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

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 ;) 




give me a weapon and I'm all over it.  I could without magic walk into a diamond joint and very much convince the people inside to give me all their diamonds.  They like to call it armed robbery (also it's really hard to do in an actual diamond exchange because they generally scope you before they let you in the front door).

EDIT: JUST TO BE CLEAR I AM ONLY MAKING A POINT. 
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.

Perspective. And the core of what I've been trying to get at. Once the dice are cast, and the rogue successful, you as a DM narrate the orc's decision to charge, based on what was just told to him by that pesky bastard taunting him over there...

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 ;)

Grifters have performed far more amazing in-your-face-thefts than that (in fiction and possibly IRL as well), I'm certain.

“The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.” - Louis C.K.
So I can throw another entry onto the list of Nice Things Martial Can't Have


  • Daily maneuvers

  • Encounter maneuvers

  • Interrupt maneuvers

  • Recharging maneuvers

  • Magic item creation

  • Alchemy

  • Healing powers

  • Superheroic powers (such as lifting large weights, or falling long distance), even at high level

  • Trickery


And, yes, although no single poster of which I am aware has taken this position with each of these elements, I've seen plenty of people argue this with each of them.

The only things martials can get that fuel few complaints are + to hit, + to damage, multi-attack. and anything 3e defined as a special attack (overbear, bull rush, trip, disarm, sunder, grapple)
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.

Perspective. And the core of what I've been trying to get at. Once the dice are cast, and the rogue successful, you as a DM narrate the orc's decision to charge, based on what was just told to him by that pesky bastard taunting him over there...

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 ;)

Grifters have performed far more amazing in-your-face-thefts than that (in fiction and possibly IRL as well), I'm certain.




+1
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 ;)

Grifters have performed far more amazing in-your-face-thefts than that (in fiction and possibly IRL as well), I'm certain.


Not to mention the thousands that do it by a straight-up Intimidate check.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So your Dex is this arbitrary increase to a pointless number, and not an expression of your reflexes and ability to dodge getting hit?



First, it's not arbitrary.  Second, I already said it was an aid to not getting hit.  That fun fact has no control over the action of the opponant, though.  Whether he hits or missed due to your dex modifier, his action of "I swing and try to hit." has not been changed.


give me a weapon and I'm all over it.  I could without magic walk into a diamond joint and very much convince the people inside to give me all their diamonds.  They like to call it armed robbery (also it's really hard to do in an actual diamond exchange because they generally scope you before they let you in the front door).

EDIT: JUST TO BE CLEAR I AM ONLY MAKING A POINT. 



Point made.  You didn't do it with mere words ;)
And why is whether you succeed at getting the other guy to make a poor decision not simply due to your cha modifier, and your action of "I try to get him to do something stupid" has not been changed?

Your position has no logical consistency, and I think you know it.  Yet, somehow, you still cling to it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Q: Is Come And Get It as egregious to you as your opinion would imply?
“The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.” - Louis C.K.


give me a weapon and I'm all over it.  I could without magic walk into a diamond joint and very much convince the people inside to give me all their diamonds.  They like to call it armed robbery (also it's really hard to do in an actual diamond exchange because they generally scope you before they let you in the front door).

EDIT: JUST TO BE CLEAR I AM ONLY MAKING A POINT. 



Point made.  You didn't do it with mere words ;)


So, because he had an example that used something in addition to words, and by that you've decided it's impossible to do it with just words?

Sorry, no. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
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.

Perspective. And the core of what I've been trying to get at. Once the dice are cast, and the rogue successful, you as a DM narrate the orc's decision to charge, based on what was just told to him by that pesky bastard taunting him over there...

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 ;)

Grifters have performed far more amazing in-your-face-thefts than that (in fiction and possibly IRL as well), I'm certain.




They don't use words only and accomplish it in 6 seconds, I guarantee it.  Usually, those are cons that involve props, other people, sleight of hand and time. 
And why is whether you succeed at getting the other guy to make a poor decision not simply due to your cha modifier, and your action of "I try to get him to do something stupid" has not been changed?



