you the PC can. Fighting is a magic style with in itself. If it wasn't how could fighters take on dragons? A fighter getting chomped on by one can crush every bone in his body. If a fighter is just as you say treated not differently then a npc you would be dead.

Magic users still rely on muscles to run but they aren't imbued with what ever spark a fighters is. Their spark comes from their ability to learn, understand, and use magic. Or do you also think that bards aren't magical either? Anyone can pick an instrument and bard it up with the best of them?
I've removed content from this thread. spam is a violation of the Code of Conduct

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Allow me to clarify, then: There is nothing which my PC fighter can do, by virtue of being a PC, which an NPC fighter could not do if she had gone through all of the same training and experiences.  The tavern keep, or town guard, could do anything the PC could do if they would only spend 2 years in the academy and then survive small-unit combat with ~50 sets of progressively stronger enemies and monsters.

Fighting is, quite explicitly, not magic.  There is no amount of posture, body language, or other language that can convince someone to attack you depending on the size of your muscles - non-magical persuasion is governed by charisma.  I'm not saying that a fighter would never learn this technique, or that the game shouldn't let it be effective, only that there is no justification for it to be a strength-powered attack.

The ability to not get die when a dragon bites you is one of the side effects of having your body battered by foes and getting healed on a regular basis: the tough get tougher, as you know how to take a hit.  It's not like real life, where getting injured reduces your tolerance for future injury, but it is its own internally consistent system - it does not model a real person, but it is a reasonable approximation (and it's not entirely without real-world precedence).

A magic-using PC is no different than any other magic user, be it a wizard or cleric or bard.  They apply their mental aptitudes to become skilled at their respective skills.  Anyone with a reasonable charisma can pursue the bardic path, but it always starts with practice and hard work.  Even when the skill you're learning is magic, there's nothing "magic" about your ability to learn it.



The metagame is not the game.


Fighting is, quite explicitly, not magic.  There is no amount of posture, body language, or other language that can convince someone to attack you depending on the size of your muscles - non-magical persuasion is governed by charisma.  I'm not saying that a fighter would never learn this technique, or that the game shouldn't let it be effective, only that there is no justification for it to be a strength-powered attack.



Agreed. There's nothing stopping a Fighter from having Charisma and using it to trick enemies into attacking, and there's no reason for any character to be able to rely on one ability score for everything.


Fighting is, quite explicitly, not magic.  There is no amount of posture, body language, or other language that can convince someone to attack you depending on the size of your muscles - non-magical persuasion is governed by charisma.  I'm not saying that a fighter would never learn this technique, or that the game shouldn't let it be effective, only that there is no justification for it to be a strength-powered attack.



Agreed. There's nothing stopping a Fighter from having Charisma and using it to trick enemies into attacking, and there's no reason for any character to be able to rely on one ability score for everything.



Yes there is.  Especially in a point buy system. A limit in stat numbers, and the fact that ONLY ONE power would use it.  And it wouldn't be a power you start off with.

As for it being 'non-magical', bullpucky.  In a mass melee between say, 5 against 6+ the idea that your opponents will be able to HEAR your taunts or even being paying attention to anything but 'Stab the dood in front of me' is PURE magic.

Come and Get It is a magic Fighter Power, deal with it. 
As for it being 'non-magical', bullpucky.  In a mass melee between say, 5 against 6+ the idea that your opponents will be able to HEAR your taunts or even being paying attention to anything but 'Stab the dood in front of me' is PURE magic.

So you favor bringing facing back, and not allowing a melee combatant to attack anyone other than the last creature it attacked as long as that creature is upright and within mutual reach - and granting advantage to attacks on it by anyone else.

I'm sure that'll be popular.

Sorry, melee combatants being able to deal with multiple opponents simultaneously is an EXTREMELY common trope.

And it doesn't matter if an enemy can *hear* that you appear to have dropped your sword and be limping.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Agreed. There's nothing stopping a Fighter from having Charisma and using it to trick enemies into attacking, and there's no reason for any character to be able to rely on one ability score for everything.

Yes there is.  Especially in a point buy system. A limit in stat numbers, and the fact that ONLY ONE power would use it.  And it wouldn't be a power you start off with.

If point buy (or assign-to-taste) is preventing you from having the necessary stats to play the character you want (which it is, since it is directly responsible for system design expecting high stats instead of leaving them optional), then that's all the more reason we should go back to organic rolls.
Come and Get It is a magic Fighter Power, deal with it. 

In the 4E game I'm running now, it is explicitly a magical spell.  If the mechanics don't match the presentation, then one or the other needs to be changed.

The metagame is not the game.

As for it being 'non-magical', bullpucky.  In a mass melee between say, 5 against 6+ the idea that your opponents will be able to HEAR your taunts or even being paying attention to anything but 'Stab the dood in front of me' is PURE magic.

So you favor bringing facing back, and not allowing a melee combatant to attack anyone other than the last creature it attacked as long as that creature is upright and within mutual reach - and granting advantage to attacks on it by anyone else.

I'm sure that'll be popular.



Where did you get this from????

