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 don't think "don't play at the same table" is going to work -- the discussion here wasn't about people at the same table disagreeing, but about whether to ban CAGI or not.      You are right that some people don't want any magic items - does anyone know if there overlap between people who like non magical fighters and those who want 0 magic items?   Because if there is, and those people demand that everyone play fighters like them,, we are going to have trouble making a fighter I enjoy. If there's no overlap, then those who want less magical fighters can just fluff "magical powers" as magic items.  After all, if CAGI was a daily on a  magic   whirlwind sword, no one would bat an eye.  

 

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. 



That's simply absurd. You're thinking in the mindset of 4th edition in which every single action relies on some power or other. Mechanics will not be powers anymore, it's going back to using your ability and skill bonuses for most actions. You are going to have to have more than one good stat to have a viable character, and if point buy doesn't allow that, then that system is flawed, not the game. The game also involves more than combat, and while I commonly put my lowest score in charisma, there are countless reasons to take a decent charisma other than just taunting enemies in battle.

You are right that some people don't want any magic items - does anyone know if there overlap between people who like non magical fighters and those who want 0 magic items?

If I had to guess, I would say the overlap is significant.  After all, both aspects are hallmarks of any "down to earth, low magic" type setting.

While I don't personally fall into that category, I still make magic weapons rare enough that the fighter can't expect to find one, which is probably close enough.

The metagame is not the game.



That's simply absurd. You're thinking in the mindset of 4th edition in which every single action relies on some power or other. Mechanics will not be powers anymore, it's going back to using your ability and skill bonuses for most actions. You are going to have to have more than one good stat to have a viable character, and if point buy doesn't allow that, then that system is flawed, not the game. The game also involves more than combat, and while I commonly put my lowest score in charisma, there are countless reasons to take a decent charisma other than just taunting enemies in battle.




Not to the Fighter's skill list there isn't.  And I'm taking since 2e and later.  The Fighter man has never had any use for Charisma.  And using an MMO taunt (seriously, we really want to do this?  After years of incorrect ridicule and insults on how 4th is an MMO made into paper, you really want to go down that path??  My mind, she is boggled) based off posibly the least used stat, even when rolled for, is pointless.

And with random rolls the odds of getting a 'good' roll (even if you use the 4d6 drop lowest) in more than 2 stats is highly unlikely.  And I hate making players roll for stats because in every game I've allowed it I've had that one guy that rolls four 16+ and that other guy who's struggling to get 9s, and the other three getting a median spread.  Even having ONE player roll for the entire table makes no guarantee that you'll more than two stats higher than 14.  Maybe.
And with random rolls the odds of getting a 'good' roll (even if you use the 4d6 drop lowest) in more than 2 stats is highly unlikely.

Personally, I would classify that as a huge fault in the system.  Ever since 3E introduced the Universal Ability Modifier, high stats have felt mandatory for any attack roll you make or spell with a save DC, and the value in a mere 3 or 14 (as compared to a 9 or less) has been greatly diminished.

In fact, I consider the whole Universal Ability Modifier system as a significant ding against Next as a whole.

The metagame is not the game.

I disliked Come and Get It, but for entirely different reasons. I have no problem with fighters being able to pull monsters toward them, in much the same way I have no problem with monsters having similar abilities.

The issue I had with Come and Get It is that it is blatently overpowered compared to other 7th level encounter powers, to the extent that all fighters are expected to take that power. There is little room for variation, and almost no reason for WotC to have printed any other 7th level fighter power (with the possible exception that a 13th level encounter power might be downgraded so someone could grab Trip Up, for example.)
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.



No, organic rolls isn't the thing responsible for the concern for having necessary stats to play your character competantly (that is, with his attack/defense/other modifiers being level-appropriate and remaining so for 30 levels).

What is, is the limit on your stat increases with higher level.  You get to bump up all of your ability scores at 11th and 21st.  You only get to bump up two ability scores any other time (4th, 8th, 14th, 18th, 24th, 28th, and possibly again at 21st depending on your epic destiny).

And the only real solution for that is one of three things: a) have the player roll a d6 at those levels to determine how many stats he gets a boost to, b) go ahead and make every ability score increase apply to all six stats each and every time, or c) rewrite the game to get rid of the artificial numbers bloat in the first place (see the bounded accuracy arguments in other threads).

My personal choice was to ignore the numbers.  They go up, the character is mechanically kept where he should be, but just because he's a Swordmage who needs to keep his Int mod on par for his level doesn't mean I have to let that make any difference in how I roleplay him.

