Goblin Picador

[I'm A Banana]

Precisely. This is one of the Great Secrets of successful DMing.

"Yes, you can scavenge 30 suits of orc plate. How are you hauling them back to town? Also, they're sized for orcs, whose body proportions are way different from humans--longer arms, shorter legs, bent backs. And this is plate armor, which has to be individually fitted to each wearer. You need a blacksmith just to make it fit another orc; refitting it for a human would require melting it down completely. So unless you plan to sell it as scrap iron for about one percent of list price, finding a buyer is going to be... challenging.

"But sure--if you really want to be, you are now the proud owner of 30 suits of orc plate."

That's pretty lame, IMO. Part 1 is that it's internally kind of inconsistent:

"So you're telling me I have 30 unique pieces of armor that have only ever been worn by these specific orcs and cannot fit another orc, let alone any other creature of similar size? Where do these orcs get their well-forged elite armor? Time to investigate the dwarves! And how do they pay for it?

Wait, on second thought, screw the dwarves. If the orcs have enough wealth to individually craft 30 pieces of plate for the goons we just wiped the floor with, lets go give the tribe back their armor, and get the orcs to hire us. Obviously, the king is being scrimpy if friggin' ORCS can do this well."

Part 2 is that it's retconning the setting to bone the players for no obvious reason. What harm would it do to let them wear the smelly hand-me down of orcs? Or to sell them for 1/2 the price of a normal suit of plate?

Similarly, the excuse for the goblin harpoon tells my players that instead of killing the guy, they win him over to their side, slap a leash on him, treat him well, and have HIM reel in his fellow goblins into smashing distance for the party fighter. Or to somehow get the proper training (surely it isn't rocket science, that goblin didn't have too high of an INT! He's A GOBLIN!). Or whatever.

Besides, saying "No" is no fun and runs counter to every good improvosational tactic known to man. Saying "Yes!" empowers the players, lets them experiment more (and find rewards when they do!), and makes me think more as a DM, while getting on with it.

I don't want or need any game that tells me to constantly say "NO!" to players or it will become unbalanced.

That's Infinite Suck, IMO.

 

[Spatula]

Perhaps you came into the game with 3e and don't know any better

Perhaps you shouldn't confuse a statement of the way things are, with my opinion on how they should be. And for the record I started with the red box (Erol Otus cover).

 

[Dausuul]

In other words: "I have control over this game, but I will make it seem like I don't so you can't actually call me on it."

Or am I missing the point?

Anyways...

I don't see why you can't just let a player use the same tug-of-war mechanics.

You risk major imbalances if you do; there may well be a way to use those mechanics for horrible twinkery.

Basically, imposing a -10 penalty on all associated rolls is a way of allowing the players to attempt stuff like this if they absolutely insist on doing so, but making it utterly sub-optimal so you don't have to worry about balance. It's a safety net so you can deal with this kind of thing on the fly.

If a player really wants his/her PC to be able to use a goblin harpoon effectively, that's when you sit down with the player and hash out some mechanics for a) what will be required to learn to use the harpoon, and b) how it will work in player hands. But that's not something you want to be doing in the middle of an adventure.

 

[VBMEW-01]

Yeah. Bottom line, what does it hurt really. Make it a power they have to select once they are proficient (if it isnt already in the PH, which I haven't given up on). As for adjudicating the things that can be done, we just have to turn to common sense. I'd keep it at same or smaller size,one-at-a-time, and yes there would be vs play with the harpooned creature suffering a slight disadvantage of some sort.

And, like mentioned above, I think there is a better description waiting for us in one of those three holy books we are all waiting on. But if there isn't, we can roll with it

 

[The Little Raven]

The great thing is, it's a magic harpoon, so that even after you've been impaled and dragged around, the wound closes if you have a good nap. (Or get yelled at by the Warlord)

*shrug*

As a child, my hand got electrocuted by a faulty wall socket. I had to have surgery to graft new skin onto it, as well as recurring medical treatments to ensure there was no permanent nerve damage. It took me almost a year to fully recover, with physical therapy. And that was just a hand that was shocked for a second or two.

I broke both my ankles while waterskiing when I was 15 years old. I spent about 3 months in a wheelchair, another 6 in crutches and physical therapy, learning how to walk again.

As a 3rd Edition adventurer, I can be eaten by a tyrannosaur, cut my way out, watch his wound seal itself (WTF?!) and heal from overwhelming acid damage without scars, physical therapy, or nerve damage in about a week. In fact, even before healing, I would be impaired by my whole-body acid burns in exactly no way. In 2nd and earlier, I would heal much slower than this, but it still wouldn't take 9-12 months (with outside assistance) to recover fully.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Agreed. I think 4E ought to have a general guideline for DMs (and if there isn't, I may invent one) which says, "When somebody tries to use a special ability that s/he does not have normal access to, and it's reasonable that that person should be able to attempt it, apply a -10 penalty on all associated rolls." (Or -5, or whatever.)

