A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[ruleslawyer]

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!

I use this right now in a limited way (since I already have stunts, skill challenges, and combat challenges in my game, players have a number of other special-move tactics anyway). Basically, I allow a player to spend a Destiny Point (my version of APs) for his PC to use a feat, maneuver, or other ability to which the PC normally would not have access.

As to human-shielding people: From a gameplay perspective, I completely agree with Mearls; giving monsters specific abilities that "should" be available to PCs in some form but currently aren't isn't necessarily a bad idea, because the idea is to encourage a diversity of tactics and 4wesome moves in combat rather than encouraging players to pull out a particular shtick time and time again. Really, the only way to fold something like human shield into core rules while preventing it from achieving "shtick" status would be to make it weak... at which point one would have to wonder why it was included in the rules at all. The implication that the 4e DMG will have guidelines for giving these abilities out to PCs on a case by case basis satisfies my concerns here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Obviously, I quite agree. Hopefully the designers of 4E do too. If not, at least this is one of the easiest possible "house rules" to attach to a game.

JohnSnow - And the sad thing is, I didn't even think of it, I just remembered it from some game I've played. It made a lot of sense there, and I think it's a very good fit for this kind of problem.

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

Well, Mike Mearls actually said BOTH, amazingly.

So, things like the human shield maneuver are there for specific monsters. I imagine that when we do unarmed combat maneuvers, you'll find something similar.

and

The game becomes complicated very quickly, as you add in powers and rules to cover all the corner cases, so it's important to reign that stuff in. Otherwise, you end up with a bloated mess.

In the same post even. Basically it seems to me, that much as I love Mike Mearls' stuff, he's both saying "Well, we don't want to give you too many rules, no matter how much you might want them or they might make sense!" and "Oh but we WILL add those rules in and cause that bloat and some painful illogic when we do the unarmed combat book!".

That sound you hear is me banging my head on the table with all the force of my impotent nerd-rage, fuelled by the powerful apparent paradox of Mike's words.

 

[helium3]

If you so desperately need the Meat SHield power for your PC I"m sure your DM will be able to find some equally powerful ability to swap out for it, following what will likely be clear guidelines in the DMG. Barring that, you can wait until it (or something similar) is available in an official release.

Forget that.

If I have to switch to DM'ing 4E there's no way I'm gonna immediately start letting the player's get juicy little house-ruled tidbits like that. If they want options we keep playing 3.5 Edition.

If we do 4E it's going to be in all it's magnificent and wondrous glory (or boring and simplistic suckitude as the case may be) but either way we're playing it 100% RAW if we play it at all.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

there are other logcal errors in every edition:

e.g.: only rogues can do sneak attacks to knock someone out... everyone knows a stick on the head makes you unconscious or even dead.

only a fighter can specialize in a certain weapon...

I admit:
rules for a garrotte should be in (even if it is a sidenote at the bugbear page)

Human shield however... there are sooooo many things you should be able to do, but are tied to special classes. In 3.5 i would bet there will be a strangler prestige class which gets exta maneuvers when strangling

And as pointed out: some things really can´t be done untrained if you are in a combat, even if you think it is easy to do. And introducing a general rule for something which is so unreliable that noone would ever think of dooing is overkill. (TWF without a feat)
Better Introduce it as: if you have the TWF power you can wield two weapons at -2 penalty. You can still trying to do so without but that increases your malus to -6.
Or just: if you use a weapon in your offhand, it imposes a -5 penalty to actions with both hands.

As mentioned, a general stunt rule would be better suited than a special rule for "meat shield" and the bugbear´s meat shield should make use of that rule with somekind of a bonus to make it reliable.

 

[JohnSnow]

Basically it seems to me, that much as I love Mike Mearls' stuff, he's both saying "Well, we don't want to give you too many rules, no matter how much you might want them or they might make sense!" and "Oh but we WILL add those rules in and cause that bloat and some painful illogic when we do the unarmed combat book!".

That sound you hear is me banging my head on the table with all the force of my impotent nerd-rage, fuelled by the powerful apparent paradox of Mike's words.

I actually think you're misunderstanding Mike's intent, if not the inherent contradiction in what he's saying. I see it as a threefold statement of the approach of the 4E team.

A) In presenting a new game, we don't want to overwhelm you with options right out of the gate, so we're focusing on the most "genre-appropriate" first. Which is to say, swinging weapons, casting certain spells, special movement abilities, blocking stuff with shields, and so forth.

B) However, we understand there's a demand for some more defined rules for things that the majority might regard as "secondary" or even "corner-case" and we'll get to those in due time.

C) For those of you who really want this stuff right out of the gate and are willing to go to the trouble, we'll explain our methodology in the DMG so you can create your own powers and abilities as you see fit. We'll also throw some of the abilities we thought of and considered pretty nifty onto monsters so that you can see one way that they might work mechanically.

And I doubt anybody can really argue that's a bad approach, except as regards the setting of priorities (i.e. what should get full treatment in the beginning vs. what gets partial treatment). Of course, some people may just not like "exceptions-based design."

 

[Lackhand]

Well, Mike Mearls actually said BOTH, amazingly.

Thing One

and

Thing Two

In the same post even. Basically it seems to me, that much as I love Mike Mearls' stuff, he's both saying "Well, we don't want to give you too many rules, no matter how much you might want them or they might make sense!" and "Oh but we WILL add those rules in and cause that bloat and some painful illogic when we do the unarmed combat book!".

That sound you hear is me banging my head on the table with all the force of my impotent nerd-rage, fuelled by the powerful apparent paradox of Mike's words.

Maybe it's my 1984 group-think, but I don't think that's as paradoxical as it sounds.
John Snow has parsed it appropriately, I think, but my take on it was:

So, things like the human shield maneuver are there for specific monsters. I imagine that when we do unarmed combat maneuvers, you'll find something similar.

