A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[I'm A Banana]

It's interesting to note that if a monster book in 3e came out with a bugbear strangler prestige class nobody would complain that bugbears had abilities nobody else could use, just like nobody complains about the dozens of other prestige classes that are limited to certain races.

I guess we'll never know for sure...

...wait, we can speculate!

Hmmm....using my great powers of speculation, I speculate.....

Yes. Yes I would still have a problem with this, and I'd blast that "Requirements: Race = Bugbear" right out of there. And look, everyone, still usable rules! Keen!

 

[FadedC]

I guess we'll never know for sure...

...wait, we can speculate!

Hmmm....using my great powers of speculation, I speculate.....

Yes. Yes I would still have a problem with this, and I'd blast that "Requirements: Race = Bugbear" right out of there. And look, everyone, still usable rules! Keen!

So I'm guessing you must have done the same thing with with dwarven defender, elven bladedancer, halfling outrider (not that anyone would have ever wanted to be one anyway) and all of the other prestige classes requiring a particular race or affiliation with a particular order? Would you have let anyone take the drow only spider mage (arachnemage?) prestige class?

 

[The Little Raven]

Why should anything that anyone is capable of be distinct in any way?

So, again, this simply leads to the previous edition problems of spellcasters being cool and unique and non-spellcasters being extensions of what everyone else can do, too. Simply by "virtue" of not being magical, fighters and other martial classes get their distinctness removed or toned down in a bid for overrated and needless "realism."

Using somebody as a human shield, in a general sense, doesn't take anything really distinct about you.

Except, y'know, training. If it takes training to punch someone in the gut while they're falling from your trip, then I don't see why it wouldn't take training to properly use someone as a body shield against a professional marksman (which is what a ranger would be).

I used to go paintballing with my friends a lot, and we used to do Counter-strike style games, like rescuing/protecting hostages and such. Even using one as a bullet shield, I managed to get popped in the leg a couple times before they splattered my face mask.

And lo, that is why the Bugbear Strangler will still exist in my games, regardless of the changes I make to grappling rules.

But that doesn't explain any logic behind rewriting the Bugbear Strangler rules to be in line with your own houserule for a player-based Meat Shield ability, aside from a desire for symmetry between player/monster rules, which I will once again call needless (since they are intended for different functions).

Actually, that is stupid, as you point it out. You can get better defense without buying Expertise, so it should follow that you can do some kind of crappy power attack without buying Power Attack. I'd roll with -4 to hit, +2 to damage.

And again, you run into rules bloat that essentially gives stripped down versions of a number of class abilities (fighter, for example) for free to everyone. You fill your core system will all this minutiae (even more than 3e did, if you extrapolate it out to all the "stuff that should be possible by anyone), diminish niche protection for a specific group (non-spellcasters) and do nothing to make individual characters more distinct.

 

[smetzger]

I agree with the original post. I don't like monsters having special attacks/defenses that a PC could conceivably learn.

If its something like meat shield, flind bar, or a the sticky shield of a Kuo-Toa; then a PC should be able to learn the special ability. They should sacrifice a feat, stunt or whatever; but they should be able to learn it.

I don't mind so much those special abilities that a normal PC couldn't possibly learn due to physical limitations. But these should be standardized as much as possible.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I do not currently have much worry about special case monster abilities in 4E.

I think the Nightwalker, Bebilith, Rust Monster, and anything with level drain exemplify my concern with special case powers. Namely, the monster power was built around threats to the pc that really only make sense at the metagame level. These creatures would destroy the manifestations of power-accumulation possessed by a character. In effect, they would make the character scared by threatening the player.

As for why the Bugbear strangler doesn't worry me.

Essentially I agree with the thought that PCs and 'monsters' need a different approach to design to reflect the reality that they have fundamentally different roles within the game. Every creature needs something cool to justify it's inclusion in the MM, something memorable. So maybe the fighter can do a grapple and maybe someone attacking him might hit the monster he's grappling, but the fighter is not a Bugbear Strangler who can do it much more reliably. Life seems tough for our saddened fighter, except wait, he has 6 royal powers with his sword of doom, 3 of which blow away the Bugbears' 1 puny strangulation schtick. Think of the poor Bugbear...

(Oh yeah, the 1E Bugbear was always supposed to be the sneaky big bully Goblin, so thematically this looks pretty good.)

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

(Emphasis mine.)

This is just a tad wrong, because they aren't abandoning it. They are simply relegating it to when it will be more appropriate to deal with it. Grapple, as presented in the PHB, will be the basic system anyone would need to know in order to grab another person. Since class powers are now where the coolness is usually found for a class, it makes sense to wait until a class that uses grapple as part of it's shtick to come up before putting in complex and cool maneuvers like Meat Shield.

People argue that anyone should be able to do it... well, technically, anybody should be able to swing a weapon harder and with less accuracy, but we require you to pick up Power Attack (as a feat or power in 4e) to represent doing it, so why shouldn't we require you to pick up the class that focuses on grappling's Meat Shield power (when it finally gets published)? Why should it be included in the basic rules with classes that don't utilize grappling as a shtick (and not even require a power or feat to learn)?

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but I don't think we'll see a Meat Shield power outside of the monster manuals. I think what we'll see is a stunt system akin to the Book of Iron Might, Iron Heroes, etc. Better to generate a simple core system for adjudication of weird manoeuvres, than an endless list of manoeuvres that overcomplicates the system.

