Few questions

[Newoblivion]

Hey friends :)

My first question is, what can a character do with the Ghost Sound spell? one of my players is playing a wizard and he wants to use this spell to create confusion in combat, like making the enemies think they are givven orders and actually make the sound come out of their leader in hope that they obey their leader without question.

My second question is, the fighter in my group chose an intimidate skill utility power which until the end of his next turn give -5 to hit to enemies which are not attacking him, the only key word this power have is Martial. Thinking that this power is somehow connected to intimidate I don't understand how he can affect mindless creatures? or creatures that can't comunicate with him. I think the name of this power is Glowering Threat.

Thank you for your replies!

[Kurald Galain]

My first question is, what can a character do with the Ghost Sound spell? one of my players is playing a wizard and he wants to use this spell to create confusion in combat, like making the enemies think they are givven orders and actually make the sound come out of their leader in hope that they obey their leader without question.
That's a nice idea. There are no strict rules for this, so I would have the wizard roll a bluff check to make this work, possibly with a penalty if the enemies see him cast it.


I don't understand how he can affect mindless creatures? or creatures that can't comunicate with him.
Because the rules say so. It's Only A Game, You Should Really Just Relax. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)

[mathewt]

I don't understand how he can affect mindless creatures? or creatures that can't comunicate with him.

It's intimidate, not diplomacy....it could be considered that the fighter is giving them scary looks and it freaks them out, hence the -5. No requirement for actual communication.

[Newoblivion]

Because the rules say so. It's Only A Game, You Should Really Just Relax. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)

Yeah, I understand, and I allowed him to use it. But I fear that it will break the atmosphere of the game.
Player: "My character roars and growls at the iron golems around her!! (I am using Glowering Threat)".

DM: "Amm.. ah.. okay.. the golems are intimidated by your savage roars..."



Really now? :smalleek:

[Daveheart]

Hey friends :)

My first question is, what can a character do with the Ghost Sound spell? one of my players is playing a wizard and he wants to use this spell to create confusion in combat, like making the enemies think they are givven orders and actually make the sound come out of their leader in hope that they obey their leader without question.
Tricky question. Also some of my players tend to be smartasses like this one. :smallamused:

Rule-wise you'll be better served by someone else, anyway I want to answer about what I do when it happens to me and I'm not 100% sure what the rules say (read: at least 4-5 times per session).
I usually allow it, but I have the player spend a standard action and make an appropriate skill test (in this case I'd say the best between bluff and arcana vs either Will or an opposed Intuition check).
The results depend on how the player words the orders. Maybe you could try to divide between sound, likely, unlikely and illogical orders and apply a quick circumstance modifier. In this case I'd go for sound +4 (bypass the fighter and get the ranger, he's more dangerous!), likely +2, unlikely -2, illogical -4 (drop your weapons, even if we outnumber them, fighting is not the solution!).
Also, make the player declare what he wants to obtain, do not accept vague statements like "create confusion", instead give suggestions: "do not attack", "give combat advantage", "have a penalty to a throwing save".
It's better for you, because you don't have to think about effects, and it's better for the player, because he can effectively have more control.

I know, it's a lot of work to do on the fly, but I feel it's a good compromise between allowing a nice use of an ability (never say no if possible) and its constant exploitation (spoils all the fun). Be sure that this way they won't do it so often, if they have to forfeit an attack.


My second question is, the fighter in my group chose an intimidate skill utility power which until the end of his next turn give -5 to hit to enemies which are not attacking him, the only key word this power have is Martial. Thinking that this power is somehow connected to intimidate I don't understand how he can affect mindless creatures? or creatures that can't comunicate with him. I think the name of this power is Glowering Threat.

Thank you for your replies!
Again, not a rule-based answer: you're the DM.
You like the concept of a guy able to intimidate a zombie, you allow it.
You think it's foolish, you deny it.
Soft approach: you allow it, but you ask for a hard skill check, or give a +x bonus to the enemy's defence.

edit
Bad, bad English... :smallredface:

[Ashdate]

Keeping in mind that Ghost Sound is not supposed to be a combat trick, I think there are a few ways you could handle it:

1) Use Ghost Sound as a trick before initiative is rolled. Perhaps it could allow the party a surprise round, either by confusing the enemy, or distracting their attention.

