A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Rechan]

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

But then that assumes that giants all live near rocks, and somehow it's innate to giants to be proficient with rocks.

Proficiency and racial bonus = special ability.

 

[Rykion]

Monsters with special case abilities really don't bother me. I accept levels, classes, feats, and abstract HPs. I don't think one more game over reality aspect will break D&D for me.

 

[FourthBear]

To some extent the whole issue does remind me of the "toss sand in the enemy's eyes" issue. You let a PC blind an NPC by tossing sand in the NPCs eyes, 'cause it sounds like a cool and very cinematic trick. Thereafter, the PC insists on using the same maneuver, using the same rules established in the first case in damn near every combat for the end of time. After all, it's not magic, as other have noted, so once you establish the rule, they should be able to do it all the time. Which makes it much more vital to think about and balance such tricks once you've established them. I can definitely see the designers being willing to give this ability to a special case monster, but not be willing to commit to giving this as a PC-capable ability without a lot more thought.

 

[DandD]

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.

Every humanoid with hands can throw rocks. However, nobody said how heavy and how big the rocks are that can be thrown.
Giants can throw bigger rocks than enlarged humans, because they're stronger. Much much stronger.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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".

This is one of my favourite features of 4e. If I ever run 3e again I'm planning to create a lot of my own monsters and give them unique special powers.

In 3e currently too many foes have the same boring powers - one huge beast with improved grab and constrict is much the same is another. I find the 4e way much more interesting and flavourful.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

Actually, my 4e grappler should be using better rules with the first core books than my 3.5 grappler was using with the core books.

I mean, that's why the edition is changing after all, right? Because the rules weren't very good?

Anyway, it looks like 3.5 didn't officially have a human shield rule of any sort. I may be remembering from 3.0, but a quick check of d20srd.com shows that (1) there are no special rules for attacking into a grapple form outside, and (2) soft cover is not automatically struck if the attack roll fails by 4 or less. Though there is something similar to a human shield, with a pinned character getting a -4 to AC against other attackers, soft cover granting a +4 AC to the one covered. I seem to remember rules for accidentally hitting creatures in a grapple, and for striking cover (including soft cover), but these could be just constant house rules I've used.

Still, let's see if I can't do better than all the 4e designers combined and make a new rule for a human shield:

Grappling and Soft Cover
When you have an opponent pinned, you can use them as soft cover, gaining a +4 bonus to AC. The target is still considered pinned, and thus has a -4 penalty to AC itself, and is still grappled, meaning it does not get it's Dexterity bonus or any Dodge bonuses to AC. If the attack misses you, but hits the (lowered) AC of the pinned creature, it damages the pinned creature instead. If it misses both of you, it misses entirely. If it hits your (improved) AC, it damages you, regardless of if it would hit the AC of the other creature.

Note that this really just combines the Soft Cover rules with the rules for Pinning and introduces a way to strike cover (that I could've sworn was already in the PHB, but eh).

If I was feeling especially punchy, I might even make that a feat, though I guess I don't really need to. And that's using 3e's less-than-smooth grapple rules.

Then, my Bugbear Strangler might have this special ability to boot!
Human Shield
Bugbear stranglers are especially adept at using others in a grapple to take blows for them, due to focused training. When they have an opponent pinned, any attack that misses the Strangler automatically hits the pinned creature, even if it would normally miss them both. The Bugbear Strangler moves the pinned creature deliberately into the path of the oncoming attack. If the attack hits the Bugbear Strangler, it deals damage to the creature normally, and does not damage the creature that the Strangler has pinned.

But I guess instead of doing what makes sense, in 4e, I'll have to be a Bugbear Strangler if I want to use someone as a human shield, or I'll have to shell out for the next PHB with the New and Improved Grapple Rules.

 

[Doug McCrae]

4e doesn't have a warforged hexblade wielding a spike chain

Then it's not D&D.

 

[xechnao]

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.

...The object of the bluff makes a roll to avoid the bluff: DC = bluff's DC+his level. Note that the higher the object's level the worse for him. This means that people's power level works against them in a bluff.

If objects are suspect of the bluff they do not add their level to the DC they roll against but instead they add it to their roll. To be suspect of one's bluffs you need to pass an appropriate knowledge test.

By this idea the ability gets pretty easily balanced. Say that minions have a bit less knowledge of their level, elite have trained knowledge skill and solos do not even need to check.

A trained rogue in bluffing and with the an appropriate power that gives a bonus to this task could have a chance to pull this once x encounter against minions if minions failed their knowledge test. Of course the trained rogue if wanted to do this maneuver should know if the enemy minions are suspicious of his dirty tricks fighting style or not (this means that he should be informed by the DM of the knowledge of his enemies) -so he does not waste his action.



EDIT: whole ability description is this:

"
Bluff [trained power]: Each bluff has a subject and an object.
The power is trained to be used against one type of defense (Fortitude, Reflex, AC, Will). Make a "d20+bluff skill" against the bluff's subject's defense you are trained to bluff. If you succeed your bluff is in place. The bluff's DC is equal to the difference of your bluff skill minus the target's defense (note that this can be negative). The object of the bluff makes a roll to avoid the bluff: DC = bluff's DC+his level. Note that the higher the object's level the worse for him. This means that people's power level works against them in a bluff.

If objects are suspect of the bluff they do not add their level to the DC they roll against but instead they add it to their roll. To be suspect of one's bluffs you need to pass an appropriate knowledge test.

Examples of subjects and objects:
-gambling. The subject is your adversary's gaming skill and the object is your adversary.
-Bugbear special grappling meat shield move. The subject is the adversary he is grappling with and the object is the subject's ally that comes to attack. If the bluff succeeds the object attacks the subject instead of the bugbear.
"

 

[JohnSnow]

To some extent the whole issue does remind me of the "toss sand in the enemy's eyes" issue. You let a PC blind an NPC by tossing sand in the NPCs eyes, 'cause it sounds like a cool and very cinematic trick. Thereafter, the PC insists on using the same maneuver, using the same rules established in the first case in damn near every combat for the end of time. After all, it's not magic, as other have noted, so once you establish the rule, they should be able to do it all the time. Which makes it much more vital to think about and balance such tricks once you've established them. I can definitely see the designers being willing to give this ability to a special case monster, but not be willing to commit to giving this as a PC-capable ability without a lot more thought.

I mentioned in another thread that, based on what Mike Mearls has said, we're probably going to get a set of rules guidelines to cover what Iron Heroes called "Stunts."

Throwing sand in an enemy's eyes is a stunt. Anyone can do it, and there's some reasonable chance of success. Think of it as a generic ability to inflict a penalty with an attack. Since it's kind of a "dirty trick," I can see a requirement of having the "sneak attack" ability to pull this trick off.

Similarly, interposing an opponent between you and an attack is a stunt. It's a combination of an attack stunt (since your opponent takes the damage) and a defensive stunt (because you don't). That's a cool "combination stunt" that any character should probably be able to "attempt."

The whole idea of giving "special abilities" to monsters is the same rationale behind giving "powers" to fighters and rogues. It might also be a way of giving the DM a list of, if you will, pre-selected stunts that a monster of this type usually tries.

Finally, stunts might be a lesser version of powers. A character can try to do this at some penalty using the stunt rules, but the bugbear gets the ability to do it without penalty.

I honestly think the designers probably thought this through a lot more thoroughly than people are giving them credit for. Mike's done stunts before - twice. It stands to reason those rules would improve with more input and more practice.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Monster Crunch balanced for monsters.
PC crunch balanced for PCs, yep, not a problem is the underlying assumptions are taken as true,