A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Dausuul]

Yeah, I saw that, and it gives me a glimmer of hope. I'm just afraid that they made it into some weak-ass improvised attack doing 1d6 damage to two targets or something. Hopefully I'm dead wrong.

Sorry to be unclear, you're not at all addressing the paradox I was talking about. The paradox is between saying that they don't like "rules bloat" and thus have cut/limited abilities, even ones that there's some call/logic for, yet that they're going to bring in all these abilities, or ones very much like them, in later books. It's like "We're stopping rules bloat by delaying it!". Delaying isn't stopping, and in some cases they're merely offloading rules bloat to house rules.

Mm... it depends on how it's handled. For example, if they make a Big Book o' Grappling, is that rule bloat on the same level that it would be if they crammed the contents of that book into the PHB? I would argue not; the Big Book o' Grappling is rule bloat from one point of view, but it's also optional and self-contained. If you get in a grapple and want to do fancy stuff, you get out the Big Book o' Grappling, but if not, the book sits on the shelf till you do. It's not taking up cognitive space with the core rules.

 

[TheArcane]

I agree with the OP. This thread missed the point somewhat. If I'm not mistaken, the issue here is not "why can't my fighter use that maneuver" or "how detailed should the grappling rules be". What I don't understand, is why must the Bugbear have a unique ability at all? Is it there because it's a vital part of Bugbear tradition/physiology/culture? No, it's a completely arbitrary ability, not justifiable by any means to belong uniquely to the Bugbear, that seems as though it's there just so the developers can show off their new design philosophies.
What I'm asking, is why can't it just be a Bugbear - a bigger, stronger Goblinoid, armed with an assortment of regular equipment? Can't it be unique enough just thanks to different ability scores, appearance and flavor text? Will the lowliest Goblin have a unique special attack as well? Why, because it's more fun that way? This isn't about realism versus fun, this is about common sense and coherence, versus the claim that you can't have fun if you have a monster that can't do anything special.

 

[The Little Raven]

Can't it be unique enough just thanks to different ability scores, appearance and flavor text?

Mechanically? No, it will not be unique if it's only difference is ability scores. If a monster is completely indistinct from another, aside from simply having a higher strength score, then it's pretty far from mechanically unique.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This kind of thinking is how we wound up with ridiculously overbuilt grappling rules in 3.5.

And 4e is the perfect place to fix those grappling rules.

I don't really think the thinking needs to be fixed, however. It's a valid playstyle, and shouldn't be abandoned with 4e.

There is absolutely nothing preventing the DM from allowing a PC to use the human shield technique. . . but since they are not specialized at it like bugbears they wouldn't be nearly as good at it and would take substantial negative modifiers. -- Just the same way large and powerful humans are not adept at throwing rocks.

"Make Stuff Up" sucks as a rule. There are places where it's inevitable, though. What's more debatable is if this is a situation that should be called out specifically, or if it should be left up to the DM. Given that a monster decides to use the tactic, I think it should be called out specifically for anyone who could concievably use the tactic.

I think, upon reflection, I'll be happy if the "stunt system" can cover it, though I might have to re-write the Bugbear Strangler's rule to be in-line with what other characters can do (even if he's better at it).

I think people need to get past this idea of "a rule for ever occasion" and accept the fact that the DM needs to do some work in adjudicating the game. Overbuilding of the rules is the major problem with 3.5. It may eventually get that way with 4E, but let's not get started on the wrong foot!

So I'm having badwrongfun?

I don't buy it.

 

[The Little Raven]

It's a valid playstyle, and shouldn't be abandoned with 4e.

(Emphasis mine.)

This is just a tad wrong, because they aren't abandoning it. They are simply relegating it to when it will be more appropriate to deal with it. Grapple, as presented in the PHB, will be the basic system anyone would need to know in order to grab another person. Since class powers are now where the coolness is usually found for a class, it makes sense to wait until a class that uses grapple as part of it's shtick to come up before putting in complex and cool maneuvers like Meat Shield.

People argue that anyone should be able to do it... well, technically, anybody should be able to swing a weapon harder and with less accuracy, but we require you to pick up Power Attack (as a feat or power in 4e) to represent doing it, so why shouldn't we require you to pick up the class that focuses on grappling's Meat Shield power (when it finally gets published)? Why should it be included in the basic rules with classes that don't utilize grappling as a shtick (and not even require a power or feat to learn)?

I think, upon reflection, I'll be happy if the "stunt system" can cover it, though I might have to re-write the Bugbear Strangler's rule to be in-line with what other characters can do (even if he's better at it).

Why? If it's balanced and it works for an encounter, what's the point of rewriting it to fit with your new player ability, besides needless symmetry?

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is just a tad wrong, because they aren't abandoning it. They are simply relegating it to when it will be more appropriate to deal with it. Grapple, as presented in the PHB, will be the basic system anyone would need to know in order to grab another person. Since class powers are now where the coolness is usually found for a class, it makes sense to wait until a class that uses grapple as part of it's shtick to come up before putting in complex and cool maneuvers like Meat Shield.

