Looks like I'm Banning Rogues from My Games

1127 posts / 0 new
Last post
Are we playing 'martial characters can't get nice things' again?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
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.



+1
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. 



Yea, here is the thing: as people, we don't really understand our own inner workings very well, let alone the inner workings of a host of characters that are all supposed to be very different from us. I think your attitude makes for some terrible DMing. I would rather DMs treat their characters like blocks of statistical probabilities, and allow players, using class powers, to do some things to NPCs even if the DM doesn't think that a person would actually be able to do such a thing. You see, Derren Brown can do some crazy things with words. Until people see what he can do, most people would think it is impossible. But, he can still do it. I want my rogue to be able to do that sort of stuff too. And, I don't want to have to have Derren Brown's skills in order to convince my DM to allow me to do so...
We don't mess around on these boards.  When we want to deny something, we go right for the big guns, like denying the concepts of deceit and manipulation.



Wich is why nothing read on these boards should ever be taken seriously. 
Salla, how is this a martial characters can't have nice things thread? If you play in my game right now and want to taunt the orge to charge you; you can do that. If the ogre is unaware of the trap then you have a 99% chance of doing this in my game. (doing all of this as a minor action)

Under the new rules the rogue would be wasting an action to get a chance to do something.

How is this rogues can't have nice things if my way gives the rogue the better results?
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."



Pfft.  A great many things - balanced, imbalanced, & everything else - have been "approved" by the designers.....

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..."



Oh no!  I wonder, whatever do you suppose customer support could do to force me to comply? 
I allready disregard the opinion of profesional game designers whenever I disagree with them. 
I've just told a friend "NO". 
And you think a random voice on the other end of a phone will affect me?  You'd better have called Obi-Wan Kenobi....  
Salla, how is this a martial characters can't have nice things thread? If you play in my game right now and want to taunt the orge to charge you; you can do that. If the ogre is unaware of the trap then you have a 99% chance of doing this in my game. (doing all of this as a minor action) Under the new rules the rogue would be wasting an action to get a chance to do something. How is this rogues can't have nice things if my way gives the rogue the better results?


The part you may have missed is that not all DMs work that way.  Some of them, according to this very thread, seem to think it's mind control.
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.

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...



While I'm generally right there with you on the "Let's roll the dice", the truth is that there ARE times when I've already determined the outcomes of a few possible actions.
You the player can still try them though. 
Afterall, you have no way of knowing when I've set a DC that equels "1 more than whatever total you can possibly achieve".   

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. 



Yea, here is the thing: as people, we don't really understand our own inner workings very well, let alone the inner workings of a host of characters that are all supposed to be very different from us. I think your attitude makes for some terrible DMing. I would rather DMs treat their characters like blocks of statistical probabilities, and allow players, using class powers, to do some things to NPCs even if the DM doesn't think that a person would actually be able to do such a thing. You see, Derren Brown can do some crazy things with words. Until people see what he can do, most people would think it is impossible. But, he can still do it. I want my rogue to be able to do that sort of stuff too. And, I don't want to have to have Derren Brown's skills in order to convince my DM to allow me to do so...


Furthermore, when a player selects these kinds of manipulation abilities, that ought to be a clear signal to the DM about the sort of character he wants to play.  He's saying, "I want to be Andre Moreau.  I want to be Cool-Hand Luke.  I want to be Jack Sparrow.  I want to bluff and bluster my way through this story that we are telling together."  It's the DM's responsibility to deliver on that expectation by making sure the character's opponents are susceptible to his... creative reinterpretations of reality.  For the DM to regularly say, "No, you can't trick this guy" would be like the DM regularly saying to the fighter, "No, you can't stab this guy".
(you shouldn't be able to use your charisma to trick automatons, for example)


To me, it seems like it should actually be easier to trick an automaton than an intelligent creature (which is why I think such an ability should call for an Intelligence save, not a Wisdom save). Computers and other relatively simple machines are easier to manipulate and control than sentient beings. With intelligent creatures, you have to use psychology, whereas with robots, you merely need to give it the right stimuli for the desired reaction. 

