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

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. 



Yea, here is the thing: you might thing your first paragraph is true, but a player might disagree. He might feel that his character is so adept at pulling at a creatures emotional strings that he can still try, and he has some chance of success. An ability such as this mediates power between the players desire and the DMs desire in a more fair way. And, the beauty is, the DM still has the ability to influence probability through the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. 

Put plain and simply, a lot of us feel that you are putting more of a conceptual difference between the mental push and the physical push than should actually exist.  
Because my character has no control over your character's actions.

Is that a two-way street? Can you character use the intimidate skill to force the orc to back down from a fight?

Before this whole thread gets shoved down to the "realism" bin further, I just want to say one thing:

                                                                   NEWCOMER
                                                COME AND GET IT'S LITTLE BROTHER


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?



Asked and answered. 

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.



I would usually allow it as well.  However, if I as the DM who knows the circumstances far better than the players do knows that the attempt simply has no chance for success, then it has no chance for success.   

But if you make that the norm, you're just punishing the player for choosing the character he wants to play.



Who said anything about making that the norm?
Because my character has no control over your character's actions


What exactly does the Dex mod component of AC mean?



So my dex controls your character?  Because I have dex, I get to dictate to you whether you attack or not?  Modifier =/= control.  I already acknowledged that there will be influences as to whether you succeed or not, but there can be no control on my end without magic.
However, I always (baring magic) have control over my PCs reactions to Swords.

 You spelled that wrong.   

It doesn't make for much of a game if you can just decide your character is immune to Swords.

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.

I like the rogue to be able to do things like this and written mechanics that allow him to do it. 4E had a lot of things like this, and for a good reason IMO.
But since 4E also took some major bashing for mechanics like this, I assume the same thing will happen to DnDN and the poor rogue, who is just trying to find her mechanical way in the world.

Stuff like this also could offer great tactical options on a battlegrid as well. I am glad that DnDN is finally seeing more 4E like-things. Which makes my playstyle feel more included to me now.

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

Yeah, but you're not a bloodthirsty orc and we're not engaged in a fight for our lives, Hunger Games style. 

Your sentiment reeks of someone who has never been in a real battle before.

@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.

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. 



Yea, here is the thing: you might thing your first paragraph is true, but a player might disagree. He might feel that his character is so adept at pulling at a creatures emotional strings that he can still try, and he has some chance of success.



In most cases I would agree.  However, if there are circumstances that I feel would reduce the chance of success to zero, then it will be reduced to zero.  I don't have the time or inclination to interrupt the game and have a conversation with the player about the situation (much of which he won't be aware of anyway) in order to decide whether the ability has a chance or not.  I'm simply going to make a decision and if the player has an issue, we can discuss it after the game when it's not going to disrupt everyone at the table.

An ability such as this mediates power between the players desire and the DMs desire in a more fair way. And, the beauty is, the DM still has the ability to influence probability through the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.



The players know that I always strive to be fair, so if I say something fails, they will accept it and move on.  This is called trust.  If you don't have trust in your DM, you should not be playing with that DM.   


Asked and answered.

Nope. I specifically want to know how you justify arbitrarily predetermining how the orc will react to a character's ability.

Who said anything about making that the norm?

You did. With the blanket statement, "Because my character has no control over your character's actions." Seems your opinion is quite matter-of-factually the norm to me.

Because my character has no control over your character's actions.

Is that a two-way street? Can you character use the intimidate skill to force the orc to back down from a fight?




He can try.  All social skills work the same.  Most of the time I won't do more than give modifiers to the roll (positive and negative) based on the situation.  Sometimes they just can't work.  That's for use of skills on NPCs. 

For use of skills on PCs, it's up to the player to decide how his character is going to react.  I'm not going to tell a player he has to agree to something due to a high diplomacy roll by an NPC.  However, I will say things like "he's really convincing" and the like to convey to them what the result was and then let them RP things.
However, I always (baring magic) have control over my PCs reactions to Swords.

 You spelled that wrong.   

It doesn't make for much of a game if you can just decide your character is immune to Swords.



lol 
Because my character has no control over your character's actions


What exactly does the Dex mod component of AC mean?



So my dex controls your character?  Because I have dex, I get to dictate to you whether you attack or not?  Modifier =/= control.  I already acknowledged that there will be influences as to whether you succeed or not, but there can be no control on my end without magic.


You didn't answer the question.  What does that dex mod mean?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

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

Yeah, but you're not a bloodthirsty orc and we're not engaged in a fight for our lives, Hunger Games style. 

