A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Steely Dan]

(there's a 3e monster in Mongoose's Epic Monsters book that can inflict nigh-infinite damage over a nigh-infinite area of effect with a save DC of nigh-infinity)

…Did you just say the M word?

 

[Imban]

…Did you just say the M word?

I have way too many of Mongoose's d20 books for my own good, especially since they more-than-occasionally write things like this:

Epic Spell-Like Seeds: Chthonian titans have access to the destroy and energy epic spell seeds, just as if they were spell-like abilities. They may develop a different effect every time they use one of these seeds. Using an epic spell speed is a full-round action for a chthonian titan. A chthonian titan requires no Spellcraft check to use or develop epic spell effects based on these seeds. See the Epic Level Handbook, Chapter 2, for more information on epic spell seeds.

(Underline mine.)
"So, epic spellcasting lets you make spells that have numbers that are as high as you could possibly want, constrained only by your Spellcraft check?"
"Right."
"So what happens if it's not constrained by a Spellcraft check at all?"

 

[Steely Dan]

I have way too many of Mongoose's d20 books for my own good, especially since they more-than-occasionally write things like this:



(Underline mine.)
"So, epic spellcasting lets you make spells that have numbers that are as high as you could possibly want, constrained only by your Spellcraft check?"
"Right."
"So what happens if it's not constrained by a Spellcraft check at all?"

*grimaces*

Combining Epic rules and Mongoose publishing is a recipe for disaster…

 

[TwoSix]

I'd say this is crying over spilled milk, only the cow was never born, it was never milked, so there was never any actual milk, only the idea of a cow and the idea that it could produce milk, and that since you don't actually have that milk, said milk was somehow lost.

Furthermore, it was stated that if you want milk, they will explore the idea of getting a cow, milking it, and turning the theoretical milk into actual milk when they have resources and time to do so. Only for some reason that I can't figure out, that isn't right either.

I seriously don't understand why a Bugbear Strangler shouldn't have a special rule that applies only to Bugbear Stranglers, when the situation dictates that you either get hundreds of flavorful monsters with limited special rules or you get hundreds of rules that produce limited monsters.

Bolded for truth. And the cow analogy is also pure win.

 

[Klaus]

On the whole I'm encouraged by the idea of 4e MM creatures having all the information needed to play them effectively in the stat block.

There is one thing that I'm worried about though, and I hope it doesn't happen - and that is a proliferation of "special case monster abilities".

An example from 3e that always jarred with me was the Bebeliths ability to 'rend armour'. It seemed strange that it had such a unique ability (surely anything huge+ with claws should be able to do that?). It stood out like a proud nail when compared to the pretty standard way most other monster abilities were handled.

The Bugbear in the playtest report using a grappled foe as a 'human shield' sounds like it might be a 4e case in point, if that is an ability that Bugbears have but other similarly sized or bigger humanoid monsters don't.

We know hardly anything about the 4e monster entries so far, of course. The proof of the pudding will be seen when the 4eMM is actually available.

But not too many Bebilith proud nails, I hope!

Cheers

I don't see why the "bugbear and human shield" thing is anything new.

In 3.x, if you attack into a grapple, there's a chance you'll hit either combatant. If you end up hitting your ally, it's easy to envision it as the opponent placing your ally into the line of fire. You COULD come up with an additional ability (say, a feat) that increases the odds of someone attacking into a grapple attacking your opponent instead of you.

 

[jaer]

But if melee combat doesn't cover swashbuckler types, sword and board defensive, strong straightforward offensive types(two handed swords, berserker's etc.), tricky special maneuver types(disarms, trips etc), and unarmed combat, it's an incomplete PH.

If magic doesn't cover summoning, healing, buffs, debuffs, blasting, enchanting, illusions, transformations, necromancy including animating the dead, and some basic utility spells it has failed and is an incomplete PH.

I think you made a good point here, and one that is very relevant.

WotC has said that enchantment, necromancy, illusions and what-not will be included. They were not removed completely. Only that the Wizard class is not and never will be a specialist in these magics, and that classes will come out later that are specialists in these magics.

I would not be surprised if we saw some monsters in the MM that had illusion, enchantment, or necromancy abilities above and beyond what a PC wizard can do now, but being in line with what the Illusionist, Psion, and Necromancer will be able to do later on.

It shows WotC has ideas for what these specialists will be like; they couldn't flesh out an entire PC class with these abilities in time, but they could add some cool abilities to monsters.

Likewise, combat manuvers, grappling, sword & board, and two-hand smashery will be included in the PH1, but advanced grappling and unarmed rules will be held for when a full class based on unarmed combat rules is totally fleshed out. Anyone fighter can throw a punch (much like a wizard tossing out a simple charm spell), but only the Monk will be using the Meat Shield grapple ability (which would be comparable to a Psion being the only arcane class able to completely dominate an opponents mind).

However, even though unarmed abilities aren't completely fleshed out for PCs yet, WotC had some cool ideas, and so added a few to random monsters. Eventually PCs might be able to do those things, but right now, time and space where a limiting factor.

I don't have a problem with the PH1 starting out with the basics and the general. That's all that is needed for most people; if one of my players wants to be a wrestler, he can wait until a splat book comes out, and he can pick it up. With all the choices 4e is presenting, I doubt any of my players will feel the loss of needing to wait to play such a character.

