Goblin Picador

[Dausuul]

My personal feelings on the subject, since I know everyone is interested:

I don't think its possible to create streamlined, easy to use rules that allow cool stuff like a picador who spears an opponent and drags them in, but which also allow all the possible logical reactions to being speared and reeled by a picador. The more complete your rules are, the less streamlined they become, and vice versa.

I'm really not willing to give up cool stuff because ease of play and limitations on page count prohibit putting in 10 different unusual reactions to being harpooned.

That's not what I'm asking for. I just want them to describe the ability something like this:

"The picador is adept at controlling larger foes with his harpoon. By pulling them off balance, he can force them to follow his lead, despite their superior size and strength."

That's all I need. It covers the basic, obvious questions that players will have about how on earth a tiny little goblin is able to yank them around. Furthermore, it gives me the basic guidance I need to adjudicate corner cases.

For instance, what if the goblin is knocked unconscious? Obviously, if it's his skill at keeping enemies off-balance that makes his shtick work, the shtick ceases to function if he's unconscious. I don't need a rule in the stat block to tell me that; I can extrapolate it from the fluff... but only if there's good solid fluff to start with.

 

[IanB]

Please remember that we are not working from a full stat write-up of the Picador here. We're working from the RPG side of a D&D Minis stat card, and anyone who has looked at the RPG side of one of the 3.5 cards knows that they are nothing close to a complete stat block for the creature. I don't know what improvements may have been made to editing, either, but the 3.5 versions of these cards were relatively high in error count.

In other words, don't make too many assumptions about what you think is "missing" from the card, because it may very well exist or be different in some significant way in the actual MM entry.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'm with Lizard on this one. A Goblin Lassoer would make a lot more sense, given the mechanics. I just can't rationalize being "harpooned", then being dragged around a battlefield by said harpoon, and being able to "sleep it off." And the "it's stuck in your armor" thing assumes the PC is wearing armor (some don't) and would also seem to stretch believability that goblins with spears "hit" but goblins with harpoons "just get stuck in armor."

This is a very gross example of "violation of stated principles", as Lizard says.

This looks like a great monster concept; my worry is that WotC won't do the work to rationalize how its abilities work in combat, in a way that stands up to player scrutiny.

It's kind of a blind spot WotC has. They'll go to extravagant lengths in every other regard to make the DM's life easier. But then they put in mechanics like the picador harpoon--mechanics which will cause major suspension-of-disbelief issues without a carefully-thought-out explanation--and slap on a shaky bit of fluff that even a mildly inquisitive player will tear apart.

This does seem to be a recurring problem. It's very clear that the gamists have won the culture war within WotC, and I'm OK with that to an extent, but there needs to be at least one person with a simulationist point of view to "fact check" all the stuff that goes out. There needs to be someone to say "Ok guys, this is cool and all, but it make no sense whatsover within the game context."

My criticism above is one I absolutely expect to hear if I use this monster in combat. The picador will throw his harpoon, snag some big strong PC, and the first words out of that player's mouth will be, "Okay, I drag him along. He's a goblin, how the heck is he going to hold me in place?" It's a totally rational and logical response.

Did you read the stat block? "Tug of War" is a Str vs. Fort check. If your barbarian is really as big and strapping as you say, he should win the check.

 

[Spatula]

Harpooned seems awfully powerful. On every hit the goblin now controls the movement of an opponent that requires a standard action and a successful STR vs. Fort to undo.

Well, I think that's the idea behind controller-type monsters. If you don't want him restricting your movement, you kill him. And he is unusually squishy... a lvl 2 controller with a 13 Con should be 37? or 31? hp, not 26. That could be a typo though.

Weapons are the finer point for me though, and the reason for this thread. I hated them in 3E, because it was mostly about picking damage, crit, or range. True, some had little bonuses to disarm or let you trip (yawn), but most were just a big yawn (net was cool though). I like the idea that different weapons have merit and tactics now, and harpooned seemed to be the best example so far.

The goblin does what he does because that's what he's designed to do, not because of his weapon. PCs won't get his bag of tricks even if they did pick up a harpoon somewhere. You're still thinking in pre-4e terms.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

True. To me, here's the dividing point.

Should the game flavor text trump the RAW, or not?