2) In combat, make it work like a less powerful version of the Wizard "Hypnotism" spell. Ranged 10, req an enemy leader that is giving orders. Intelligence versus Will against a single creature, the target makes a melee basic attack against another creature other than itself or the enemy leader, or shifts one square. Alternatively, as above but can only be used once per combat, and the creature loses its next standard action.

3) Do as Kulard suggested, and allow the situation to dictate what happens. With the understanding as above that this should probably be no more powerful than a similar at-will attack.

As for the second question, there are three ways you could handle it as the DM:

1) Part of Intimidate is body language, right? The Martial aspect to the power suggests that the character is doing something to literally distract the enemy. So consider "Glowering Threat" to be much like regular marking: the PC in question is doing something (waving their weapon around, cutting off the opponent's range of movement, simply gaining a creature's attention) and that's what the -5 penalty represents.

2) Put the emphasis on the "mindless" rather than the "power". I often use a monster's intelligence score to dictate actions; a creature with high intelligence understands what a mark means, and whether breaking it is a good idea or not. Similarly, a monster with a low Intelligence might understand they're marked, but simply not care. In the same manner, perhaps a mindless creature can take the -5, but not care when choosing targets. Much like 1) above, but without the need to justify why the mindless creature is paying attention to their penalty.

3) Simply not have Glowering Threat work on creatures with an Int score of 1. While I wouldn't necessarily recommend this part for new DMs, there are going to be edge cases where powers don't make any sense. Of the over 5000 creatures printed, only 150 of them can truly be considered "mindless". So it's an edge case, and thus as long as the players and DM agree that sometimes circumstances inhibit the use of powers, it's okay to say "no, that power doesn't work on the Giant Ooze". I made such a deal with my players, and such discrepancies between what the power says and what the situation dictates rarely come up in play.

[Surrealistik]

So you create the illusion of the leader giving false orders...

Which are then immediately contradicted and dismissed by said leader as a free action before anyone can act on them.

[Newoblivion]

Great answers guys! thanks a lot!!! :smallsmile:

[neonchameleon]

Thinking that this power is somehow connected to intimidate I don't understand how he can affect mindless creatures? or creatures that can't comunicate with him. I think the name of this power is Glowering Threat.

If a creature was genuinely mindless it would be a trap instead. Something incapable of processing input is going to have to move in a specifically pre-programmed pattern and can be easily beaten by someone who can look at its programming. It would fight like a wind-up toy, always going through the same sequence of moves and therefore could easily be beaten by the experienced or knowledgeable.

If on the other hand it is capable of taking and processing compex inputs (think a modern flight sim/fighter program) then it can be messed with by giving it false inputs the way you could a fighter AI. And its threat assessment corresponds to an emotional response.

[Scow2]

So you create the illusion of the leader giving false orders...

Which are then immediately contradicted and dismissed by said leader as a free action before anyone can act on them.
He'd have to dismiss them on his turn, and there might need to be something to figure out who the party believes. Otherwise:
"The Commander gives an order!"
"I use Ghost Sound to fake him belaying it and replacing it with another"

[Newoblivion]

If a creature was genuinely mindless it would be a trap instead. Something incapable of processing input is going to have to move in a specifically pre-programmed pattern and can be easily beaten by someone who can look at its programming. It would fight like a wind-up toy, always going through the same sequence of moves and therefore could easily be beaten by the experienced or knowledgeable.

If on the other hand it is capable of taking and processing compex inputs (think a modern flight sim/fighter program) then it can be messed with by giving it false inputs the way you could a fighter AI. And its threat assessment corresponds to an emotional response.

I understand what you are saying and mostly agree with it. But the affect of this power is psychological (intimidate), a golem might be fooled by a practiced warrior but I don't think it will cower in fear because said warrior roared at him.

[VeliciaL]

Do note that Ghost Sound is a standard action, so to use it the caster would have to give up an attack action.

[theNater]

My second question is, the fighter in my group chose an intimidate skill utility power which until the end of his next turn give -5 to hit to enemies which are not attacking him, the only key word this power have is Martial. Thinking that this power is somehow connected to intimidate I don't understand how he can affect mindless creatures? or creatures that can't comunicate with him. I think the name of this power is Glowering Threat.
There are few, if any, mindless creatures in 4e. Golems have an int of 3, so they may be a bit stupid, but aren't mindless. There's a kind of wolf that has an int of 2, so if you rule that the fighter can't use this ability on a golem then it's going to be a bit weird if he can use it on a wolf(and anybody who spends time with animals knows that sharing a language is not necessary to frighten them).

