Looks like I'm Banning Rogues from My Games

So this is the relevant part of the legend and lore article."You can think of these as nonmagical effects that would still require a saving throw or an ability contest to resist. For instance, Shalandra the rogue might contest her Charisma against an ogre's Wisdom. If Shalandra wins, she can trick the ogre into charging forward and blundering into a trap."

This is okay for non intellegant creatures, but there is no valid reason an intellegant creature should have to fall for such a thing. Nor do I like the idea of such a creaturing being tricked into having to charge forward and into a trap. This should be part of the roleplaying part of the game. Anything like magic shouldn't be given to martial classes and forcing a monster/npc to act in a certain way without being magically compelled is just a breakdown in logic.

This makes the third time the rogue has been messed up, going from bad to worse to somehow even worse. And would also make the first time I have ever banned a class from a game, but I have no desire to deal with a non-magical hypnotist while running a game. If my villian wants to attack the wizard cuase the wizard just burned him with burning hands, he should have the complete option (as an intellegent creature) to completely ignore the rogue no matter what. 

I think this would also qualify as my first "ragequit" for Next, though it is caused by the issue occuring three times in a row with the rogue always causing problems. 


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

Saying this is forced manipulation is about as valid as saying a fighter making a melee attack is forced death.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Saying this is forced manipulation is about as valid as saying a fighter making a melee attack is forced death.



Yep, if they're allowed a Saving Throw (either Int for intelligence-based character, or Charisma for non-intelligent based creatures) then it's not forced at all. And I like the idea of a DM giving Advantage or Disadvantage depending on what the Player does/say. Though this does give a benefit for those that can think off-the-cuff and have natural ingenuity rather than a static auto-matic response, with no need for player say-so (which might just be a Saving Throw with no modifiers).

Either way, it's not magical in my book. I'm reminded many times of Tasslehoff from the Dragonlance chronicles that  taunted people into situations that gave him an edge. He's just that good and it worked well with no magical aid what-so-ever.  
There's another way to look at this: a power might give a player a small bit of DM authority/creative license/authorness over the scene, within a very narrow scope and to a limited, probabilistic degree.  Stories about rogues are often about rogues tricking people.  So it isn't ridiculous to say to a player, "Now and then, you some influence on when the rogue has successfully tricked someone."  Fictionally, this does not mean the rogue has some magical manipulation power.  It just means the rogue's trick worked in this particular scenario because that is how things went, fiction-wise.  The player is, to some degree, an author, and powers can acknowledge that.
Saying this is forced manipulation is about as valid as saying a fighter making a melee attack is forced death.



Yep, if they're allowed a Saving Throw (either Int for intelligence-based character, or Charisma for non-intelligent based creatures) then it's not forced at all. And I like the idea of a DM giving Advantage or Disadvantage depending on what the Player does/say. Though this does give a benefit for those that can think off-the-cuff and have natural ingenuity rather than a static auto-matic response, with no need for player say-so (which might just be a Saving Throw with no modifiers).

Either way, it's not magical in my book. I'm reminded many times of Tasslehoff from the Dragonlance chronicles that  taunted people into situations that gave him an edge. He's just that good and it worked well with no magical aid what-so-ever.  

Yup on all counts.  I don't understand the separation between physical and mental defenses here.  Why is it that only magical attacks can target mental defenses?  Why is it that a Fighter pushing an orc off a cliff isn't seen as "controlling the orc's action" but when the Rogue tricks the orc into charging it suddenly becomes "mind control"?

The monster gets a check or save to resist.  This is the mechanical way of resolving the question, "Did the monster fall for your trick?"  Could the DM just decide on his own?  Of course.  You can do the same for any attacks.  When the fighter swings his sword, don't have him roll an attack roll vs. AC; instead, just decide if he hits or misses based on whatever criteria you decide to use.  But I personally prefer a system that can also resolve these tasks without me having to consider whether or not it worked.  I don't want to have to judge every single monster's reaction.  So, for me, it is very nice to just have the rogue roll a Charisma vs. Wisdom contest.

