Quote from: LibraryLass;683289Show me a spell that does what Come and Get it does. Show me even one.

As you wish.

QuoteTaunt
30 yd range
Instant   8 sec cooldown
Requires Warrior
Requires level 12
Taunts the target to attack you, but has no effect if the target is already attacking you.

Quote from: Mistwell;683685Yeah see I never viewed the power as magical in nature, I viewed it as story-game in nature.  As in the player was taking narrative control over the monster and making them move to a specific spot, not through magic, but through some sort of fucked-up mundane taunt power that had something similar to an intimidate power involved.

I don't really do storygame, so 'taunting an ooze' can annoy me. But frankly, I have not seen all that many fighters with 'come and get it' in actual play.

Quote from: Warthur;683698I think it might help to look at it from a different perspective: how is Come and Get It to be rationalised *without* magic when it can affect opponents who shouldn't be capable of responding to a fighter taunting them from the other side of a room? If a golem is created with magical instructions to target magic-users first, for instance, how does Come and Get It override that?

How does the Golem identify a magic user?

Quote from: jadrax;683728How does the Golem identify a magic user?

Magic.

Quote from: Haffrung;683662I don't think that's true. Previous editions have been promoted as doing what you always wanted D&D to do, but in a better way. WotC is admitting that with 4E they took D&D in the wrong direction altogether.

People seem to ignore this point.

WotC designers admitted they done wrong with 4e.

They came right out and listed the faults . . . just as we had told them all along.

Anyone who likes 4e is no friend of authentic TSR D&D.

From what people say, it looks like WotC have returned to something that more closely resembles authentic D&D, which is TSR-era D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683674Justify the use of their powers? You mean play mother fucking may I? :rolleyes:

Where does this stupid notion even come from? 90% when it is applied to game or play style the apt description would be: "Mother, I fucking will and you better believe it!"

Same here.

Quote from: 1989;683773People seem to ignore this point.

WotC designers admitted they done wrong with 4e.

They came right out and listed the faults . . . just as we had told them all along.

They did this with 1e, 2e, and 3e as well.  Of course 4e had faults.  ALL the editions have faults.  Which WOTC has listed at various times.  That doesn't make it a "bad game" or a "failure" in terms of being a fun D&D game to play.  They've admitted two things, 1) it didn't make as much profit as Hasbro wanted, and 2) the game had things that could be improved on.  Those two facts are true of all prior editions of D&D.

In fact, YOU admitted 2e had faults and mistakes, in our discussion of the Player Options book.  Does that make 2e a failure, because it was losing TSR money and had faults?

QuoteAnyone who likes 4e is no friend of authentic TSR D&D.

I am a "friend of authentic TSR D&D", and you are not the gatekeeper of who is, and is not, a "friend of authentic TSR D&D".  You are, however, an obvious troll at this point.

Quote from: Mistwell;683785They did this with 1e, 2e, and 3e as well..

When did TSR admit the faults of 1e and 2e?

Quote from: robiswrong;683676I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant.  "Come up with a description for how this makes sense" is probably closer to what he meant.

Not justify in terms of asking the GM if they can use the power.

Well yeah (note the sarcasm tag).

 Sitting there trying to find a non-magical reason why a skeleton was pulled towards my fighter isn't my kind of fun. There is no way to not make it sound forced which is having the game serve the rules instead of the other way around.

Also, do keep in mind that the layoffs started about six months after 4e was released. That doesn't happen if everything is going smoothly.

You know what I hate?  For the past two years, people have pointed out that the publishing schedule around 4e looked weird. All four books getting released at once. Sudden drop-offs of books, sometimes only a couple months after they're announced.  Layoffs and internal disputes.  Losing massive sales to Pathfinder, which should have never, ever happened.  Seriously, Pathfinder should not exist.  In a sane world, Pathfinder would be getting the same sales as Castles and Crusades.  Essentials comes out and it looks like a 90 degree change in direction.

So people are noticing all this, and saying, very diplomatically, that maybe 4e went in the wrong direction. That maybe there was actual fire related to all this smoke.