You can't trick them with Charisma.  No matter how charming your smile, or how sweet your words, it won't follow you to a "bed room'.

You could however trick them with Intelligence.  Notice that it does a swing/swing/shift combo, then you can figure out where to put the trap down to.



Anything that responds to apparent vulnerabilities and openings for its attacks can be tricked... anything ... anything anything.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I see it as magical because it overrides an npc freewill and could make him do something he would never do. like run into the pit trap he spotted five rounds ago



People get disoriented in fights all the time hit allies and things they didnt mean to do, anger and seeing what looks like the perfect opening cloud judgement... in general induced mistakes hit from more than one side. Its called the fog of war. Also that leaving an opening to induce enemy behavior is a normal fencing move.


I agree.  Also, the "make him do something he would never do" thing is totally fallacious.  A hostile opponent in the heat of battle would NEVER charge his enemy?



Many of them would not BLINDLY charge the enemy due to a taunt, no.
How often, in a book, movie or TV show, have we seen the terrible monster (dinosaur, dragon, zombie, whatever) about to chomp down on a defenseless someone? But before it does, the "hero" tosses a rock at it and/or waves their hands and yells, "Hey, [monster]! Over here! Come eat me instead!", then runs off? Said hero then proceeds to lure the monster into a tough/advantageous situation, defeating (or otherwise thwarting) it?

Are we done with this debate now?



Usually done to unintelligent monsters, though, and/or to monsters who really just want to kill something, anything. 
Maybe I'm different but doesn't failing a save or contest remove immediate control of the character fo a duration.

QFT>

I decide to arm wrestling an ogre. We roll contested strength checks. But then I decide my arm does not get bent backwards. Because, after all, I do not wish it to. Who is the ogre to tell me how my arm moves? He's not the boss of me...




I took 20 damage and died? No, I didn't.
I don't wanna be dead so my PC is not dead.



Are you guys done twisting the actual arguments into something they are not?  Or should I wait while you continue to Strawman things?
Are we playing 'martial characters can't get nice things' again?



No, but thanks for trying to instigate trouble.
I see it as magical because it overrides an npc freewill and could make him do something he would never do. like run into the pit trap he spotted five rounds ago



People get disoriented in fights all the time hit allies and things they didnt mean to do, anger and seeing what looks like the perfect opening cloud judgement... in general induced mistakes hit from more than one side. Its called the fog of war. Also that leaving an opening to induce enemy behavior is a normal fencing move.


I agree.  Also, the "make him do something he would never do" thing is totally fallacious.  A hostile opponent in the heat of battle would NEVER charge his enemy?



Many of them would not BLINDLY charge the enemy due to a taunt, no.


As others have pointed out, it doesn't just have to be a taunt.  It could be in response to striking it at range, or you could be bluffing an injury that the creature rushes to exploit.  As for the "blindly" part, one on one combat is chaotic enough as it is.  The muddled undulating mess of group combat can easily make one forget or lose track of locations or not pay due attention to other enemies.
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.

Salla, how is this a martial characters can't have nice things thread?


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. 



I can't imagine how anyone could have gotten the wrong idea...
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.
I see it as magical because it overrides an npc freewill and could make him do something he would never do. like run into the pit trap he spotted five rounds ago



People get disoriented in fights all the time hit allies and things they didnt mean to do, anger and seeing what looks like the perfect opening cloud judgement... in general induced mistakes hit from more than one side. Its called the fog of war. Also that leaving an opening to induce enemy behavior is a normal fencing move.


I agree.  Also, the "make him do something he would never do" thing is totally fallacious.  A hostile opponent in the heat of battle would NEVER charge his enemy?



Many of them would not BLINDLY charge the enemy due to a taunt, no.


As others have pointed out, it doesn't just have to be a taunt.  It could be in response to striking it at range, or you could be bluffing an injury that the creature rushes to exploit.  As for the "blindly" part, one on one combat is chaotic enough as it is.  The muddled undulating mess of group combat can easily make one forget or lose track of locations or not pay due attention to other enemies.