I can't understand why people don't like this... It happens all the time in literature - and it certainly happens in real life.

What is a feint if not something like a Charisma Check?
What is making it look like you have lowered your guard so that your opponent overextends himself?
What is tumble if not a Dexterity Check?
What is darting into the shadows if nto a Dex Check?
What is distracting a creature but a Cha? Or even Str or Wis or Dex, depending on how you do it?

The thing is, people ARE stupid.

Ok, let me rephrase that - people can be tricked into doing slightly less inteilligent things, when they are goaded - or when they can't see any better option, or when they just aren't thinking straight in the middle of battle, and the Rogue is the type of character who is about using subvertive techniques to do that.  
I can't understand why people don't like this... It happens all the time in literature - and it certainly happens in real life.

What is a feint if not something like a Charisma Check?
What is making it look like you have lowered your guard so that your opponent overextends himself?
What is tumble if not a Dexterity Check?
What is darting into the shadows if nto a Dex Check?
What is distracting a creature but a Cha? Or even Str or Wis or Dex, depending on how you do it?

The thing is, people ARE stupid.

Ok, let me rephrase that - people can be tricked into doing slightly less inteilligent things, when they are goaded - or when they can't see any better option, or when they just aren't thinking straight in the middle of battle, and the Rogue is the type of character who is about using subvertive techniques to do that.  




I'm not convinced it's something that needs to be a codified power.  These 'mind tricks' are subject to DM fiat and to the situation at hand.   It's clear that against some creatures it will automatically fail.     In addition, this "power" does nothing that the Improvised Action doesn't already cover.    

 


I can't understand why people don't like this... It happens all the time in literature - and it certainly happens in real life.

What is a feint if not something like a Charisma Check?
What is making it look like you have lowered your guard so that your opponent overextends himself?
What is tumble if not a Dexterity Check?
What is darting into the shadows if nto a Dex Check?
What is distracting a creature but a Cha? Or even Str or Wis or Dex, depending on how you do it?

The thing is, people ARE stupid.

Ok, let me rephrase that - people can be tricked into doing slightly less inteilligent things, when they are goaded - or when they can't see any better option, or when they just aren't thinking straight in the middle of battle, and the Rogue is the type of character who is about using subvertive techniques to do that.

I'm not convinced it's something that needs to be a codified power.  These 'mind tricks' are subject to DM fiat and to the situation at hand.   It's clear that against some creatures it will automatically fail.     In addition, this "power" does nothing that the Improvised Action doesn't already cover.

It gives a bonus to it.

Much the same as being a fighter gives you a bonus to "physical tricks", like deciding someone's head comes off.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

There's another way to look at this: a power might give a player a small bit of DM authority/creative license/authorness over the scene, within a very narrow scope and to a limited, probabilistic degree.  Stories about rogues are often about rogues tricking people.  So it isn't ridiculous to say to a player, "Now and then, you some influence on when the rogue has successfully tricked someone."  Fictionally, this does not mean the rogue has some magical manipulation power.  It just means the rogue's trick worked in this particular scenario because that is how things went, fiction-wise.  The player is, to some degree, an author, and powers can acknowledge that.




And what happens when the NPC rogue uses it on a PC?    Is that "Authority" not a little uncomfortable now? What are its limits? 


I can't understand why people don't like this... It happens all the time in literature - and it certainly happens in real life.

What is a feint if not something like a Charisma Check?
What is making it look like you have lowered your guard so that your opponent overextends himself?
What is tumble if not a Dexterity Check?
What is darting into the shadows if nto a Dex Check?
What is distracting a creature but a Cha? Or even Str or Wis or Dex, depending on how you do it?

The thing is, people ARE stupid.

Ok, let me rephrase that - people can be tricked into doing slightly less inteilligent things, when they are goaded - or when they can't see any better option, or when they just aren't thinking straight in the middle of battle, and the Rogue is the type of character who is about using subvertive techniques to do that.  




