A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Benimoto]

Well, and as I see it, and as Mearls pretty much outright stated is that they're trying to keep the game moving by keeping options down. A situation I saw fairly often playing 3.5 is when even an experienced player gets into a situation that uncommon for him, and then has to carefully learn about and explore every choice, so that his turn takes like 20 minutes.

To keep it relevant, let's say a player plays a character that normally stays in the back but suddenly gets into a grapple. The player would look around lost, and ask "hey, all you grapple-monkeys, what are the rules here?" Then we get like a 5 minute period of everybody trying to explain that he can escape, attempt a pin, attempt to damage, attack with a light weapon, draw a light weapon, use a wand, use a spell with no somatic components, etc., all of which have different rules.

So, in 4th edition I can see that they would want to cut down on the amount of options that a random inexperienced player would have, just so that it's easier. Not add even more options.

So, the approach that some sort of human shield maneuver would be a special attack or ability makes sense to me. And it also makes sense to me that such a maneuver wouldn't be in the PHB 1. After all, that's supposed to focus on the classic swords and sorcery stuff, like wizards and fighters. I think the designers made a choice to keep a lot of the martial-arts type stuff out of the first PHB, and this is partly a consequence of that decision.

 

[Steely Dan]

I think the designers made a choice to keep a lot of the martial-arts type stuff out of the first PHB

Saved for this hinted at 4th Ed OA, I'm hoping!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What I am worried about in this is making options like throwing sand in the eyes, using people as human shields and grappling in general more frequent than I would like to see in a campaign. Making grapple more effective and beneficial may make it more attractive for characters to use, but do we really *want* that? Do we want characters grappling more often than they swing a sword? And this goes for dedicated grappling characters as well as dilettantes. I know that I've DMed characters who have specialized in tripping or disarming. I have to admit I got tired of seeing them trip and disarm all the flippin' time. I hope that when people create these combat options that they consider why a character *wouldn't* use this tactic in every battle. I'd hate to see the majority of battles practically become running gags with the number of PCs, enemies and others using all available at hand as human shields.

Oh, and ditto to Counterspin.

One way to do this would be to make the technique hard to pull off.
Like: You first need to grapple, then a fullround to pin the target, and then you get the bonus.
Or like: The DM first has to check for "Improvised Combat Maneuvers" guidelines and figure out how to rule this, and in the end explains you can do it, but you'll have a -5 penalty to all opposed rolls, and your opponent gets an AoO Opportunity Attack or something like that.

 

[jaer]

What I am worried about in this is making options like throwing sand in the eyes, using people as human shields and grappling in general more frequent than I would like to see in a campaign. Making grapple more effective and beneficial may make it more attractive for characters to use, but do we really *want* that? Do we want characters grappling more often than they swing a sword? And this goes for dedicated grappling characters as well as dilettantes. I know that I've DMed characters who have specialized in tripping or disarming. I have to admit I got tired of seeing them trip and disarm all the flippin' time. I hope that when people create these combat options that they consider why a character *wouldn't* use this tactic in every battle. I'd hate to see the majority of battles practically become running gags with the number of PCs, enemies and others using all available at hand as human shields.

Oh, and ditto to Counterspin.

I do agree with you, but grappling already had some hefty penalties to do it other than just the negatives once you were in the grapple. If you attempted a grapple, you prokoved an AoO that, if it strucked, prevented the attempt. Required a feat to get around.

Had an opposed roll. By the time players are 5th lvl, they are going against medium and larger opponents most of the time. This opposed roll was difficult to beat in most cases, particularly once you were on large creatures. Often, it isn't worth grappling opponents because you can't win anyway.

Yeah, I wouldn't want grappling so beneficial that it out did other abilities and turned characters into one-trick ponies. But it could be at least somewhat situationally useful, which is really isn't now. Most creatures that are excellent grappelings (imp grab and grapple check out the wazzoo) still don't want to be in a grapple because it is so freakin' bad.