If the ability is a taunt, then it has to be a taunt.  It can't be a taunt, bluff, diplomacy, feint, and intimidate ability if it's only a taunt.  Abilities don't morph into whatever the player wants it to be at any given moment. 
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.



+1



The problem is Derren Brown takes weeks and months for the fancier effects, and the lesser effects are nothing like making a monster charge at you...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I see it as magical because it overrides an npc freewill and could make him do something he would never do. like run into the pit trap he spotted five rounds ago



People get disoriented in fights all the time hit allies and things they didnt mean to do, anger and seeing what looks like the perfect opening cloud judgement... in general induced mistakes hit from more than one side. Its called the fog of war. Also that leaving an opening to induce enemy behavior is a normal fencing move.


I agree.  Also, the "make him do something he would never do" thing is totally fallacious.  A hostile opponent in the heat of battle would NEVER charge his enemy?



Many of them would not BLINDLY charge the enemy due to a taunt, no.


As others have pointed out, it doesn't just have to be a taunt.  It could be in response to striking it at range, or you could be bluffing an injury that the creature rushes to exploit.  As for the "blindly" part, one on one combat is chaotic enough as it is.  The muddled undulating mess of group combat can easily make one forget or lose track of locations or not pay due attention to other enemies.



If the ability is a taunt, then it has to be a taunt.  It can't be a taunt, bluff, diplomacy, feint, and intimidate ability if it's only a taunt.  Abilities don't morph into whatever the player wants it to be at any given moment. 


Actually, it can.  That's part of the beauty of tying it to an attribute and not a skill.
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.


Actually, it can.  That's part of the beauty of tying it to an attribute and not a skill.



Yeah.  It depends on how they do it.  If it's just a flat charisma check, then it becomes more versatile.  If they use charisma to do a specific thing like taunt, it becomes more limited.  However, if it's versatile, then the player needs to convey which thing he is doing.  A taunt may work where a bluff would not, so if he tries the wrong thing on the wrong person, it may or may not work depending on what he chooses to use his charisma for. 

Actually, it can.  That's part of the beauty of tying it to an attribute and not a skill.



Yeah.  It depends on how they do it.  If it's just a flat charisma check, then it becomes more versatile.  If they use charisma to do a specific thing like taunt, it becomes more limited.  However, if it's versatile, then the player needs to convey which thing he is doing.  A taunt may work where a bluff would not, so if he tries the wrong thing on the wrong person, it may or may not work depending on what he chooses to use his charisma for. 


Versatility inspiring roleplaying?  Whoulda thunk it? Wink
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 see it as magical because it overrides an npc freewill and could make him do something he would never do. like run into the pit trap he spotted five rounds ago



People get disoriented in fights all the time hit allies and things they didnt mean to do, anger and seeing what looks like the perfect opening cloud judgement... in general induced mistakes hit from more than one side. Its called the fog of war. Also that leaving an opening to induce enemy behavior is a normal fencing move.


I agree.  Also, the "make him do something he would never do" thing is totally fallacious.  A hostile opponent in the heat of battle would NEVER charge his enemy?



Many of them would not BLINDLY charge the enemy due to a taunt, no.


As others have pointed out, it doesn't just have to be a taunt.  It could be in response to striking it at range, or you could be bluffing an injury that the creature rushes to exploit.  As for the "blindly" part, one on one combat is chaotic enough as it is.  The muddled undulating mess of group combat can easily make one forget or lose track of locations or not pay due attention to other enemies.



If the ability is a taunt, then it has to be a taunt.  It can't be a taunt, bluff, diplomacy, feint, and intimidate ability if it's only a taunt.  Abilities don't morph into whatever the player wants it to be at any given moment. 


Actually, it can.  That's part of the beauty of tying it to an attribute and not a skill.



Its a trick involving multiple components that require intellect to bring together oh my.. but martial types are simple minded cant have that. Goad them (aka get there attention) however maybe with language may be with a feint that looks interupted by that fake a vulnerability oh my body language is the fundamental element of a false opening.... 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Pashalik_Mons I actually can't figure this one out when I've said many many many times it is something I as the dm would prefer to just allow the rogue/any class to just be able to do it without a roll.