So, for instance, if you pick up the harpoon, you can use the goblin's harpooning abilities, but with -10 on Tug of War checks and the like, because you don't have the specialized training and practice the goblin does. You won't be any good at it, you'll almost always fail, but if you really want to try--go for it.

Naturally, this could not be a hard-and-fast rule; but as a guideline for on-the-fly DM calls, I think it could work.

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.

 

[Kraydak]

You risk major imbalances if you do; there may well be a way to use those mechanics for horrible twinkery.

The mechanics are flat out stupid. If roll was at a substantial penalty, with positive modifiers for every additional picador, no effect on a failure and 1 square movement (per picador?), it might make sense. What is worse, it defines harpoon rules in a stupidly overpowered fashion. Which brings us to:

Basically, imposing a -10 penalty on all associated rolls is a way of allowing the players to attempt stuff like this if they absolutely insist on doing so, but making it utterly sub-optimal so you don't have to worry about balance. It's a safety net so you can deal with this kind of thing on the fly.

It is not a way of saying "yes" safely. Its is a way of saying "no" for those without the guts to be honest about it. Never, ever, think the players won't recognize it for what it is.

... But that's not something you want to be doing in the middle of an adventure.

Exactly. The DM should not be faced with monster descriptions that force *him* rather than the (not well enough, granted) paid designers to do sanity fixes.

 

[robertliguori]

That's pretty lame, IMO. Part 1 is that it's internally kind of inconsistent:

"So you're telling me I have 30 unique pieces of armor that have only ever been worn by these specific orcs and cannot fit another orc, let alone any other creature of similar size? Where do these orcs get their well-forged elite armor? Time to investigate the dwarves! And how do they pay for it?

Wait, on second thought, screw the dwarves. If the orcs have enough wealth to individually craft 30 pieces of plate for the goons we just wiped the floor with, lets go give the tribe back their armor, and get the orcs to hire us. Obviously, the king is being scrimpy if friggin' ORCS can do this well."

Part 2 is that it's retconning the setting to bone the players for no obvious reason. What harm would it do to let them wear the smelly hand-me down of orcs? Or to sell them for 1/2 the price of a normal suit of plate?

Similarly, the excuse for the goblin harpoon tells my players that instead of killing the guy, they win him over to their side, slap a leash on him, treat him well, and have HIM reel in his fellow goblins into smashing distance for the party fighter. Or to somehow get the proper training (surely it isn't rocket science, that goblin didn't have too high of an INT! He's A GOBLIN!). Or whatever.

Besides, saying "No" is no fun and runs counter to every good improvosational tactic known to man. Saying "Yes!" empowers the players, lets them experiment more (and find rewards when they do!), and makes me think more as a DM, while getting on with it.

I don't want or need any game that tells me to constantly say "NO!" to players or it will become unbalanced.

That's Infinite Suck, IMO.

It's funny. Exhaustive, well-balanced, shared mechanics are the single best way to get "Yes you can." IMHO.

You want to rip the harpoon out of you? OK, you have rules for that. Specifically, you make the movement limitation contingent on not ripping the harpoon out of you; you're moving with the picador because you don't want to take the additional 2d6 damage.

You want to snap off the shaft? OK. The harpoon has stats. That includes hardness and HP.

You want to target the rope and leave the harpoon in you? Rope has stats, as well.

You want to rip it out of you and use it against the goblin? OK. You lack Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Harpoon), so that's a -4 on your attack roll. You want to use the harpoon to its full potential? That's another feat. Here they are.

The goblin? He's a goblin Ftr2, with his two fighter bonus feats going towards EWP(Harpoon) and Harpoon Tactics. He's a low-level badass with the bulk of his badassness devoted towards harpooning. If you devote a similar amount of badassness, you can do similar.

You want to keep the goblin around with you? OK, he's an ECL0 creature. Since there is a unified creature mechanic, he works just fine.

You died and want to take over play from the perspective of the goblin picador that you captured from way back when? OK, you can do that. Here's your character sheet.


Now, you can improvise any one of those, or even any of them. And if you are good at improvisation, then what you pull off will be consistent and balanced. However, the reason we have rules in the first place is generally to avoid the need to adjudicate something on the fly. This sort of thing is why I think that the 3.5E style of rules is worth doing.

 

[Dausuul]

It is not a way of saying "yes" safely. Its is a way of saying "no" for those without the guts to be honest about it. Never, ever, think the players won't recognize it for what it is.

No, it's a way of saying "You can try." Because the PC can try it. Often they'll try just for the heck of it. Sometimes the circumstances are such that even with the -10, in this one bizarre situation, it's worth making the attempt. And sometimes the player rolls a natural 20, it actually works, and everyone yells and cheers.

That's a long way from saying "No, you can't even try." It's also a long way from saying "Yes, you can use the ability as written with no penalty," and watching half your party morph into picadors when they discover that the mechanic is in some fashion Awesome in PC hands.

