Goblin Picador

[Dausuul]

Anyway, the example of 1e goes against your thesis, as no one that I've ever heard of actually played it exactly as written, because many parts of it were too cumbersome.

I think this is best answered with a quote from the Declaration of Independence:

"...accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

[Keefe the Thief]

The Wizards boards? I would think that's where most of the fanboys congregate...

Take a look at the FR boards over there and be (negatively) enlightened. Or, you know, don´t. Especially not Razz´ "thank you for killing the realms" thread.

 

[small pumpkin man]

The Wizards boards? I would think that's where most of the fanboys congregate...

Absolutely, but they'll continue to be full of fanboys for 3.x for another 6 months yet.

Also, because it's a more commercial site, you get a bunch of people who only know about 4e from 2nd or 3rd hand evidence, repeating the same memes and the same FUD over and over again, whereas places like here, paizo, or rpg.net, you get more of an ongoing conversation.

 

[Jhaelen]

Ever notice that it's always the newbie players who try these things? The experienced players have gotten used to thinking in terms of the rules, rather than the game world.

Quite true! I always noticed that introducing newbs into a group of veteran players was extremely refreshing. Unfortunately the effect quickly wears off as the newb picks up how the game's rules work.

Funny thing is, if you move to a system where the rules aren't so comprehensive, the experienced players rediscover the possibilities implicit in the game world... and often feel tremendously liberated when they do.

This is the biggest reason why I think 3.5E's "a rule for everything" approach was a mistake.

Well, yes and no. The approach was initially very helpful because it allowed me to get rid of an enormous amount of house-rules that had accumulated while playing 2E. It didn't come without disadvantages, though. I'm still on the fence which approach ultimately works better for the kind of games I enjoy playing.

 

[small pumpkin man]

The funny thing is, during the run-up to 3e the same exact concept was touted as one of the improvements of the game (and it was) - a unified conflict resolution mechanic (d20 + mods vs DC) vs all the little subsystems or grey areas of 1 & 2e. Easier to adjucate player actions, etc. The 3e DMG has a lengthy section on how to deal with ad hoc circumstances on checks and provides a page of example DCs for situations not covered by the rules, to give new DMs guidance. Now we get the same exact hype, as if we were still using 2e as a baseline.

Arguably, many other products like True20/M&M or even just Cyberpunk have done this, and did it before 3e, and D&D is unlikely to ever approach that type of actual universal system because that's not really what D&D's about. Doesn't mean they can't continue to build upon and fix the mistakes of the previous version.

More on topic, I'm going to argue that 3e was a good step in that direction, it just didn't make it all the way. Turning/Grapple etc. Also, note that the thing in particular that gets touted is easy/interesting things to do in combat. While you could argue that this is because 4e is totally combat orientated, another way to look at it is that the current d20 + skill modifer vs dc works (well, between levels 1-10 anyway), but the current choice between attack/opposed attack/touch attack/opposed stat check/save for made up in combat actions doesn't, at least not in the way skills do, or d20 + stat attack vs defense/dc hopefully does.

 

[Spatula]

Arguably, many other products like True20/M&M or even just Cyberpunk have done this, and did it before 3e, and D&D is unlikely to ever approach that type of actual universal system because that's not really what D&D's about. Doesn't mean they can't continue to build upon and fix the mistakes of the previous version.

I thought True20 & M&M were d20 derivatives? Or were you only speaking of Cyberpunk 2020 in predating 3e... Anyway, the point wasn't that D&D did it first or best but that it was a marked improvement over what we had before.

More on topic, I'm going to argue that 3e was a good step in that direction, it just didn't make it all the way. Turning/Grapple etc. Also, note that the thing in particular that gets touted is easy/interesting things to do in combat. While you could argue that this is because 4e is totally combat orientated

D&D is totally combat oriented. The bulk of the rules have always been concerned with resolving combat.

another way to look at it is that the current d20 + skill modifer vs dc works (well, between levels 1-10 anyway), but the current choice between attack/opposed attack/touch attack/opposed stat check/save for made up in combat actions doesn't, at least not in the way skills do, or d20 + stat attack vs defense/dc hopefully does.

Sure, 4e further unifies the mechanic in that it appears to get rid of opposed checks (Str vs Str type checks are now Str vs Fort defense, for example) and active defense rolls (Fort/Ref/Will now being static). The difference between attacks & touch attacks still exists - a touch attack in 3e is an attack roll vs Ref defense in 4e. Anyway, this is definitely an improvement, but it's not some radical change over what we have now. Pick a relevant skill/ability/whatever, pick a DC, have the player roll.

 

[Skyduke]

So... After reading all of this thread, it boils down to:

The goblin picador isn't realistic.

Well. Err... I don't know how to say this... But Dungeons and Dragons isn't exactly the most realistic of role-playing games. But to people that say things like "If he drags you over a chasm, you won't fall because he can only drag you five squares", I don't really know what to say. I understand it was said in jest, but still.

