# Goblin Picador



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 12, 2008)

> *Goblin Picador * Level 2 Controller
> Small Natural Humanoid
> *Initiative* +9 *Senses:* Perception +1
> *HP* 26; *Bloodied* 13
> ...




Oh my god do I love this critter.  I never thought I could be excited about a harpoon!

If this is new weapons at work then I can't wait to see the rest.  The harpooned ability is quite cool, and kinda useful in a pseudo-_marking_ sort of way (though of course not the same).  It also ties up the enemy's action, which is always great.

I just deeply hope that other weapons have cool utilitarian concepts, as I see tons of uses for this ability, which is subtle and really minor at best.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> Oh my god do I love this critter.  I never thought I could be excited about a harpoon!
> 
> If this is new weapons at work then I can't wait to see the rest.  The harpooned ability is quite cool, and kinda useful in a pseudo-_marking_ sort of way (though of course not the same).  It also ties up the enemy's action, which is always great.
> 
> I just deeply hope that other weapons have cool utilitarian concepts, as I see tons of uses for this ability, which is subtle and really minor at best.




The great thing is, it's a _magic_ harpoon, so that even after you've been impaled and dragged around, the wound closes if you have a good nap. (Or get yelled at by the Warlord)

(If you want hit points to be explicitly non-wounding, then, don't include game effects which are explicitly wounding...)

I like the concept and the mechanics; it just doesn't mesh well with the other mechanics. (Adding non-magic healing so you didn't "have to have a cleric" -- good. Not thinking through the disconnect where people can accept magically healing all wounds but not non-magically healing them all -- not so good.)

Wait, don't tell me -- the harpoon actually just pins your clothes/armor/etc. Even if you're naked. 

EDIT: Str 16 goblin? Wow! He's a brute! (Despite being a Controller. You know what I mean!)

EDIT 2: This would work great if it used a mancatcher like the kuo-toa...


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Mar 12, 2008)

Harpooned seems _awfully_ powerful.  On _every_ hit the goblin now controls the movement of an opponent that requires a standard action and a successful STR vs. Fort to undo.

I like the idea, but I think maybe it should allow a save to end instead of requiring a STR vs. Fort standard action to remove.


----------



## DeusExMachina (Mar 12, 2008)

It would be kind of cool if a harpooned character could pull the goblin towards him too, though... A tug of war can go both ways, right???


----------



## Wystan (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard - Sarcastically Even said:
			
		

> The great thing is, it's a magic harpoon, so that even after you've been impaled and dragged around, the wound closes if you have a good nap. (Or get yelled at by the Warlord)
> 
> (If you want hit points to be explicitly non-wounding, then, don't include game effects which are explicitly wounding...)
> 
> ...




The way I see it is that the wounds have been sutured and healed in the down time. You may not be at 100% but the *'GAME'* allows you to play as if you are so that the *'PLAYERS'* are not discouraged by a system that basically *'REQUIRES'* that a cleric should do *'NOTHING'* but play healing battery. 

So to re-iterate, in 3.0/3.5 to heal to full overnight *'REQUIRED'* a healer who has saved *'ALMOST ALL'* his/her spells to heal you (or long drawn out, non-overnight, downtime in which the players/characters really do nothing), and in 4 you are allowed to not *'MAKE'* a *'PLAYER'* play a healing battery and this is a *'BAD THING'*?

(The bold is my way of stressing certain points, it is not yelling, more like finger quotes in a conversation.)

(And a nod to Cadfan down below there.....That is an easy option for the 4-E Haters....Or better yet, try to see the good in things. I can understand some of the dislike and I can foresee my group being similar, but wow the vitriol around 4E...)

(Also to note, in 3.0/3.5 a character at 10th level can heal 40hp in 24 Hours with supervised Bed rest, this is *'MORE'* than the harpoon does but is still fully believable to Lizard where 4th Edition is not?)