Actually, it can.  That's part of the beauty of tying it to an attribute and not a skill.



Yeah.  It depends on how they do it.  If it's just a flat charisma check, then it becomes more versatile.  If they use charisma to do a specific thing like taunt, it becomes more limited.  However, if it's versatile, then the player needs to convey which thing he is doing.  A taunt may work where a bluff would not, so if he tries the wrong thing on the wrong person, it may or may not work depending on what he chooses to use his charisma for. 


What's more, if it were a specific action, that would mean the rogue is using the same trick over and over again - which is sort of antithetical to the spontaneous and unpredictable nature of the trickster hero.  (Although there are a few notable exceptions - Loki:  "Will you ever not fall for that?")

Actually, it can.  That's part of the beauty of tying it to an attribute and not a skill.



Yeah.  It depends on how they do it.  If it's just a flat charisma check, then it becomes more versatile.  If they use charisma to do a specific thing like taunt, it becomes more limited.  However, if it's versatile, then the player needs to convey which thing he is doing.  A taunt may work where a bluff would not, so if he tries the wrong thing on the wrong person, it may or may not work depending on what he chooses to use his charisma for. 


What's more, if it were a specific action, that would mean the rogue is using the same trick over and over again - which is sort of antithetical to the spontaneous and unpredictable nature of the trickster hero.  (Although there are a few notable exceptions - Loki:  "Will you ever not fall for that?")


Well, it kind of helps that whatever creature the rogue uses it on is probably going to be killed by the party.  Hard to be ready for it next time when there's no next time.
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.


Actually, it can.  That's part of the beauty of tying it to an attribute and not a skill.



Yeah.  It depends on how they do it.  If it's just a flat charisma check, then it becomes more versatile.  If they use charisma to do a specific thing like taunt, it becomes more limited.  However, if it's versatile, then the player needs to convey which thing he is doing.  A taunt may work where a bluff would not, so if he tries the wrong thing on the wrong person, it may or may not work depending on what he chooses to use his charisma for. 


What's more, if it were a specific action, that would mean the rogue is using the same trick over and over again - which is sort of antithetical to the spontaneous and unpredictable nature of the trickster hero.  (Although there are a few notable exceptions - Loki:  "Will you ever not fall for that?")



Well if its not on the same subject maybe ...  though yes sometimes a target has a vulnerability to a particular deception.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Pashalik_Mons I actually can't figure this one out when I've said many many many times it is something I as the dm would prefer to just allow the rogue/any class to just be able to do it without a roll.


It's too late for reason now, you've already thrown a fit and accused a mundane ability of being magic mind-control.  There's going to be a backlash on that, it's just unavoidable.  And, like any thread, once it's created, the creator has little to no control.  I once mentioned paladins in an OP, just as an example of something, and I when I next checked in, there were pages upon pages of paladin/alignment arguments.  Arguments here tend to have a life of their own.  We've still got a few pages of riding it out to go, I'd reckon.

Once you've let that settle in, go back and read it again.  There actually are good reasons for wanting mechanics in place for some of this stuff, whether or not you'd just let the Rogue have it.  At least some of them have been spoken of in this thread.  So, when you're ready, go find some of those posts and ask people to elaborate.  Then you can start participating in the discussion for real.
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.
Pashalik_Mons I actually can't figure this one out when I've said many many many times it is something I as the dm would prefer to just allow the rogue/any class to just be able to do it without a roll.


It's too late for reason now, you've already thrown a fit and accused a mundane ability of being magic mind-control.  There's going to be a backlash on that, it's just unavoidable.  And, like any thread, once it's created, the creator has little to no control.  I once mentioned paladins in an OP, just as an example of something, and I when I next checked in, there were pages upon pages of paladin/alignment arguments.  Arguments here tend to have a life of their own.  We've still got a few pages of riding it out to go, I'd reckon.

