A worry about "special case monster abilities"

[Kahuna Burger]

It is a classic villain schtick - But did it ever work?

Worked in the Dead Zone. Admittedly it was a Baby Shield, so the grapple check was a lot easier.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Freeform systems are even worse when trying to make a core game that is easy to learn.

Then don't put it in the core.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm talking about resource cost. To use my fighter Power Attack, I need to purchase it as one of the powers I know (first cost; when leveling up my character), expend it as a per-encounter resource (second cost; this is merely an example).

Do we know how long it takes for action points to refresh?

To use my stunt system Power Attack, I don't have to select it ahead of time (no cost while leveling), nor do I have to expend a per-encounter resource to use it.

It costs you chances at hitting. You tried a stunt and missed because of the -5 you took to your to-hit. You lost a round worth of attacking on a failed gamble. Sounds like a cost to me.

Sure, you could have it be situational modifiers and such, but this grows the core rules that everyone needs to know to play the game, rather than just the fighter rules (thus growing a smaller section of the rules for specific players).

I'll just assume that by now you've read my comments on where a system like this belongs (i.e. not in the core. It's an advanced system for players who want additional complexity).

I never said you did. I was saying that I don't care about a magic stunt system, because I find the idea of a freeform stunt system to replicate class powers to be a waste of time and paper, since it works against the fundamental design tenets of a class-based game: niche protection.

You say niche protection, I say "I'm going to throw this salt in his face."

The skill system can do that, given enough mechanical substance. We don't need a vague freeform system when we already have better tools to do the job.

So you'd rather have an extensive concrete list of stunts that skills can accomplish than a freeform system that allows you to do more in fewer lines of text?

No, because class powers are explicitly what separates one class from another. Acrobatics doesn't allow you to completely invalidate all the class powers of the rogue class, but this proposed stunt system would do the same, since it's based on the idea of "I could realistically give this a shot," which is the basic premise that most martial class powers operate under.

So the heck what, if the rogue's mastery of his domain goes unchallenged?

If Acrobatics allowed you to sneak attack, or get bonus damage against a Bloodied target, or use the "I'm Batman" power, then I'd have a problem with it's relationship to niche protection, but they aren't even remotely the same.

Are we even really talking about that? This all started based on a discussion about grapple tricks. Perhaps you're right, and a line should be drawn, but I don't see why we have to chunk off "human shield" into the fighter's grubby paws (for instance) and leave everyone else (monks, barbarians, anyone else who might be a good grappler) out in the cold. It's not a particularly fighter-y or monk-y power. It's a power, and bugbears happen to have it, presumably because they're into dirty tricks. But unless we have a player character class that's all about dirty tricks and grappling, it's not anyone's territory, and would make a good stunt.

Which, by the rules, wasn't allowed above a certain DC.

Yes. I know. That's kind of the point. The rogue doesn't implode if you allow everyone to do it, despite it being one of the rogue's "things."

 

[Ahglock]

So, if this system is granting the ability to duplicate the class powers of a specific power source (martial; Power Attack and Disarm are both powers, as far as we know) only, then what is the point of those classes? If they have more powerful versions of the "stunt" Power Attack and Disarm, they lose distinctness and revert to the previous edition standard of "just better at what everyone can do, rather than having unique powers."

Again, it denies a lot of niche protection to fighters, while firmly supporting it for spellcasters.

Your Chandelier Swing and Table Slide are examples of what a specific skill (Acrobatics) can do, rather than some vague freeform stunt system.

Well fighter powers may go well beyond something that is capable by a stunt. Maybe a stunt can pull off a crappy human shield ability where as a fighter power is more like attack everyone within 4 squares or omni-slash.

Also I don't really see how a wizard being so sucky at something he can't actually do something in play really encroaches in on the fighter niche. Just because a fighter can't cast a spell and a wizard can try but has a success rate of basically 0 at martial stunts is a fighters niche encroached. though quite frankly I'd have no problem with not allowing a wizard to perform a wide range of stunts that have a martial bent.

Also this may be a problem with a free-form stunt system but a stunt system with pre-reqs would have more niche protection. Such as you need the grappling feat in order to perform grappling stunts with a DC higher than 10, the grappling and iron grip feats to perform grappling stunts with a DC higher than 15.

Further more whose niche is being protected here, the bug-bears?? How is it wrecking a marital characters niche by giving him access to more abilities?

I'm ok with monster rules and player rules being different, but this seems like a situation where the game would benefit if there was some crossover. Having the monster rules and the PC rules being identical may be bad, but I suspect completely separating the rules is just as bad. Where there are obvious places where an ability would be fun, useful, balanced, and makes some degree of sense for both the PCs and the DM the ability or rule should be designed in such a way that it works for both.