If you want a golem-specific explanation, you can keep in mind that the golem must have some process to decide which of several valid targets to attack. As an experienced tactician, your fighter can manipulate this to his advantage; by appearing more threatening, he messes with the golem's target priority list. This either causes it to begin targeting him or to hesitate as it chooses between two exactly identically threatening targets(slowing it down enough to provide the -5 attack penalty).

[Surrealistik]

He'd have to dismiss them on his turn, and there might need to be something to figure out who the party believes. Otherwise:
"The Commander gives an order!"
"I use Ghost Sound to fake him belaying it and replacing it with another"

The problem is you can only use Ghost Sound as a Standard (or Standard + Immediate if readied) once per round (APs and such excepted) while he can use his free action speech pretty much whenever he wants as often as he wants.

[Kurald Galain]

Come to think of it, you should just take the Hypnotism at-will attack and pretend it's Ghost Sound. Problem solved, now everybody will usually believe that their leader (even if not present) has ordered them to punch their friends.

[Surrealistik]

I will say this though. If the leader isn't around to immediately contradict you, this can be a pretty good idea if you use it intelligently to trick mobs into leaving a room/leaving something unguarded, etc...

[Scow2]

The problem is you can only use Ghost Sound as a Standard (or Standard + Immediate if readied) once per round (APs and such excepted) while he can use his free action speech pretty much whenever he wants as often as he wants.Speech is only a free action when it's largely meaningless or uncontested. Otherwise, it becomes a standard-action Skill Check.

[Surrealistik]

Could you point me to where it says that in the RC?

I think you might be confusing skill challenge elements and specific skill uses with speech.

[Scow2]

Could you point me to where it says that in the RC?

I think you might be confusing skill challenge elements and specific skill uses with speech.As soon as the Wizard uses Ghost Sound to initiate a bluff to impersonate the Commander's voice and throw the troops into disarray, it becomes an ad hoc Skill Challenge/Check. Roleplaying doesn't end when weapons are drawn.

[Surrealistik]

As soon as the Wizard uses Ghost Sound to initiate a bluff to impersonate the Commander's voice and throw the troops into disarray, it becomes an ad hoc Skill Challenge/Check. Roleplaying doesn't end when weapons are drawn.

Sure, you can ad hoc/dm fiat a skill challenge, but this aside there is nothing by the RAW that simply stops him from countermanding the false order immediately.

That said, it would be pretty silly if this was made to work after he spent a standard to belay the ghost sound order, and clarified that something was mimicking his speech, particularly if he took pains to signify a legit order with some sort of simultaneous sign/motion.

[Gavran]

To the best of my knowledge, there are no rules for this how Ghost Sound actually works. Personally, I'm inclined to not allow it in combat at all because I'd worry it'd either be too useless and my player would be upset by that, or too strong. I'll note that Prestidigitation specifically says that it can't have any effect in combat, but Ghost Sound does say it should work in combat.

Given that your player already wants it to work, I'd probably have it emulate the bluff check that can be made to gain combat advantage. Otherwise, perhaps a circumstance penalty to enemy attack rolls. It does take a standard action, so most things are going to fall on the side of too weak to be worth it but you're going to have to be very careful if you want to try to make it good.

As Surrealistik says, the RAW is firmly in favor of not allowing it to work at all. Anything beyond that is a house rule, though in this case it almost amounts to a mere re-fluff (given that we have no rules for what Ghost Sound should do no matter how it's used.)

As for the intimidate, I think it's totally fine. 1) He's giving up another power for this so he's balanced to be able t do it and 2) he's a heroic tough guy, capable of feats of intimidation far beyond that of the average human. Few creatures are truly mindless, and even in the case of those that are I'd let the ability still work, just fluff it a little differently.

[Lord Haart]

I'll note that Prestidigitation specifically says that it can't have any effect in combatNo, no, Gavran. It only says it can't deal damage, serve as a weapon or a tool or hinder someone's actions. While the last part is privy to interpretations varying from "no direct hindering, creative indirect is fair game" to "sorry, jamming that keyhole with prestidigitation-created bubblegum counts as hindering assassin't thievery check, so you can't do that", with most GMs (that is, with GMs whom you can't easily replace with a robot) it retains a lot of diversion potential, and while in combat it is often better to use a combat power, there's nothing directly prohibiting you from casting Prestidigitation and aiming for a jackpot.