Will you rephrase that so it makes more sense?



give me a weapon and I'm all over it.  I could without magic walk into a diamond joint and very much convince the people inside to give me all their diamonds.  They like to call it armed robbery (also it's really hard to do in an actual diamond exchange because they generally scope you before they let you in the front door).

EDIT: JUST TO BE CLEAR I AM ONLY MAKING A POINT. 



Point made.  You didn't do it with mere words ;)




did I say give me a real weapon? no I'm sure I could walk in brandishing anything and with mere words get them to give me diamonds(though considering there will be security a real weapon would be best).  heck with a good enough plan I could do it without the weapon I just need the right documentation.  There are plenty of ways to go in and get the diamonds handed to you without needing to use magic.  Best possible way...blackmail.

Heck it could be a weapon I am entirely untrained in the usage of and I could get it done.  Hell I could do it with a coat pocket and a candy bar. 


give me a weapon and I'm all over it.  I could without magic walk into a diamond joint and very much convince the people inside to give me all their diamonds.  They like to call it armed robbery (also it's really hard to do in an actual diamond exchange because they generally scope you before they let you in the front door).

EDIT: JUST TO BE CLEAR I AM ONLY MAKING A POINT. 



Point made.  You didn't do it with mere words ;)


So, because he had an example that used something in addition to words, and by that you've decided it's impossible to do it with just words?

Sorry, no. 



When you threaten the life of an unarmed man with a gun, you are not doing anything close to what we are talking about here.  If the PCs walked into a shop and used weapons to threaten the life of the level 0 shopkeep, they'd almost always get what they wanted without even a roll.
And why is whether you succeed at getting the other guy to make a poor decision not simply due to your cha modifier, and your action of "I try to get him to do something stupid" has not been changed?



Will you rephrase that so it makes more sense?



Take your logic that explains how you justify an attack bonus, an AC, and d20 roll interacting and turning into a result.

Take the same logic, and substitute a cha bonus, a wis mod, and a d20 roll interacting and turning into a result.

Now, simple question:  Why are they different?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
When you threaten the life of an unarmed man with a gun, you are not doing anything close to what we are talking about here.  If the PCs walked into a shop and used weapons to threaten the life of the level 0 shopkeep, they'd almost always get what they wanted without even a roll.


Of course.  That's what's called a very large circumstance bonus to an Intimidate check and a relatively low DC.

Now imagine a different scenario, where an enforcer for the Mafia walks into a store they're running a protection racket on, and demands payment.  They don't have to be armed, or even make direct threats - just who they are is intimidating enough.  And yet, under your logic, this is "mind control" on their part?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
And why is whether you succeed at getting the other guy to make a poor decision not simply due to your cha modifier, and your action of "I try to get him to do something stupid" has not been changed?



Will you rephrase that so it makes more sense?



Take your logic that explains how you justify an attack bonus, an AC, and d20 roll interacting and turning into a result.

Take the same logic, and substitute a cha bonus, a wis mod, and a d20 roll interacting and turning into a result.

Now, simple question:  Why are they different?



I've never said that the rogue couldn't take the action. Or that failure would prevent the rogue from taking the action.  Only that it would fail if it came up against those rare circumstances that dictate failure.  It's akin to swinging the sword at something with DR 50 - or swinging a sword at something 40 feet away.  The action happens, it just fails. 

So by my argument, there is no difference between the two.  The vast majority of the time the action will happen and the dice will dictate what happens.  Sometimes there will be circumstances that simply cause the action to fail.  That applies to both physical and social attacks.  
The action happens, it just fails.


That's not what people have been suggesting.  The DM can always set the DC high enough so that something doesn't work.  But people have been insisting that the rogue never be able to try, because any chance of success means "mind control."

Furthermore, nobody in favor of this has ever suggested that this would be an automatic thing.  It always has involved an opposed check, even in Mearls's initial description.

At this point I'm pretty sure you're arguing against something other than what we're actually talking about.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
When you threaten the life of an unarmed man with a gun, you are not doing anything close to what we are talking about here.  If the PCs walked into a shop and used weapons to threaten the life of the level 0 shopkeep, they'd almost always get what they wanted without even a roll.


Of course.  That's what's called a very large circumstance bonus to an Intimidate check and a relatively low DC.