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Mar 12, 2008)

DeusExMachina said:
			
		

> It would be kind of cool if a harpooned character could pull the goblin towards him too, though... A tug of war can go both ways, right???



That might be even better than my proposed save ends; instead both characters get the benefit of Tug of War and make it STR vs. STR opposed roll instead of STR vs. Fort attack roll?

Either party can initiate Tug of War against the other.  The character that uses the Tug of War action gets the benefit (pull 3 squares on hit; pull 1 square on miss).  The attacker holding the harpoon can drop the weapon as free action to avoid the effects of being Tugged by his target.

Man, the possibilities here . . .


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 12, 2008)

VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> Oh my god do I love this critter. I never thought I could be excited about a harpoon!



I think he's pretty cool too.   

Notice that he's a nonmagical controller?  He has ranged attacks that move characters around, and, on top of that, it says "controller" in his stat lock.   

I doubt a full scale martial controller is going to be possible for player characters, simply because of the "one trick pony" problem.  You know, how its ok for a goblin picador to have one good controller trick that makes him a controller, but player characters need a wide array of options.  Still, I think abilities like this would be cool if they were dropped in to currently existing classes like the Fighter, just to add some diversity.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> The great thing is, it's a _magic_ harpoon, so that even after you've been impaled and dragged around, the wound closes if you have a good nap. (Or get yelled at by the Warlord)
> (If you want hit points to be explicitly non-wounding, then, don't include game effects which are explicitly wounding...)



Even better, if you are impaled enough to be dragged about by the implement impaling you, you just automatically die.  More realistic, saves time, no abstractions like "hit points" that mean whatever they need to mean at the moment.


----------



## med stud (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The great thing is, it's a _magic_ harpoon, so that even after you've been impaled and dragged around, the wound closes if you have a good nap. (Or get yelled at by the Warlord)
> 
> (If you want hit points to be explicitly non-wounding, then, don't include game effects which are explicitly wounding...)
> 
> ...



This is nothing new. Healing times in D&D have always been unrealistically short, and as a medical professional I don't find the 4e healing times much more unrealistic than the 3e ones. I don't think anyone would like realistic healing times for being impaled by a harpoon.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The great thing is, it's a _magic_ harpoon, so that even after you've been impaled and dragged around, the wound closes if you have a good nap. (Or get yelled at by the Warlord)
> 
> (If you want hit points to be explicitly non-wounding, then, don't include game effects which are explicitly wounding...).



That hit points don't cause lasting damage does not mean that they are not associated with wounds. That PCs regain all their hit points does not mean that they are unwounded.

I'm not sure why you want to continue this discussion on every thread, but I wish you would stop beginning all your posts with a straw man argument regarding the rules, other posters, or both.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 12, 2008)

Yeah, I'd have to believe that you couldn't do it every round though, couldn't have more than one creature harpooned..._Duh_ falls in place.  I also wonder whay there is no note on sustaining the state (you'd have to hold on to the damn thing, or its cord!).  I'd probably institute the _Sustain: Minor_ note if munchkin use became an issue.

Weapons are the finer point for me though, and the reason for this thread.  I hated them in 3E, because it was mostly about picking damage, crit, or range.  True, some had little bonuses to disarm or let you trip (_yawn_), but most were just a big yawn (net was cool though).  I like the idea that different weapons have merit and tactics now, and harpooned seemed to be the best example so far.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 12, 2008)

VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> Oh my god do I love this critter.  I never thought I could be excited about a harpoon!
> 
> If this is new weapons at work then I can't wait to see the rest.  The harpooned ability is quite cool, and kinda useful in a pseudo-_marking_ sort of way (though of course not the same).  It also ties up the enemy's action, which is always great.
> 
> I just deeply hope that other weapons have cool utilitarian concepts, as I see tons of uses for this ability, which is subtle and really minor at best.