Sorry, melee combatants being able to deal with multiple opponents simultaneously is an EXTREMELY common trope.

And it doesn't matter if an enemy can *hear* that you appear to have dropped your sword and be limping.




If they got opponents that they are already engaged?  Yeah, they can deal with you later.  No weapon?  You're hurt?  You are NO LONGER A THREAT.  The guy in front of them?  He dies first.  You might even die of blood loss before they get to you, even better!  Again, either way, you are NOT a threat.

Come and Get It should be getting blasted for what it is.  It literally is the MMORPG Taunt ability that every Tank class gets in those games.  (Of which I play plenty of.)

We, or so we hipocritically whine about, do not want WoW in our D&D, so WHY THE *SPUTTER MUFFIN!* do we want a power that mimics it PERFECTLY.


Agreed. There's nothing stopping a Fighter from having Charisma and using it to trick enemies into attacking, and there's no reason for any character to be able to rely on one ability score for everything.

Yes there is.  Especially in a point buy system. A limit in stat numbers, and the fact that ONLY ONE power would use it.  And it wouldn't be a power you start off with.

If point buy (or assign-to-taste) is preventing you from having the necessary stats to play the character you want (which it is, since it is directly responsible for system design expecting high stats instead of leaving them optional), then that's all the more reason we should go back to organic rolls.





OK, in a point buy system, as a Fighter you'll want...  Strength and, likely Constitution, maybe some Dexterity for ranged weapon, maybe.  Are you really going to want to dump more points into Charisma, which has ONLY ONE use, and that's for the Come and Get It Magic Spell?  Do you really want to go M.A.D. for ONE power, and ONE power only?

Does that strike you as efficient?  I mean, I'm no power gamer, but I'd rather be somewhat effective at my job as a Fighter than have to make sure that my Charisma gives me a minimum +2 bonus to when Come and Get It becomes available.

Come and Get It is a magic Fighter Power, deal with it. 

In the 4E game I'm running now, it is explicitly a magical spell.  If the mechanics don't match the presentation, then one or the other needs to be changed.




If it's a 'spell' to you, I have to ask, what kind of magic is it?  Arcane?  Divine?  Primal?  Honest, no snark intended question.  I am very curious to see the reasoning.
OK, in a point buy system, as a Fighter you'll want...  Strength and, likely Constitution, maybe some Dexterity for ranged weapon, maybe.  Are you really going to want to dump more points into Charisma, which has ONLY ONE use, and that's for the Come and Get It Magic Spell?  Do you really want to go M.A.D. for ONE power, and ONE power only?

As I said (though it may have been obfuscated with formatting), if the problem is that you can't reasonably build a fighter to take advantage of this power under point buy, then the problem is with point buy.  We never had problems with MAD back when we were rolling for stats, because they game wasn't built assuming you'd have a 16+ in your prime stat.  High stats were all just gravy.

Now, 4E does assume that every attack you make will be powered by your main stat, which is why this ability is out of place - because it cannot reasonably be powered by Strength.
In the 4E game I'm running now, it is explicitly a magical spell.  If the mechanics don't match the presentation, then one or the other needs to be changed.

If it's a 'spell' to you, I have to ask, what kind of magic is it?  Arcane?  Divine?  Primal?  Honest, no snark intended question.  I am very curious to see the reasoning.

In my game?  We don't acknowledge power sources in the game world, and there are no game mechanics which treat Arcane powers differently than Divine ones, so it's honestly just an Arcane spell that they teach in the fighter academy.  It creates a brief but powerful vacuum to suck in enemies, and the fighter is trained well enough to make the equivalent of opportunity attacks against that forced movement.  

It's the same way they teach the Healing Surge spell to everyone in grade school (even though that one is a Divine spell).

The metagame is not the game.

I liked come and get it, but I get that I'm not everyone.  It's a big issue though, thatsome people want entirelynon magical fighters (where they get to define magical), and some people want fantastic fighters.   Tell me - what about a rule that said "Martial characters get twice as many magical items as magical characters".  Then, define optional abilities that only martial magic items could possess - one that was identical to come and get it.   Then,say, for those who like fantastic fighters, the magical bonuses can be inherent.     That way, fighters get to keep all their cool powers.  Those who complain that the fighter powers are magical can take pride that they were right - the fighter has a magical item that allows the fighter to be awesome.   

Does that solve the  entire problem of this thread ?   If not, how do people suggest making everyone happy?
Tell me - what about a rule that said "Martial characters get twice as many magical items as magical characters".

That might work for 4E, but 5E doesn't make a distinction between martial and non-martial characters.  Besides, twice zero is still zero.
Then, define optional abilities that only martial magic items could possess - one that was identical to come and get it.

I've run in a game like that, where every magical martial power was flavored as channeling the magic of the weapon in some way.  It didn't sit quite right with some of the players, but it never became a big issue.
Does that solve the  entire problem of this thread ?   If not, how do people suggest making everyone happy?

It really just hides the problem, which is the vast difference in preferred playstyle between people who are happy with magic fighters and people who care about making a distinction.  The solution is for them to not play at the same table.

The metagame is not the game.

Sign In to post comments