But at no point is point buy at fault for this.  Organic rolls, guh!   
I've finally figured out how to put in a sig. Yes, I'm including this here for no other reason than to express how happy I am that I could finally do this. For goodness' sake, change these forums back (or just change, I don't care).
But at no point is point buy at fault for this.  Organic rolls, guh!   

It goes back way, way earlier than that.  The problem, of which point-buy contributed to the creation, is the concept behind "keep his Int mod on par for his level".

Prior to 3E, there was no such thing as having any ability scores "on par" for anything.  If you wanted to be a fighter, then you needed nine strength.  There were small benefits to having high strength - +1 to hit, +2 damage - but nothing game-breaking either way.

Point-buy allowed people to start with whatever stats they wanted (with limits, of course), so they could start with a 17 or 18 in the one stat that they really cared about.  And since they could, it became the new expectation.  By the time 4E came around, the game was practically written on the assumption that you would have a +4 mod to your main stat.

If not for point-buy, you could roll up a fighter with 11 strength and 13 charisma, (you wouldn't be suffering a relative -4 to your attack rolls, because Universal Ability Modifiers wouldn't exist), and you could use a charisma-based Come and Get It power because that also wouldn't have been designed under the assumption that you needed 18 charisma to use it. 

The metagame is not the game.

But at no point is point buy at fault for this.  Organic rolls, guh!   

It goes back way, way earlier than that.  The problem, of which point-buy contributed to the creation, is the concept behind "keep his Int mod on par for his level".

Prior to 3E, there was no such thing as having any ability scores "on par" for anything.  If you wanted to be a fighter, then you needed nine strength.  There were small benefits to having high strength - +1 to hit, +2 damage - but nothing game-breaking either way.

Point-buy allowed people to start with whatever stats they wanted (with limits, of course), so they could start with a 17 or 18 in the one stat that they really cared about.  And since they could, it became the new expectation.  By the time 4E came around, the game was practically written on the assumption that you would have a +4 mod to your main stat.

If not for point-buy, you could roll up a fighter with 11 strength and 13 charisma, (you wouldn't be suffering a relative -4 to your attack rolls, because Universal Ability Modifiers wouldn't exist), and you could use a charisma-based Come and Get It power because that also wouldn't have been designed under the assumption that you needed 18 charisma to use it. 




That's still not the fault of point buy.  Point buy is "I want to play [blank] sort of character and, except for bowing to needs of fairness, I should bloody well be able to do that."

True, when things don't matter, you can delve outside the norm without penalty.  I recently finished playing a table top version of Final Fantasy (FFd6, found on the Giants forums).  In that game, race doesn't matter.  Picking Mithra over Hume over Moogle does exactly nothing to your stats or sensory abilities or the sort of weapons you're allowed to wield or anything.  On the other hand, if you don't keep up your armor and weapons, you quickly die/become ineffective.  Guess which part I enjoyed more.

Same thing with alignment.  If they'd just get rid of its game mechanics ties, it might serve as an interesting side conversation.  With nothing at stake, players can discuss where certain actions fall and if they disagree, then oh well, they move on.  No one has to "win out" over anyone else.

But while ability scores do anything on a character sheet besides sit there and look pretty, whether they're randomly generated or determined in a reliable fashion, there will exist a spectrum for them: "Not good enough-Appropriate-Way too good".  Point buy just expands the Appropriate portion of the spectrum.     
I've finally figured out how to put in a sig. Yes, I'm including this here for no other reason than to express how happy I am that I could finally do this. For goodness' sake, change these forums back (or just change, I don't care).
These are my opnions and are meant to voice what I personally would like to see done to D&DNext as an active and interested party in the development of the game, not an attempt to force my opinion on others.

First I don't like CAGI. If the player wants to call an enemy out on the field of battle the DM should be allowed to use the monsters Intelligence, Alignment, motivation, risk and reward and if the PC has a reputation or previous history / grudge that could be calculated using judgment to decide whether or not the NPC will run starking raving mad across a field of battle at all costs.

One of the reasons this ability confounded me is that people have said recently that Wizards are over powered (personally I don't get that but that is for another post/thread). So why would the leader of the enemy troope peel off the caster to attack the warrior just because the PCs know that the fighter is a dead end tactically for the enemy and don't want the enemy to have a tactical advantage?