Your sentiment reeks of someone who has never been in a real battle before.



So change orc to human sitting behind a dex writing.  Humans, desks and writing all exist in D&D, and the rogue will still have the same ability to use on that person.
He can try.  All social skills work the same.  Most of the time I won't do more than give modifiers to the roll (positive and negative) based on the situation.  Sometimes they just can't work.  That's for use of skills on NPCs.

Then I see a disconnect between this point ad your distaste of rogue's taunting.

Why cannot a rogue even try? If a big, scary fighter can intimidate the orc to cower? Is that not forcing a behavior/action on the orc? How is that different from coaxing the orc to take any other action (like charge) with the right skill check?

'Cuz, as Mearls already specified, these rogue tricks are going to be weaponized skill checks. No different than an intimidate check.


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

Yeah, but you're not a bloodthirsty orc and we're not engaged in a fight for our lives, Hunger Games style. 

Your sentiment reeks of someone who has never been in a real battle before.

So change orc to human sitting behind a dex writing.  Humans, desks and writing all exist in D&D, and the rogue will still have the same ability to use on that person.

Yes, but I believe the framework we are supposed to be arguing under is combat.  The ability is a combat ability that positions the foe to the Rogue's advantage.  If you're sitting behind a desk, then we're not really fighting; we're arguing, at best, and that falls under non-combat skill checks (which I believe the Rogue still has bonus for as well).

 


This is one of those "heat of the moment" combat tricks.  Stop trying to force it into parts of the game it doesn't belong in.

@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.

So change orc to human sitting behind a dex writing.  Humans, desks and writing all exist in D&D, and the rogue will still have the same ability to use on that person.

Pure speculation.

Plus, I'd wager that the learned individual behind the desk will likely have a higher willpower than a bloodthirsty orc who wants to smash stuff.

Edit: And what AzureShade said, having ninja'ed me...
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. 



Yea, here is the thing: you might thing your first paragraph is true, but a player might disagree. He might feel that his character is so adept at pulling at a creatures emotional strings that he can still try, and he has some chance of success.



In most cases I would agree.  However, if there are circumstances that I feel would reduce the chance of success to zero, then it will be reduced to zero.  I don't have the time or inclination to interrupt the game and have a conversation with the player about the situation (much of which he won't be aware of anyway) in order to decide whether the ability has a chance or not.  I'm simply going to make a decision and if the player has an issue, we can discuss it after the game when it's not going to disrupt everyone at the table.

An ability such as this mediates power between the players desire and the DMs desire in a more fair way. And, the beauty is, the DM still has the ability to influence probability through the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.



The players know that I always strive to be fair, so if I say something fails, they will accept it and move on.  This is called trust.  If you don't have trust in your DM, you should not be playing with that DM.   





Or, a rogue can get a special power that allows him to do such things even when the "fair" DM would otherwise say the task is impossible, and that is how the game mechanically models their superior capabilities in this field. Personally, I like that option more. 

Nope. I specifically want to know how you justify arbitrarily predetermining how the orc will react to a character's ability.



Then I misunderstood the question.  The answer is 1) it isn't ever arbitrary.  Ever.  2) It's based on circumstances.  I know the circumstances behind certain NPCs being where they are and how they act.  Sometimes such circumstances will dictate that a social attempt will simply fail. 

You did. With the blanket statement, "Because my character has no control over your character's actions." Seems your opinion is quite matter-of-factually the norm to me.



Clearly you weren't understanding what I said.  Your statement was that I was somehow making it the norm for the rogue to be unable to affect the NPC orc.  There are two problems with that statement.

1) Orcs are NPCs, not PCs and I was specifically referencing CHARACTER actions.

2) It's actually a true statement regardless.  My characters/NPCs/Creatures cannot CONTROL your characters/NPCs/Creatures actions without magic.  I can influence things with skills, abilities, etc., but I have no direct control.  I cannot for instance dicate to you that your character is going to pull out your sword and stab himself.  I cannot stop you from doing something.  Non-,magical words will not take something over and force it to do something against its will.

What I can do is use a skill to TRY and INFLUENCE it to attack me or something.  That isn't control.  That's influence.  And it will often work on NPCs/Creatures.  Nowhere did I say or even suggest that the norm would be for failure to occur. 
Because my character has no control over your character's actions


What exactly does the Dex mod component of AC mean?