(I might also allow the use of an action point to remove the -10, or at least cut it down to -5.)

It's funny. Exhaustive, well-balanced, shared mechanics are the single best way to get "Yes you can." IMHO.

<snip>

Now, you can improvise any one of those, or even any of them. And if you are good at improvisation, then what you pull off will be consistent and balanced. However, the reason we have rules in the first place is generally to avoid the need to adjudicate something on the fly. This sort of thing is why I think that the 3.5E style of rules is worth doing.

No RPG ever written has had rules to cover every contingency, not even 3.5E, although God knows it tried. To take an example I've had to deal with more than once, what if the barbarian wants to grab hold of the tail of the dragon swooping down, claw his way up its back as it soars up into the air, and start whacking at the beast as it flies? It's not grappling, because he's not trying to restrain or hinder the dragon, just hold onto it. There's no Climb DC listed for "flying opponent." Nowhere in the list of attack modifiers does it tell you the bonus or penalty for "standing on the enemy's back." The DM is going to have to improvise something, because the rules simply don't tell you how to handle that maneuver.

And there's a heavy cost to trying to create an exhaustive ruleset, which is that the core books become horribly bloated with rules to cover all kinds of weird corner cases. Finding the rules you use on a regular basis becomes ever more frustrating as you skim past endless once-in-a-lifetime scenarios. And when you do encounter a weird corner case, everything grinds to a halt as you go digging for that one rule, somewhere, that tells you what to do in this situation.

Much better IMO to create a ruleset that covers the most common scenarios, preferably with rules that are light, quick, and easy to remember; and that then provides guidelines on improvising to fit unexpected situations.

That's pretty lame, IMO. Part 1 is that it's internally kind of inconsistent:

"So you're telling me I have 30 unique pieces of armor that have only ever been worn by these specific orcs and cannot fit another orc, let alone any other creature of similar size? Where do these orcs get their well-forged elite armor? Time to investigate the dwarves! And how do they pay for it?

Wait, on second thought, screw the dwarves. If the orcs have enough wealth to individually craft 30 pieces of plate for the goons we just wiped the floor with, lets go give the tribe back their armor, and get the orcs to hire us. Obviously, the king is being scrimpy if friggin' ORCS can do this well."

Well, frankly, that's stuff you should have thought of before you put 30 suits of plate armor on a bunch of orcs. Full plate costs 1,500 gold pieces. That's some pretty hefty cash to outfit thirty grunts. I'd assume these were some kind of elite guards, 4th or 5th level.

Possibly I should have made it clearer that all the stuff I described about the armor is what I would consider reasonable limitations. If PCs want to try to make a buck off the orcs' full plate, that's fine, but just as they have the right to demand that orcs in full plate actually leave full plate behind when they die, I have the right to demand that they deal with all the difficulties that would logically ensue from taking it back to town for sale.

Verisimilitude is a two-way street; plate armor (the nonmagical kind, at least) really does require extensive individual fitting, such armor made to fit orcs really would have to be pretty much melted down before it fit humans, and hauling thirty suits of full plate back to town really would be a non-trivial undertaking. This isn't a video game, and there isn't an automated merchant ready to shell out one-half list price for every random thing.

You want to sell the armor to an orcish warlord? Go for it--but you have to find the warlord, and then you have to convince him to not just kill you and take the armor. It won't be easy, but if you pull it off, you'll come away with a load of cash. Could make for a pretty fun adventure, in fact.

What all this boils down to is, if PCs want to do something weird and potentially disruptive to the game, I'm going to think about what obstacles might reasonably stand in their way. I will announce those obstacles and let them decide whether it's worth it. If they decide it is in fact worth it, so be it; I'll figure out a way to cope with any problems that result. But by making them work for it, I ensure that if I am in fact putting in the effort to incorporate whatever-it-is into the game, it's for something the players are genuinely interested in.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Now, you can improvise any one of those, or even any of them. And if you are good at improvisation, then what you pull off will be consistent and balanced. However, the reason we have rules in the first place is generally to avoid the need to adjudicate something on the fly. This sort of thing is why I think that the 3.5E style of rules is worth doing.

Options have value (just ask Mr. Black and Mr. Scholes). But consider the following Activities:

1. Times My PCs Have Killed Goblins: 10,562 (est.)
2. Times My PCs Have (Deliberately) Been Reincarnated As A Goblin: 0

Options have value, but they also have a cost. Imposing a cost (C) on Act.1 for the benefit of receiving a value (V) on Act.2 is only worth it where {C*Act.1 < V*Act.2}. Regardless of the value of C (expressed in units of time) and V (subjective), we know that the value of Act.2 is 0 and that the values of C and Act.1 are positive. Therefore, {C*Act.1 < V*Act.2} is always false.

This sort of thing is why I think that the 3.5E style of rules is not worth doing.