|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 6:59AM
#321
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2012
|
NHBaggesen in terms speaking ability any charisma based class or person should be better then the rogue. Now if it is an actual trick and how that is pulled off could be different .
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:07AM
#322
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2009
|
NHBaggesen in terms speaking ability any charisma based class or person should be better then the rogue. Now if it is an actual trick and how that is pulled off could be different .
Or you could take this kind of ability to indicate that the rogue, imagined as a trickster par excellence, is at least in part a charisma based class (or possibly int or wisdom based, if ithe tricks are flavoured as being a quick thinker or great observer instead). I agree with you if the rogue is just a dexterity acrobat, then these kinds of abilities will make less sense for the rogue.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:08AM
#323
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I very much believe a clever manipulator could pull it off when someone not so clever could not.
Then I really don't see what all the drama is about. It seems like you're complaining that Mearls' one paragraph describing skill tricks should have been accompanied by 300 words of caveats and explanation.
Really. here's what Mearls said, verbatim:
A rogue can essentially use weaponized ability checks in combat. A rogue might lure an enemy into charging forward, dart into the shadows and disappear in the blink of an eye, distract a creature's attention away from the wizard as he or she prepares to cast a spell, and so forth.
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. She might contest her Dexterity against a creature's Intelligence to lure it into making a wild opportunity attack that actually targets its ally. These abilities are much like maneuvers, but they use the rogue's skill dice rather than what we're currently calling expertise dice.
That's it. From this one paragraph you've decided that Shalandra's rogue can trick anybody at any time into charging. From this one paragraph you've decided that the DM can't create a an ogre who could not be tricked into charging. From this one paragraph you've decided that because the rogue can do this with skill dice, no other character will be allowed to trick an ogre into charging.
Heck, the answer could be just as simple as all characters can try a skill trick, but only rogues get to add their skill dice as a bonus. So if Murvin the Wizard tries to provoke the ogre to charge, he rolls his Charisma v. the ogre's Wisdom. When Shalandra does it, she rolls her Charisma plus the bonus provided from her skill dice, vs. the ogre's Wisdom.
All that would require is general rules for skill dice -- i.e., whenever a rogue rolls a contested Ability check, the rogue rolls her skill dice; the value of the highest die rolled is added to the Ability check as a power bonus -- and then lots of exampls for contested Ability checks that anybody can use. Because of the skill dice, rogues will be more likely to use contested Ability checks than other characters.
But that's all speculation because we don't know really know anything about skill dice except the broadest of strokes.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:09AM
#324
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2009
|
For me, the bigger question is not so much "can i make sense of these abilities" as "would i as a player be ok with being compelled in this way"? And indeed mostly I would, but I've met several players who refuse to let their characters be manipulated (by rules) psychologically, though they are quiet fine being compelled by game physics or magic. I'm not really sure I understand why.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:16AM
#325
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2012
|
wrecan If you need a contest to resist something it is either 1)physical - getting grabbed or pulled etc or 2) magical. You don't need a contest to resist the urge to charge unless you are being compelled to do so against your will
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:22AM
#326
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2012
|
NHBaggesen the reason is simple, Players want to maintain a free will to their thoughts and actions. When you are magically charmed you have lost your free will which is fine, the rules aren't dictating what you should do with your free will. Same with physics. It is reasonably something you can't control. Now being taunted and having to charge a villain is not reasonable. Your free will should be able to allow you to make this choice.
Also Ill continue to say taunt until someone provides a better way for a rogue to trick an ogre to charge.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:28AM
#327
|
|
|
For me, the bigger question is not so much "can i make sense of these abilities" as "would i as a player be ok with being compelled in this way"? And indeed mostly I would, but I've met several players who refuse to let their characters be manipulated (by rules) psychologically, though they are quiet fine being compelled by game physics or magic. I'm not really sure I understand why.
Evil DMs just manipulate the players psychologically. 