 

[robertliguori]

I must say, I'm kind of looking looking forward to this power seeing use in my campaigns.

Me: "The bugbear twists away, his grip on the poor halfling rogue Jorris unceasingly tight! Jorris, after that last hit, you are down to only 4 hp!"
Jorris: "Poop."
Krush: "My turn, right?"
Me: "Yes! You must attack with upmost precision, or the bugbear strangler will once again be able to divert your attack into-"
Krush: "I stunt Crushing Blow, and use my reroll plus two damage ability. Oh, yeah, and one of my allies is bloodied, so I get another +2 to attack and damage."
Me: "You're stunting Crushing Blow? But...your penalty to hit!"
Krush: "I'll take it."
Me: "Uh, very well. Look, even if you crit, the bugbear still has a chance of-"
Krush: "I did. So, I add my Deadly Cut bonus dice as well. It's just my normal damage dice that are maxed, yes?"
Me: *sigh* "Yes. The bugbear twists Jorris into place, and your axe cleaves into him for-"
Krush: "Into or through?"
Melli: "That's right. You did rule that Krush could attack through the window if his attack did enough damage to break the glass."
Krush: "Next time he'll use a real meat shield!"
Jorris: "More poop."
Melli: "Next time, you shouldn't adventure with dark, edgy evil-curious heroes."

 

[TheArcane]

Monsters exist as obstacles for the PCs. That's their job. In order to be entertaining, they need fun and unusual abilities. Sure, you could have monsters that fight the PCs with Power Attack and whatnot... but that's so boring. Weird monsters with new abilities is cool.

Sorry man, but IMO you're being a bit shallow... A Bugbear is a Bugbear and a Goblin is a Goblin and it should be up to the DM to use them in interesting situations. Sticking arbitrary abilities on them is not the way to make the game more interesting. I hope the MM will at least have a racial write-up for them, so we can have different varieties. I myself think that all Bugbears being stranglers is pretty boring.

 

[Campbell]

Sorry man, but IMO you're being a bit shallow... A Bugbear is a Bugbear and a Goblin is a Goblin and it should be up to the DM to use them in interesting situations. Sticking arbitrary abilities on them is not the way to make the game more interesting. I hope the MM will at least have a racial write-up for them, so we can have different varieties. I myself think that all Bugbears being stranglers is pretty boring.

Not all bugbears are stranglers though. The bugbear strangler is one of the varieties of bugbears that will be presented in the 4e Monster Manual. One of the differences between the 4e approach to monsters and the 3e approach to monsters is that the statistics given no longer represent average members of a monster 'race', but are instead specific write ups of individual creatures. For instance there will be no orc stat block, but there will be stat blocks for orc warriors and orc shamans in the same vein as bugbear stranglers.

 

[TheArcane]

Not all bugbears are stranglers though. The bugbear strangler is one of the varieties of bugbears that will be presented in the 4e Monster Manual. One of the differences between the 4e approach to monsters and the 3e approach to monsters is that the statistics given no longer represent average members of a monster 'race', but are instead specific write ups of individual creatures. For instance there will be no orc stat block, but there will be stat blocks for orc warriors and orc shamans in the same vein as bugbear stranglers.

Is that a quote or just speculation? If it's the latter, I sure hope you're right.

 

[Campbell]

Is that a quote or just speculation? If it's the latter, I sure hope you're right.

While I'm fairly sure I've seen it explained online before I don't have any links on hand. It is corroborated in Worlds and Monsters.

In a two-page monster entry, or the occasional entries that go even longer, we have a lot more room to play. Orcs, for example, get two pages in the book, which include five stat blocks to represent orcs in a variety of roles, from minion to controller. The orc minion, orc berserker, orc archer, orc mystic, and orc bloodrager are five important orc archetypes, covering everything from the grunts that form the bulk of the an orc horde to its most battle-scarred veteran.

I just hope the Monster Manual uses a name like orc grunt instead of orc minion.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Maybe the devs should put a feat in the PHB called Gimme, the player takes the feat then when the player sees a power or ability he likes he says "Gimme" and the DM lets him have it, with a 10 ton weight.
Wait till we see the whole rule set before jumping to conclusions.

This appears to be the source of contention.

I don't know if it's a 3E encouraged mindset, a generation y thing, or whatever. A player sees something cool that s/he reckons their character could learn and they want access to it, regardless of whether they'll actually take it.

I do believe that the player should basically get what they're after sooner or later (usually sooner), but this power appears to be part of the repertoire of a skill monkey assassin. I.e. it requires serious character development via levelled class powers.

A general grapple mechanic could produce similar results in corner cases, but I don't see a need for every character to be able to replicate the superior and reliable power of the Bugbear Strangler.

In short, I'd say "no, there is a cost needed to learn it" to my hypothetical player when they say "gimme".