[Newoblivion]

Its not only about mindless creatures. Its also about creature that can't be intimidated or creatures so alien that simple psychology games won't affect them because of the way they perceive things. I refuse to "reflaf" a power which was granted by the intimidate skill only because it doesn't sit well with the game. I am inclined to add the Fear keyword to this power and any other power granted by intimidate.

[Tegu8788]

Just so its clear, you are unwilling to play the game as the rules direct you to by being a little creative, and you instead want to start creating new effects whenever you dislike how something is played?


I'm not saying its wrong, just clarifying.

[Musco]

I refuse to "reflaf" a power which was granted by the intimidate skill only because it doesn't sit well with the game. I am inclined to add the Fear keyword to this power and any other power granted by intimidate.

Well, this is your problem right here.

This suggests you are not asking a genuine question, you already made up your mind and just want validation from the hivemind here in the Fora.

Experienced players/designers gave you all sorts of explanations as to why it works (and would work in even the cases you mentioned), which is what you asked at first, but then you try to get around the answers.

That's ok, you want to cover your bases. But when they proceed to close all possible holes, you state that you "refuse to have it work as it should", basically (unless I understood the phrasing wrong, could happen, non-native speaker here).

4th Edition is a system keen on balance, and you achieve balance by giving everyone tools for the same job. Sure, some are better, some are worse, some people can't do a few things, but mostly, powers and even classes will follow simple "formulas", meaning it's applicable to every one of them (otherwise the system wouldn't end up balanced), so the whole idea is that, even though the power will give you a "sample" description of what it actually does, the game-important part is the effect. The rest is fluff, and if you're unwilling to fluff, a lot of things will start looking weird and not functioning right (sneak attacking oozes, plants and undead comes to mind; if you're familiar with 3rd edition, this strikes you as odd, but if you understand the system balance, you let it go and fluff it - perhaps the rogue took a huge chunk out of the ooze with a good, clean cut, or perhaps that undead has just lost part of its ribcage, etc.).

Also, when something is pretty well-balanced, as 4e certainly is, messing with something without extensive experience will usually end up messing up that balance, and will just end up with annoyed players.

I say you take a deep breath and embrace the system, or just change systems - or risk, like I said, having your players become annoyed with how things are running, as opposed to how they should be running.

[BlckDv]

As far as I can see, this power is no more an issue than a fighter being able to Mark the same target, if I toss my throwing shield at a golem it gets a -2 to attack even if it is 8 squares away.. If the fighter is able to adopt a stance/attitude/readiness that imposes a -2 penalty when you attack anyone else even from range, obviously he is somehow able to impact the actions of the target even if he cannot affect it's emotions/mind. If you don't allow fighters to mark Far Realm things, Constructs, etc.. well, it is your game, but you've Houseruled far enough that expecting advice from generic 4e players is a stretch.

If the fact that Intimidate is a prereq is really that big a problem, turn it around.. the fighter is skilled enough at intimidation that he is effecting his own mind with his knowledge of what things can spook you; he is able to focus and not be distracted by the sorts of things that would cause other folks to flinch, back down, or loose focus, allowing himself to maintain a threat akin to his mark even in the face of an awesome foe.

[Newoblivion]

I am sorry if you guys took my previous post as a negative one, I am very grateful for your answers and they were great help to me, it's not what I meant. I don't mind if this power will affect everything. I Just want it to feel connected to the skill it came from. So saying it's something else all together just seems to me like going around the problem.

Maybe my attitude is connected to the fact that I played 3.5e for a long time. I just want for things to make sense in my game, and not only because the rules say so but also because it feels right, I want to guide my player as to how to describe this affect without the rest of the group feeling that something is off here.

Again, I am sorry if anyone got offended by my previous post.

[Scow2]

To the best of my knowledge, there are no rules for this how Ghost Sound actually works. Personally, I'm inclined to not allow it in combat at all because I'd worry it'd either be too useless and my player would be upset by that, or too strong. I'll note that Prestidigitation specifically says that it can't have any effect in combat, but Ghost Sound does say it should work in combat.Well, imitating someone's voice is an explicit function of Ghost Sound, though mentioned in a tangently-related feat (Butcher's Lure, a gnoll-only feat that gives them Ghost Sound at-will and a +2 power bonus to bluff checks to use it to imitate voices.

