Grapple: LIVING SHIELD [mearls]

[IceFractal]

Making it a feat - I'd be on-board with that in a second, and all it'd take is a footnote saying which tier feat it was. Or if it was an inherent ability of a creature - like a Choker's Quickness: you can't have it because you aren't a Choker - that'd be fine as well.

The only thing that bothers me is that it isn't even an inherent Bugbear ability. It's an ability of one specific type of Bugbear (but not a single unique Bugbear, a whole category), that PCs, even Bugbear PCs, can't learn. And that's irritating.

Aren't there enough non-humanoid monsters to hold all the awesome not-for-PCs abilities? I'm perfectly fine with a demon warrior that can use three swords at once or whatnot. But if I'm a human fighter, and I'm facing other human warriors, who are not legendary swordmasters or from some secret military school, let me be on the same playing field.

 

[Nork]

When I say I want a monster with a cool move, no more no less...

Why do you need to load down a monster with a ton of character levels and templates to make it do something that could just be handled simply by one or two exceptions?

Bugbears are sneaky. In 1e they had a flat 50% chance of surprising the party.

Having a Bugbear that has a 'cool move' where they jump out from hiding and strangles somebody seems so much better at portraying a Bugbear's story/role in the world than pages of stats and rules from three different books, most of which were written without Bugbears in mind.

If the players learn its 'cool move' ("Oh hey, if we know Bugbears are around, watch your back, they like to jump out from shadows and strangle people")... Isn't that just teaching them to expect a Bugbear to act like a Bugbears? Players expecting Bugbears to use their cool moves to do what Bugbears do, but not what Gnolls or Orcs do seems like the whole point.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Making it a feat - I'd be on-board with that in a second, and all it'd take is a footnote saying which tier feat it was. Or if it was an inherent ability of a creature - like a Choker's Quickness: you can't have it because you aren't a Choker - that'd be fine as well.

The only thing that bothers me is that it isn't even an inherent Bugbear ability. It's an ability of one specific type of Bugbear (but not a single unique Bugbear, a whole category), that PCs, even Bugbear PCs, can't learn. And that's irritating.

I don't think you fully grasp the new "monsters don't follow PC rules" idea.

Monsters don't HAVE feats anymore. And we have no idea whether "bugbear PCs" could get this ability, because there are no rules anymore for making monstrous PCs. If bugbears are one of the few MM races to get a full PC-race workup (like gnomes will), then who knows, maybe Bear Hug will be a racial feat available to them.

 

[Sitara]

Two things from mearls posts inj this thread I find disappoingting:

There wont be unarmed maneuvers in the PHB
There wont be assassin style maneuvers in the PHB.

Ok I understand space reason, but come on. UNARMED combat is just as imnportant as sword fighting. I mean, you may as well have cut out sword maneuvers while you were at it.

 

[Belorin]

Before anyone starts going on about cool wicked abilities of monsters, let's see what will be in the PHB first, there may be even more wicked moves in it.

Bel

 

[Kaisoku]

I don't think you fully grasp the new "monsters don't follow PC rules" idea.

Monsters don't HAVE feats anymore. And we have no idea whether "bugbear PCs" could get this ability, because there are no rules anymore for making monstrous PCs. If bugbears are one of the few MM races to get a full PC-race workup (like gnomes will), then who knows, maybe Bear Hug will be a racial feat available to them.

I think he was talking about adding it AS a feat for players to get... in addition to having it as a monster ability. Not making it a "monster feat".

Which is what Mearls hinted at basically... that it's such a cool ability, it'll likely be added to the unarmed combat abilities too.


I think the way they are making 4e work here is the best of both worlds.

If it seems like a Monster should have it, then there will be rules in the DMG on how to make the monster have it, without needing to make the monster PC-useable.

But if it also seems like a player should be capable of it, then it may come up as a "training path" or whatever the nomenclature is.

In EITHER case, it's still going to be a special maneuver that "not just anybody" can do. Keeping it special.


That solves both issues: DM's time/workload being kept low, and keeping cool abilities special, even if put in the hands of PCs.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think some people really need the 4E DMG. Me, for example.
From what has transpired so far, there seems to be an awesome amount of advice in it - if there are guidelines that tell me how to improvise when a PC wants to create a meat shield, without me having to buy a supplement or guessing around, that's awesome.

Too many interesting ideas that players can come up with simply don't have clear rules in the core rules of a game. As a DM, you either say "No" or guesstimate around, based on personal experience (which, well, sucks for beginner DMs, but often works fine for experienced DMs). If I can get the experience of a dozen or so designers and DMs distilled in the DMG that gives me guidelines to rule situations that are not exactly inside the normal rules, that's fantastic!

It also means you don't have to say "NO" if a player tries something that is normally a feat ror class ability - you can use the guidelines instead, if it seems reasonable enough. ("Can I cast Fireball by improsiving?" "No, learn the spell." "Can I try to throw the unconcious guy at his comrades" "That's normally the "Throw" feat, so you must try it improsived..."

 

[Jhaelen]

Ditto. I'll add that I don't want monsters who are just one cool move. How many times can you fight the bugbear strangler before it becomes old and tired.

Well, at least twice: the first time you're surprised by its ability, the second time you expect it and act accordingly.

I immediately see two questions here:
1) Is the old bugbear which doesn't have a cool move better in that regard? How many times can you fight a 3E standard bugbear before it gets old?
2) How often do you expect to encounter a specific subtype of a monster in your adventuring career? In 3E you need an average of 260 encounters to reach level 20. How many of these will typically involve bugbears?

The thing is: D&D has always had such an overabundance of creatures that you'll never have to encounter the same creature twice, unless your DM has a certain favorite or strives for a more 'realistic' environment by restricting himself to a certain subset of monsters he deemed appropriate for his setting.

So, I don't think it will really matter if a single monster variant's special trick gets old.

In the case of the bugbear strangler the main problem is that there doesn't seem to be any supernatural or magical effect involved in the maneuver, thus leading an observer to the conclusion that anyone should be able to learn the maneuver.
If the maneuver had some obviously otherworldly quality to it noone would question its uniqueness and accept that only bugbear stranglers are able to do it.

 

[xechnao]

He's using the guidelines for DCs, defenses, modifiers, damage, and other factors by level that are in the DMG.

How about this:

Bluff [trained power]: Each bluff has a subject and an object.
The power is trained to be used against one type of defense (Fortitude, Reflex, AC, Will). Make a "d20+bluff skill" against the bluff's subject's defense you are trained to bluff. If you succeed your bluff is in place. The bluff's DC is equal to the difference of your bluff skill minus the target's defense (note that this can be negative). The object of the bluff makes a roll to avoid the bluff: DC = bluff's DC+his level. Note that the higher the object's level the worse for him. This means that people's power level works against them in a bluff.

If objects are suspect of the bluff they do not add their level to the DC they roll against but instead they add it to their roll. To be suspect of one's bluffs you need to pass an appropriate knowledge test.

Examples of subjects and objects:
-gambling. The subject is your adversary's gaming skill and the object is your adversary.
-Bugbear special grappling meat shield move. The subject is the adversary he is grappling with and the object is the subject's ally that comes to attack. If the bluff succeeds the object attacks the subject instead of the bugbear.

 

[Spatula]

Sounds kewl, but that one creature gets it and it never appears elsewhere is very, very gamist. Or video/board-gamey, if you prefer. It's also a mistake to give every monster its own special rules... the initial 3e design was actually an attempt to get away from the special-rules bloat of 2e monsters, and with good reason. Giving every monster unique rules makes the DM's job harder, not easier.