I'm not convinced it's something that needs to be a codified power.  These 'mind tricks' are subject to DM fiat and to the situation at hand.   It's clear that against some creatures it will automatically fail.     In addition, this "power" does nothing that the Improvised Action doesn't already cover.

It does something very special that the Improvised Action doesn't already cover, as people have explained.  It tells the DM: "This action has been approved by the designers.  It is balanced and appropriate."

Saying that you can just use the Improvised Action isn't an argument, because it applies to everything.  Why have rules for attacking?  For casting spells?  For anything?  The entire combat section could just be: "Improvised Action.  Tell your DM what you want to do and they tell you if you can do it or not."

I love impovised actions, both as a player and as a DM.  But I also like prescribed actions (again, both as a player and as a DM), because I don't want to always have to rely on the DM alone (or, as the DM, I don't want to have to always abjugate every action).

And I have to ask: if you (as a DM) would be totally cool with these actions as Improvised Actions, why does it bother you that the rogue could use them as a different named action?  You can make specific rulings in both cases.  Unless the text for the rogue tricks says, "You can do this no matter what.  If your DM tries to tell you that you can't, show him this text.  If he persists, contact customer support.", you (as the DM) can totally say, "Sorry, that trick won't work against this monster because..."
There's another way to look at this: a power might give a player a small bit of DM authority/creative license/authorness over the scene, within a very narrow scope and to a limited, probabilistic degree.  Stories about rogues are often about rogues tricking people.  So it isn't ridiculous to say to a player, "Now and then, you some influence on when the rogue has successfully tricked someone."  Fictionally, this does not mean the rogue has some magical manipulation power.  It just means the rogue's trick worked in this particular scenario because that is how things went, fiction-wise.  The player is, to some degree, an author, and powers can acknowledge that.

And what happens when the NPC rogue uses it on a PC?    Is that "Authority" not a little uncomfortable now? What are its limits? 

Same thing that happens when an NPC fighter pushes a PC.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.


And I have to ask: if you (as a DM) would be totally cool with these actions as Improvised Actions, why does it bother you that the rogue could use them as a different named action?  You can make specific rulings in both cases.  Unless the text for the rogue tricks says, "You can do this no matter what.  If your DM tries to tell you that you can't, show him this text.  If he persists, contact customer support.", you (as the DM) can totally say, "Sorry, that trick won't work against this monster because..."




As I said before, I'd rather the designers focus on some other concept than to create a bunch of contrived actions that are technically allready provided with the Improvised Action.    It's just repackaged/deceptive design and doesn't offer us anything new.

I'm also not convinced that named/codified " Improvised" actions work perfectly in every situation either.   In my experience, the mechanics of a Taunt / feint are always different and change with the situation at hand.  

With that said, the axis of my playstyle isn't the mechanic first and then find a narative.  Roleplaying comes first and the mechanics are just a means to an end.     


It can also get on a DM's nerves that the fighter can kill an NPC with a well timed Crit. Why should the fighter get to control the opponents very life? This should be up to the DM, based upon how well the fighter role-plays the action. Did they bring their mock weaponry (which should be built to D&D standards, 25 lb sword to prove that they can roleplay the strength), and preform the full choreography?

Same goes for the wizard, how should they be able to control the very laws of the universe. This should be left up to role-play, unless they can give me a perfect latin incantation with the proper rhyme and meter (to prove the proper role-play of Intelligence) to sound (we all know magic isn't real, so we should be leniant) like it could control fire then we can say it passes. Extra consideration to be given if they light the sofa on fire.

I won't even go into cleric, but suffice it to say before this class pulled off their abilities, I would ban them from D&D. D&D has gotten enough bad publicity that I don't want players performing religious rites to prove that their spells should work.