[Gavran]

No, no, Gavran. It only says it can't deal damage, serve as a weapon or a tool or hinder someone's actions. While the last part is privy to interpretations varying from "no direct hindering, creative indirect is fair game" to "sorry, jamming that keyhole with prestidigitation-created bubblegum counts as hindering assassin't thievery check, so you can't do that", with most GMs (that is, with GMs whom you can't easily replace with a robot) it retains a lot of diversion potential, and while in combat it is often better to use a combat power, there's nothing directly prohibiting you from casting Prestidigitation and aiming for a jackpot. "Hinder someone's actions" is pretty clear. I suppose one could make an argument for using it in a beneficial way (perhaps to aid in a temperature related endurance check?), but any sort of distracting, combat advantage granting way is, I think, in clear violation of RAW. Given that they've added bits about all the ways it shouldn't be useful in combat, I think it's also pretty clear that it isn't intended to have a combat use. In either case, I was merely pointing out that Prestidigitation includes that clause while Ghost Sound doesn't. In contrast, it's clear Ghost Sound was intended to have a purpose in combat. Unfortunately for us, they didn't actually define what that purpose was. Personally, I would do as I said and not allow it because I don't have the experience/expertise to make it useful without being too good.


Maybe my attitude is connected to the fact that I played 3.5e for a long time. I just want for things to make sense in my game, and not only because the rules say so but also because it feels right, I want to guide my player as to how to describe this affect without the rest of the group feeling that something is off here.I understand what you're saying. As I've mentioned, I think balance is both a tricky and very important thing so to me the priority is making sure the ability works as described. Once we've agreed on that however, I can totally sympathize with wondering how a fighter can frighten creatures that ought not to feel fear. I'm not the most creative person ever, but I do have one thought: what if it isn't that your fighter is scaring the enemies, but that he's using his knowledge of combat and intimidation in order to appear as if he's a bigger threat than he is? The penalty isn't because they're quivering in fear, it's because they're conflicted about attacking a less threatening target. A mark represents the fighter's readiness to punish them if their attention wavers, so it makes sense that a more threatening fighter would have a more powerful mark. Ultimately though, what I'd suggest is that you just talk to the player about it. It's his character, so he'll have the best ideas about how his abilities should work.


Well, imitating someone's voice is an explicit function of Ghost Sound, though mentioned in a tangently-related feat (Butcher's Lure, a gnoll-only feat that gives them Ghost Sound at-will and a +2 power bonus to bluff checks to use it to imitate voices. If I were going to allow it, Bluff would definitely be involved. The problem here is that Bluff only explicitly allows you to gain CA once an encounter. If I were inclined to think about allowing it, I might let the Ghost Sound be a free action that merely applies a circumstance bonus to the Bluff check. Or perhaps as others have said, let it affect multiple targets or give the CA to allies as well (while keeping it a standard action.) But, I can't say with confidence what the outcome of allowing that would be and I'd rather not set the precedent for it at my table. It might be worth nothing that my Wizard thinks he ought to be able to get away with anything. If he was more concerned about balance and less about getting things he wants, I might be more willing to experiment and houserule things like this into working.

[Newoblivion]

I understand what you're saying. As I've mentioned, I think balance is both a tricky and very important thing so to me the priority is making sure the ability works as described. Once we've agreed on that however, I can totally sympathize with wondering how a fighter can frighten creatures that ought not to feel fear. I'm not the most creative person ever, but I do have one thought: what if it isn't that your fighter is scaring the enemies, but that he's using his knowledge of combat and intimidation in order to appear as if he's a bigger threat than he is? The penalty isn't because they're quivering in fear, it's because they're conflicted about attacking a less threatening target. A mark represents the fighter's readiness to punish them if their attention wavers, so it makes sense that a more threatening fighter would have a more powerful mark. Ultimately though, what I'd suggest is that you just talk to the player about it. It's his character, so he'll have the best ideas about how his abilities should work.


Yeah, its very close to the example theNater also gave about golems, and it's actually make sense to me. Thanks a lot! :)

About the ghost sound. I realize that it's quite a hard decision, but I don't want to punish my players for thinking out of the box. But I also don't think that this ability should have a huge affect in combat. Maybe like others have already said he can use it as a "ranged" bluff / feint check?