But we're told that we're edition warring, that we just hate 4e, that it's all an elaborate conspiracy. You end up getting a little fucking sick of people telling you that a spade ain't a fucking spade, you dig?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;683800Well yeah (note the sarcasm tag).

 Sitting there trying to find a non-magical reason why a skeleton was pulled towards my fighter isn't my kind of fun. There is no way to not make it sound forced which is having the game serve the rules instead of the other way around.

'Describing what your character does' is kind of a basic roleplaying skill though isn't it? Come and Get It is maybe a bit more of a challenge sometimes but I've been using it since release and never had any problems.

Quote from: Mistwell;683785I am a "friend of authentic TSR D&D", and you are not the gatekeeper of who is, and is not, a "friend of authentic TSR D&D".  You are, however, an obvious troll at this point.

You shall not pass!

Quote from: soviet;683811'Describing what your character does' is kind of a basic roleplaying skill though isn't it? Come and Get It is maybe a bit more of a challenge sometimes but I've been using it since release and never had any problems.

Thats the whole game!  I much prefer just describing what my character does and let the rules flex and bend to accomodate the action instead of twisting my description to fit a pre-set bit of rules code with specific mechanical effects.

Quote from: jadrax;683728How does the Golem identify a magic user?

The golem uses whatever criteria its creator imbued it with to judge.

Of course, the point holds equally true if its creator told the golem to just stand there constantly and endlessly loading coal into a coal furnace, not to move from its position, and to only attack people who tried to interfere with the furnace. The power apparently lets fighters override those instructions.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;683788When did TSR admit the faults of 1e and 2e?

I'd have to go back and check Dragon magazine articles for the 1e-to-2e transition articles. I know for sure for a bit more than a year, WOTC was proclaiming how much superior 3e was to 2e during that transition.  Of course, that's not TSR - how could it be, as they had already sold to WOTC at that time.  But, it's their successor.  

For example, I picked Dragon #274, which is roughly in the middle of WOTC's proclamations of how superior 3e was to 2e (they started with slow annoucements of the new game and tidbits and articles on how much better it would be, then it came out and they continued for many months talking about see, now you can see what we've know, that it's way better than 2e).  Here's what I got from perusing the first half of that magazine:

"New and better rules aren't all the new D&D is about, of course..."
"Making the Best Better: "The guiding concept behind the new edition, " Jonathan says, " was to make it demonstrably better.  The changes had to pan out in actual play value..."
"According to Jonathan, players will be pleased to find that the game no longer focuses on what a character can or can't do, but instead on what happens when that charter tries.  "Old D&D said wizards can't wear armor," Jonathan explains. "The new edition says what happens if a wizard does.  Old D&D says that a dwarven fighter can't move silenty; new D&D spells out just how bad that fighter is at moving silently but lets him try if he wants to."  ...
"While many things stayed the same, the changes that were made were made with one particular goal in mind: to make the game fun." [Edit: I believe this is the very sort of language that sent 3e fans into apoplectic fits when 4e was being promoted.]

From the ad text in the 3e ad: PHB "The new edition of D&D is the clearest, most innovative manifestation of the game that launched an industry.  Featuring a new, more versatile rules system playtested by over 600 players worldwide.  New characters and more flexible character classes are easier than ever to create using the new CD-ROM character generator included free with every handbook.
Introductory Set "The first new edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game in ten years improves and updates the world's bestselling roleplaying game. "
On the d20 Mechanic, "That way you can see more easily how spells, feats, magic items, and other special circumstances affect your odds, allowing you to spend less time thinking about the numbers and more time playing your character."
The Playtest article very heavily bashes THAC0 and proclaims ascending AC as a superior way to do things.

That's just one half of one issue, in that roughly year long period where WOTC was promoting 3e.  They were very clearly saying 2e was flawed, 3e improves on 2e.

And I am sure TSR did the same with 1e, I just don't have easy access to those transition issues at the moment.  But I know the consensus at the time as that 2e was "fixing" 1e, by making "everyone's most common house rules" into the standard rule, and "discarding rules nobody used".  That was the common thought during that transition, and I am willing to bet it made it into the pages of Dragon at the time.