Secondly, I agree with a previous poster that feigning weakness is not going to provoke some kind of change in tactics because, you are no longer a threat. I will coup de grace you after I kill the squishy but "high" damaging target first.

The debate that a fighter's high endurance and survivability is magical is not necessarily the case. Calcification can make bones more resilient to breakage, nerve damage from years of physical assault makes a person more accostomed to and resistant to pain and years of combat experience give the warrior the ability to read the battlefield and assess threats and avoiding damage accounts for the skill that equates to hit points as well as the physical issues.

Not to trivilalize stats affect on combat in earlier editions because they helped but they were also tools for role-playing. The stats gave you a gauge on how smart, charming, wise and tough your character was so you could roleplay the personality appropriately. This was a double edged blade. Some people like to have fate decide their character (we did start by rolling 3d6 and going down the list assigning, we didn't even pick which stat the number went to), it forced us to step outside of our comfort zone some. "I have the stats to be a Thief even if I wanted to play a Ranger" challenged us to find a way to improv and that can be fun. Sure there were times when I wanted to play a specific character and in that case it was frustrating and for that I am glad we have options with point assignment.

I think stat weight has grown with MMOs (I know I went there) because the min/max mindset you get from them is so crucial to viability in those games. You cannot be a good combatant if you don't have a high strength and constituion/stamina and all the gear that is Best in Slot. There is a reason that everyone is cookie cutter in MMOs. All the end game characters from the same class look the same, they don't have personalities assigned to high end gear (very few items have intelligence or ego or even a detailed background about the elven king who donned the suit of fine chain mail). That is because your characters viability doesn't subsist on role-playing, it is all stat driven.

I guess the thing is what is D&D Next going to be? A tactical game or a roleplaying game? Does it have to be one or the other? Can it really be both? As I have put more time under my belt in gaming I find that most every incarnation of D&D has had things I didn't like but I am still here. I have used house rules and tweaked the system to best serve myself and my player's interests. It boils down to compromise, not what i have to have in the game. If they put CAGI in I just make it clear to the people in my game that we need to find a way to work around it for our campaign. My only complaint being, that if it is in the rules, it sets a precedent that players expect. It is hard to take things from the players once they are in a system, it is easier to give them to players if you group decides they want it. I would rather have a modest, in the middle rule set, then an extreme system for either the role playing or the tactical side of table top gaming. Compromise happens in the middle, not from extreme orientation.
But while ability scores do anything on a character sheet besides sit there and look pretty, whether they're randomly generated or determined in a reliable fashion, there will exist a spectrum for them: "Not good enough-Appropriate-Way too good".  Point buy just expands the Appropriate portion of the spectrum.

Except, that's not the effect point-buy has actually had.  It might seem like the ability to decide your own stats in a reasonable manner has increased the chance that you'll end up with stats you need for the character you want, but it's not the case.  It's actually had the opposite effect.

In AD&D, you could play a perfectly competent fighter with strength 9-16, and only strength 18(51) or higher (or dexterity 17+) really pushed the "way too good" end of the spectrum.  That was a huge range of "appropriate" and the only "not good enough" was when you were literally prohibited from something - the fighter needed a minimum of strength 9 to even join the class.

By 3E, however, the line was moved.  Suddenly, a 9 or 10 or 12 wasn't cutting it anymore.  In part because of point-buy, but also because you could now assign your stats wherever you wanted them, the new assumption was that you'd start with a 15 in your prime stat every time, and increase that stat every four levels.  This is where your limits on stat increases started to hurt character concepts, because you just couldn't play an effective two-weapon fighter unless you put a 15+ into dex (for example).  Wizards were expected to start with at least a 15 in Int and increase it every four levels (as this was necessary to cast level 9 spells).

By 4E, the expectation is that you'd start with an 18 in the prime score for your class.  I'm not sure whether this is when point-buy became the default assumed method, but it wouldn't surprise me.  Even then, your hit chance was barely breaking 50% - imagine how a strength 9 fighter would feel in that edition!  Again, though, there's an incredibly tiny range of "appropriate" with a huge range of "not good enough" and I'm not sure that it was ever possible for anyone to reach "way too good" for ability scores in that edition.

So you see, increased control over character design has actually reduced your chance to play the character you want, by raising the bar to make certain stats mandatory.  Before you had that sort of control, they couldn't assume that you would have any high stats, so anyone was allowed to be competent regardless of how low their stats were (again, assuming 9+).

The metagame is not the game.

Sign In to post comments