[Tegu8788]

When in doubt, make it a very quick skill challenge. Take into account what he actually is trying to make the NPC "say," then set the DC accordingly.

[Lord Haart]

4th Edition is a system keen on balance, and you achieve balance by giving everyone tools for the same job. Sure, some are better, some are worse, some people can't do a few things, but mostly, powers and even classes will follow simple "formulas", meaning it's applicable to every one of them (otherwise the system wouldn't end up balanced), so the whole idea is that, even though the power will give you a "sample" description of what it actually does, the game-important part is the effect. The rest is fluff, and if you're unwilling to fluff, a lot of things will start looking weird and not functioning right (sneak attacking oozes, plants and undead comes to mind; if you're familiar with 3rd edition, this strikes you as odd, but if you understand the system balance, you let it go and fluff it - perhaps the rogue took a huge chunk out of the ooze with a good, clean cut, or perhaps that undead has just lost part of its ribcage, etc.).

Also, when something is pretty well-balanced, as 4e certainly is, messing with something without extensive experience will usually end up messing up that balance, and will just end up with annoyed players.
As an already irrelevant addendum (because it's a rant worth going on in itself):
Since we generally have much better (if not really true in real life) idea of what human body should "realistically" be capable of, compared to imagining limitations of magic, divine wonders or shamanistic spirits, it is very easy to declare that mage can use his Bigby's Forceful Entrenching Tool to shove two oozes and a golem away from him, but fighter with mechanically identical power can't yell on them to the same effect. Or that a psion or a wizard with a telekinesis-style power can use it outside of combat, but the brawling fighter who can easily grapple a tarrasque still isn't anime enough to suplex a train. While the logic behind such reasoning is valid in its own right, this leads to "martials can't have nice things" mentality, which is definitely not what designers wanted, and, more importantly, to my holy and righteous rage. In general, it's far more appropriate to let things get "anime-like" if they need to than to decline someone's turn in the spotlights.

[neonchameleon]

4th Edition is a system keen on balance, and you achieve balance by giving everyone tools for the same job. Sure, some are better, some are worse, some people can't do a few things, but mostly, powers and even classes will follow simple "formulas", meaning it's applicable to every one of them (otherwise the system wouldn't end up balanced), so the whole idea is that, even though the power will give you a "sample" description of what it actually does, the game-important part is the effect. The rest is fluff, and if you're unwilling to fluff, a lot of things will start looking weird and not functioning right (sneak attacking oozes, plants and undead comes to mind; if you're familiar with 3rd edition, this strikes you as odd, but if you understand the system balance, you let it go and fluff it - perhaps the rogue took a huge chunk out of the ooze with a good, clean cut, or perhaps that undead has just lost part of its ribcage, etc.).

Excellent rant and I couldn't agree more.


Also, when something is pretty well-balanced, as 4e certainly is, messing with something without extensive experience will usually end up messing up that balance, and will just end up with annoyed players.

This, actually, is not true IME. The better balanced a system the more rather than less it will take being pushed before it upsets people. As long as you understand the foundations it is based on. On the other hand "Mother, May I?" play annoys everyone and makes the players feel that they are not taking part in the story. It makes everyone at the table feel as if the DM is on a power trip and the players should be greatful for taking part in The DM's Great Story. And they didn't come for that, they came to actually play.

There are IME only two things that suck energy out of a game in play faster than consulting rulebooks. The first is consulting rulebooks with the aid of calculators (don't ask!). The second is the DM saying "No. Because I said so." At this point the fundamental relationship between the players, the DM, and the game changes. The players lose their understanding of the world, and the DM rather than being a friendly adversary becomes the enemy.

(Note that "No. Because I said so." is totally different from "No. Because there is hidden information." - but to do the latter you need to frequently let the players see some of the hidden information later on." - in place of the effect they earned you've given them a clue and the clue had better be real.)

[Epinephrine]

While the logic behind such reasoning is valid in its own right, this leads to "martials can't have nice things" mentality, which is definitely not what designers wanted, and, more importantly, to my holy and righteous rage.

Unfortunately, that happens in the game anyway. Teleportation away from immobilised or restrained effects seems to vary based on whether the condition is physical or magical, giving exactly this type of benefit to magical effects.

I agree that it's an attitude that we shouldn't have, but even in game design it's built in.