A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Zaruthustran]

Monsters exist as obstacles for the PCs. That's their job. In order to be entertaining, they need fun and unusual abilities. Sure, you could have monsters that fight the PCs with Power Attack and whatnot... but that's so boring. Weird monsters with new abilities is cool.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Monsters exist as obstacles for the PCs. That's their job. In order to be entertaining, they need fun and unusual abilities. Sure, you could have monsters that fight the PCs with Power Attack and whatnot... but that's so boring. Weird monsters with new abilities is cool.

Agree'd!

 

[Doug McCrae]

Weird monsters with new abilities is cool bodacious.

FIFY

 

[The Little Raven]

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?

But there is a key mechanical different between gaining an AC bonus based on cover (because you're using a foe's ally as a shield, and he doesn't want to hit his ally) and automatically transferring one successful attack from you to that opponent.

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.

Because it's relatively pointless when you have a power system that is intended to do the exact same thing, but provide niche protection for classes. It's bloating the core rules, especially since the amount of variance in freeform rules necessitate a whole lot of pagecount devoted to dealing with particular cases. Freeform systems are always way more complex and time-consuming than clear-cut power systems.

The only argument I'm really seeing against having a Meat Shield ability as a class-based power for a grappling-based class is that it's a non-supernatural ability that should be able to replicated by pretty much anyone. It's a slippery-slope argument that will take all the martial class abilities and leave them non-distinct, since they will just be effectively +1 versions of what people can do anyhow, thus bloating the core rules (that everyone should be learning) instead of putting those rules where the people who focus on that kind of thing (a grappler class) would need them.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Monsters exist as obstacles for the PCs. That's their job. In order to be entertaining, they need fun and unusual abilities. Sure, you could have monsters that fight the PCs with Power Attack and whatnot... but that's so boring. Weird monsters with new abilities is cool.

The problem is that PCs can often find a way to gain those powers for themselves. Charms, summons, persuasion, bribery, monstrous PCs, or 4E's version of Polymorph. Powers that were great against the PCs suddenly become incredibly powerful in the PCs' hands. You can simply frustrate every attempt, but that can be annoying.

And while the villains rarely manage to pull off the "human shield" trick in movies, I seem to recall heroes using it with at least some success (Austin Powers with more success than most). Dead bodies work as well (Total Recall).

 

[The Little Raven]

Alternatively, what you do is not describe all the special cases, and instead provide the basic combat mechanisms coupled with an extensive and detailed set of guidelines for how the DM should adjudicate all these odd cases.

Freeform systems are even worse when trying to make a core game that is easy to learn.

So, instead of describing rules for the Human Meatshield, and Disarm, and Power Attack, and Fighting Defensively, and Sliding Under the Table, and Sunder, and Swinging on the Chandelier, and a million other special cases, you give one set of guidelines that enable the DM to handle all of these, complete with detailed examples of one or two.

So, if this system is granting the ability to duplicate the class powers of a specific power source (martial; Power Attack and Disarm are both powers, as far as we know) only, then what is the point of those classes? If they have more powerful versions of the "stunt" Power Attack and Disarm, they lose distinctness and revert to the previous edition standard of "just better at what everyone can do, rather than having unique powers."

Again, it denies a lot of niche protection to fighters, while firmly supporting it for spellcasters.

Your Chandelier Swing and Table Slide are examples of what a specific skill (Acrobatics) can do, rather than some vague freeform stunt system.

 

[The Little Raven]

There has not been any suggestion on my part that this sort of thing should not come at cost.

I'm talking about resource cost. To use my fighter Power Attack, I need to purchase it as one of the powers I know (first cost; when leveling up my character), expend it as a per-encounter resource (second cost; this is merely an example). To use my stunt system Power Attack, I don't have to select it ahead of time (no cost while leveling), nor do I have to expend a per-encounter resource to use it. Sure, you could have it be situational modifiers and such, but this grows the core rules that everyone needs to know to play the game, rather than just the fighter rules (thus growing a smaller section of the rules for specific players).

I never said that you couldn't create some kind of magic-y stunt system.

I never said you did. I was saying that I don't care about a magic stunt system, because I find the idea of a freeform stunt system to replicate class powers to be a waste of time and paper, since it works against the fundamental design tenets of a class-based game: niche protection.

The thing is, a stunt system is usually expected to replicate the sorts of things that Conan does, not the sorts of things that Gandalf does.

The skill system can do that, given enough mechanical substance. We don't need a vague freeform system when we already have better tools to do the job.

Yet you don't make an argument about niche protection with regards to acrobatics? Shouldn't only rogues and rogue-like characters be allowed to do those things?

No, because class powers are explicitly what separates one class from another. Acrobatics doesn't allow you to completely invalidate all the class powers of the rogue class, but this proposed stunt system would do the same, since it's based on the idea of "I could realistically give this a shot," which is the basic premise that most martial class powers operate under.

If Acrobatics allowed you to sneak attack, or get bonus damage against a Bloodied target, or use the "I'm Batman" power, then I'd have a problem with it's relationship to niche protection, but they aren't even remotely the same.

It's essentially the same as allowing people to find traps without Trapfinding in 3.x.

Which, by the rules, wasn't allowed above a certain DC. If you notice, all my concerns were directed towards the use of a stunt system to replicate class powers without having to spend the normal resources associated with those powers, not the overlap provided by people taking the same skills.

 

[The Little Raven]

But could you do it reliably, and without hitting the hostage?

I might not be able to, but my friend Jason is capable of it, since he was the guy that put two paintballs into my leg, which caused me to shift my stance and expose my head to a face shot. The hostage was untouched.

In any case, that sort of thing sounds like an opposed Grapple check vs Attack roll (or the 4e equivalents) to divert the attack from hostage taker to hostage. It doesn't sound like "you can't even try this without special training", and it certainly doesn't sound like "you can't even train to do this unless you happen to have Bugbear genes".

And it's still the equivalent of a class power (comparable to Feather Me Yon Oaf or I'm Batman) for free for all players (and thus a core rule to be learned), compared to a specific ability given to a particular class that focuses on it.

 

[Belorin]

Maybe the devs should put a feat in the PHB called Gimme, the player takes the feat then when the player sees a power or ability he likes he says "Gimme" and the DM lets him have it, with a 10 ton weight.
Wait till we see the whole rule set before jumping to conclusions.


Bel

 

[Imp]

It is a classic villain schtick - But did it ever work? Usually, either the hostage escapes and the heroes open fire, or they fire with the hostage still in the villains hand make a solid headshot.

You're overstating this. The maneuver is kind of a cliche, so writers in more recent years (decades) have tended to subvert it. But it also works fairly frequently. Additionally, it is frequently a tactic of protagonists, who naturally suffer a much lower sniper death rate.