"There are feats/powers/monster facets to do X"

The game becomes complicated very quickly, as you add in powers and rules to cover all the corner cases, so it's important to reign that stuff in. Otherwise, you end up with a bloated mess.

"It's bad to make X a default ability to anyone who can do 'X precursor'".

He happened to also say a contradictory thing, to whit, too many (bad) powers sinks the boat -- but that's got relatively little to do with the Bugbear Strangler.

In re the bugbear strangler, consider the grapple rules. If there were a human shield maneuver that was worth using for a bugbear, is there anything to stop it from being useful to a great wyrm dragon? If it's available to everyone, is there a good reason for the dragon to not use the maneuver? If the answer to both of these questions is no and it's a bad thing for the dragon to use the maneuver every time it grapples someone, you have a problem.

 

[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.

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

I think the designer's intent is to keep the specific options you have at any one point down. So you'll have lots of special powers, but if it works like Book of Nine Swords, you'll only have 6-10 of them available at any one time, for a player. For a monster it might be more like 2-5, from the evidence we've seen.

Cutting down on all the weird stuff you can do at any one moment in combat is probably part of that.

 

[jaer]

I more take it as

- Every character will have lots of powers, abilities, and feats to pick from, coming from class and race.

- Having all of these abilities will give you a number of options to do every round of combat. You will have a decent number of choices, but not too many to be overwhelming (hopefully).

- All other general maneuvers will be trimmed down to make them easy and uncluttery as possible to keep the game moving smoothly.

In essence, you are responsible for knowing exactly what your character's chosen abilities are and what he can do each round. Write it down on your sheet to help remind you, but you won't need to look in the book. Lots more powers and options, but if the player is keeping track of their own stuff, it will flow smoothly.

All other modifiers and actions will be simplified so that they are easy to remember and easy to handle in combat; no one needs to have "disarm" and "trip" rules on their character sheet, and no more slogging through the PH1 when the wizard gets grappled because it is easily handled.

So when Mearl says that these martial actions will come out in later books, I still don't think any character but those who have chosen the ability or feats to use moves like Meat Shield will need to worry about how to use it. Basic grapple will still be easily resolved as per the PH1. More difficult abilities will need to be tracked by the player that can use them, and will not be part of the main grapple rules.

General rules and maneuvers: keep it simple (even more so than 3e).

Character specific rules: only one person needs to understand and track these.

 

[Kraydak]

...
C) For those of you who really want this stuff right out of the gate and are willing to go to the trouble, we'll explain our methodology in the DMG so you can create your own powers and abilities as you see fit. We'll also throw some of the abilities we thought of and considered pretty nifty onto monsters so that you can see one way that they might work mechanically.

And I doubt anybody can really argue that's a bad approach, except as regards the setting of priorities (i.e. what should get full treatment in the beginning vs. what gets partial treatment). Of course, some people may just not like "exceptions-based design."

I find it interesting that 4e's design is so inflexible. In 3e, if you wanted to make the strangler's ability, and realized that PCs would want it, you would just stat it up as a feat and be done. Sure, the feat would be in the MM rather than the PHB, but there are a bunch of feats in the MM anyways. Some of them some PCs like to take (INA of monk-legality-thread-doom)

Apparently, though, there is *no* PC power structure adequately flexible to slot the strangler's ability into in 4e.

Or to put it differently, either messing with things in 4e is hard (ie everything they are saying about having rules to tweak things in the DMG is bull), or it is easy and WotC is just plain being lazy (in ways that'll lead to player/DM conflict and reduced fun, no less).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If there were a human shield maneuver that was worth using for a bugbear, is there anything to stop it from being useful to a great wyrm dragon? If it's available to everyone, is there a good reason for the dragon to not use the maneuver? If the answer to both of these questions is no and it's a bad thing for the dragon to use the maneuver every time it grapples someone, you have a problem.

Yeah, there's the fact that the dragon is, what, Colossal, and thus would gain little to no benefit from waving one of the people around in front of it, certainly no more than a normal grapple. That'd be like a PC trying to use a rat as a shield! So, apparently we don't have a problem

Jaer - I think you're spot on, AND I really don't like the philosophy, and I don't think that, in the long run, it will make for a more fun game, UNLESS they have some excellent stunt rules (and to be honest I don't believe that they have ANY stunt rules - as per JohnSnow's reading, I think what Mike refers to vaguely is the DMG having rules for creating abilities etc., not for stunting). It'll make for a simpler, faster, game, and probably a better "tactical experience", but for me, D&D is still an RPG first and a tactical thing waaaaaaaaaaaaay distant second, so I like it when my players can do wierd/crazy stuff and I don't have to make up rules on the spot. I'd rather have, simple, quick rules for corner-case stuff, than no rules at all.

My main fear about 4E, and I'm pretty sure I'm spot-on here, is that, like in 1E and 2E, virtually every DM will have several sheets worth of "house rules" and not "Omg that's so banned from my campaign"-type rules like 3E had, but elaborate rules for things Mike and the gang decided to "except".

What's going to be worse is, when, later in 4E, we get splatbook after splatbook reintroducing precisely the kind of complexity that they've removed, or equally stupidly, letting a few people of specific classes (probably paragon and epic tier classes) do stuff that logically any PC should be able to.

Oh well, not the end of the world, I just think letting humanoid, human-sized, human intelligence, human-strength monsters do non-magical, non-physiological "stunts" that the PCs and other NPCs can't replicate is BAD JUJU. It's not that I object to "exception-based design" generally, just certain (mis)uses of it. I'm all for monsters having abilities PC don't have. I just prefer them to by physiological or magical on humanoid creatures.