Goblin Picador

[Andor]

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?

I love the Picador's special abilities and will absolutely love DMing a few of these guys in a large skirmish, keeping the ranged PCs in range of our spellcaster while the melee try to kill the Picadors before they can do too much damage. That sounds like a fun and memorable encounter to me. If it doesn't sound like fun for you because it breaks your SOD, well, too bad, I guess you don't be playing any games with me. But let those of us who would like to play it talk amongst ourselves, ok?

You don't get it at all aparently. I don't dislike 4e, and I have no idea if I will play it or not. I would very much like to like 4e, but I have not yet formed a concrete opinion, and will not untill I actually see it and possibly not untill I play it. This is not a forum for mindless hate of 4e nor is it a place for mindless love of an unseen system. We still don't know enough about 4e, that's why we are discussing it and dissecting each bit we find.

We don't yet know how the rules address the PC's trying to use the tricks of the picador. The harpoon could be a listed weapon in the PHB, we don't know. The rules for the picador in the MM may address the problem, we don't know.

I do know however that in 1st and 2nd edition D&D you had monsters pop up with weird weapons with no particular guidelines for how these things interacted with PCs. And so it was up to individual GM's to adjudicate, and some handled it well and some handled it poorly. If 4e has sufficient slop in it that the game will start to vary wildly between individual tables as different GMs take on these gaps in the rules differently we will be returning to an era in D&D where it was harder to find a game that suited any given player. That made it harder to play becuase a poor GM could make the game so much worse, and you approached every new table with trepidation. And so I note that this is something for me to look for when 4e comes out, so I can form an informed opinion at that time.

I discuss it here, because it is a concern of mine for 4e, and this is a forum for discussion of 4e. It's not mindless hatred and naysaying, it's a point of concern raised by the incompleteness of the information we have.

 

[Dausuul]

I find it really funny that some folks keep insisting 4e is more of a straight minis wargame than ever before (the 4e sux camp), while other folks are saying the rules are not Simulationist enough, which seems to imply the game isn't wargamey enough (also the 4e sux camp).

On the contrary, the complaints that 4E is too "board-gamey" are largely emphasizing the lack of simulation, the disconnect between the tactical combat rules and the world of the game.

The focus of a strategy game is on using the rules to put yourself in the most advantageous possible position, even if that totally violates any correspondence between the game and the imagined reality upon which it is based. The focus of a role-playing game is upon using the rules to help create the sense of being in that imagined reality.

Of course, actual wargames do focus on simulation, attempting to reproduce as much as possible the tactical experience of commanding a real (or fantastical) army. I've yet to see any complaints that 4E goes too much in this direction.

Incidentally, I'm not espousing the complaints of excessive "board-gameyness" or over-abstraction in 4E. Those are concerns for me, but they are far outweighed by the advantages of the new system. Just pointing out that the contradiction you're setting up here is not, in fact, a contradiction.

 

[Mistwell]

I know I'm the newbie on the site, having just joined it after Gary Gygax's passing and my consequential resurgence in RPG gaming, but it sure seems like there are a lot of people on the 4E boards who absolutely hate 4E and take any opportunity they can to moan about their particular gripe - the most recent ones being HP and diagonal movement.

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?

I love the Picador's special abilities and will absolutely love DMing a few of these guys in a large skirmish, keeping the ranged PCs in range of our spellcaster while the melee try to kill the Picadors before they can do too much damage. That sounds like a fun and memorable encounter to me. If it doesn't sound like fun for you because it breaks your SOD, well, too bad, I guess you don't be playing any games with me. But let those of us who would like to play it talk amongst ourselves, ok?

First, welcome to the board!

Second, I agree with you, and a lot of other people do as well. Right now, the best thing to do is try and be tolerate of the 4e haters. It happened with the change to 3e as well. Once the game actually comes out, after a while most of the haters will change their minds or find some other place to post (like a 3e forum here). Just try and keep in mind that whatever edition people end up liking the most, we're all D&D players, which makes us all peers of one another.

 

[Wolfspider]

I know I'm the newbie on the site, having just joined it after Gary Gygax's passing and my consequential resurgence in RPG gaming,

Welcome to ENWorld! I love it here, and I hope you do, too. There are some amazingly creative and kind folks here.

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 it doesn't sound like fun for you because it breaks your SOD, well, too bad, I guess you don't be playing any games with me. But let those of us who would like to play it talk amongst ourselves, ok?

