Goblin Picador

[Lizard]

Do these have boobs? Hong will want to know.

Thaumaturge.

If they're a PC race...yes.

If Gelatinous Cubes become a PC race, they will have boobs. Great big wiggly ones.

(I took Craft Disturbing Mental Image last level)

 

[Chocobo]

Which is also quite silly.

Yeah that's what I meant. Maybe I should have used some sort of smiley...

 

[Thaumaturge]

If Gelatinous Cubes become a PC race, they will have boobs. Great big wiggly ones.

(I took Craft Disturbing Mental Image last level)

Yikes. Yes you did.
...
...
...


Thaumaturge.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

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.

Now, I can think up explanations that will cover this situation. Maybe the picador is crazy strong for a goblin (he is, in fact), and he grabs onto a nearby terrain feature and hangs on like grim death. Or maybe once he's harpooned you, he knows how to keep you off balance so you can't set yourself to pull away.

Either of these could work, but I don't want to have to stop and think them out mid-combat while the game comes to a screeching halt. And not every DM is as good at rationalization as I am. It would be really nice if WotC would put the same effort into the interface between mechanics and game world that they do into the mechanics themselves; that interface is, after all, where the rubber meets the road. WotC's game systems tend to be like cars with massively powerful, perfectly machined engines, which are sitting on four flat tires.

Of course, we haven't seen the full monster entry, and I might be wrong. Maybe WotC has come up with a really clear, well-considered, robust explanation for the picador's abilities. But, based on past experience... I kind of doubt it.

 

[Chocobo]

Given 4E's "exception-based design" philosophy, I'm certain that somewhere there's a global rule that says "a creature can cancel any ongoing effect it creates as a [free or minor, probably] action."

So if I poison someone and it's doing ongoing damage, and then I decide that I didn't want to hurt them, I could just use a free action to cancel that?

Hmm... I bet you that rule you're talking about doesn't exist.

I do think there is probably DM advice to cover situations where it is reasonable for an effect to be removed. If they had a keyword (like "Removable") instead, however, that would have been much better.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Of course, we haven't seen the full monster entry, and I might be wrong. Maybe WotC has come up with a really clear, well-considered, robust explanation for the picador's abilities. But, based on past experience... I kind of doubt it.

This is my concern as well. It's not like it's abilties are impossible to rationalize, but it's kind of an effort, and when I pay money for monster, I kind of want the designer to make that effort. Hopefully it's been done - it just seems unlikely.

I know that the moment a Goblin Picador tries to pull a PC, there's going to be ructions at my gaming table, and questions about how heavy it is and so on. I mean, if we're talking about a 160-pound "goblin monstrosity", then it might be believable that it can jerk some Elf around, but a 220lb, STR 20 Fighter who is wearing full plate and has a backpack full of heavy junk? It's hard to play it.

Of course, one can just not use it, but then you're beginning to lose content, and how much else is like this? I'd rather have a magical explanation than a physical one that doesn't make any sense.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I assume: removing the harpoon can be done by both opponents.

A dragon beeing cought by the harpoon can not move beyond 5 squares. Thats right, he cant move more than 5 squares away from the goblin... which results in a goblin beeing pulled by a dragon5 squares behind him...

 

[Cadfan]

Of course, we haven't seen the full monster entry, and I might be wrong. Maybe WotC has come up with a really clear, well-considered, robust explanation for the picador's abilities. But, based on past experience... I kind of doubt it.

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.

So, what if they "handled" things like this by putting in a section in the DMG that basically outlined some quick guidelines on how to ad lib this sort of thing? Something like, "consider the possibilities available for offense, such as attacking with each stat, and the options available for a characters defenses, and mix and match as you feel appropriate based on the unusual ideas your players invent."

Because I think that sort of DM judgment is the best you're going to get. I'd be perfectly happy if, in response to Thunk the Barbarian trying to reel in the goblin picador, Thunk made a Strength Attack versus the Goblin's Fortitude, and on a success the goblin had to either drop his rope or be pulled in by Thunk. I know that's not going to cover every possible situation (two goblin picadors at once pulling the same way, can the picador pick the rope back up, can you fight normally with a harpoon stuck in you/your armor, etc), but it gets the job done quickly and fairly. Thunk gets rewarded for his high strength by getting to do something cool, the goblin gets chopped into goblin-bits, and the game moves on.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If they're a PC race...yes.

If Gelatinous Cubes become a PC race, they will have boobs. Great big wiggly ones.

(I took Craft Disturbing Mental Image last level)

Ah, now I understand the Oozemaster. It's just another attempt to get close some hotties... Jelly Fish are probably to an Oozemaster are probably what mermaid are for normal people.
(Umbrielle the Yellow Mold...)


Here's my pseudo explaination that serves no real purpose: The barbs of the harpoon rope (and I assume the harpoon is barbed) hits the opponent and causes some minor injuries, and enough to keep the rope attached. Moving to far really hurts, so you don't do it.

One note: The description of the ability seems to apply that removing the harpoon takes a standard action and requires a strength check vs fortitude. This seems to be the perfect thing for a rules argument - might the semicolon imply that the strength vs. fortitude actually tells us what to use to defend against it, or what to do to "attack" with the ability. I can tell you, Hypersmurf will still have to explain the RAW on the D&D Rules forum in 4E!

 

[Lizard]

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.

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.