Once you've let that settle in, go back and read it again.  There actually are good reasons for wanting mechanics in place for some of this stuff, whether or not you'd just let the Rogue have it.  At least some of them have been spoken of in this thread.  So, when you're ready, go find some of those posts and ask people to elaborate.  Then you can start participating in the discussion for real.


Allow me to go in depth on it by reposting the OP from this old thread of mine here.

I've seen a lot of people talking about how they don't like martial powers.  They say things like "fighters and rogues shouldn't have spells," and "powers inhibit player creativity," and "they turned D&D into an MMO."  The interesting thing is that martial powers go back farther than a lot of people realize.  In fact, martial powers have been part of the game since its inception.  Skeptical?  I don't blame you.  It's quite a claim, and it's a truth that may be hard for some gamers to swallow.

So what is a martial power?  What is all the fuss about?  A martial power is a codified ability that is available to classes that don't rely on magic. For an example of this, let's have a look at one of the fighter powers from 4e, Tide of IronTide of Iron is an at-will power that lets a fighter hit the enemy with his weapon and then shove or knock the enemy back with his shield.  Is this a new ability that 4e introduced?  Yes and no.  4e introduced it as a codified ability, but the improvisation rules of all editions allow you to attempt this.  The only difference is that 4e gives the DM a rule for how to adjudicate it: a single roll against the target's AC.

Now some may say that the improvisation of the past editions is different because it's more of a situational usage.  That objection fails to take into account the fact that players will recycle tactics that have worked before.  Just as wizards developed a host of tactics for using their spells creatively, so would a fighter repeat successful techniques.  This is the whole point behind 3e coming up with rules for things like tripping, grappling, disarming, and sundering.  All of these things were possible improvisations before 3e.  3e just codified a method of resolving them that the designers believed was fair.

One of the biggest problems people have with martial powers are the limited use of encounter and daily powers.  For some, this breaks their immersion to think that a character who doesn't use spells can use an ability once and not be able to try it again.  Immersion is certainly a subjective thing.  Some people find that the fire-and-forget nature of vancian magic damages their immersion, while others are entirely ok with it.  The truth is that you can rationalize the limits on martial encounter and daily powers as easily as you can rationalize fire-and-forget limits on magic.

The improvisation of past editions is a veritable bag of holding full of hidden powers that the DM must come up with rules for on the spot, and that will be reused by the players if successful.  I hope that players of past editions will keep this in mind, and hopefully keep an open mind, when martial maneuvers are introduced to DDN.  In a like manner, I hope that players of 3e and 4e will keep this in mind, and will also keep an open mind, about the current lack of codified rules for martial options other than "I hit it with my sword."

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.

MechaPilot I saw nothing that you wrote that even comes close to my thoughts on this. While one might call this a power, It is irrelevant to me until wotc says it can only be used once per day. I have no problem with martial characters getting "powers" just don't call them that.

Further I have no problem with this idea being written in the "minor actions/alternative actions/whatever" section of the combat chapter. Here I would feel better about ignoring it if you tried it on a brain dead skeleton who has been ordered to specifically kill the fighter no matter what.

As a rogue ability I don't feel like I have that same kind of control. Sure you could say I do (and I do) I just feel bad about ruling a players ability useless.

Other things you mentioned as being codified into rules I don't see as the same. Talking has always been a minor action, bashing someone with a shield would tend to not be. In most games while you could shield bash, you couldn't also attack. From through sounds of.it 4th gave you the option to do both, something you couldn't really do before.
Sure you could say I do (and I do) I just feel bad about ruling a players ability useless.


You seem to have no trouble demanding we don't get the option to have this ability.
you guys seem to keep missing the fact I said a hundred times I would let the rogue do this as a "minor action"
In fact I would be okay if the rogue taunted the ogre and held his action and attacked the ogre as he charged.
MechaPilot I saw nothing that you wrote that even comes close to my thoughts on this. While one might call this a power, It is irrelevant to me until wotc says it can only be used once per day. I have no problem with martial characters getting "powers" just don't call them that. Further I have no problem with this idea being written in the "minor actions/alternative actions/whatever" section of the combat chapter. Here I would feel better about ignoring it if you tried it on a brain dead skeleton who has been ordered to specifically kill the fighter no matter what. As a rogue ability I don't feel like I have that same kind of control. Sure you could say I do (and I do) I just feel bad about ruling a players ability useless. Other things you mentioned as being codified into rules I don't see as the same. Talking has always been a minor action, bashing someone with a shield would tend to not be. In most games while you could shield bash, you couldn't also attack. From through sounds of.it 4th gave you the option to do both, something you couldn't really do before.