For monsters, specific abilities are appropriate. It's fine to give bit players a limited repertoire. For characters, systems that allow them to perform manoeuvres are more appropriate. Once there is such a system, you can let monsters use it too if that will please your sense of verisimilitude.

 

[The Little Raven]

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but I don't think we'll see a Meat Shield power outside of the monster manuals. I think what we'll see is a stunt system akin to the Book of Iron Might, Iron Heroes, etc. Better to generate a simple core system for adjudication of weird manoeuvres, than an endless list of manoeuvres that overcomplicates the system.

If a stunt system can replicate the level of powers normally assigned to class powers, then you make certain sets of class powers (martial ones) effectively worthless, since they can be freely reproduced by this stunt system, while spellcasters are guaranteed niche protection because "it's magic."

Powers are the bread and butter of the classes.

 

[FourthBear]

What I'm asking, is why can't it just be a Bugbear - a bigger, stronger Goblinoid, armed with an assortment of regular equipment? Can't it be unique enough just thanks to different ability scores, appearance and flavor text? Will the lowliest Goblin have a unique special attack as well? Why, because it's more fun that way? This isn't about realism versus fun, this is about common sense and coherence, versus the claim that you can't have fun if you have a monster that can't do anything special.

I can certainly see why, for a specific encounter, bugbears capable of sneaking up, grabbing foes and using them as shields would be pretty fun. And from Mearls' playtest report, it probably was pretty fun. For many players and designers, that's pretty much all it requires to justify such an ability: does it make for a fun encounter? Obviously, you disagree, as you feel that realism, system coherence and several other factors play a role that would cause you to feel that Living Shield wouldn't be a good bugbear special ability. In which, it seems straightforward enough for you not to ever use bugbear stranglers in a campaign you DM for.

Can people have plenty of fun without such special abilities? Sure. In fact, I've had fun in many roleplaying games without any supernatural powers whatsoever. There are a number of gamers who feel that supernatural powers are an unnecessary and clumsy addition to RPGs and have also argued that games like D&D don't need magic at all. Each of us must make decisions to judge when system exceptions like Living Shield may make for a fun encounter, even though it may strain system coherence. I certainly don't think that system coherence should automatically win over exceptions that may prove to be a lot of fun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So I'm guessing you must have done the same thing with with dwarven defender, elven bladedancer, halfling outrider (not that anyone would have ever wanted to be one anyway) and all of the other prestige classes requiring a particular race or affiliation with a particular order? Would you have let anyone take the drow only spider mage (arachnemage?) prestige class?

You betcha. Practically speaking, it didn't really come up, but it was definately known that color that doesn't affect the rules (frex, limiting things to a particular race or alignment) was completely subject to being scoured and replaced. Heck, I go through campaign settings fast, not every one of those even HAD elves or dwarves or drow, but most of the time I had an "all rules are open" policy.

Still, I tended to like the suggested flavor, and so did my players, so it didn't come up that often. I think one of my short-lived campaigns had an orcish bladedancer who described his powers as coming from an elf that the tribe had captured, and that he had tortured the secrets of the training out of the elf.

Good times.

So, again, this simply leads to the previous edition problems of spellcasters being cool and unique and non-spellcasters being extensions of what everyone else can do, too. Simply by "virtue" of not being magical, fighters and other martial classes get their distinctness removed or toned down in a bid for overrated and needless "realism."

Repeating this doesn't make it any more true. Or do you not quite understand what I mean by there being a continuum from "anyone can do it" to "only magic can do it", and then going on to describe such non-magical effects as attacking quickly or ripping someone's brain from their skull with your tentacles?

If you failed to understand, I can give you another, oh, let's say 6, another 6 examples of things of a similar nature. I could do more than that, but I do get bored of repeating myself eventually.

Except, y'know, training.

Gosh, I dunno, right now I could probably grab someone's toddler and use them as a human shield. Or maybe a little old lady. Or even just some guy who I think won't struggle much.

I mean, I don't really think I have all the training of a Bugbear Strangler, but it certainly sounds like I can make use of a human shield mechanic. And I'm not even a villain in 90% of corny terrorist-bad-guy action movies!

aside from a desire for symmetry between player/monster rules, which I will once again call needless (since they are intended for different functions).

You haven't been paying attention to my posts, have you, Mourn?

Shortly put, it's not entirely needless for everyone. It's one of them continuums again, y'know?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If a stunt system can replicate the level of powers normally assigned to class powers, then you make certain sets of class powers (martial ones) effectively worthless, since they can be freely reproduced by this stunt system, while spellcasters are guaranteed niche protection because "it's magic."

Powers are the bread and butter of the classes.

True. So, why would they make a stunt system that can replicate powers normally assigned to class powers?

A stunt system should allow you to do all the stuff that isn't covered by class powers, or let you do things that sort of resemble class powers but are watered-down versions of them. There's a good reason why it should cover mostly martial-type powers. If it covers physical/martial/athletic stuff, it covers all the "swing from the chandelier" type stunts that most people will want to try most of the time. You don't get a lot of players who complain that there are no rules for spontaneously exploding people, but you might see complaints about not being able to do Legolas-style stunts if their characters are supposed to be bad-ass enough. The prerequisites for these sorts of stunts are high skill and/or attack rolls, so they're achievable by characters who specialize in doing physical stuff anyway.

If you're concerned with the magic/martial divide, write up an alchemical stunt system that allows anyone with some degree of training in arcane-style skills to do some nifty tricks too.