So my dex controls your character?  Because I have dex, I get to dictate to you whether you attack or not?  Modifier =/= control.  I already acknowledged that there will be influences as to whether you succeed or not, but there can be no control on my end without magic.


You didn't answer the question.  What does that dex mod mean?



I did answer it.  I went ahead and bolded the answer since you missed it the first time.
Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
First Dave I doubt your friend knew his girlfriend was cheating on him. He likely just suspected it. I am certain that if he saw her kiss another guy (or worse) that he would believe anything she said.

If you are playing in one of my games and the fighter tries this you will probably get annoyed that I just let the fighter succeed without a check. I believe this is something in the game that should remain completely in the realms of role playing. A lot of you are acting like I'm against a rogue using this. I am not against that. I am against having it as a rogue ability. Actions anyone can perform shouldn't be an ability. This includes a fighter pushing an ork off a cliff. He should just be able to try to push the orc off a cliff as part of his action not needing a special ability.

I see bluff/diplomacy checks as useful when there isn't a defualt way an opponent would act, but perfectly reasonable for a dm to rule them as an auto success or auto failure. Also they are open to any character.
Then I misunderstood the question.  The answer is 1) it isn't ever arbitrary.  Ever.  2) It's based on circumstances.  I know the circumstances behind certain NPCs being where they are and how they act.  Sometimes such circumstances will dictate that a social attempt will simply fail.

Why are those circumstances at least not somewhat mutable to the result of the dice? Just like most anything else in the game?

Orcs are NPCs, not PCs and I was specifically referencing CHARACTER actions.

So your concern is that the rogue is going to turn on his buddy, the fighter, and force the guy to charge him?

I cannot for instance dicate to you that your character is going to pull out your sword and stab himself.

Hyperbolic. No indication that the rogue will be able to force the orc to attack itself with its own weapon. In fact, if that ends up being possible, I will stand alongside you and decry the ridiculousness of said ability.

Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.



It represents influence in the attempt to get out of the way of the attack.  In no way does it ever have any control over the action of the attacker.  The attack is going to perform is action (the attack) regardless of your modifier or the influence it has.
Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.


We ALL know.  Just like we all know that martial exploits in 4e weren't spells or magical powers.  That's really what this whole thread reeks of: it's the stench of the decaying flesh of the long dead argument that come and get it and other abilities from 4e are magical.  We shouldn't be surprised that maneuvers for non-casters that can force movement on a failed save are being opposed, in some cases by the very same people who had a problem with martial exploits to begin with.

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 are those circumstances at least not somewhat mutable to the result of the dice? Just like most anything else in the game?



Because I don't allow nonsense into my game.  If a creature just would never in a million years do something, you are not going to get it to do that thing through mere words.  That would be nonsensical. 

Hyperbolic. No indication that the rogue will be able to force the orc to attack itself with its own weapon. In fact, if that ends up being possible, I will stand alongside you and decry the ridiculousness of said ability.




It's all about mind control.  The rogue does not have it and never will.  It cannot force things to happen that would simply never happen.   Will the rogue ability work most of the time?  Sure.  Will it work in all circumstances?  No.  And magic is not the only circumstance that will override the rogue's ability.
Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.



It represents influence in the attempt to get out of the way of the attack.  In no way does it ever have any control over the action of the attacker.  The attack is going to perform is action (the attack) regardless of your modifier or the influence it has.


And if that influence turns what would have been a hit into a miss, then what?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.


We ALL know.  Just like we all know that martial exploits in 4e weren't spells or magical powers.  That's really what this whole thread reeks of: it's the stench of the decaying flesh of the long dead argument that come and get it and other abilities from 4e are magical.  We shouldn't be surprised that maneuvers for non-casters that can force movement on a failed save are being opposed, in some cases by the very same people who had a problem with martial exploits to begin with.



Two things.  First, it's not that the rogue's ability is magical.  It's that it amounts to mind control.  If it can override the will of the victim and force it to act in a specific manner, that's mind control.  Second, it's not about forced movement.  If a rogue is able to strike sensitive areas and force movement a square or two, then whatever.  That's not mind control and yet still forces movement.  That's okay.
Two things.  First, it's not that the rogue's ability is magical.  It's that it amounts to mind control.  If it can override the will of the victim and force it to act in a specific manner, that's mind control.  Second, it's not about forced movement.  If a rogue is able to strike sensitive areas and force movement a square or two, then whatever.  That's not mind control and yet still forces movement.  That's okay.


Getting people to do what you want is mind control?

