A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Kraydak]

Because they have a page limitation, and they opted not to put complex grappling/unarmed rules until they have a class that focuses on that kind of thing. When unarmed combat isn't a part of any of your core classes shticks, then it's a waste of space to put complex unarmed rules when you could put something more appropriate.

They are already writing the ability up. If their promises about easy adaptation rules in the DMG are true, then writing the ability up in player-usable format... shouldn't take much more (if any more) room.

Why do it? This thread is reason enough. People clearly want it as a PC ability.

 

[Ahglock]

Because they have a page limitation, and they opted not to put complex grappling/unarmed rules until they have a class that focuses on that kind of thing. When unarmed combat isn't a part of any of your core classes shticks, then it's a waste of space to put complex unarmed rules when you could put something more appropriate.



.

Unless each of these special abilities shows up just once in the monster Manuel on only one monster its not page inflation to make it a feat its page deflation. The feat takes up the same space the special rules on monster X take up. Then it takes up like 2 words per monster the feat is on. Which takes up more space a paragraph rule printed 3 times or a feat the same length of the paragraph rule and 3 2 word entries?

Even if each special ability only shows up once in the monster Manuel, you'd have to drop probably one monster in order to make the feats/talents and add a few words to live it a name and some pre-reqs to the appropriate monster who gets it, and you'd get a whole heck of a lot of game utility out of it, a lot more than you'd get from the one monster you dropped.

 

[JohnSnow]

Unless each of these special abilities shows up just once in the monster Manuel on only one monster its not page inflation to make it a feat its page deflation. The feat takes up the same space the special rules on monster X take up. Then it takes up like 2 words per monster the feat is on. Which takes up more space a paragraph rule printed 3 times or a feat the same length of the paragraph rule and 3 2 word entries?

Even if each special ability only shows up once in the monster Manuel, you'd have to drop probably one monster in order to make the feats/talents and add a few words to live it a name and some pre-reqs to the appropriate monster who gets it, and you'd get a whole heck of a lot of game utility out of it, a lot more than you'd get from the one monster you dropped.

Other than the horrific inconvenience of having to reference back and forth from the monster entry to wherever the feat description is everytime it gets used.

If you like building your monsters with feats and fiddling with skill points, there's already a game for you. It's called Dungeons & Dragons, Third Edition. I understand it has a lot of optional rules already available.

 

[Ahglock]

Other than the horrific inconvenience of having to reference back and forth from the monster entry to wherever the feat description is everytime it gets used.

If you like building your monsters with feats and fiddling with skill points, there's already a game for you. It's called Dungeons & Dragons, Third Edition. I understand it has a lot of optional rules already available.

Unless you only throw one monster at a time at your PCs you have to go through that horrific inconvenience and flip pages, or you know you could read about the monsters before you throw them at the PCs.

And this has nothing to do with building monsters, it has everything to do with actually getting some utility out of my pages beyond what is on the surface. When a rule is presented in a game the easier it is to pull it out and use it and apply it in other situations the better it is for the player and the DM.

 

[The Little Raven]

When a rule is presented in a game the easier it is to pull it out and use it and apply it in other situations the better it is for the player and the DM.

You think monsters and players should operate by the same rules, and we disagree. I don't think any further discussion will be useful since that's a huge wall between us.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

Emphasis on "apparent."

He's saying that "human shield" shouldn't be part of the base grappling rules, like the stuff in the Combat chapter, because combat moves like that that are available to EVERYONE start to bog down the game.

Feats and class powers are a whole different story. First off, only the character taking them needs to learn the rules. Second, they're taking a feat or power slot that would otherwise be filled with another bit of complication, so there's no net addition to game complexity.

So Human Shield WOULD make a fine feat or power, but it just didn't happen to be cool enough to make the cut for the first PHB, since there isn't a huge focus on advanced grappling in that book. But when another book comes around (I'm thinking Martial supplement) that features brawlers, monks, or other heavy grapplers, we can expect to see more grappling feats and powers like Human Shield available to PCs.

You can disagree with any aspect of this you like, but it's not really a paradox.

 

[delericho]

Does that mean I can make a feat called "Poison Immunity," give it a couple of prerequisites, and call it "balanced?" I think we all know the answer.

Sure. "It depends entirely on the pre-requisites chosen."

Likewise the undead immunity to critical hits, sleep, and so forth. These can all be modelled, either with feats or by prestige classes, or whatever. And the balance will depend primarily on the pre-requisites, which will determine both when a PC can gain access to these abilities, and also what other opportunities they have to give up to get them.

And, in fact, doesn't the Dread Necromancer gradually gain all of these abilities, en route to becoming a lich at 20th level?

 

[Steely Dan]

Other than the horrific inconvenience of having to reference back and forth from the monster entry to wherever the feat description is everytime it gets used.

My favourite is spell-like abilities…

Damn, this creature has Bigby's throbbing member, now I have to look up the vague, run on sentence description in the middle of combat...

It never really jived with me, monsters having what wizards have to study from a book, as a natural ability (the exact same spell).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sure. "It depends entirely on the pre-requisites chosen."

Likewise the undead immunity to critical hits, sleep, and so forth. These can all be modelled, either with feats or by prestige classes, or whatever. And the balance will depend primarily on the pre-requisites, which will determine both when a PC can gain access to these abilities, and also what other opportunities they have to give up to get them.

And, in fact, doesn't the Dread Necromancer gradually gain all of these abilities, en route to becoming a lich at 20th level?

Let's take a different ability: Regeneration 5 (Acid & Fire). Okay for a feat?
Greater Teleport At Will (50 lbs of gear tops). Okay for a feat?
Damage Reduction 10 / magic & bludgeoning. Okay for a feat?
Antimagic Cone. Okay for a feat?

A immensive host of abilities of monster abilities are too powerful to be described simply as a feat. You can jump through hoops and add prerequisites that make it next to impossible to take them before a very high level (at which point you will always be able to point to a Wizard or Cleric that can use the ability a few times per day). But monsters have access to them a lot earlier.

 

[delericho]

A immensive host of abilities of monster abilities are too powerful to be described simply as a feat. You can jump through hoops and add prerequisites that make it next to impossible to take them before a very high level. But monsters have access to them a lot earlier.

That's a feature, not a bug. The system is working as intended - extremely powerful abilities should be very difficult to get. And all of the abilities you described are available to PCs in some form, be it other types of damage reduction from class features or magic items, teleport or anti-magic abilities from spells, or whatever. The specifics are different (particularly the "at will" nature of the teleport ability), but those abilities are available.

(at which point you will always be able to point to a Wizard or Cleric that can use the ability a few times per day)

The underlying weakness of 3e that this uncovers is that no-one did a formal analysis of the available powers and determine at what levels they are appropriate, and how frequently. Fly is a 3rd level spell because it always has been, and it always has been because whoever added it to the game decided that that "felt right". Never mind that the ability to fly fundamentally changes the nature of a huge range of encounters. Never mind that it also makes a big difference whether it is in the hands of a Wizard (who may or may not have it prepared, probably has only one copy prepared, and had other 3rd level spells to choose from) or a Sorcerer (who if he has it at all can probably be assumed to by flying in every encounter).

That is the work that should be done. Assign levels to every power, and note how those level vary depending on whether the effect is one-use/frequent-use/at-will. Then, in your monster-design guidelines note that monsters buy these things always as though they are one-use effects, because the typical monster will only appear in a single encounter. IN theory, PCs will also be able to get those powers (via feats, spells, magic items, class features, or whatever), but they're going to pay a premium for them.