To people who say "The wound should bleed" or "Hit points should be a reflection of real physical damage sustained", I would like to ask where they have been all this time. No one in real life can survive falling from the height a mid-level fighter can. The game is not realistic. If a weapon isn't poisoned or doesn't have specific abilities, a fighter can keep on fighting until he is almost dead without any penalties. Not realistic either.

Dungeons and Dragons was never a simulation game. There are other, more realistic systems for that. As for myself, I welcome the changes I have seen so far in the 4th edition. They add a much welcome element of strategy to every fight. This will certainly create a certain "barrier to entrance" to new players, since it seems to me that even small mistakes now can certainly jeopardize the whole group more easily. But it will also probably get rid of quite a few of the stupid (read: less tactically oriented, "I charge in and slash everything to ribbons" ) players.

The goblin picador is a wonderful monster, with great mechanics, but a stupid name.

 

[Dausuul]

So... After reading all of this thread, it boils down to:

The goblin picador isn't realistic.

Well. Err... I don't know how to say this... But Dungeons and Dragons isn't exactly the most realistic of role-playing games. But to people that say things like "If he drags you over a chasm, you won't fall because he can only drag you five squares", I don't really know what to say. I understand it was said in jest, but still.

To people who say "The wound should bleed" or "Hit points should be a reflection of real physical damage sustained", I would like to ask where they have been all this time. No one in real life can survive falling from the height a mid-level fighter can. The game is not realistic. If a weapon isn't poisoned or doesn't have specific abilities, a fighter can keep on fighting until he is almost dead without any penalties. Not realistic either.

Dungeons and Dragons was never a simulation game. There are other, more realistic systems for that. As for myself, I welcome the changes I have seen so far in the 4th edition. They add a much welcome element of strategy to every fight. This will certainly create a certain "barrier to entrance" to new players, since it seems to me that even small mistakes now can certainly jeopardize the whole group more easily. But it will also probably get rid of quite a few of the stupid (read: less tactically oriented, "I charge in and slash everything to ribbons" ) players.

The goblin picador is a wonderful monster, with great mechanics, but a stupid name.

*resists suicidal urge to dive back into argument about the nature of hit points*

My only real complaint--and it's not so much a complaint as a concern, since we haven't seen the MM entry for it yet--is that the picador's defining special ability seems... wonky.

I don't expect the mechanics to be totally realistic, or to account for every possible corner case. That's what we have DMs for, and I'm prepared to adjudicate those. What worries me is when the mechanics, used as they were designed and intended to be used, raise immediate and serious verisimilitude issues. I should be able to use the mechanic on a player, absent special circumstances, and not have that player react with, "What the hell? That makes no sense!"

In this case, the reaction I expect is, "What the hell? How is one tiny little goblin holding me in place?"

I can come up with excuses to justify it, but if I'm having to make excuses, I've already sacrificed a lot of immersion.

Still, maybe the Monster Manual has a description of the picador's harpoon attack which makes it intuitively obvious why it works the way it does. I hope so.

 

[VBMEW-01]

*resists suicidal urge to dive back into argument about the nature of hit points*

My only real complaint--and it's not so much a complaint as a concern, since we haven't seen the MM entry for it yet--is that the picador's defining special ability seems... wonky.

I don't expect the mechanics to be totally realistic, or to account for every possible corner case. That's what we have DMs for, and I'm prepared to adjudicate those. What worries me is when the mechanics, used as they were designed and intended to be used, raise immediate and serious verisimilitude issues. I should be able to use the mechanic on a player, absent special circumstances, and not have that player react with, "What the hell? That makes no sense!"

In this case, the reaction I expect is, "What the hell? How is one tiny little goblin holding me in place?"

I can come up with excuses to justify it, but if I'm having to make excuses, I've already sacrificed a lot of immersion.

Still, maybe the Monster Manual has a description of the picador's harpoon attack which makes it intuitively obvious why it works the way it does. I hope so.

I believe it probably does. It looks to me like all their prereleases are kind of lean on the details and I look for more long-winded descriptions in the book. But for me, if you stab a harpoon in a guy and then go walking off, trailing its tether, he is bound to follow you. Likewise, if you pull the rope he will come closer.

 

[Naszir]

What I have a problem with here (and I subscribe to the "Hit Points are abstract and loss of hit points does not mean that actual physical damage takes place every time" side) is Consistency.

With a creature like the Goblin Picador, every time he "hits" with the harpoon, it has to be physical damage or his ability to "move" the character shouldn't work.

However, this opens up a new can of worms with creatures that do poison damage (or something similar) with every hit because it also requires actual physical contact for that to work. (At lease in my mind).

Maybe there could be a Wound Threshold made up to mimic the Healing Surge. So only when a character takes damage equal to 1/4 of their total hit points in one hit is it considered actual physical contact.

This way a Goblin Picador could do damage but only when it "hits" a character for more than 1/4 of that characters total hit points in one shot is the harpoon now considered attached to the character and the Picador can do his special maneuvers.

This would make much more sense to me.