Please do bear in mind how old that post is.  Follow the link and check the date on the OP for the thread.  We didn't even have maneuvers or CE dice at the time.  That was back when people were still advocating for maneuvers to be present.

As for not being able to attack and shield bash before 4e, naturally, you always had the option to do it before.  You just had to get DM approval first.  Some would say yes, some would say no, but the point remains that the option was still there, hidden in that bag of invisible options.  At least one of my later replies in that thread is relevent to the objections that you bring up.  I really would suggest reading that old thread.
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.

MechaPilot I saw nothing that you wrote that even comes close to my thoughts on this. While one might call this a power, It is irrelevant to me until wotc says it can only be used once per day. I have no problem with martial characters getting "powers" just don't call them that.

WotC was big on calling them "Exploits", but the forums ran with the more generic term "powers".

Further I have no problem with this idea being written in the "minor actions/alternative actions/whatever" section of the combat chapter. Here I would feel better about ignoring it if you tried it on a brain dead skeleton who has been ordered to specifically kill the fighter no matter what. As a rogue ability I don't feel like I have that same kind of control. Sure you could say I do (and I do) I just feel bad about ruling a players ability useless.

The problem with putting it into the combat chapter is this contnuing idea that if something can be done without magic, then everyone gets to do it.  I don't see why that should be the case, and it really undermines the martial classes.  Having this as a Rogue ability clearly marks him as a better trickster than anyone else.  He doesn't just do the same tricks as everyone else, or the same tricks with slightly better numbers, he gets to go above and beyond what some untrained schlub can do.
Other things you mentioned as being codified into rules I don't see as the same. Talking has always been a minor action, bashing someone with a shield would tend to not be. In most games while you could shield bash, you couldn't also attack. From through sounds of.it 4th gave you the option to do both, something you couldn't really do before.


That was a taste the Fighter's version of what I was just talking about, yes.  
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.
you guys seem to keep missing the fact I said a hundred times I would let the rogue do this as a "minor action"


And you seem to keep missing that, to us, that is, people who do not and probably never will play with you, what you personally would or would not let the Rogue do is irrelevant.
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.
Right MechaPilot, I know its old. Just my main objection right now is it being a rogue ability. (does this mean fighters can't taunt a bad guy now?)

As for a rules option I wouldnt see a problem with it.
Right MechaPilot, I know its old. Just my main objection right now is it being a rogue ability. (does this mean fighters can't taunt a bad guy now?) As for a rules option I wouldnt see a problem with it.


It's rather inevitable as a solely rogue ability.  I really doubt that we'll get customizable fighting styles where any class can choose to be a tricksy fighter, and giving top-shelf tricks to every class really diminishes how one can distinguish a character as being a superior trickster.
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.

Salla, how is this a martial characters can't have nice things thread?

Well, in the op, you said:

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.

You equate something as simple as a resolution system for taunting an enemy to 'magic.'  

Want to see the best of 4e included in 5e?  Join the Old Guard of 4e.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

There is no reason a wizard or cleric should not be able to trick the ogre. In fact if the ogre hates Pelor then the cleric may actually be better at ticking the ogre than the rogue. Or if the fighter really did kill the ogre's brother.
There is no reason a wizard or cleric should not be able to trick the ogre. In fact if the ogre hates Pelor then the cleric may actually be better at ticking the ogre than the rogue. Or if the fighter really did kill the ogre's brother.


But you're talking about special circumstances again.  Assuming no special circumstances, and in the absence of a way to assign top-shelf tricky fighting to characters of any class, it will end up being the purview of the rogue.  It's just the best fit.
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.