There would be no bonus, DC or roll.  It would simply succeed.  I don't waste my players' time by rolling for nothing.

Now imagine a different scenario, where an enforcer for the Mafia walks into a store they're running a protection racket on, and demands payment.  They don't have to be armed, or even make direct threats - just who they are is intimidating enough.  And yet, under your logic, this is "mind control" on their part?



If it would make them do something that hey would NEVER do, yes it is.  Look at all the shopkeepers who refused and ended up injured, maimed or dead because of it.  If those shopkeepers who refused because it was against their nature to give in to the mafia were suddenly UNABLE to refuse, it would be mind control.
The action happens, it just fails.


That's not what people have been suggesting.  The DM can always set the DC high enough so that something doesn't work.



What's the point in that?  Sure Joe, go ahead and try that DC 300 roll ::snicker::  I'm not going to insult them.  I'm just going to say no.

But people have been insisting that the rogue never be able to try, because any chance of success means "mind control."



I haven't seen that.  I've only seen people in this thread suggesting getting someone to do something that they would never do would be mind control.

Furthermore, nobody in favor of this has ever suggested that this would be an automatic thing.  It always has involved an opposed check, even in Mearls's initial description.



The problem is that an opposed check still results in NPCs doing what they would never under any circumstances do.  Under those circumstances, it should simply fail.


Ignoring the current argument (becuase I didn't read the vast majority of it) and responding to the general thread.


I dislike almost any mechanic, whether magic or skill or whatever, that says "the target does this".  I'd hate to see, for example, a mechanic that said "make a DC X Cha check and the ogre charges you on its next turn".  In my opinion, it's much more elegant and makes for a better game when the mechanic instead tells you their general reaction, instead of their specific action.  So the mechanic would say "make a DC X Cha check and the ogre is enraged" instead of "and it charges you".

That way, any given target can react according to its nature.  An enraged politician might frame you for a crime.  An enraged berserker might go berserk.  An enraged assassin might slaughter your family in their sleep.  And so on.  But it allows you to dictate the specific results based on the world, and doesn't need to have a long list of exceptions.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.

*I ave not read through this thread yet and sadly need to go to class*

I agree with the OP. And this is not a "martial can't have nice things" situation. I'm thinking of banning or altering Charm in my game. Mechanics shouldn't alter or step on roleplaying/ character personality, and I think that is what "make them recklessly charge cuz of insults" does.

I don't think I would rage quit D&DN, but I sure as heck will be removing / altering those rules. I'd rather bite this in the rear at the start of the game than have a player create a rogue with this maneuver and tell him "no it never works" in game.


*I ave not read through this thread yet and sadly need to go to class*

I agree with the OP. And this is not a "martial can't have nice things" situation. I'm thinking of banning or altering Charm in my game. Mechanics shouldn't alter or step on roleplaying/ character personality, and I think that is what "make them recklessly charge cuz of insults" does.

I don't think I would rage quit D&DN, but I sure as heck will be removing / altering those rules. I'd rather bite this in the rear at the start of the game than have a player create a rogue with this maneuver and tell him "no it never works" in game.



Honestly, there's nothing wrong with that.  Those of us who like this aren't demanding that others use it.  We're all big girls and boys, we all know that we don't have to allow everything in the books.  And, since it's going to be of a list of choices (according to how I read the article), you should have other neat tricks that don't offend your sensibilities to choose from.

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.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

I like this kind of trick. It is not magic in the same way that social checks are not magic. Really, they are just like that.

So I can throw another entry onto the list of Nice Things Martial Can't Have


  • Daily maneuvers

  • Encounter maneuvers

  • Interrupt maneuvers

  • Recharging maneuvers

  • Magic item creation

  • Alchemy

  • Healing powers

  • Superheroic powers (such as lifting large weights, or falling long distance), even at high level

  • Trickery


And, yes, although no single poster of which I am aware has taken this position with each of these elements, I've seen plenty of people argue this with each of them.

