Goblin Picador

[VBMEW-01]

Now, as I say, if a player becomes enamored of the harpoon and wants to become a harpoon specialist, we can sit down and hash that out after the game. The PC is going to have to work for that ability, just like any other martial power--which means she'll appreciate it that much more when she finally masters it.

I dig this, anything is doable if a sacrifice of time and effort are made. Barring what could be seen as supernatural or spell-like, damn near every monster feature is a feat, a power slot, or both away. It just takes forethought from the DM, and willingness to go along from the player who wants it (and he or she better be damned sure about it because they gotta earn what they want, is my motto). I hate soft yeses that wrap around hidden nos because they make my tongue thicken and reek as I'm uttering them. I'll make a deal with the players if its on level terms, which are more often my terms than theirs.

I mean I've sit down and written up entire races, classes, feats, spells, and lots more to helpthose folks have the game thy want, with the balance I need. In the end you kind of have to, to a degree. I mean they are the ones who show up to listen to your story, and you won't have one without them. If it can be imagined then it can be realized, and I learned long ago that at my table I don't hold the monopoly on good ideas.

Damn, I'm not even sure if I'm on-topic anymore....GOBLIN PICADOR FTW!!!!

 

[FadedC]

There may actually be a very simple way to adjudicate a player who wants to use a picador's harpoon.

Throwing a harpoon is an at will power. At various points during character progression a character gains access to new at will powers. Simply allow them to substitute throw harpoon for whatever new power they would otherwise get. Problem solved.

Might not work for everything, but seems perfectly balanced for the harpoon. In 3.x you'd need to wait til you got a new feat to learn the weapon, in 4.0 you wait til you get a new power.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

With a 1:1 ratio of opponents or worse, the harpoon ability is likely worse than useless.

It looks like it can be a good tactical option, but only if you outnumber the oppositions against whom you are using the harpoon. Say you have 8 goblins including 2 picadors, two soldiers type and four skirmishers. You can use the two Picadors to tie the fighter and warlord and send the four skirmishers against the Wizard and Warlock. The fighter won't be able to help them until he's killed the damn picador. And the picador could be hiding behind the soldier, making it harder to get to him, all but guaranteeing that the two weaker PCs are on their own against the skirmishers. That's great!

But 1:1 (4v4), it's silly because just as the picador ties a PC, that picador ties himself. He hasn't accomplished much. If he has harpooned a defender, the fighter won't care much because he intends to move forward anyway in order to kill the goblins! If there is an additional goblin protecting the picador, the controller and striker are free to do what they want because there is only two goblins left for three PCs. And if there is no soldier protecting him, he'll die fast.

It's like attempting to blitz in football by using as many or fewer rushers as there are offensive linemen (which technically isn't a blitz, I know, and is my point).

If you harppon a ranged attacker, it's no better with only 4 goblins. Say you harpoon the ranger (or any PCs who is trying to avoid melee with your goblins). Next round, what? You pull him? Tug of war is a standard action. Your goblins will be sacrificing 25% of their damage dealing potential against PCs who aren't returning the favour. And since the defender and leader (the two likely melee combatants) are free of their movements, you have accomplished squat. What does it matter that you pull the ranger toward the picador? If you have no soldier in front of you to attack the ranger, he'll just shoot at you while you waste your time pulling. If you do have soldiers to pull the ranger against, the lots of you are obviously open to an area attack from the controller and will then get charged by the defender and leader. With just 4 goblins against 4 PCs, you are wasting your time with this harpoon schtick.

As a result, it's a poor PCs weapon because they rarely have numerical advantage. And when they do have it, they are often facing monsters who are either too big to be harpooned or have great fortitude.

But for a horde of goblin, it looks like a fantastic opportunity to make the fight memorable.

 

[Spatula]

We get it, alright? You don't like 4E and won't play it. Thanks. But there are some of us who like what 4E could represent to our gaming group and the D&D game as a whole, so why don't you let us discuss these things in peace?