So, how much criticism of D&D 4th edition can a poster make before he or she begins to infringe on your peace?

 

[LostSoul]

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

Then you deal with the twinkery, if it comes up, in a straight-forward, honest fashion. "Look, that maneuver I let you guys do is too good; it's unbalanced and will break the game."

Saying "Yes" and rigging it so the PC will fail when you want to say "No" does not sound like good communication to me.

But generally, I don't think rolling an attack vs. a defense is going to break the game.

 

[LostSoul]

No RPG ever written has had rules to cover every contingency, not even 3.5E, although God knows it tried.

I guess it depends on how you define RPGs, but I don't think that's true.

 

[baberg]

So, how much criticism of D&D 4th edition can a poster make before he or she begins to infringe on your peace?

Oh, about the time when the first post on a thread about the creative ability of a new monster isn't to discuss that monster, but commenting on the harpoon's wound being "magical" thus derailing half the thread into yet another HP mechanic argument.

I should have said that people should keep their criticism on-topic instead of the "leave me in peace" line. Criticizing the harpoon ability for being too powerful, or the vast amount of DM adjudications that it could bring about? That's fine by me and I welcome the discussion. Talking about healing the wounds caused by the harpoon because that's that particular poster's personal axe to grind? Bad. We've got other topic to discuss the HP mechanic.

Maybe I should take some time and lurk a little more before I post any more.

 

[Wormwood]

Maybe I should take some time and lurk a little more before I post any more.

I feel like that sometimes.

 

[VBMEW-01]

Not a total failure

Wow, some actual talk about the picador in my absence...WOOTDANG!!!

I love that stuff earlier, page 4 I think, about using him (or her) to keep the rangers in check...cool tactic that I'm definitely into.

OFF TOPIC: 30 suits of full plate, while hard as hell to get back to town, is an easy fix. Let them sell the dern things, but with a twist. The DMG specificly mentions overstock rules and that too much selling can break down the local economy abit. So maybe instead of 750 gp each (500 or less really for the inferior crafting) the guy at ARMORWORLD just sighs and checks his books, citing that he wont be able to move them quickly enough to realize a good profit. He offers a pretty fair 150-225 gp each and its pretty much do it or don't. I mean there are numerous half-orcs about (in 3E) anyway, and D&D is quite the cosmopolitan world. How I'd do/done it.

OFF-TOPIC: I've lost about 10 hit points reading all that HP stuff. I feel a little of ya'll's arguments there, and respect your right to do so, but I gotta tell you that one-hit wonders get old fast. Let's cry woe over the lack of certain classes, diagonal movement, hell anything so long as it's something else! My mind is a terrible thing to drain.

Let's all just agree to disagree

 

[Dausuul]

Then you deal with the twinkery, if it comes up, in a straight-forward, honest fashion. "Look, that maneuver I let you guys do is too good; it's unbalanced and will break the game."

Saying "Yes" and rigging it so the PC will fail when you want to say "No" does not sound like good communication to me.

Since I don't want to say "No," doing so seems inadvisable.

Retconning unbalanced abilities away is sometimes necessary, but nobody likes doing it and nobody likes having it done to them. And allowing free use of monster "special attacks" is going to result in a lot of retconning, because some of those special attacks will inevitably turn out to be extremely powerful.

What I want is to give the PCs a chance to use the ability, since they should be able to try. But I want it to be much less powerful, in general, than the abilities their characters know well and have trained to use. The odds should be heavily against them, and they should know that--but they should still have a chance.

If you're going to allow the use of such special abilities at will with no penalty, what's the point of even bothering to write down martial powers on your character sheet? After all, all characters should be allowed to try the Hungry Piranha Leaping Elbow Strike. It's ridiculous to say that PCs can attempt the special maneuvers of monsters but not those of their own fellow party members.

Imposing a heavy penalty on ad-hoc uses of such abilities prevents most potential balance issues; it ensures that the PCs' own powers remain the defining elements of their characters' combat styles; and it makes sense. The picador has been training for who knows how long to throw that harpoon. Certainly, what he can do with it is quite impressive. Why should a PC pick up the harpoon and instantly be able to do the same thing just as well as the picador? It should be a desperation move or a crazy stunt, not something that goes in the PC's regular repertoire.

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.