It interferes with my enjoyment of the game to have abilities that anyone could do relegated to special pigeonholes that aren't available to everyone. If the stunt system fixes this by giving me a robust set of rules to accomplish coolness with, then anyone can use them, and my enjoyment remains intact.

If, however, the Bugbear Strangler is the only creature in the game at launch who can take someone and use them as a human shield without extensive houseruling, yeah, they are abandoning my needs, at least in this matter.

People argue that anyone should be able to do it... well, technically, anybody should be able to swing a weapon harder and with less accuracy, but we require you to pick up Power Attack (as a feat or power in 4e) to represent doing it, so why shouldn't we require you to pick up the class that focuses on grappling's Meat Shield power (when it finally gets published)? Why should it be included in the basic rules with classes that don't utilize grappling as a shtick (and not even require a power or feat to learn)?

It'd be great if we had rules that everyone could use that represents swinging harder and with less accuracy. I'd embrace putting something like a less-effective power attack in the core attacking rules. A stunts system might actually do that, allowing something like "raises" for more damage, giving less of a chance of success on the attack roll. I know it has been used to great effect in other games, why not D&D?

Why? If it's balanced and it works for an encounter, what's the point of rewriting it to fit with your new player ability, besides needless symmetry?

So that when one of my players says "Bugbear Stranglers are super fetch, KM, can I play one next week?" I can say "Hell yes, TV's Hannah Montana!" and we can all have milk and cookies.

Or, more practically, so that when the Bugbear Strangler uses his ability, it works kind of like what happens with the PC's do the same thing, just maybe better, making the ability more memorable, and ensuring that it adheres to the same rules, increasing consistency and my enjoyment of the game through that increase.

 

[The Little Raven]

It'd be great if we had rules that everyone could use that represents swinging harder and with less accuracy. I'd embrace putting something like a less-effective power attack in the core attacking rules. A stunts system might actually do that, allowing something like "raises" for more damage, giving less of a chance of success on the attack roll. I know it has been used to great effect in other games, why not D&D?

Because then the argument gets extended to more and more abilities that were once a part of the concept of "niche protection," and soon everyone has access to every mundane thing, and the only unique powers protected from this "realism" are magical ones, thus once again leading to spellcasters being special and nonspellcasters not being so.

And soon, your core rules are bogged down with tons of extra systems like "Super Weak Power Attack" and "Clumsy Meat Shield Method" and all the non-magical classes simply become caretakers of "Improved Super Weak Power Attack" and lose much of their distinctiveness, simply becoming upgraded versions of what every other character can do anyhow. That sounds much more like 3E.

Or, more practically, so that when the Bugbear Strangler uses his ability, it works kind of like what happens with the PC's do the same thing, just maybe better, making the ability more memorable, and ensuring that it adheres to the same rules, increasing consistency and my enjoyment of the game through that increase.

Still strikes me as a cry for needless symmetry.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

People argue that anyone should be able to do it... well, technically, anybody should be able to swing a weapon harder and with less accuracy, but we require you to pick up Power Attack (as a feat or power in 4e) to represent doing it,

Actually, that is stupid, as you point it out. You can get better defense without buying Expertise, so it should follow that you can do some kind of crappy power attack without buying Power Attack. I'd roll with -4 to hit, +2 to damage.

I bet 4E doesn't have any Fight Defensively, sadly.

 

[FadedC]

It's interesting to note that if a monster book in 3e came out with a bugbear strangler prestige class nobody would complain that bugbears had abilities nobody else could use, just like nobody complains about the dozens of other prestige classes that are limited to certain races.

The 4e bugbear strangler is pretty much exactly like a bugbear with a bugbear only prestige class, only it takes a few paragraphs of rules to write up.....as opposed to reading through a several page prestige class and figuring out how a bugbear advances through it taking feats and skills along the way.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because then the argument gets extended to more and more abilities that were once a part of the concept of "niche protection," and soon everyone has access to every mundane thing, and the only unique powers protected from this "realism" are magical ones, thus once again leading to spellcasters being special and nonspellcasters not being so.

I think you're well aware that there is a large continuum between "anyone can do it" and "only magic can do it."

It's a false choice.

And soon, your core rules are bogged down with tons of extra systems like "Super Weak Power Attack" and "Clumsy Meat Shield Method" and all the non-magical classes simply become caretakers of "Improved Super Weak Power Attack" and lose much of their distinctiveness, simply becoming upgraded versions of what every other character can do anyhow. That sounds much more like 3E.

Why should anything that anyone is capable of be distinct in any way?

I'd like to preserve the distinctiveness for things that are, y'know, more distinct. Like ripping the brains out of skulls with your tentacles, or making a little pile of frost next to you, or being coated in sticky film like a kuo-toa. Or, if we're talking class abilities, like wrestling a giant to the ground, or being so fast that you can trip someone and still attack them, or having the ability to strike so precisely that your opponent's limbs go numb.

Using somebody as a human shield, in a general sense, doesn't take anything really distinct about you. Using it specifically as effective as a Bugbear Strangler...that might. And lo, that is why the Bugbear Strangler will still exist in my games, regardless of the changes I make to grappling rules.