I hope that combat maneuvers are tuned down, but also make them useful enough for players to want to (or even need to) do them from time to time. When a fighter only had an option to attack or to disarm, it's an easy choice to disarm an armed opponent and then attack. When the fighter has more options, that disarm move is less appealing (and much less of the clear choice).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What I am worried about in this is making options like throwing sand in the eyes, using people as human shields and grappling in general more frequent than I would like to see in a campaign. Making grapple more effective and beneficial may make it more attractive for characters to use, but do we really *want* that? Do we want characters grappling more often than they swing a sword? And this goes for dedicated grappling characters as well as dilettantes. I know that I've DMed characters who have specialized in tripping or disarming. I have to admit I got tired of seeing them trip and disarm all the flippin' time. I hope that when people create these combat options that they consider why a character *wouldn't* use this tactic in every battle. I'd hate to see the majority of battles practically become running gags with the number of PCs, enemies and others using all available at hand as human shields.

Oh, and ditto to Counterspin.

This is really amazingly easy to deal with. Two ways:

1) Require the player to spend something to use the fancy ability - Action Points or something.

2) Make the penalties for attempting this kind of monkey-business so severe that people don't usually think it's a valid option. That's certainly the case with Grapple in 3E, Trip and Disarm too. I've never seen people who hadn't spent Feats regularly trying to Trip and Disarm people.

That's all you need to do.

D&D really does need strangulation rules, esp. garotte rules - moreso than the human shield deal, I admit.

 

[JohnSnow]

This is really amazingly easy to deal with. Two ways:

1) Require the player to spend something to use the fancy ability - Action Points or something.

That's...brilliant.

Action Point - A PC may spend an action point to initiate a "Stunt." Stunts are like freeform powers that any PC can use.

Now THAT would make action points cool wicked 4wesome!

 

[Imp]

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.

Right, it's a butt-standard action movie stunt. 95% of the time I am on the DM fiat side of these discussions, but using unique powers this way, when there's not some obvious anatomical or magical mechanism involved ("wrist muscles." come on), is just a recipe for strife at the table.

Of course, if there's a way to pull off similar maneuvers with stunt rules it's not so much an issue.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That's...brilliant.

Action Point - A PC may spend an action point to initiate a "Stunt." Stunts are like freeform powers that any PC can use.

Now THAT would make action points cool wicked 4wesome!

that should, imo be the entire point of action points (plus occasional rerolls) - doing something you can't do without them. The Eberron action points were so lame, it was strange to me as a player that the system bothered to have them.

Good action point uses :

* rerolling a failed roll at a crucial juncture

* using a feat or other ability you usually don't have for a short period of time

* taking an immediate action

* avoiding death

Bad action point use :

* adding 1-6 to a roll that may have succeeded without it or might fail with it.

 

[Set]

I like that monsters will have abilities unique to themselves (even though I would love really robust grappling rules that would allow a PC to do the bugbear move).

And that's my preference. If the party fighter sees the Bugbear do this and thinks, 'Hey, I'm *stronger* than him, I have Improved Grapple, and, thanks to this Enlarge Person I've got on, I'm at least as big as him too!, I'm gonna do that!' he should be able to.

Because I don't play the game so that the NPC Bugbear can have fun doing cool stuff. I play the game with the hopes that the Player Characters get to do something fun and memorable.

I don't want to hear, 'Yeah, remember when that Bugbear shoved your Wizard in front of my Power Attack death-cleave and you had to sit out the rest of the session?' I want to hear, 'Man, that *so rocked* when I whipped that Orc up in front of his chieftan and blocked the axe with his body!'

The game doesn't need to be made more fun and memorable for the NPCs.

It just needs to be fun and memorable for the players, and quick and easy to prep and run for the DM, which, currently, it is.

With 4th Edition, I'd have to learn two seperate sets of rules, one for PC generation and one for NPC generation, with lists of incompatible powers and abilities, and it sounds like *tons* of situational modifiers changing round by round, depending on what the Warlord or whatever is doing to modify his allies or penalize the enemy this round. Blech. Way too much math for my blood. Some playtest reports suggest that certain classes and monsters may get situational abilities that they can use when certain openings appear or certain conditions are satisfied, which sounds like even more workfun for the DM.

Worse, it sounds like I won't be able to use templates or cheat programs to fill stuff in, since monster abilities will be 'handwaved' and I'm supposed to 'assign numbers that I think feel right,' whatever the heck that means. Crikey! I don't want to *design* the game, I just want to play it!

 

[DandD]

Well, and as I see it, and as Mearls pretty much outright stated is that they're trying to keep the game moving by keeping options down.

Wait, isn't it the other way around? They're adding powers, feats and other stuff, meaning more options to pick from.