Furthermore, I don't have any problems with monsters having abilities that PCs can't get unless they are specialists of some sort, specialists that will be released later on. It gives a taste of what is coming and gives the monster flavor above and beyond those class abilities we see all the time in regular play (cause the party fighter is doing them all the time!).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've been thinking about this, and I've worked out why this example, the Bugbear Strangler and his human shield, is so particularly annoying. It's not just because, in theory, anyone could do it (there is no possible way this would take "years of training" to do - people learn to do similar things in a matter of weeks). The idea that it takes special training to strangle someone is particularly ludicrous. To do it well, sure, but ineptly? PCs should be able to.

What's really annoying, though, is that Strangulation and using people as "Human Shields" are rules that D&D has been noticeably missing since I started playing. I've wanted bad guys to use people as human shields, but you always have to make it up, which is faintly objectionable in a game as tactically-oriented as D&D. Players and NPCs have wanted to strangle and particularly garotte people, but D&D has always lacked decent rules for it.

As for PCs throwing rocks when Enlarged. Absolutely they should be able to throw larger rocks. They won't have the proficiency etc. of giants, but they should be able to DO IT.

If they do include a decent stunt system for 4E, I admit my nerd rage will be largely mollified, but for now, this remains the silliest thing I've seen in 4E. I really don't buy that including a couple of paragraphs of extra grapple possibilities would throw D&D into some sort of rules-bloat disarray, and I think it would resolve a lot of situations. I also think the idea that we're avoiding rules-bloat only to have it come back to use in the form of later splatbooks is pretty silly.

 

[delericho]

On the whole I'm encouraged by the idea of 4e MM creatures having all the information needed to play them effectively in the stat block.

There is one thing that I'm worried about though, and I hope it doesn't happen - and that is a proliferation of "special case monster abilities".

This sort of thing started to happen (or, at least, was stated as a deliberate design choice) in MMV. I didn't care for it then, and I don't care for it now. Where something reasonably can be a feat, class ability, or otherwise learnable by any sufficiently interested character, then it should be made available through the appropriate medium, IMO.

The designers obviously feel differently, which is fine. It's just one more sign that the game that they are making is not the game that I wanted 4th Edition to be.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If they do include a decent stunt system for 4E, I admit my nerd rage will be largely mollified, but for now, this remains the silliest thing I've seen in 4E. I really don't buy that including a couple of paragraphs of extra grapple possibilities would throw D&D into some sort of rules-bloat disarray, and I think it would resolve a lot of situations. I also think the idea that we're avoiding rules-bloat only to have it come back to use in the form of later splatbooks is pretty silly.

Yes.

Where something reasonably can be a feat, class ability, or otherwise learnable by any sufficiently interested character, then it should be made available through the appropriate medium, IMO.

Also Yes.

Last I checked, the 4e designers weren't making rules for 3.5.. So how did you do better than them, I am at a loss. Could you clarify, please?

Because I gave you a rule that lets your villain take a little girl and use her like a human shield.

But all of 4e's PHB doesn't.

I mean, it's hyperbole. Maybe 4e's stunt system will do this fine. Maybe 3e, like Geron said, gave you this ability already, so I'm really just re-doing what was already done. But it's pretty silly, IMO, to have a monster be able to do something that anyone else could and should be able to do.

 

[Pbartender]

Anyway, it looks like 3.5 didn't officially have a human shield rule of any sort. I may be remembering from 3.0, but a quick check of d20srd.com shows that (1) there are no special rules for attacking into a grapple form outside, and (2) soft cover is not automatically struck if the attack roll fails by 4 or less. Though there is something similar to a human shield, with a pinned character getting a -4 to AC against other attackers, soft cover granting a +4 AC to the one covered. I seem to remember rules for accidentally hitting creatures in a grapple, and for striking cover (including soft cover), but these could be just constant house rules I've used.

Actually, the rules are there, if you know where to look for them...

For attacking into a grapple from outside, you want to look at Table 9-6: Armor Class Modifiers on page 151 of your PHB. It says, effectively,

"Defender is… Grappling (but attacker is not); Melee +0¹; Ranged +0^{1, 3};
1 The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.
3 Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. That defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC."

The rule for striking cover is from the 3rd edition rules (see the diagram on page 123, and the rules text on page 133 of the 3E PHB). It was eliminated from 3.5 when they simplified the rules for cover and concealment.

However, consider this:

With the rules as-is, you can still use enemies as living shields... All you need to do is make certain that one particular creature is between you and your attacker, giving you a +4 bonus to AC, and possibly your opponent a -4 penalty to attack, if it's a ranged attack and he doesn't have Precise Shot. Practically speaking, you are using a living shield to gain an effective +4 or +8 bonus to your AC. If you can find a way to immobilize your shield, so he can't move away or continually maneuver him to keep him between you and your attackers, so much the better.

In a previous playtest report, Rogues can gain the ability to swap places with an opponent. If the Rogue uses this ability to interpose the enemy between himself and an attacker, is that not a living shield?

The difference here is that the Bugbear's special manuever apparently reintroduces the "striking cover" rules under specific circumstances, so that his living shield has the potential of being damaged by the incoming friendly fire.

With the way the rules currently work, I don't have a real probelm with that. I put it into the same category as severing limbs and heads... Technically, anyone should be able to do it. Rules-wise, it only works on specific creatures, or when you are weilding a specific magic weapon.