Grapple: LIVING SHIELD [mearls]

[Wormwood]

Its actually the exact opposite of 'back to basics'. Its fairly complex- every monster has its own small pile of special rules that only apply to it or a handful of other monsters. Universal rules would be back to basics. Monster specific rules involve either memorizing every single monster you're using, or always having the rulebook open to the monster's entry.

I'm going to have each monster's stat block in front of me during the encounter anyway, so I don't really see the problem.

As a DM, you only need to memorize the core rules. Exceptions (like unique monster abilities) are only necessary to know for the duration of an encounter.

It's like Magic™: once you know the rules, you don't need to memorize every single card. But when they're in your hand, you have everything you need to play them effectively (and creatively).

 

[Wormwood]

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?

Exactly.

 

[eleran]

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.

Mike,

I have forwarded this post to The Rouse for the obvious (read: bolded) reasons.

 

[mmu1]

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..."

Here's a prediction - and I hope for your sake I'm wrong: The 4E DMG will not deliver anything of the sort. We'll get some tables on what the appropriate DCs, ability scores, HP, AC, damage and special abilities are for "challenges" of different levels, and maybe some advice on how to tweak them. So if you want to use someone as a meat shield, you can go to the DMG to see what the "attack roll" for that ability and the DC to break free should be at the level the party's at.

Don't get me wrong, what you describe sounds really neat... but it's just a little too perfect to be made to work. I don't think there's a happy middle ground between vague guidelines on how to improvise and having actual rules in place to deal with all the strange things a player might try. (and if someone can make that work, they shouldn't stick it into the 4E DMG, they should publish it as the world's most flexible RPG system)

 

[Lizard]

This is something I'm totally fine with. It keeps these special moves.. well.. special. Monsters and Characters that use them will remain unique in doing so, rather than just getting a +4 at doing it, etc.

I'm fine with that too. In fact, I like where 4e is going with combat in general -- most people can swing a sword, but if you're well trained in it, you have plenty of tricks you can do. My issue is with the concept of "special super secret magic training" whose main purpose is to make each monster tactically interesting in an encounter but has no in-game logic as to why someone else with the right body shape, attributes, etc, can't learn it.

By all means, if someone wants to learn "Human Shield", make them spend feats/talent picks to do so.

I'd like something like this:
Anyone can try a simple grapple. They probably won't succeed, but desperate times, etc.
A low-level feat available to all is something like "Grapple Training". This makes it easy to perform a basic grapple, but offers few options.
Once you have "Grapple Training", you can learn "Grappling Tricks", each of which grants you a Nifty Move.

My understanding is this is how weapons training already works in 4e, more-or-less.

 

[withak]

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.

.sigged

 

[Lizard]

If your making a Bugbear Crippler, you want a monster with a cool move. No more no less.

I just have trouble with the whole idea of bugbears (or anyone else) having this kind of categorization scheme based on some sort of innate power. Did little Bobby Bugbear go to Crippler School? Was he born with the special Crippling Gene? Did a Bugbear Shaman go to his grib and annoint him the Tribe Crippler?

If I want a bugbear who's good at hand to hand, I give him high dex, high str, and improved grapple, and maybe add a level of monk. I can call him a Crippler, but, mechanically, he's built like everyone else. "Crippler" just becomes a term bugbears use for their nasty unarmed warriors, something which makes sense in the context of the game world.

You can either make a game system where you have to pull out a pile of rule books and go through a monster creation system that claims to be balanced, and then 'do taxes' until you you massage it until it does all the things you want it to (and may do other things you DON'T want it to, as a result of getting to your goal via the construction system).

It's never bothered me. I find it one of the most fun parts of game prep, buidling Interesting Monsters using the rich set of tools available to me. 4e is going to give me different tools, I get that, but I hope they aren't so simple that they're no fun to play with. I don't mind if there's a quick-n-dirty way for those who like it or need it, but I want depth.

I think the latter mechanic is better, because the purpose of having a monster is to have an interesting and balanced fight.

See, to my mind, the purpose of having a monster is because the PCs are somewhere where the monsters are, or the monsters have come to where the PCs are. Fight them, talk to them, run away from them...that's the PCs choice. The monsters are there, doing their own monstery thing, and didn't appear from the void when the PCs walked by and will still be around when the PCs aren't paying attention to them anymore. The Bugbear Gods didn't make bugbears to fight PCs, and if the only reason for a bugbear, in game context, to have a power is "Because it's cool for use on PCs", then, it seriously grates on me. You can have interesting monsters without designing them as if they have no existence beyond the battlemat.

For example, you could say "Bugbear tribes are dominated by the greatest fighters, but duels to the death leave a lot of powerful warriors dead, and the tribe is weakened. Thus, for battles between warriors of the same tribe, bugbears have developed a wide range of brutal hand-to-hand fighting styles, mastering techniques few others have learned. This harsh, painful, style is rarely taught outside the bugbear tribes; only a rare few exiled or enslaved bugbears might be able to teach it to outsiders."

This is more interesting, to me, than "Bugbears strangle you because the developers thought a strangling monster was fun." It provides a story hook for how an interested PCs can learn the Bugbear Fighting Arts, without it being available to anyone. And if they meet an NPC elf who knows Bugbear Judo, they automatically know the elf has an interesting tale to tell...

Damn. Now I have to go write up Bugbear martial arts. Well, maybe I'll make it Gnoll, since Bugbears already have a 'niche' in my world and I don't want to double-dip them...

 

[TwoSix]

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. And how many new and "nifty" bugbears can you fight before all the powers become dull.

We had that in 3e. It was called "giving monsters class levels and Prestige Class levels." Except it took an hour to stat, and they'd still get to use one or two cool powers before they died.

 

[Lizard]

We had that in 3e. It was called "giving monsters class levels and Prestige Class levels." Except it took an hour to stat, and they'd still get to use one or two cool powers before they died.

I don't get this "an hour to stat" thing. It's never taken me that long to slam a few levels on to something, and for most cases, I can use PCgen and do it 2 minutes.

 

[Wormwood]

If I want a bugbear who's good at hand to hand, I give him high dex, high str, and improved grapple, and maybe add a level of monk. I can call him a Crippler, but, mechanically, he's built like everyone else.

Personally, I'd rather just pick a set of level-appropriate stats, add a couple of lines ("If the Crippler hits you, your movement is reduced to 1/2"), and get on with the game.

Who knew I missed this aspect of 1e so much?