A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

Yeah, my biggest remaining fear for 4e is that they'll exclude too many important archetypes by saying, "We can stick it in a splatbook."

 

[Demigonis]

I'm actually quite glad that certain monsters will have specific abilities that other monsters of similar type can't do, that way monsters will actually feel different. You'll have a different experience fighting a bugbear than you will fighting a hobgoblin because they can do different things. Is it a little odd from a real-world perspective that they can't do most of the same stuff? Perhaps, but it's a game and I'd rather have monsters feel unique. At least for the most part.

 

[AZRogue]

I like that monsters will have abilities unique to themselves (even though I would love really robust grappling rules that would allow a PC to do the bugbear move).

1. It grants each monster a unique flavor and feel that makes it different from other monsters in more ways than how it looks.

2. It keeps combat interesting with PCs unsure what each new creature will pull out of its trick box to throw at them.

3. And I don't think that we need to worry too much because it's been hinted that the DMG will contain information for a DM to adjudicate trading/adding such things from monsters to other monsters or to the PCs. If you treat the moves like Per Encounter Abilities or Feats it shouldn't be difficult to move them around a bit when called for or when you, as a DM, see fit.

Personally, I think it increases how interesting the monsters will be by tenfold.

 

[Nork]

I'd rather have the 1000 page complete RPG rule book..

1,000 page textbooks cost around $175 to $200.

WotC could make 1,000 page books. Only problem is that you'd be shelling out like $500 for the core books, and you'd be left with a game that that has a learning curve that ought to be measured in semesters or quarters, and running the game would be as boring and time consuming as math homework.

Fun ought to be king. Complexity that serves only to 'rationalize' the fun is merely detracting from the fun and ought to be removed.


I'd say this is crying over spilled milk, only the cow was never born, it was never milked, so there was never any actual milk, only the idea of a cow and the idea that it could produce milk, and that since you don't actually have that milk, said milk was somehow lost.

Furthermore, it was stated that if you want milk, they will explore the idea of getting a cow, milking it, and turning the theoretical milk into actual milk when they have resources and time to do so. Only for some reason that I can't figure out, that isn't right either.

I seriously don't understand why a Bugbear Strangler shouldn't have a special rule that applies only to Bugbear Stranglers, when the situation dictates that you either get hundreds of flavorful monsters with limited special rules or you get hundreds of rules that produce limited monsters.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Yeah, my biggest remaining fear for 4e is that they'll exclude too many important archetypes by saying, "We can stick it in a splatbook."

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "exclude"? Are you suggesting that the PHB has blank pages in it that could have had a more complete grapple system in it but for WotC's diabolical plan to sell you a Martial Power in Fall, 2008 for another $30?

Because I'm under the impression that the Core RBs are chock full o' crunchy goodness; and that while the exact mix of archetypes and rule options they've decided to include for the first go-round might not be exactly what I would have picked, they'll still be good and useful rules for playing D&D.

Because I'm further under the impression that the 4E devs are over-flowing with cool ideas to support 4E and they're really saying to each other "Darn, this is awesome! I wish we could fit this in the PHB without making a 1000 page tome (which would kill sales and not be good for WotC or the players of D&D because WotC would close down the D&D department if sales tanked). Luckily we'll still be in business next year, so we can put it in PHB II or a Advanced Grappler Splatbook and the player base will have the option of buying it then, since it's impossible to sell it to them now without killing off D&D just like TSR almost did."

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'd say this is crying over spilled milk, only the cow was never born, it was never milked, so there was never any actual milk, only the idea of a cow and the idea that it could produce milk, and that since you don't actually have that milk, said milk was somehow lost.

I like you.

 

[mmu1]

This is from another thread, but it brings up a very good point.

"Trip" "Pounce" "Rend" and "Improved Grab" were all abilities specifically given to monsters that were not available to players until way later in 3.X's lifespan. What's so wrong with the Bugbear Strangler's meat shield ability being the same way?

All those abilities are actually examples of things that make sense for "monsters" but not for humanoids, because generally speaking, humanoids lack the requisite anatomy. (and two of them - Trip and Improved Grab - are actually just monster versions of things that humanoids can also do - just not as easily, because they're not specialized for it)

On top of that, they fit in with what we "know" about wolves, lions, alligators, etc. - they feel right for those animals.

The Bugbear's ability, on the other hand, has no logic behind it - it's not something Bugbears are iconically known for, it's a purely arbitrary restriction on something simple and mundane that everyone can imagine their characters doing, so naturally it sets off alarm bells.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "exclude"? Are you suggesting that the PHB has blank pages in it that could have had a more complete grapple system in it but for WotC's diabolical plan to sell you a Martial Power in Fall, 2008 for another $30?

Because I'm under the impression that the Core RBs are chock full o' crunchy goodness; and that while the exact mix of archetypes and rule options they've decided to include for the first go-round might not be exactly what I would have picked, they'll still be good and useful rules for playing D&D.

Because I'm further under the impression that the 4E devs are over-flowing with cool ideas to support 4E and they're really saying to each other "Darn, this is awesome! I wish we could fit this in the PHB without making a 1000 page tome (which would kill sales and not be good for WotC or the players of D&D because WotC would close down the D&D department if sales tanked). Luckily we'll still be in business next year, so we can put it in PHB II or a Advanced Grappler Splatbook and the player base will have the option of buying it then, since it's impossible to sell it to them now without killing off D&D just like TSR almost did."

No, I'm actually not that fussed about the grappling thing in particular. I personally think "wrestler" isn't a super-important archetype. But I'm worried about the following:

-Unarmored clerics (traditional "white mages")
-Swashbucklers (although the 4e ranger or rogue may work)
-Spellcasters with inborn magic (e.g. 3e sorcerers and warlocks)
-Shapeshifters (e.g. 3e druids)
-Summoners/necromancers
-Illusionists

Now, I'm fully aware that the developers can only squeeze so much into one PHB. I'm aware that there were important balance considerations in, for example, trimming down the wizard's range of spells and reworking shapeshifting abilities. And honestly I'm sold enough on 4e that I can't really imagine playing 3.5 over it once the new edition is out.

But I'm in it for the roleplaying AND the combat, in equal parts, and I'll be disappointed if I can't play something I consider a fantasy staple without either gimping my character horribly or house-ruling the heck out of things.

 

[Wormwood]

Monster Crunch balanced for monsters.
PC crunch balanced for PCs

The essence of my admiration for 4e.

I'd much rather have cool interesting monsters than a bloated rulebook covering every contingency.

 

[Rechan]

-Unarmored clerics (traditional "white mages")
-Swashbucklers (although the 4e ranger or rogue may work)
-Spellcasters with inborn magic (e.g. 3e sorcerers and warlocks)
-Shapeshifters (e.g. 3e druids)
-Summoners/necromancers
-Illusionists

Wait, the 3e PHB managed White mages just fine? I thought all clerics came with Armor proficiency?

And they managed swashbuckling?

Also, how much of that stuff was in the 2e PHB?

Many of the above archetypes have been left out of the Core Rules, attainable via splats. Sounds to me like this is much ado about par of the course.