---------

Yeah Charisma is a stat, rogues should use it, and without having to jump through hoops to prove that they are the DM's favorite. D&D's largest failing is an inability to handle anything outside of a physical conflict. I don't know if they will ever be able to get past that, but allowing something to happen in combat besides "I hit them with my sword", or "I use magic so it works" is a great idea.
On Essentials: Everyone deserves to play a class they enjoy. Hex Grid UserAndroid UserD&DMapTools
Dungeons & Dragons Compendium
Our House Rules
Index of 4e Errata
There's another way to look at this: a power might give a player a small bit of DM authority/creative license/authorness over the scene, within a very narrow scope and to a limited, probabilistic degree.  Stories about rogues are often about rogues tricking people.  So it isn't ridiculous to say to a player, "Now and then, you some influence on when the rogue has successfully tricked someone."  Fictionally, this does not mean the rogue has some magical manipulation power.  It just means the rogue's trick worked in this particular scenario because that is how things went, fiction-wise.  The player is, to some degree, an author, and powers can acknowledge that.

And what happens when the NPC rogue uses it on a PC?    Is that "Authority" not a little uncomfortable now? What are its limits? 

Same thing that happens when an NPC fighter pushes a PC.



It's not the same.  The push is physical.       


Has nobody in this thread ever fenced, or played chess, or any game in which you set up a trap, then taunted some opponent into walking into it?
  Hell, I've been able to do that in FPS games which don't even have dialog options.  Games like Bioshock absolutely depended on the technique (nothing deals with a hallway full of splicers like a bunch of trap rivets and a loud noise or two),.

Seriously, this is well established territory, gang.
    



I don't think anyone is saying that it should never happen.  It just shouldn't be able to be successful when circumstances would dictate otherwise.
Saying this is forced manipulation is about as valid as saying a fighter making a melee attack is forced death.



Except that one can ACTUALLY be forced on someone, the other one can't unless he allows it.  You can force your fighter's attack on my character.  You cannot force him to charge you with mere words.  I would have to allow your words to work.
There's another way to look at this: a power might give a player a small bit of DM authority/creative license/authorness over the scene, within a very narrow scope and to a limited, probabilistic degree.  Stories about rogues are often about rogues tricking people.  So it isn't ridiculous to say to a player, "Now and then, you some influence on when the rogue has successfully tricked someone."  Fictionally, this does not mean the rogue has some magical manipulation power.  It just means the rogue's trick worked in this particular scenario because that is how things went, fiction-wise.  The player is, to some degree, an author, and powers can acknowledge that.




And what happens when the NPC rogue uses it on a PC?    Is that "Authority" not a little uncomfortable now? What are its limits? 


No, it's not uncomfortable.  It's the same as failing a save against anything else.  You wish you wouldn't have failed it, but you deal with it and move on.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Why is it that a Fighter pushing an orc off a cliff isn't seen as "controlling the orc's action" but when the Rogue tricks the orc into charging it suddenly becomes "mind control"?



Because maybe that orc wouldn't charge no matter what the roll.  If the orc chief has had the last 15 orcs who have left their post early beheaded and not one has gotten a pardon, the rogue's taunting is not going to get number 16 to budge.  Even if the orc killed the rogue, he would still be killing himself by leaving his post.  

With pushing the orc off the cliff, the orc doesn't have a choice in whether you try to push him or not.  Orcs DO have the choice to charge or not. 
Saying this is forced manipulation is about as valid as saying a fighter making a melee attack is forced death.



Except that one can ACTUALLY be forced on someone, the other one can't unless he allows it.  You can force your fighter's attack on my character.  You cannot force him to charge you with mere words.  I would have to allow your words to work.




I agree, players should be making choices and solving problems not the dice.        



 


It's not the same.  The push is physical.

So you can't be pushed mentally?

I don't think anyone is saying that it should never happen.  It just shouldn't be able to be successful when circumstances would dictate otherwise.

You mean like not being able to push creatures bigger then you?  Or push creatures who are already against walls?

