A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Pbartender]

Or, more practically, so that when the Bugbear Strangler uses his ability, it works kind of like what happens with the PC's do the same thing, just maybe better, making the ability more memorable, and ensuring that it adheres to the same rules, increasing consistency and my enjoyment of the game through that increase.

Having not seen any of the grappling rules yet, how do you know that this isn't already the case?

The "better, more memorable" part being that the bugbear not only gets an AC bonus from his Meat Shield just as a PC would when doing the same thing, but he can also have the Meat Shield suck up damage from incoming attacks as well as an added benefit.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

Wrong. With or without the racial requirement, "why is this a feat?" and "why would I need to be level 12 with a specific build before even trying this?" were common complaints i had in 3x, practically with every expansion book.

Telling people how they think is both rude, and rarely accurate.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Having not seen any of the grappling rules yet, how do you know that this isn't already the case?

The "better, more memorable" part being that the bugbear not only gets an AC bonus from his Meat Shield just as a PC would when doing the same thing, but he can also have the Meat Shield suck up damage from incoming attacks as well as an added benefit.

Hey, it might be something like that. That would be pretty sweet. My modifications would only occur if the rules given in the book weren't, uhm...complete enough for my purposes. If they are, they are, and more props to the 4e team for it.

 

[The Little Raven]

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?

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

Technically, every single non-magical martial skill is something that anybody should be capable of. After all, if it doesn't require brain-eating tentacles, four arms, or the ability to cast spells, why should anybody be limited from doing it? Easy: niche protection. This is a game based on roles and classes, so that everyone has things that noone else can do.

Gosh, I dunno, right now I could probably grab someone's toddler and use them as a human shield.

And even with my limited experience, I bet I could shoot you while you were trying to use that human shield, since I've used adults my own size as shields and not been successful. Saying that your ability to grab a person suddenly means you can use them effectively as a bullet shield is like saying knowing the basics of pointing and shooting a gun makes you an effective marksman: it doesn't.

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.

Lots of people think that things they've never done are easy, but that doesn't make it so.

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?

I read your posts very carefully, and I express my disagreement with a number of your points, especially where they go against the new design philosophy (one I obviously support).

 

[Pbartender]

Hey, it might be something like that. That would be pretty sweet. My modifications would only occur if the rules given in the book weren't, uhm...complete enough for my purposes. If they are, they are, and more props to the 4e team for it.

Just checking... It seemed like you were being a bit presumptuous about things we know nothing about.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

They wouldn't. However, certain proposed "stunts," like the explicit Meat Shield ability, are on the level of powers, but without the expenditure of resources. If I can make an adjacent foe take the damage of an incoming attack on-the-fly, without expenditure on my part, that strikes me as a system replicating the same level of power but without the cost. In short, overpowered.

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.

I agree on the first part (though I think a lot will be covered by skill use). The second part is where I disagree, since it basically comes down to "We'll allow everyone to replicate martial abilities, even if at a lower power level," which again tells players "Spellcasters are special, but martial characters are less special." That's bogus game design when you give one group solid niche protection (can't replicate spells with stunts) but not another, based on some kind of argument about "realism."

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.

Acrobatics covers that.

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.

No, but I do get complaints from martial classes about being overshadowed by spellcaster classes, a complaint I've been hearing since the mid-1990s with second edition, and one that hadn't changed until talk of 4th edition.

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.

My concern isn't allowing non-spellcasters to "cast spells." My concern is sticking the philosophy behind the design, which makes niche protection and class divisions important and distinct, which allowed "level-0" versions of martial maneuevers would undermine.

 

[FadedC]

Wrong. With or without the racial requirement, "why is this a feat?" and "why would I need to be level 12 with a specific build before even trying this?" were common complaints i had in 3x, practically with every expansion book.

Telling people how they think is both rude, and rarely accurate.

Hmm....fair enough. Replace nobody would complain with very few people complained about race specific prestige classes. And even with you what you describe is a problem with prestige classes as a whole, and not in anyway specific to racial ones.

