A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Jack99]

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.

Last I checked, the 4e designers weren't making rules for 3.5.. So how did you do better than them, I am at a loss. Could you clarify, please?

 

[Ximenes088]

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.

It seems to me that a lot of those archetypes were never supported by the 3.5 PHB alone, either. You can't really make a white mage out of the PHB- a cleric shedding his armor is just plain gimping himself. There's nothing in there to specially tailor a swashbuckler, unless we suppose that the 4e PHB is going to provide us fewer movement tricks and light-weapon skills, which seems highly contrary to what we've heard of rogues. The 4e wizard is the 3e sorcerer, from everything I've seen about it, in terms of quick access to a limited pool of powers. A pass with the fluff brush and it should be fine as an innate caster.

Shapeshifters do look to be less supported in 4e, it's true. We aren't likely to be seeing the druid any time soon, so nature-priests are going to have to live without turning into bears. Then again, there seems to be a large body of sentiment that 3.5 druids didn't so much support shapeshifting as use it as part of a towering edifice of unstoppable might. Even so, it's tough to say that 3.5 really supported the concept unless you started your druid at level 5. Being the shapeshifter guy who can't shift for four levels tends to grate.

Spell-type specialists also really weren't supported by the 3.5 PHB. Sure, you could elect to have your wizard/cleric/druid preferentially prepare spells of a certain theme, but your "specialization" in that regard was exactly 24 hours deep, with the possible choice of a Spell Focus feat if you were serious. Wizards who actually went so far as to use the school specialization option seriously gimped their overall power for a very iffy degree of extra competence. If you could make a good necromancer out of the PHB, we wouldn't have seen the thirty-odd different spins on "Really Truly Necromancer" PrCs in WotC products.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

It seems to me that a lot of those archetypes were never supported by the 3.5 PHB alone, either.

Definitely true, but I was hoping that the new classes would be more flexible in some respects (to allow for swashbucklers and unarmored priests) and that they'd more or less limit the new classes to the PHB series and/or DDI (rather than that plus umpteen splatbooks).

 

[fnwc]

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.

I remember reading on Sage Advice that Grapple is still exists in 4th edition (as it should), but it's been modified to be simpler. This leads me to hypothesize that Bullrush also will make an appearance.

 

[lkjopajdowma]

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.

I thought I remember reading that they were saving specialist wizards like Illusionists and Necromancers for later so that they can truly be...well..."special", as in be able to do things generalist wizards cannot.

If that proves true, while the ability to be a specialist is not present in the PHB, it will come later, and will hopefully actually feel like something special and unique, and will be a positive change. There isn't much difference at all between specialist wizards in 3.5.

(Although I'm currently playing a gnomish transmuter with the prohibited schools of evocation and conjuration -- that makes for quite a different feel to the wizard when you can't really blast or summon anything. Suprisingly effective though...the only character that hasn't died in a campaign that has easily claimed over a dozen PCs. I'm a little tired, so I apologize for the tangent.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In 3E, the Bugbeaer Strangler would have probably been not in the PHB, but in a "Complete Goblinoids" handbook or maybe in the Eberron Sourcebook.
He had a 5 level Prestige Class:
"Goblin Strangler"
Prerequisites: Sneak Attack +1d6, Exotic Weapon Profiency (Garotte), Goblinoid subtype
BAB: Good; Saves: Fort Good; Skill Points: 2+Int
Class Skills: Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Local), Listen, Move Silently, Spot, Tumble
1st level Ability: Improved Unarmed
2nd level Ability: Improved Grapple
3rd level Ability: Meat Shield
4th level Ability: Strangling Grapple (deal sneak attack damage while pinning)
5th level Ability: Wounding Grapple (1 point of con damage per round of pinning)
Possibly in later supplements or the same, the "Meat Shield" would be extracted as a feat (Fighter Bonus Feat, Exotic Weapon Profiency (Garotte), Improved Unarmed and Improved Grapple as a prerequisite).

The 4E way is less generic, but a lot easier for the DM to handle...

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

I don't know, I think everything is in place, at least in the 3.0 PHB. Being behind a same-size creature confers a +4 AC bonus as per page 133 Table 8-9 Cover (one-half), the rules for striking the cover instead of the target are on the same page directly below the table, and the grappling rules allow me to rule that a creature held pinned can be serving as Cover for the pinning creature, since they are in the same space while grappling. Since the pinned creature is immobile while being pinned, while the pinning creature isn't, a simple 5' step move can be taken as a free action to rotate the ensemble in order to interpose the pinned creature between the pinning creature and an attacker. Standard grapple checks apply to keep your meat shield pinned while using it, of course.

Anybody think that's too harsh?

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Just quoting you because you quoted my original point rather nicely - but like almost everyone else chased down a different point! (with the exception of your number 5, which is what I was originally getting at).

I don't think PCs should access to everything monsters can do. I like the 4e approach in that regards.

I like "special case rules" when there is some obvious reason for them - Ettins getting one action per head plus a move, or whatever. It is a structurally sound thing which fits in nicely.

3e had examples like the Bebilith which had a 'destroys armour' ability which came out of left field... nothing else had anything like it, but loads of things had spikey claws that do just as much damage, so what gives there?

I'm hoping, like Irda Ranger, that special abilities will all "make sense".

Cheers

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't know, I think everything is in place, at least in the 3.0 PHB. Being behind a same-size creature confers a +4 AC bonus as per page 133 Table 8-9 Cover (one-half), the rules for striking the cover instead of the target are on the same page directly below the table, and the grappling rules allow me to rule that a creature held pinned can be serving as Cover for the pinning creature, since they are in the same space while grappling. Since the pinned creature is immobile while being pinned, while the pinning creature isn't, a simple 5' step move can be taken as a free action to rotate the ensemble in order to interpose the pinned creature between the pinning creature and an attacker. Standard grapple checks apply to keep your meat shield pinned while using it, of course.

Anybody think that's too harsh?

Hmm. I am not sure you are allowed to move in a grapple, and you still have to be in the same square, barring special abilities, don't you?

 

[Steely Dan]

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.

That was beautiful – you rule!