Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A worry about "special case monster abilities"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fnwc" data-source="post: 4037848" data-attributes="member: 48368"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I'm in favor the new design goals in this regard, as it will make for some much more interesting monsters.</p><p></p><p> I agree 100%.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fnwc, post: 4037848, member: 48368"] 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. I agree 100%. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A worry about "special case monster abilities"
Top