I love the picador, too, and I've already figured out an encounter where the PCs have to cross logs where these guys will come in handy. Heh heh.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Wystan said:
			
		

> The way I see it is that the wounds have been sutured and healed in the down time. You may not be at 100% but the *'GAME'* allows you to play as if you are so that the *'PLAYERS'* are not discouraged by a system that basically *'REQUIRES'* that a cleric should do *'NOTHING'* but play healing battery.
> 
> So to re-iterate, in 3.0/3.5 to heal to full overnight *'REQUIRED'* a healer who has saved *'ALMOST ALL'* his/her spells to heal you (or downtime in which the players/characters really do nothing), and in 4 you are allowed to not *'MAKE'* a *'PLAYER'* play a healing battery and this is a *'BAD THING'*?
> 
> (The bold is my way of stressing certain points, it is not yelling, more like finger quotes in a conversation.)




If they want to explicitly make hit points cuts/bruises/exhaustion/stress, then, they should not build mechanics into the game which imply explicit wounds.

Suppose I have a monster called the Hobgoblin Executioner who wields a Great Big Axe. He has a per encounter power which slices off a limb, with the effect of you drop anything you were holding and take 2d10 damage. The game effect is 'drop items and take damage', but the flavor text is 'the hobgoblin chops your arm off'.

Tell me your SOD isn't fried when you take a healing surge and grow it right back. (Assuming you're not playing a Newtborn.)

Change it to 'Hobgoblin Limbcrusher' who wield a big hammer and hits you so hard your arm goes painfully numb, and it makes a lot more sense. Game effect remains the same, SOD is much less affected.

Change the Picador to a Lassooer, and ditto. Same game rules. Same cool tactical effects. Less head-go-splodey. (The lasso has blades in it, so it still does cutting damage)

Keep everything consistent. Put the burden of the imagination on the designers to come up with Cool Game Effects that fit with the new "hit points DO NOT, EVER, represent actual physical wounds of any severity" paradigm, and not ask the player base to fanwank everything to justify it.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 12, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> I love the picador, too, and I've already figured out an encounter where the PCs have to cross logs where these guys will come in handy. Heh heh.




Now that is a fine example of a multi-faceted encounter=LOVE IT!!!

maybe throw in some goblin-friendlies with log-striding speed (super balance, it worked for Jump which now has a speed) (DISCLAIMER-pseudojoke)

But yeah: Environment+Tactics+Monsters=Fantastic D&D


I've gotta see more!  Who wants to join me in a raid on Andy Collin's place?!?  (just kidding, Andy seems like a nice-enough guy, and I've no interest in commiting unlawful acts)

Damn I'm jittery today, no more Vault.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd have to believe that you couldn't do it every round though, couldn't have more than one creature harpooned..._Duh_ falls in place.  I also wonder whay there is no note on sustaining the state (you'd have to hold on to the damn thing, or its cord!).  I'd probably institute the _Sustain: Minor_ note if munchkin use became an issue.
> 
> Weapons are the finer point for me though, and the reason for this thread.  I hated them in 3E, because it was mostly about picking damage, crit, or range.  True, some had little bonuses to disarm or let you trip (_yawn_), but most were just a big yawn (net was cool though).  I like the idea that different weapons have merit and tactics now, and harpooned seemed to be the best example so far.




This I agree with. I'd like to see all, or most, weapons have Cool Special Uses, ideally requring proficiency/training/talent to 'unlock'. Sort of like skills have untrained/trained/focused, I'd like weapons to have non-proficienct/proficient/focused/specialized, with different effect at each level.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2008)

I heard an early version of this monster was called the Goblin Picaboo, and it leapt out from bushes and screamed "PEAK-A-BOO!" and made characters giggle like small children.

But the designers wanted to introduce as many monsters as possible into the world that specifically violated the concept that HP doesn't have anything to do with actual physical wounds.


----------



## DeusExMachina (Mar 12, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I heard an early version of this monster was called the Goblin Picaboo, and it leapt out from bushes and screamed "PEAK-A-BOO!" and made characters giggle like small children.




