A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[DandD]

Of course, Episode 1 had the advantage that people really wanted to see new Star Wars-stuff after some years.
GL did (a little bit) better with Episode 2 and then 3. And he toned down Jar Jar Binks.
Aside from the Gungaan, I actually liked the prequel-movies.
Let's hope there won't be any "Jar Jar's" in the first rule-books for 4th edition.

 

[Rechan]

Pfff, who cares for the monk? In D&D 3.X, his only schtick was to deal lethal damage with his fists. And jumping up to clouds, but that's not unarmed combat.

Actually I believe his schtick was "Not get hurt, but not hurt anything because of his suck ass to-hit".

 

[DandD]

Actually I believe his schtick was "Not get hurt, but not hurt anything because of his suck ass to-hit".

Yeah, that mediocre BAB and that flurry-of-blows-penalty really made him bad.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

I've read this whole thread, and while I see the validity of many points here (but absolutely disagree with PS's spelling of the word "armor"), and I have to say that I just don't share this concern too much.

1. I'd rather have a special ability in the Bugbear stat block than a Feat in a separate chapter no one but the Bugbear strangler uses anyway. An infinite list of feats is something cool in theory that I hate in practice.

2. Lots of things can be justified. "Did you see the size of the bugbear's wrist muscles in Worlds & Monsters? Without both those and a bunch of training you can't do that." That justification may make you all indignant and prissy, but it's good enough for me.

3. I doubt the Bugbear Strangler can use your Fighter 2 Power Swing. I mean, why not, right? He's a humanoid of similar size and build, right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

4. It makes my job as a DM easier and more fun; and combats are more 4wesome. I can forgive a lot for that.

5. I expect the vast majority of "special case" rules (what the devs are calling "Exception Based Design") will "make sense" and not require justification; like why an Ettin with two heads but only one pair of legs can do two standard actions in a round, but only one move action. I "get" that, and I think everyone else does too. Likewise, there doesn't have to be a Feat or special rule in the DMG for wing-buffets when only dragons and rocs have wings big enough to do them.

 

[Voss]

I'm seeing room for a "Brawler's Handbook."

I, unfortunately, am seeing 20 or so <Insert Whatever Here> Handbooks at $30 a pop that might eventually end up forming a complete rule set.

'You can pay for it separately later' isn't a design philosophy I'm keen on.

 

[Rechan]

'You can pay for it separately later' isn't a design philosophy I'm keen on.

"You can have a 1,000 page textbook" is not a design philosophy I'm keen on.

 

[DandD]

I agree with both of you. Having 20+ handbooks is equally bad as having a single 1000 page-monstrosity. Either extremes are unwanted.

 

[Ahglock]

"You can have a 1,000 page textbook" is not a design philosophy I'm keen on.

I'd rather have the 1000 page complete RPG rule book than an incomplete set of 3 200 page RPG rule books that I then need to supplement with extra volumes.

Realistically what I want though is from the get go for the game to cover all the core concepts or a character enough that someone can play one. Do I need a crazy prestige class combo X in the main rule books, nope.

But if melee combat doesn't cover swashbuckler types, sword and board defensive, strong straightforward offensive types(two handed swords, berserker's etc.), tricky special maneuver types(disarms, trips etc), and unarmed combat, it's an incomplete PH.

If magic doesn't cover summoning, healing, buffs, debuffs, blasting, enchanting, illusions, transformations, necromancy including animating the dead, and some basic utility spells it has failed and is an incomplete PH.

Do any of these arch types have to be as good as the end of 3.5, nope not even close, but if a player can't design a character around these archtypes they have excluded too much.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

PCs and monsters must have different rules. The thinking that they should be the same is exactly the same road that lead to 3.x being a fun game to play but a horrible game to DM.
s
The DM is not a player, nor is the DM an adversary. The NPCs and traps that the DM controls are potentially adversarial, but the DM himself is not. As such its not important that the DM follows the same rules as the players, because the game is not about pitting the PCs "warband" against the DM's "warband". The game is about having fun, enjoying adventures and facing exciting challenges.

.

Amen, brother, Amen!

PC's will have many, many, cool
funky abilities to chose from, and monsters will have many, many others, all designed to make the game fun and playable.

If you so desperately need the Meat SHield power for your PC I"m sure your DM will be able to find some equally powerful ability to swap out for it, following what will likely be clear guidelines in the DMG. Barring that, you can wait until it (or something similar) is available in an official release.

It's really that simple.

Fitz

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I can't tell if you hope that they include unarmed combat rules or not -- but it's my guess that they'll probably touch upon it at a very basic level, but nothing like you might expect if they were going to introduce the monk class in the core.

Yeah, if my character can't punch a dude or grab hold of somebody with the rules in the first PHB, WotC screwed up hardcore. But the more advanced grappling feats/powers would make sense for the martial supplement or elsewhere.