You're seriously suggesting that everyone who does that in real life, everyone who convinces someone to do something they didn't want to do, is practicing mind control?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.



It represents influence in the attempt to get out of the way of the attack.  In no way does it ever have any control over the action of the attacker.  The attack is going to perform is action (the attack) regardless of your modifier or the influence it has.


And if that influence turns what would have been a hit into a miss, then what?



Then nothing.  The action of the attacker still happened and you did nothing to control it.  He controlled his action entirely.  His action was "I swing and try to hit Mand12."  Your dex influenced your armor class in an attempt not to get hit.  The miss didn't affect his action at all.
So your Dex is this arbitrary increase to a pointless number, and not an expression of your reflexes and ability to dodge getting hit?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Two things.  First, it's not that the rogue's ability is magical.  It's that it amounts to mind control.  If it can override the will of the victim and force it to act in a specific manner, that's mind control.  Second, it's not about forced movement.  If a rogue is able to strike sensitive areas and force movement a square or two, then whatever.  That's not mind control and yet still forces movement.  That's okay.


Getting people to do what you want is mind control?



If it is against their will, yes. 

You're seriously suggesting that everyone who does that in real life, everyone who convinces someone to do something they didn't want to do, is practicing mind control?



If you get them to change their mind, THEY changed their mind.  THEY chose to change their action.  You just influenced them in the attempt.  However, there are lots of things that will simply fail.  Walk into a jewlery store sometimes and try to convince the owner to just hand you over a few dozen diamonds.  You can even use your rogue abilitiy ;) 
Why are those circumstances at least not somewhat mutable to the result of the dice? Just like most anything else in the game?

Because I don't allow nonsense into my game.  If a creature just would never in a million years do something, you are not going to get it to do that thing through mere words.  That would be nonsensical.

I'm going to assume you mean "non-magically". That they are not supernaturally compelled not to do something. That they just decided on their own never to do something.

That said, I'm not a fan any the DM'ing style reminiscent of perfect omnipotence. My NPCs are imperfect. They make mistakes. They don't know OOC info that would help them avoid getting into trouble.

Hyperbolic. No indication that the rogue will be able to force the orc to attack itself with its own weapon. In fact, if that ends up being possible, I will stand alongside you and decry the ridiculousness of said ability.

It's all about mind control.  The rogue does not have it and never will.  It cannot force things to happen that would simply never happen.   Will the rogue ability work most of the time?  Sure.  Will it work in all circumstances?  No.  And magic is not the only circumstance that will override the rogue's ability.
I've also yet to see anyone make a claim that the rules will allow for the rogue to always be ale to succeed. Or that there will never be times when the DM can realistically squash the attempt due to (your aforementioned) circumstances.

Still a bit too much hyperbole, for my taste.

Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.


We ALL know.  Just like we all know that martial exploits in 4e weren't spells or magical powers.  That's really what this whole thread reeks of: it's the stench of the decaying flesh of the long dead argument that come and get it and other abilities from 4e are magical.  We shouldn't be surprised that maneuvers for non-casters that can force movement on a failed save are being opposed, in some cases by the very same people who had a problem with martial exploits to begin with.



Two things.  First, it's not that the rogue's ability is magical.  It's that it amounts to mind control.  If it can override the will of the victim and force it to act in a specific manner, that's mind control.  Second, it's not about forced movement.  If a rogue is able to strike sensitive areas and force movement a square or two, then whatever.  That's not mind control and yet still forces movement.  That's okay.


It's not mind control, it's instigation.  You are not making the creature attack one of its allies.  You are inducing a hostile creature (that presumably wants to kill you already) to charge at you in furtherance of a goal that it already has.  Also, a charge is movement.  Forcing a creature to charge is forced movement.

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.

Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.


We ALL know.  Just like we all know that martial exploits in 4e weren't spells or magical powers.  That's really what this whole thread reeks of: it's the stench of the decaying flesh of the long dead argument that come and get it and other abilities from 4e are magical.  We shouldn't be surprised that maneuvers for non-casters that can force movement on a failed save are being opposed, in some cases by the very same people who had a problem with martial exploits to begin with.

Sniff sniff!  Is that what I have been smelling?  I thought maybe something in my fridge had gone bad.

Personally, I find the idea most intriguing and I can't wait to see how it plays out.  I hope that the concept won't get scrapped, but I guess if the majority of players don't like it then I can't complain too much.  This whole "debate" is really interesting, though, please continue...