Well, call it a success... You just succeeded in making me giggle...


----------



## Wystan (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard - 

Hit Points measure a lot of things, I would assume that if D&D *'EVER'* modeled limb loss they would basically *'STATE'* that magical healing was required to reverse the negative effect. Sort of like what they could also do for Stat drain, or even level loss. Oh wait, those are also unbelievable as they are unrealistic.

As to the Picador, I love the feel/flavor of this...


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 12, 2008)

*uh...*

<Slides Soapboxes in place for the HP gripe-crowd>​
Not really the point of this thread folks, now there's plenty to be said on that subject but it only barely fits here.  I believe that there are already proper places for this discussion (HERE and HERE and HERE come to mind).

I mean, we were just talking about new weapon abilities in here  

EDIT-Not really hacking on anyone in particular, just sucks to hear the same conversation in every room of the house is all.


----------



## Wystan (Mar 12, 2008)

VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> <Slides Soapboxes in place for the HP gripe-crowd>​
> Not really the point of this thread folks, now there's plenty to be saidon that subject but it only barely fits here.  I believe that there are already proper places for this discussion (HERE and HERE and HERE come to mind).
> 
> I mean, we were just talking about new weapon abilities in here





I apologize, just tired of sitting around whilst others concoct arguments that hold no bearing. If my Suspension of Disbelief allows me to understand overnight healing, why must I be told so often that I am wrong?

As to the Picador's abilities, I would assume they are more in line with the Bugbear Strangler and a monster ability, not a weapon ability.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> That hit points don't cause lasting damage does not mean that they are not associated with wounds. That PCs regain all their hit points does not mean that they are unwounded.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to continue this discussion on every thread, but I wish you would stop beginning all your posts with a straw man argument regarding the rules, other posters, or both.




Every thread? No, just the ones where it's relevant, where the conflict between design goals is slammed into my face, hard.

D&D combat has always relied heavily on the DM adding in all the flavor which the rules, by design, do not provide. "You take 6 hit points...he takes 4 hit points..."  -- that's deathly dull and will kill a campaign. It's the DMs job to take the raw numbers of rolls and results and turn them into a dynamic fight scene. "You duck low under the monster's swing...it grazes your skull. You then leap up and jam the spear into its side, staining his armor with dark blood."

Descriptions need to be consistent with the rules. If you do 5 points of damage to a 200 hit point creature, it should not be described as "a vicious blow which nearly guts the thing". Likewise, if you know that the current rule paradigm is that all hit point damage represents effects which can be healed with a good night's rest and some bandages, you need to describe all combat effects in those terms. "Impaled and dragged around by a goblin" is hard to describe in such a way. Not impossible, I suppose...maybe it always goes through the fleshy part of your leg and you just soldier through the pain...but more difficult.

4e is supposed to make the DM's life *easier*. That means I should need to make less effort, not more, to create an exciting narrative from the results of the rules.

To reiterate: Picador is cool monster. (Rather, it's a cool mechanic and it's a shame the 4e paradigm blends monster+mechanic instead of making this an ability I can give to any monster). Flavor text doesn't match rules. Keep concept, change flavor text.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2008)

More to the point, I do like the Picador. Yeah, it violates the new HP conception, and that is a problem, and 4e is a bad, naughty, dispicable little system for doing it, but it's really not that big of a deal for me, because I like HP's to be super-power points that let you survive plummetting off of 40 foot cliffs, too, and I don't mind pseudo-magical pep talks from warlords that let you fight on despite the fact that your lungs have been ripped from your chest and your spleen is dangling in the breeze and your ribcage is rent asunder.

And you STILL kick ass, chew bubble gum, and feel like a million bucks after a good night's sleep.

I like HP that can reflect many narrative excuses for "you can't take much more of this!" 