Overall the point is that having abilities tied to race or order is hardly new.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

Technically, every single non-magical martial skill is something that anybody should be capable of. After all, if it doesn't require brain-eating tentacles, four arms, or the ability to cast spells, why should anybody be limited from doing it? Easy: niche protection. This is a game based on roles and classes, so that everyone has things that noone else can do.

Well, it'd be more accurate to say that something that anoyone is capable of ISN'T distinct in any way.

But this distinctiveness is one of those continuums again, where some martial skills can be quite distinct, where the "Training!" excuse works pretty well, and others, where it doesn't.

More than one person seems to think that a sort of 'human shield' ability is one where it doesn't quite work so well.

And even with my limited experience, I bet I could shoot you while you were trying to use that human shield, since I've used adults my own size as shields and not been successful. Saying that your ability to grab a person suddenly means you can use them effectively as a bullet shield is like saying knowing the basics of pointing and shooting a gun makes you an effective marksman: it doesn't.

Ah, in my hyperbole, you missed the point, and I apologize. I shall state it for clarity:

Having a human shield is a classic villain schtick throughout multiple media, and not one limited to Bugbears, or any particular high level of elite, exclusive skil.

Why, then, should having a human shield be limited, in D&D, to not just bugbears or an elite, exclusive skill, but BOTH: bugbears who have an elite, exclusive skill.

"Niche Protection" isn't a good enough reason for me. It might be for you. This is why you will be sleeping soundly while I develop house rules and complain on message boards until WotC hears me or I get bored.

Hey, it worked for a lot of 3e issues.

I read your posts very carefully, and I express my disagreement with a number of your points, especially where they go against the new design philosophy (one I obviously support).

And it's fine that you do. I don't support the new design philosophy at all turns (though I support immense swaths of it). I think this is one of the problematic results of it, for me. So needless for you doesn't equal out to needless, period.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just checking... It seemed like you were being a bit presumptuous about things we know nothing about.

Nah. I'm looking forward to any 'stunt' rules 4e has, because I think they will find prominent and frequent use in my games in the way "circumstance bonuses" do today. It's a great way to cover corner cases, I believe, and I've been using some variant or other of this rule for a while, so it'll be nice to see D&D catch up to me and several other gaming systems, too.

I'm only gonna fix what I see as broken.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

And even with my limited experience, I bet I could shoot you while you were trying to use that human shield, since I've used adults my own size as shields and not been successful. Saying that your ability to grab a person suddenly means you can use them effectively as a bullet shield is like saying knowing the basics of pointing and shooting a gun makes you an effective marksman: it doesn't.

But do you think that the people shooting at you had a harder time because you had cover? Isn't that the point of trying to get cover behind objects? If the object happens to be another body, isn't it pretty much the same as taking cover behind a human-shaped obstacle, aside from the wiggling around?

Lots of people think that things they've never done are easy, but that doesn't make it so.

Even if a bugbear strangler is an expert at using people as shields, and it's an extremely difficult skill to learn, that doesn't mean that anyone else can't attempt it in a half-assed way and achieve some degree of success. If a bugbear can divert an attack to his target on a roll of 11-20 on a d20 (let's say, given that this "saving throw" mechanic looks like it'll be popular), why couldn't a non-bugbear do it too, but require in addition to the saving throw a successful grapple roll (whatever that amounts to) and take a -4 to his AC and Reflex defense because he's so busy hauling around this struggling body? It's possible, but it's hard.

In fact, I can see a generalized system in which you're essentially given a 50% chance to pull of some kind of stunt if you give up something to "buy" it. Trade a -4 to your AC and Reflex defense in order to get a +2 to hit with a ranged weapon if you roll an 11-20, because you pause to aim. Trade a -4 to your Will defence in order to "tap into the force of magic" and gain a +2 to hit with a spell. etc.

Not saying these are balanced. Just coming up with an example of an easy-to-adjudicate off-the-cuff stunt system that has a wide application. Book of Iron Might uses penalties in -5 increments that allow you to attempt stunts from a list. 4E could do the same sort of thing.