IOW, if I say "The goblin harpoons you!", should the player be allowed to treat this as "real", and take actions based on a real harpoon with a real rope attached to a real goblin (real in the context of the imaginary fantasy world), with the DM adjudicating such actions according to common sense and the basic resolution mechanics ("I tug back!", "OK, roll your STr vs. the goblin's to pull him to you. If you fail, you take an additional 1d6 from jiggling the harpoon too much."), or is the "harpooning" simply meaningless flavor text, and it should be treated as if the goblin had used "Burning telekinesis" to combine a damage effect with a motion effect, and that's all there is to it, a flavorful description of two combined game effects?

Neither is 'superior' or 'inferior', but a game can't support both variably from encounter to encounter or mechanic to mechanic. The DMG ought to make it clear which model is being used.

Hmm. I hope the DMG will give the DM the tools to go the "real" route, if he wants to. (Think of the "kicking the table to throw enemies off-balance" example from Mouseferatu, which I'll cling to whenever I ponder such questions regarding "situational, realistic actions"

I don't need all the information in the stat block, if the "general guideline" are exhaustive/simple enough to cover this scenario.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I, too am also worried about the 'harpooning bit.
I love the monster and his schtick. I really like the idea of WotC statting out all different sorts of the 'standard' bad guy races. In fact I hope there are literally dozens of versions each race that have their own schtick but still are 'gobliny' or 'koboldy' or whatever. As Cadfan says I can make an entire module based on mostly a single race and it won't be either dull (they are all straight from the 3E MM) or muchos hours of prep (3E monsters with classes, extra HD etc).

But I really hope that there is some seriously good explanation in the text for how you can be harpooned without major injury. I mean having something stick into you far enough through that it won't pull out when some one yanks you around the place is quite a wound!
I am really into the 4E HP model -every time I think of it I now think of the fight between Hector and Achiles in Troy- but this flys in the face of it if it does not include very clever fluff. I am not worried about the goblin pullling around a big guy (only upto M size, remember)
'cos it is really easy to unbalance someone with a rope attached to them, and thus tug them around.
And as some one else put I don't want to have to come up with fluff that fits for absolutely everything.

However, that is a minor gripe. The MM version of this may be totally different. But this, and all the other monsters that have come out, means for once I am as excited about the MM as the other rules books.

EDIT:

Neither is 'superior' or 'inferior', but a game can't support both variably from encounter to encounter or mechanic to mechanic. The DMG ought to make it clear which model is being used.

Very good point

 

[Someone]

And can you just cut the friggin rope holding you (and take care of the harpoon lodged in you flesh later?) instead of dislodging said piede of metal from your body in the heat of combat while a goblin bodybuilder is busy tugging you?

 

[Dausuul]

Did you read the stat block? "Tug of War" is a Str vs. Fort check. If your barbarian is really as big and strapping as you say, he should win the check.

Tug of War is when the goblin tries to reel you in. The basic "you can't move away from me" is built into the harpoon attack and does not involve any such check.

 

[LostSoul]

My criticism above is one I absolutely expect to hear if I use this monster in combat. The picador will throw his harpoon, snag some big strong PC, and the first words out of that player's mouth will be, "Okay, I drag him along. He's a goblin, how the heck is he going to hold me in place?" It's a totally rational and logical response.

I would respond like this:

"Roll for it. Standard action, Str vs. Fort. On a hit you can pull him 3 squares. If you miss, you can only pull him 1."

I wonder how you would rule on this:

"I want to grab the tether and wrap it around my massive forearms, then swing him into his loser friends!"

I would probably say something like: Str vs Fort to yank the goblin off his feet as a standard action, then Str vs AC to hit as a standard action; 1d6+Str damage to both goblins.

I guess that means you need to spend an action point. Cool. Maybe give a penalty to all attacks if it's a standard and a lesser action.

 

[fafhrd]

4e's exception based monster design may have closed off one end of the bag through explictly enumerated abilities, but they also seem to have loosened up the drawstrings on the other side with the skill system. If this isn't just a mirage generated by a heady haze of fanboyism, I have to say I like this approach. It provides a solid structure for the gamists, while handing out an official bag o' houserule so that simulationists can tinker away until they arrive at their level of comfort. Don't like the limited ways of dealing with the harpoon? Adjudicate as needed.