The only things martials can get that fuel few complaints are + to hit, + to damage, multi-attack. and anything 3e defined as a special attack (overbear, bull rush, trip, disarm, sunder, grapple)



I don't have a problem with the vast majority of this things. Actually, if he have some way to make a magic item, ha can do.
I agree with the OP. And this is not a "martial can't have nice things" situation. I'm thinking of banning or altering Charm in my game. Mechanics shouldn't alter or step on roleplaying/ character personality


Except Maxperson has no issue with Charm Person being in the game. He doesn't have a problem with mechanics altering roleplay and personality as long as magic does it.
I agree with the OP. And this is not a "martial can't have nice things" situation. I'm thinking of banning or altering Charm in my game. Mechanics shouldn't alter or step on roleplaying/ character personality


Except Maxperson has no issue with Charm Person being in the game. He doesn't have a problem with mechanics altering roleplay and personality as long as magic does it.



I don't even really have a problem with this mechanic, as long as it's understood it can simply fail if it runs up against the odd person that it just won't work against.  If it can force an NPC to do something it would NEVER do, then it crosses the line from a taunting mechanic into mind control.  Currently it can do that, and that is my only issue with it.  Well, that and it would drive me crazy if a rogue went around doing it every combat or two.  There aren't that many people who are so easily goaded
How, exactly, can you - even as DM - be sure there's something an NPC would NEVER do?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I agree with the OP. And this is not a "martial can't have nice things" situation. I'm thinking of banning or altering Charm in my game. Mechanics shouldn't alter or step on roleplaying/ character personality


Except Maxperson has no issue with Charm Person being in the game. He doesn't have a problem with mechanics altering roleplay and personality as long as magic does it.



I don't even really have a problem with this mechanic, as long as it's understood it can simply fail if it runs up against the odd person that it just won't work against.  If it can force an NPC to do something it would NEVER do, then it crosses the line from a taunting mechanic into mind control.  Currently it can do that, and that is my only issue with it.  Well, that and it would drive me crazy if a rogue went around doing it every combat or two.  There aren't that many people who are so easily goaded


Then you don't have a problem with it at all.  DMs have always had the ability to say something just doesn't work "because story."

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.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

I don't even really have a problem with this mechanic, as long as it's understood it can simply fail if it runs up against the odd person that it just won't work against.


Then you should give that foe the following trait ahead of time:
Unflappable
This enemy cannot be misled or deceived, except by magical means. Any Charisma check that would cause him to act a specific way automatically fails.

Just like I would give someone immune to cold the trait:
Cold Immunity
This enemy is immune to cold damage and takes no damage and incurs no condition from an attack that would deal cold damage.

There's no need to make your citicism of the system presented because it's no different than anything else ever presented int he game.  if you want to have a NPC immune to a power, give him the immunity to it.
How, exactly, can you - even as DM - be sure there's something an NPC would NEVER do?



The bolded part is enough.  I am the NPCs.  I design them and know their motivations and weaknesses......and strengths. 
I'm okay with a rogue trying to trick an opponent.  This is how I prefer to play rogues.  However, the mechanic for doing this is already spelled out in the rules and does not need a special ability, especially one that does not let the DM adjust for circumstance. (though maybe I mischaracterize the power.) I realize this does not let rogues have nice things, and that's okay if 'nice things' are defined as outcomes that always occur or are too one-sided. Spells shouldn't do this either. Maybe we should focus on fixing spells.

 
I agree with the OP. And this is not a "martial can't have nice things" situation. I'm thinking of banning or altering Charm in my game. Mechanics shouldn't alter or step on roleplaying/ character personality


Except Maxperson has no issue with Charm Person being in the game. He doesn't have a problem with mechanics altering roleplay and personality as long as magic does it.



I don't even really have a problem with this mechanic, as long as it's understood it can simply fail if it runs up against the odd person that it just won't work against.  If it can force an NPC to do something it would NEVER do, then it crosses the line from a taunting mechanic into mind control.  Currently it can do that, and that is my only issue with it.  Well, that and it would drive me crazy if a rogue went around doing it every combat or two.  There aren't that many people who are so easily goaded

The best part about all of this: we are arguing about things that we haven't even seen!  Take a look at one of Max's sentences here: "Currently it can do that, and that is my only issue with it."

Good times.

So, Max, if I am understanding you here correctly (assuming the stars themselves have aligned!), you are saying that you are ok with such a mechanic, so long as your players know that you, the DM, have the final say in the matter?  In other words you are ok as long as your players are still playing D&D?  I think you are going to be ok here, they have a thin candy shell.