Yea, i don't think anyone is suggesting that rogues get at-will auto-dominate.  No one's going to jump into lava to attempt to get at a rogue, no matter how good his taunts.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Saying this is forced manipulation is about as valid as saying a fighter making a melee attack is forced death.



Except that one can ACTUALLY be forced on someone, the other one can't unless he allows it.  You can force your fighter's attack on my character.  You cannot force him to charge you with mere words.  I would have to allow your words to work.


In the same way that you have to allow the sword to cut his head off. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
There's another way to look at this: a power might give a player a small bit of DM authority/creative license/authorness over the scene, within a very narrow scope and to a limited, probabilistic degree.  Stories about rogues are often about rogues tricking people.  So it isn't ridiculous to say to a player, "Now and then, you some influence on when the rogue has successfully tricked someone."  Fictionally, this does not mean the rogue has some magical manipulation power.  It just means the rogue's trick worked in this particular scenario because that is how things went, fiction-wise.  The player is, to some degree, an author, and powers can acknowledge that.

And what happens when the NPC rogue uses it on a PC?    Is that "Authority" not a little uncomfortable now? What are its limits? 

Same thing that happens when an NPC fighter pushes a PC.



It's not the same.  The push is physical.       


The only difference is that the taunt is psychological.  It's still not magic.  It's still a reasonable thing for the rogue to be able to do semi-reliably.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Saying this is forced manipulation is about as valid as saying a fighter making a melee attack is forced death.



Except that one can ACTUALLY be forced on someone, the other one can't unless he allows it.  You can force your fighter's attack on my character.  You cannot force him to charge you with mere words.  I would have to allow your words to work.


In the same way that you have to allow the sword to cut his head off. 



If you say so.
I agree, players should be making choices and solving problems not the dice.        


And you're fine with the dice determining whether or not the fighter cuts off someone's head?

Why?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Why is it that a Fighter pushing an orc off a cliff isn't seen as "controlling the orc's action" but when the Rogue tricks the orc into charging it suddenly becomes "mind control"?



Because maybe that orc wouldn't charge no matter what the roll.  If the orc chief has had the last 15 orcs who have left their post early beheaded and not one has gotten a pardon, the rogue's taunting is not going to get number 16 to budge.  Even if the orc killed the rogue, he would still be killing himself by leaving his post.  

With pushing the orc off the cliff, the orc doesn't have a choice in whether you try to push him or not.  Orcs DO have the choice to charge or not. 




Then you give him advantage on the roll, or after the rogue rolls, you roll and say, he stays put. The player doesn't need to know why it failed, only that it did.

However, a really good rogue, that knows just the right thing to say at the right time to the right creature could even push a guy that is afraid for his life to do something really stupid. He is that good.
I agree, players should be making choices and solving problems not the dice.        


And you're fine with the dice determining whether or not the fighter cuts off someone's head?

Why?



The dice don't determine that.  The DM does.  If he describes your swing as cutting the enemy's head off, then that's what happen.  If he doesn't, it doesn't.  The dice have nothing to do with it.
Now you're just being stubborn.  I'll rephrase:

And you're fine with the dice determining whether or not your attack hits, and how much damage it does?

Why?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Why is it that a Fighter pushing an orc off a cliff isn't seen as "controlling the orc's action" but when the Rogue tricks the orc into charging it suddenly becomes "mind control"?



Because maybe that orc wouldn't charge no matter what the roll.  If the orc chief has had the last 15 orcs who have left their post early beheaded and not one has gotten a pardon, the rogue's taunting is not going to get number 16 to budge.  Even if the orc killed the rogue, he would still be killing himself by leaving his post.  

With pushing the orc off the cliff, the orc doesn't have a choice in whether you try to push him or not.  Orcs DO have the choice to charge or not. 




Then you give him advantage on the roll, or after the rogue rolls, you roll and say, he stays put. The player doesn't need to know why it failed, only that it did.

However, a really good rogue, that knows just the right thing to say at the right time to the right creature could even push a guy that is afraid for his life to do something really stupid. He is that good.



