Grapple: LIVING SHIELD [mearls]

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Sounds like a new feat:

Meat Shield

When you are attacked, you may make an attack roll against any opponent you threaten other than your attacker (ie, the meat shield) as an immediate action. If your attack succeeds, you pull the meat shield between yourself and your attacker, successfully warding off the blow. If the attacker's attack roll was sufficient to hit the meat shield's AC, the meat shield takes appropriate damage from the attack.

 

[Stormtalon]

So does this make strapping halflings to your shield a viable defensive tactic?

Hey, I think we've found the ecological niche for gnomes!

 

[mearls]

It's a unique ability for that bugbear. It isn't part of the core grapple rules for a couple reasons. The big one is that it would be really annoying if the PCs (or a big monster) could do that in every fight.

It's tempting to make it a core rule, or put that rule into grapple, but here's why we didn't.

One of the aims of 4e was to make the rules that everyone needs to know as small as possible. The game becomes complicated very quickly, as you add in powers and rules to cover all the corner cases, so it's important to reign that stuff in. Otherwise, you end up with a bloated mess.

So, things like the human shield maneuver are there for specific monsters. I imagine that when we do unarmed combat maneuvers, you'll find something similar. I also believe that the rogue has some abilities to trick enemies into missing the rogue and hitting one of the monster's allies.

Now, rules bloat is a bad thing, but it also lets you do more stuff simply by mapping out more ground. The aim with the DMG is to give enough of a framework that a DM can easily adjudicate stuff on the fly in response to crazy ideas that the players come up with.

 

[Wormwood]

It's a unique ability for that bugbear.

<snip>

So, things like the human shield maneuver are there for specific monsters.

Yep---that's what I guessed when I saw the write-up.

I enthusiastically approve of this design decision---another example of the 'back to basics' approach that seems to be motivating the designers.

 

[Rechan]

Hey Mike!

How about garroting/strangling? Is that also something specific to the Bugbear Strangler, or can any assassin get the drop on someone and do the ol' Sam Fisher Squeeze?

 

[A'koss]

Well I hope it makes it in as an unarmed combat ability (as well as IH-style throwing, slamming, etc.) because it's just too cool sweet not to have some way of being able to do that.

 

[Rechan]

Count me in as wanting some serious Slam/Throw/etc maneuvers. I've wanted to play a Strong Man type for some time!

 

[Lizard]

It's a unique ability for that bugbear. It isn't part of the core grapple rules for a couple reasons. The big one is that it would be really annoying if the PCs (or a big monster) could do that in every fight.

I just really, really, cannot wrap my mind around how this is justified in-game. Bugbears are just big, strong, humanoids; if a STR 16 Bugbear can do something, I can't see any logical reason why a human fighter of similar size and strength can't learn the same trick. I appreciate your game design reasons, but I think the gain in simplicity is not balanced by the loss in verisimilitude.

As noted in the death&dying article, "believable" isn't the same as "realistic", and I well understand that, but having mundane, non-magical actions be available to one species of humanoid but not any other is neither realistic NOR believable. If the problem is "It's such a good move, everyone will do it!", then the solution is to make it less of a good move -- note that while such things can be done "in reality", they aren't the first choice of every hand-to-hand fighter in every combat, which means a game can model ways to make it difficult, but not impossible, balancing the utility with risk and difficulty. (i.e, it's hard to pull off (meaning you might waste a round trying instead of getting in a much more likely hit), or it exposes you to extra damage -- since D&D doesn't use facing, something like 'if the attacker makes the roll to NOT hit the human shield, he does +1d6 to you since you can't dodge very well', or whatever.)

Saying "DMs should handwave it" leads to what GURPS termed the 'flour in the face' problem -- if, in one combat, you let a PC get a big advantage by tossing a bag of flour in an enemy's face, they start carrying bags of flour instead of swords. Thus, the manuever needs to have risks/downsides or have a "works once, then everyone's heard of the trick and is wise to it" sort of thing built in.

 

[HeinorNY]

It's a unique ability for that bugbear.

:´(

Couldn't it at least become a specific power a character could learn, as a talent or feat?
I think I want to make a bugbear strangler character

 

[mearls]

Saying "DMs should handwave it" leads to what GURPS termed the 'flour in the face' problem -- if, in one combat, you let a PC get a big advantage by tossing a bag of flour in an enemy's face, they start carrying bags of flour instead of swords. Thus, the manuever needs to have risks/downsides or have a "works once, then everyone's heard of the trick and is wise to it" sort of thing built in.

The DM is NOT handwaving it. He's using the guidelines for DCs, defenses, modifiers, damage, and other factors by level that are in the DMG.

The thing is, we CAN make this a rule as a maneuver or feat. We just didn't have room in the first book. It's a cool maneuver for a monster with a garrote, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

We could make rules for every maneuver that sounds cool, but then we'd have a 1,000 page PH and maybe 5 or 6 people patient enough to play the game.

The nice thing about supplements (aside from my paycheck ) is that they allow you to eventually reach that 1,000 page mass, but not all at once.