And, Max, how do you justify applying the same logic to a fighter swinging a sword?  What if you just decide, because you're DM, that the sword crit that the fighter just landed doesn't in fact finish off the monster?  Do you lie to them?  Do you tell them "Well, I know the rules say you just got a crit, and by the rules he should be dead, but I'm just going to pretend you failed, because DM."

Why is claiming arbitrary immunity to a goad effect any different?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I agree with the OP. And this is not a "martial can't have nice things" situation. I'm thinking of banning or altering Charm in my game. Mechanics shouldn't alter or step on roleplaying/ character personality


Except Maxperson has no issue with Charm Person being in the game. He doesn't have a problem with mechanics altering roleplay and personality as long as magic does it.



I don't even really have a problem with this mechanic, as long as it's understood it can simply fail if it runs up against the odd person that it just won't work against.  If it can force an NPC to do something it would NEVER do, then it crosses the line from a taunting mechanic into mind control.  Currently it can do that, and that is my only issue with it.  Well, that and it would drive me crazy if a rogue went around doing it every combat or two.  There aren't that many people who are so easily goaded

The best part about all of this: we are arguing about things that we haven't even seen!  Take a look at one of Max's sentences here: "Currently it can do that, and that is my only issue with it."

Good times.



Meh.  You're right.  Mearls commment on allowing a roll for it got me assuming that it would be like a spell or DC ability with success simply always happening if the save is failed or the DC was achieved.  My bad.  I'll wait and see if it can become mind control as written or not. ;)
And, Max, how do you justify applying the same logic to a fighter swinging a sword?  What if you just decide, because you're DM, that the sword crit that the fighter just landed doesn't in fact finish off the monster?  Do you lie to them?  Do you tell them "Well, I know the rules say you just got a crit, and by the rules he should be dead, but I'm just going to pretend you failed, because DM."

Why is claiming arbitrary immunity to a goad effect any different?



It isn't.  In both cases I would have a very good reason for what I did.  If I didn't, it wouldn't happen.
How, exactly, can you - even as DM - be sure there's something an NPC would NEVER do?


You should know Max by now, Mand.  He's always certain.  You don't need "doubt" to spell "Maxperson".
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.
Meh.  You're right.  Mearls commment on allowing a roll for it got me assuming that it would be like a spell or DC ability with success simply always happening if the save is failed or the DC was achieved.


Er...that's very likely exactly how it will look.  How does that make it mind control?  If the save failed, then by definition the target was convinced to do the thing in question.  That he could have not been convinced is no longer relevant, because he was convinced.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
To see how non-magical influence can go, watch this if you are interested:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vz_YTNLn6w
www.youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg

Basically, all of Derren Brown's stuff is about that. And he explicitly says that these effects have nothing to do with the supernatural (as some folks try to make you believe).

If he can do this, so can and should a rogue.
Meh.  You're right.  Mearls commment on allowing a roll for it got me assuming that it would be like a spell or DC ability with success simply always happening if the save is failed or the DC was achieved.


Er...that's very likely exactly how it will look.  How does that make it mind control?  If the save failed, then by definition the target was convinced to do the thing in question.  That he could have not been convinced is no longer relevant, because he was convinced.



If it can make somone do the impossible, it's mind control.  For instance, I will not murder someone and there's nothing anyone can do with mere words to make that happen.  It's simply not possible for anyone to do that to me.
And, Max, how do you justify applying the same logic to a fighter swinging a sword?  What if you just decide, because you're DM, that the sword crit that the fighter just landed doesn't in fact finish off the monster?  Do you lie to them?  Do you tell them "Well, I know the rules say you just got a crit, and by the rules he should be dead, but I'm just going to pretend you failed, because DM."



This is exactly what I as DM would do if I really felt I needed to keep the antagonist alive another round. (Though not actually say it.)  I roll my DM dice in the open, but I don't stick to the math that strickly. Whose to say the monster didn't have one more hit point? (Me that's who.) Maybe you would hate that and rather everything was in the open and provable less you have no fun.
Sign In to post comments