A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[I'm A Banana]

Well, that's extremely stupid, I have to say. There are likely to be plenty of PCs of the same size, strength and "rogue-ish-ness" as a Bugbear strangler. Honestly, it's a retarded throwback to the days of Bugbears throwing maces but no-one else being allowed to.

Agreed. Here's hoping the rules for PC's acquiring monster abilities are robust enough.

This sounds like something that anyone who can grapple should basically be able to accomplish, though.

 

[Rechan]

Ddd

Well, that's extremely stupid, I have to say. There are likely to be plenty of PCs of the same size, strength and "rogue-ish-ness" as a Bugbear strangler. Honestly, it's a retarded throwback to the days of Bugbears throwing maces but no-one else being allowed to.

There was a reason given.

Saying "DMs should handwave it" leads to what GURPS termed the 'flour in the face' problem -- if, in one combat, you let a PC get a big advantage by tossing a bag of flour in an enemy's face, they start carrying bags of flour instead of swords. Thus, the manuever needs to have risks/downsides or have a "works once, then everyone's heard of the trick and is wise to it" sort of thing built in.

The DM is NOT handwaving it. He's using the guidelines for DCs, defenses, modifiers, damage, and other factors by level that are in the DMG.

The thing is, we CAN make this a rule as a maneuver or feat. We just didn't have room in the first book. It's a cool maneuver for a monster with a garrote, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

We could make rules for every maneuver that sounds cool, but then we'd have a 1,000 page PH and maybe 5 or 6 people patient enough to play the game.

The nice thing about supplements (aside from my paycheck ) is that they allow you to eventually reach that 1,000 page mass, but not all at once.

And the quote that I edited into my first comment:

It isn't part of the core grapple rules for a couple reasons. The big one is that it would be really annoying if the PCs (or a big monster) could do that in every fight.

The impression that I get is the "Human shield" technique is something that isn't just a simple grappling move. That's something you have to train a long while to be able to do (ergo why it's an ability, not just in the rules representing 'I grab you'). After all, how easy is it to, while holding someone, be able to turn 180 to get someone back-stabbing you to spear your victim? People have to take martial arts to be able to do that, but any farmer can do it due to grapple rules?

In addition, we don't know how strong an ability it is. It may be too potent to just let Anyone do it for free, or even as a low level maneuver.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The impression that I get is the "Human shield" technique is something that isn't just a simple grappling move. That's something you have to train a long while to be able to do (ergo why it's an ability, not just in the rules representing 'I grab you').

In addition, we don't know how strong an ability it is. It may be too potent to just let Anyone do it for free, or even as a low level maneuver.

So basically, 4e is already showing the signs of having problems with the design philosophy they chose to implement.

Namely, that a capability that should seem to be in the hands of any person (and was, though in an unsatisfactory way, in 3e) is impelemented in a monster entry in a way that would be unbalanced for a PC to have.

"That's okay, guys, we'll get it right in the next PHB!"

Ew.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

There is one thing that I'm worried about though, and I hope it doesn't happen - and that is a proliferation of "special case monster abilities".

An example from 3e that always jarred with me was the Bebeliths ability to 'rend armour'. It seemed strange that it had such a unique ability (surely anything huge+ with claws should be able to do that?). It stood out like a proud nail when compared to the pretty standard way most other monster abilities were handled.

The Bugbear in the playtest report using a grappled foe as a 'human shield' sounds like it might be a 4e case in point, if that is an ability that Bugbears have but other similarly sized or bigger humanoid monsters don't.

Yeah, it looks like monsters will inexplicably be able to do things you can't "just because". :\ The excuse for not making it a general ability sounds pretty weak to me. Basicly "you can't do it yet, because we want to sell it to you later" with a bit of hyperbole thrown on for how terribly hard it would be to do it otherwise.

Unfortunately, I'd say this sort of special case thinking is part and parcel of the "PCs and NPCs are mechanically different" philosophy. which is not one I personally go for in game design.

 

[FourthBear]

If this maneuver is something that clearly should be included in the core rules, what did 1e, 2e or 3e do about it? Did they all miss this vital combat option? I agree that it sounds reasonable enough, but I can imagine *a lot* of cool combat tricks. I don't think they've got room in the core rules to cover them all. I can see the problem here, as it is much easier to give this cool ability to an opponent who will use it a couple of times over the course of the campaign, as opposed to giving it to PCs who may use it in every combat encounter in the entire campaign. Balancing the latter is a much tougher design feat.

 

[Rechan]

Namely, that a capability that should seem to be in the hands of any person (and was, though in an unsatisfactory way, in 3e) is impelemented in a monster entry in a way that would be unbalanced for a PC to have.

Eh? I don't follow.

Should "Enlarge Person" give players the ability to Throw Rocks? Because Giants have throw rocks. And for that matter, every large creature with hands should be able to throw rocks.

Because Giants can throw rocks, and that's anything that anyone with hands and are big enough to lfit a rock should be able to do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If this maneuver is something that clearly should be included in the core rules, what did 1e, 2e or 3e do about it?

3e, at least, had a rule for it. It wasn't a particularly strong or easy-to-use rule, but it was there (as long as I'm remembering correctly).

But this is a red herring. 4e is going to be, presumably, doing a lot of things to fix the problems in earlier editions, so even if no other edition had the rule, 4e can still be said to ideally contian it.

If it doesn't, and 3e did (more or less), then this is a brand new problem that 4e is introducing. It means my 4e grappler has less options, at least until I buy another round of PHB's, than my 3e grappler.

Which is pretty weak sauce, IMO.

 

[Rechan]

If it doesn't, and 3e did (more or less), then this is a brand new problem that 4e is introducing. It means my 4e grappler has less options, at least until I buy another round of PHB's, than my 3e grappler.

So wait, the 4e grappler should be better, with the first Core books, than your 3.5 Grappler at the end of 3.5 with all its supplements?

I guess it's pretty weak sauce 4e doesn't have a warforged hexblade wielding a spike chain right out of the gate.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Eh? I don't follow.

Should "Enlarge Person" give players the ability to Throw Rocks? Because Giants have throw rocks. And for that matter, every large creature with hands should be able to throw rocks.

Because Giants can throw rocks, and that's anything that anyone with hands and are big enough to lfit a rock should be able to do.

they can, it's called an improvised throw weapon. Giants just have proficency and racial bonuses with them.

 

[The Little Raven]

If this maneuver is something that clearly should be included in the core rules, what did 1e, 2e or 3e do about it? Did they all miss this vital combat option? I agree that it sounds reasonable enough, but I can imagine *a lot* of cool combat tricks. I don't think they've got room in the core rules to cover them all. I can see the problem here, as it is much easier to give this cool ability to an opponent who will use it a couple of times over the course of the campaign, as opposed to giving it to PCs who may use it in every combat encounter in the entire campaign. Balancing the latter is a much tougher design feat.

In all previous editions there have been tons of abilities that have been monster-only and PCs never had access to (except by DM fiat). 3e went closest to standardizing monster/player abilities, but it still didn't work too well, and there were still plenty of monster-unique abilities players couldn't get. 4e is explicitly going for "players and monsters work differently," so I don't see the problem with a unique ability for a monster (especially an ability players have never had access to before). The DM shouldn't be constrained by player character design, and the player shouldn't always have access to the DM's (aka monster/NPC) tricks.