Honestly, though, this is a place where PC/NPC asymmetry is necessary. You are not playing D&D to run a fair contest of abilities between some characters that happen to be run by players and some characters that happen to be run by a DM. You are playing D&D to tell a story collectively - and that means that the players get some special privileges too. DMs decide how NPCs should act for the good of the story. Players decide how PCs should act for the good of the story.
What I like to do as a DM is to just be honest with the player. And I'm not above bribery. "This guy is trying to goad you into doing something stupid. If you give in, I think it'll be more interesting for everyone than if you don't. And I'll give you a +1 to all checks you make acting in character." Most players in my experience respond well to this kind of persuasion. It's the "No, you have to attack this guy now" fiat that they hate.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:29AM
#328
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I don't see why the rogue should be better at this than any other class. Further if other classes don't have a similar ability/way to determine an outcome and it rests on dm fiat then as least in my games the rogue is getting screwed over.
Because tradition, which isn't really a good answer, it's just the truth. The tradition of D&D puts all the tricky fighting stuff in with rogues, assassins, and their like. Unless we have a way for characters of any class to choose to be tricky fighters, then it will get stuffed into the rogue because that is the traditional view of the rogue. That's why to rogue has had backstab for all these years, because the assumption is that rogues stab backs and are REALLY good at it. There's no basis for this assumption, but it's there.
I don't mind all classes being able to try it. I would like the Rogue to get some kind of boon though. Maybe they can do it instead of moving where another class might have to use an action to taunt it. Maybe they can add their Skill Dice to make it more easy to happen. I would actually like the DC to be the maximum hit points of the monster too, that way there is no way you are going to taunt a dragon into charging you, but you might be able to get a goblin or an Ogre.
Hmmm arrogance can be exploited... and dragons have been known to have pride as well, undermine the one then prick the other... and boom one charging dragon.
Only the unwise reds. The rest of them will just breath weapon you to death or cast a spell. Have you ever seen an Ancient Wyrm Green Dragon go crazy with Magic Missiles?
It works like this:
30 magic missiles or 30d4+1 damage...
All negated by one measly little first level shield spell 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:31AM
#329
|
|
|
wrecan If you need a contest to resist something it is either 1)physical - getting grabbed or pulled etc or 2) magical. You don't need a contest to resist the urge to charge unless you are being compelled to do so against your will
This seems like a rather simplistic understanding of human(oid) will. People in real life have to use willpower to resist urges all the time. By your logic, this must mean that last slice of cake exercises magical powers.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 04, 2012 - 7:34AM
#330
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
NHBaggesen the reason is simple, Players want to maintain a free will to their thoughts and actions. When you are magically charmed you have lost your free will which is fine, the rules aren't dictating what you should do with your free will. Same with physics. It is reasonably something you can't control. Now being taunted and having to charge a villain is not reasonable. Your free will should be able to allow you to make this choice. Also Ill continue to say taunt until someone provides a better way for a rogue to trick an ogre to charge.
Would you find it acceptable for the DM to have an NPC lie to a player, but make the bluff vs. sense motive check behind the screen? The ability for a player to choose his actions unless there is something physical or magical preventing them is acceptable if players actually lay down character traits and motivations, so that they can be rewarded for playing in character instead of doing what they want at the metagame level. If you don't allow the DM to make secret checks, does that mean your character cannot be bluffed because you refuse to let them be bluffed? That must make for some boring social interactions in game.
Now, how to trick an ogre to charge.. would you allow the Rogue to make themselves vulnerable to an attack (ie: allow them to *not* use their dexterity against an attack)? If yes, then would you allow them to bluff an ogre that they are doing this, when they're not? That's a very basic description of a Charisma (bluff) vs. Wisdom (sense motive) check that, if the DM isn't being difficult, would cause the ogre to charge at the Rogue over another character. If you, as the DM, choose to attack the more difficult to hit Fighter, then I'd question your commitment to playing monsters with any sense. How would you handle my playing dead example?
|
|
|
