A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Dragonblade]

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.

Essentially the game becomes a tactical wargame with the PC's "warband" vs. the DM's warband. The DM is hamstringed creatively and stifled by the rules. Furthermore, the burden on maintaining and running the game is severe since NPCs and monsters must be painstakingly leveled up per the rules or the DM is "cheating".

This is THE fundamental flaw in 3.x design. And I hope D&D never goes back to it.

From my perspective, 1e/2e were much MORE fun to DM than 3.x. Because I as the DM had the power to do whatever I wanted and I could do it on the fly. If I wanted the PCs to fight a tough human warrior, I just made it so. I never bothered to level up a fighter. I just sat down, decided he should have these stats and BAM! done. Now, this may not have been in the 1e rules specifically. But it was taken for granted the DM could do this. And there were no cries of DM cheating.

But all was not perfect. The enjoyment players got out of the game depended solely on whether your DM was good or not. On whether a DM could devise fun challenges without monty haul games on one side, or Gygaxian killer dungeons on the other.

Then 3e came along and tried to fix this "problem". As it addressed this problem it started from the assumption that players and DMs have a semi-adversarial relationship. Therefore, a framework of rules equality that prevents the DM from handwaving should be laid down. The hope was to make the game "fair" for everyone. However, the problem with this approach is that it places an ENORMOUS burden on the DM. Not so noticeable at low levels, but at higher levels it is a huge problem. (1e/2e/3e has many other issues that have been passed through the prior editions also. Many of them I outlined in the Monte Cook 3.75 thread.)

The problem with the concept of DM/Player Rules Equality in 3e is that the assumption its based on, that DMs and PCs have an adversarial relationship, is just flat out wrong. In this respect 1e got it right at least in feel (not so much in rules).

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.

To achieve this end, the DM only needs rules to explain what numbers are appropriate to challenge PCs at a given level. And this is exactly what 4e seems like it will provide and why in my opinion, 4e is the true spiritual successor to 1e/2e in a way that 3e was not.

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, it being given to us later the same way like in D&D 3.X is wrong in the first place, I'd say.

Are you saying that all potential content should be available in the first three books? That's impossible. They have space limitations, and since there is no unarmed combatant stuff in the PHB, putting meat-shield/strangulation rules in there would be really pointless until the unarmed combatant stuff shows up.

 

[fnwc]

Under 4e, Bugbear Stranglers can take people and use them as sheilds. No one else can, really. There's no rules for it. You could make rules up, using the guidelines given, but I'm not really happy if I pay designers to tell me to make stuff up myself.

As stated, monsters no longer follow the same rules as player characters -- which greatly simplifies the procedure for creating a monster and also allows for some nifty, unique abilities. The bugbear example given doesn't really bother me. A DM can rationalize this anyway they wish; maybe bug-cub stranglers learn how to grapple and toss things about at a very young age, and practice fighting each other by using small woodland animals as shields. Whatever.

It's not like we question the ability of a warrior to perform a class specific feat called, "Blade Fury" for example. Why can't any mercenary out there wielding a blade do the same thing?

The alternative is that monsters will need to justify special attacks through a special subsystem of rules, which is more of the way that 3.0/3.5 does things. In this example, we'd have to create a new rule involving 'using enemies as shields' and determine the system behind it. Maybe we require Improved Grapple as a feat (and you have to be grappling the target), and the restriction that you must be one size category larger than your 'shield'. Also, you must have a minimum strength and/or beat the opponent in kind of opposed strength roll. Finally, we might also consider the amount of limbs required to hold a single 'shield' into place. With this system in place, you might end up with every single Large/Huge/Gargantuan creature doing this every battle, which would get pretty boring. Besides the unnecessary addition of an obscure and cumbersome subsystem, it makes designers have to justify everything in the stat block, which is how 3.0/3.5 does it.

In fact, the system I described above is so complicated that it makes my head hurt just thinking about how this would resolve in a combat (touch attack, opposed grapple, opposed strength -- plus, try figuring this out on the fly when you're a raging enlarged barbarian that is level drained from 20->19). It's this kind of slow down during combat that causes 3.0/3.5 combats to be so time consuming. I have a friend who attends a high level (20+) game who brings a handheld to his sessions so he has something to do in between his combat turns.

And why can't players do this? Well, maybe someone one day will make rules for a Bugbear Strangler PC. I'd expect the 'Living Shield' power to be available to them as a racial power at some level.

Personally, I'm in favor the new design goals in this regard, as it will make for some much more interesting monsters.

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 agree 100%.

 

[DandD]

Are you saying that all potential content should be available in the first three books? That's impossible. They have space limitations, and since there is no unarmed combatant stuff in the PHB, putting meat-shield/strangulation rules in there would be really pointless until the unarmed combatant stuff shows up.

Then they will have to make better use of that space, and throw out other rules that are bad, like possibly rules for creating characters randomly with dices or so. Now, which of those rules might be bad they might themselves not know, and we might find that out only later, but it's their risk, so, no problem of mine.
However, I don't believe, or rather, I hope not they will exclude unarmed combatant stuff in the very first Player Handbook.

 

[fnwc]

However, I don't believe, or rather, I hope not they will exclude unarmed combatant stuff in the very first Player Handbook.

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.

 

[DandD]

Delete it please.

 

[DandD]

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.

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.

 

[The Little Raven]

Then they will have to make better use of that space, and throw out other rules that are bad, like possibly rules for creating characters randomly with dices or so.

That's subjective. You don't like dice-based creation, but a lot of people apparently do, or it wouldn't be a part of the game. They're doing the best they can with the space, but they aren't trying to include everything because that's just a fool's errand.

However, I don't believe, or rather, I hope not they will exclude unarmed combatant stuff in the very first Player Handbook.

Mearls made it pretty clear that unarmed combat is relatively minimal in the core rules, since there's no class that uses it as part of their shtick. We probably won't see them until at least the Martial power book, or until the monk rears his head.

 

[DandD]

Yes, subjective, like (possibly) omitting unarmed combat rules (things appearantly still can change). In the end, it's the problem of the designers, not mine or yours or anybody else. Their success will be measured in either praises or harsh critics in some months from now on.

 

[The Little Raven]

Their success will be measured in either praises or harsh critics in some months from now on.

Sales is the measure of success. Episode 1: The Phantom Menace was criticized by everyone and everything, but that didn't stop it from being an overwhelming success.