If you get them to change their mind, THEY changed their mind.  THEY chose to change their action.  You just influenced them in the attempt.  However, there are lots of things that will simply fail.  Walk into a jewlery store sometimes and try to convince the owner to just hand you over a few dozen diamonds.  You can even use your rogue abilitiy ;) 


And this is different from influencing them into changing their mind and choosing to charge you...how?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.


We ALL know.  Just like we all know that martial exploits in 4e weren't spells or magical powers.  That's really what this whole thread reeks of: it's the stench of the decaying flesh of the long dead argument that come and get it and other abilities from 4e are magical.  We shouldn't be surprised that maneuvers for non-casters that can force movement on a failed save are being opposed, in some cases by the very same people who had a problem with martial exploits to begin with.



Two things.  First, it's not that the rogue's ability is magical.  It's that it amounts to mind control.  If it can override the will of the victim and force it to act in a specific manner, that's mind control.  Second, it's not about forced movement.  If a rogue is able to strike sensitive areas and force movement a square or two, then whatever.  That's not mind control and yet still forces movement.  That's okay.




Dude if I want someone to take a swing on me I can get them to take a swing on me.  It is really, really, really easy to pis people off...That's why they get a save...to see if they think before reacting to whatever I say, and trust me I can say enough to get anyone to swing on me.  All you need is the right words and the right saying of the words, and you can get anyone to swing on you.  Now the words may be different for each person in each situation but this rogue seems like he might be really good at this.  Same with movement and the like.  If I were a younger one I could move in a way that seemed realy off balance and invited attacks, but I was always ready for them and responded properly.  This in fact sounds more like the martially aware and awesome rogue everyone was clamouring for, but he does it in his own way.
Why cannot a rogue even try?


Because he might succeed.  And there might, possibly, at some time, in some circumstance, be a situation where the DM doesn't want him to succeed.  

So it just makes sense that we never allow him to try in the first place, even if we aren't in one of those circumstances.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
Yes, but what does it mean?  How does it influence it?  What does it represent in its contribution to AC?

Please stop dodging the question, you know exactly what I'm getting at.


We ALL know.  Just like we all know that martial exploits in 4e weren't spells or magical powers.  That's really what this whole thread reeks of: it's the stench of the decaying flesh of the long dead argument that come and get it and other abilities from 4e are magical.  We shouldn't be surprised that maneuvers for non-casters that can force movement on a failed save are being opposed, in some cases by the very same people who had a problem with martial exploits to begin with.



Two things.  First, it's not that the rogue's ability is magical.  It's that it amounts to mind control.  If it can override the will of the victim and force it to act in a specific manner, that's mind control.  Second, it's not about forced movement.  If a rogue is able to strike sensitive areas and force movement a square or two, then whatever.  That's not mind control and yet still forces movement.  That's okay.




Dude if I want someone to take a swing on me I can get them to take a swing on me.


I can personally attest to that.  I know I've wanted to take a swing at you during some of the paladin/alignment threads. Tongue Out

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.

First Dave I doubt your friend knew his girlfriend was cheating on him. He likely just suspected it. I am certain that if he saw her kiss another guy (or worse) that he would believe anything she said. If you are playing in one of my games and the fighter tries this you will probably get annoyed that I just let the fighter succeed without a check. I believe this is something in the game that should remain completely in the realms of role playing. A lot of you are acting like I'm against a rogue using this. I am not against that. I am against having it as a rogue ability. Actions anyone can perform shouldn't be an ability. This includes a fighter pushing an ork off a cliff. He should just be able to try to push the orc off a cliff as part of his action not needing a special ability. I see bluff/diplomacy checks as useful when there isn't a defualt way an opponent would act, but perfectly reasonable for a dm to rule them as an auto success or auto failure. Also they are open to any character.




He knew. We don't need to go into the details, but he knew. In fact, he once walked in on her kissing the other guy. He didn't see everything, but he saw the end of it/the two of them pulling apart. She told him a lie to explain that as well. He was an idiot for buying her bull. He is a smart guy overall. But her conviction was enough to sell him a bold faced lie, and despite his best instincts he bought it. Some people are just that good at lying.

In theory, everyone can parry. Fighters get special options when it comes to parry. I don't want these rogue powers to remove the ability for others to try such things using skills. I do want them to give an edge to rogues trying to do such things, including the ability to do such things with a reasonable chance of success even when a DM doesn't necessarily think that a player could. Because, you see, sometimes people are capable of doing amazing things with words and body language. I have seen that first hand.