Like Spiderman. He was usually good about finding that one nerve to strike that would send the enemy in a rage, or turning groups of enemies against each other with msdirection and more comments(one reason that IIRC, villains stopped trying to jump Spiderman all at once eventually)
Saying this is forced manipulation is about as valid as saying a fighter making a melee attack is forced death.



Except that one can ACTUALLY be forced on someone, the other one can't unless he allows it.  You can force your fighter's attack on my character.  You cannot force him to charge you with mere words.  I would have to allow your words to work.




I agree, players should be making choices and solving problems not the dice.       


Players are the ones making the choices because we are talking about a PC ability.  The dice do not make the choice or solve the problem.  All they do is determine success or failure.  And yes, it's perfectly reasonable for NPC rogues to use this as well.  It's just another form of ability contest.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I agree, players should be making choices and solving problems not the dice.        


And you're fine with the dice determining whether or not the fighter cuts off someone's head?

Why?



Yes, because the attack was first the result of a choice to attack.    For my playstyle, player choice is the basis of all actions in the game, not the mechanics.         


Saying this is forced manipulation is about as valid as saying a fighter making a melee attack is forced death.



Except that one can ACTUALLY be forced on someone, the other one can't unless he allows it.  You can force your fighter's attack on my character.  You cannot force him to charge you with mere words.  I would have to allow your words to work.



You have to allow the fighter to hit you, in the same way. Did you fail to dodge, than the fighter kills you. Did you fail to resist the rogues taunts, than you're going to charge/attack him.

Everyone can be taunted or provoked, perhaps some buddhist monks might be immune to these (and would be a nice feature for monks more than disease immunity). But if you have siblings, if you've ever had to deal with bullies in school, if you have children, if you've had to deal with co-workers, if you've driven a car in busy traffic, if you've been reading these forums. It's likely that this has affected you, causing you to lash out, verbally or textually (is this a word? it should be) most likely.
On Essentials: Everyone deserves to play a class they enjoy. Hex Grid UserAndroid UserD&DMapTools
Dungeons & Dragons Compendium
Our House Rules
Index of 4e Errata
I agree, players should be making choices and solving problems not the dice.        


And you're fine with the dice determining whether or not the fighter cuts off someone's head?

Why?



Yes, because the attack was first the result of a choice to attack.    For my playstyle, player choice is the basis of all actions in the game, not the mechanics.         


And the taunt is first the result of a choice to taunt on the part of the rogue.

How is this different?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So you have a problem with the rogue (or anyone else) attempting to use their wits by making a persuasion/bluff attempt to trick an opponent to rushing forward angrily/foolishly. Even when such an attempt is in no way guaranteed to work because the target makes a wisdom check to resist. But when a caster points his finger at someone and says "lol dominated" you don't bat an eyelash?
Because maybe that orc wouldn't charge no matter what the roll.

Why? Seriously. Why?

Why are you arbitrarily deciding what the orc would or wouldn't do? It a die roll can determine whether I hit you, why can't a die roll determine if I convince you?

As a DM, if the rogue in my game just successfully tricked my NPC orc to charge, I would make a justification for the orc's action and roll with it. That's the whole point of the rogue's ability.

Think of the orc's pending reaction as Schrodinger's cat. Is the orc foolhardy enough to charge? Or is he stalwart enough to resist the taunt? I dunno yet. Let's open up the box (i.e., roll the dice) and find out...

Are there times where something like this is attempted but flat-out impossible? Sure. Of course. Maybe the rogue doesn't know the target is under a compulsory spell to guard the bridge? It cannot leave its post. Something like that. Fine.

But if you make that the norm, you're just punishing the player for choosing the character he wants to play.
I agree, players should be making choices and solving problems not the dice.        


And you're fine with the dice determining whether or not the fighter cuts off someone's head?

Why?



Yes, because the attack was first the result of a choice to attack.    For my playstyle, player choice is the basis of all actions in the game, not the mechanics.         