If you're looking for a pro-4e echo chamber, there may be other forums more suited to that sort of thing. If you want an actual discussion, welcome to ENworld. There are a few rabidly anti-4e posters here, along with a number of rabid pro-4e posters. I tend to skim over posts made by either set. But if you truly think someone has nothing to say that's worthwhile to you, there's an ignore function.

 

[The Little Raven]

If you're looking for a pro-4e echo chamber, there may be other forums more suited to that sort of thing.

No, there aren't. ENWorld is the friendliest place on the net towards 4e.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If you're looking for a pro-4e echo chamber, there may be other forums more suited to that sort of thing. If you want an actual discussion, welcome to ENworld. There are a few rabidly anti-4e posters here, along with a number of rabid pro-4e posters. I tend to skim over posts made by either set. But if you truly think someone has nothing to say that's worthwhile to you, there's an ignore function.

Nah, use the ignore function with care. You need to read a lot of posts to gauge someone "ignore-worthy", in my opinion. 4E is the first time I ever used the function, and my ignore list contains only one poster so far. Maybe there is a second in the making ATM, but I just say: Use it carefully.

And note that it doesn't protect you entirely. You still see answers (including quotes) to the post of an ignored poster... Which means if a thread derails, you'll still see the whole derailment except for the "offending" post.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Even if we weren't already promised such guidelines, I can already see some things a DM can come up on its own.

One thing that I noticed is that most powers let you deal damage (sometimes even more then usueal) _and_ give you a special benefit. Marking Foes, sliding, pulling, pushing, or whatever else. A Trip power in 4E would probably allow you deal damage and trip your opponent.

(Skip any point that is not reasonable due to the circumstances, or just not to your taste)
(1) Is not to hand out penalties, but to remove the benefit of "damage + bonus".
(2) Increase the amount of time it takes. If it's a standard attack, it requires a minor action + a standard attack now. If it was a minor attack, it takes a standard attack. If it was free, it's minor. If it required one move, it requires two.
(3) Require a special condition - stunned, immobilized, combat advantage, weakened, or whatever else as a prerequisite.
(4) If it seems very hard to do, make it cost an action point.
(5) If it is very useful, make it a "once per encounter" thing.
(6) Leading to an instant death scenario (regardless of hp/reasonable damage per round)? Grant a save to avoid the deadly effect.
(7) Apply a penalty of -5 it its still to powerful or unbelievable.
(8) Still to awesome? Make the penalty -10.
(9) Not happy yet? Well, just say no. But don't come to me if that makes your player cry.

There is, off course, a (0)th guideline:
Roll an Attack or Skill (including possibly an untrained skill) vs one of the defenses. Since the math "works", you don't get into the 3.x problems when trying to use skills for saves or attacks. (If you're copying a powers effect, use the listed attacks and defenses)

Basically, the goal of these guidelines should be: It sucks if the cool maneuver you just made up doesn't work. It's okay if it's hard to pull off and other maneuvers might - at least going by action cost, damage, and secondary effect - be more effective.

*channels hong*
Why does no one listen to me?
No one listens to meeeee!

 

[hong]

*channels hong*
Why does no one listen to me?
No one listens to meeeee!

I'm listening, Mustrum! I love you man!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm listening, Mustrum! I love you man!

Ah... I am feeling all warm and fuzzy inside now...

 

[Bagpuss]

Too me it looks like the new rules are going to actually going to need a lot 'common sense' vs 'rules lawyer' conflict.

Rule Lawyer - It seems to appear that the goblin can at will harpoon several characters, IE: He could harpoon one, one round and another the next.

Common Sense - Once a character is harpooned the goblin should be restricted to Tug of War until the player removes the harpoon.

Plus while is says Standard action, Str vs Fort to remove, surely some player is going to ask if he just can't cut the rope? Or Tug the goblin on his turn. To which the DM is going to have to rule on the fly.

I personally am happy to see this, the rules in 3rd Ed covered too much IMHO and made it hard for the DMG to ad lib something without the players pointing to a rule in some book somewhere.