And the taunt is first the result of a choice to taunt on the part of the rogue.

How is this different?

Mown, buddy:
I'm not certain why a mechanical compulsion MUST necessarily translate into a narrative compulsion. Just because the ability forces a creature to take a certain action doesn't mean that there is any magical force at work which compels that action; it is merely a mechanical representation of something very realistic and possible.

To insist that such an ability MUST be non-magical hypnosis is to be willfully obstinate. 

He's just being obstinate.

@mikemearls The office is basically empty this week, which opens up all sorts of possibilities for low shenanigans

@mikemearls In essence, all those arguments I lost are being unlost. Won, if you will. We're doing it MY way, baby.

@biotech66 aren't you the boss anyway? isn't "DO IT OR I FIRE YOU!" still an option?

@mikemearls I think Perkins would throat punch me if I ever tried that. And I'd give him a glowing quarterly review for it.

ITT:  People who believe that no subterfuge exists in the real world, because nobody knows magic.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
For myself, I get a bit annoyed at DMs that reward the better actors and BSrs with results that (based purely on character ability scores) would not otherwise succeed. Yes, D&D is a role-playing game. It also shouldn't be an elitist-only game that overly-rewards either game mastery or natural talent to the severe detriment to those not so natural talented or familiar with the rules.

In regards to the OP, if a character is persuasive enough to properly motivate a target into doing somethign stupid, especially if it something that has occured in the real world, then it should be allowed to happen. If the action would unduly disrupt the campaign, then a simpler answer would be to just not even allow the roll.

Saying people can't use non-physical means to make people take physical actions that they would normally not do is being very naive. The best con artists are all ABOUT doing just that. No magic is needed.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Now you're just being stubborn.  I'll rephrase:

And you're fine with the dice determining whether or not your attack hits, and how much damage it does?

Why?



Because my character has no control over your character's actions.  If your character swings a sword at me, I have no control over that beyond armor class and perhaps a special modifier for an ability.  You roll and what happens, happens.  Similarly, I have no control over whether your character taunts mine or not.  However, I always (baring magic) have control over my PCs reactions to words.  I get to decide if your taunt is enough to make me charge.  I get to decide if your taunt is not enough.  Your die roll does not get to control my character's mind via mere words.
Easy enough to get that orc guard from his post. Rogue pulls out bejeweled sceptre and points it at the orc stronghold and starts muttering gibberish. Orc thinks rogue is spellcaster thats going to rain fire or something equally bad upon the whole stronghold (because magic can do anything). Orc now rushes the rogue either out of loyalty to king, or hoping to make himself a hero and get all the glory that entails.

After orc is dead the rogue adds the orcs jeweled knife along with the sceptre back to his stash of impressive looking trinkets.
On Essentials: Everyone deserves to play a class they enjoy. Hex Grid UserAndroid UserD&DMapTools
Dungeons & Dragons Compendium
Our House Rules
Index of 4e Errata
Because my character has no control over your character's actions


What exactly does the Dex mod component of AC mean?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

You have to allow the fighter to hit you, in the same way.



No you don't.  The fighter hits you or doesn't whether you allow it or not.  Allowing it means that you simply stand there and get hit.  If you resist in ANY way, you did not allow the strike.  It happened in spite of what you wanted.

If my character is forced to charge over mere words in spite of what I want, then my character is mind controlled, and that should not be able to happen without magic.

Everyone can be taunted or provoked, perhaps some buddhist monks might be immune to these (and would be a nice feature for monks more than disease immunity).



There are no words you can say that would force me to charge and/or attack you.

But if you have siblings, if you've ever had to deal with bullies in school, if you have children, if you've had to deal with co-workers, if you've driven a car in busy traffic, if you've been reading these forums. It's likely that this has affected you, causing you to lash out, verbally or textually (is this a word? it should be) most likely.



Heh.  You're equating verbal responses with mind control?  Provoking someone to words is a lot different than forcing them to do something against their will.