I am concerned about some of the fiddly details, and I'd expect anybody proficient in the goblin harpoon to be able to do the same thing as these little buggers, but the concept of a monster that can yank you around like that is pretty nice.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 12, 2008)

Wystan said:
			
		

> As to the Picador's abilities, I would assume they are more in line with the Bugbear Strangler and a monster ability, not a weapon ability.




Now that possibility opens up a whole othr can of worms that I can dig on.

I'd love if it were a weapon ability, greatly, but there would be no problem with it being individualized like that.  I didn't consider it with my hype over new weapon utility.

Nice nonetheless


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Wystan said:
			
		

> Lizard -
> 
> Hit Points measure a lot of things, I would assume that if D&D *'EVER'* modeled limb loss they would basically *'STATE'* that magical healing was required to reverse the negative effect. Sort of like what they could also do for Stat drain, or even level loss. Oh wait, those are also unbelievable as they are unrealistic.
> 
> As to the Picador, I love the feel/flavor of this...




You seem to be conflating realism with believability.

Everyone has different things which break SOD. I don't give a damn about 1-1-1 diagonal movement or square fireballs, for instance.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 12, 2008)

VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> EDIT-Not really hacking on anyone in particular, just sucks to hear the same conversation in every room of the house is all.



_Every _ thread is a golden wyvern spellcasting dragons diagonal movement  hit point theory thread waiting to happen.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 12, 2008)

Now someone mentioned the lasso as a good alternative for making an ability such as this (I'm too lazy for a quote ATM).  I dig that too!

I mean I think they should give every weapon (or at least many of them) some sort of unlockable dynamic.  I've always thought that things like race, religious preference (for non-divines), and weapon should all mean something and I've done plenty with homebrew to make those things happen.

Its my one great hope for 4E, and items like the Picador make it seem more real for me.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The great thing is, it's a _magic_ harpoon, so that even after you've been impaled and dragged around, the wound closes if you have a good nap. (Or get yelled at by the Warlord)




Did you have to take this thread in a totally different direction away from what could have been a fun discussion just to jump on  your soapbox and rail against 4e on a topic that is already all over the forum? Did you really feel it necessary? You don't like the HP system. I get that. I got it days ago. It's cool that you don't like it. I really couldn't care less. But, why drag another thread into this argument when it could _actually have been interesting_?


----------



## glass (Mar 12, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Notice that he's a nonmagical controller?



Monster types are not the same as class roles. It is just unfortuante that they chose to double up on that name (its level all over again!)



glass.


----------



## Saitou (Mar 12, 2008)

Man, this is all kinds of awesome, but there's a few things I'm not quite clear yet.

Can a PC remove the harpoon himself? Would this be a STR vs FORT check against himself? That'd be pretty cxxl


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 12, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> Monster types are not the same as class roles. It is just unfortuante that they chose to double up on that name (its level all over again!)



But he does seem to be functioning as a controller, albeit a low level one trick pony controller.  Which for a monster is fine.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 12, 2008)

Saitou said:
			
		

> Man, this is all kinds of awesome, but there's a few things I'm not quite clear yet.
> 
> Can a PC remove the harpoon himself? Would this be a STR vs FORT check against himself? That'd be pretty cxxl




Yeah I wondered about that too.


----------



## Novem5er (Mar 12, 2008)

Yep, I love the Picadore.

I thought up an alternative version of a goblin ridding on the back of a giant frog, which uses it's sticky tongue to make similar "harpoon" attacks on single opponents. I haven't statted it out yet, but the idea is there.

Regarding the Harpoon... I don't imagine it as a simple spear with a single point. I imagine it more of a spear with large barbs and hooks on it. Even if the spear point "misses" the target, all the hooks and barbs will still catch on the target's clothing, armor, and shield. This allows the DM to describe why a characters is "hooked" without them actually being impaled on a spear.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 12, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> But he does seem to be functioning as a controller, albeit a low level one trick pony controller.  Which for a monster is fine.





This makes me wonder, and hope once more, that some weapons might allow fighters, and everyone really, the chance to _borrow_ a bit from the other roles.  

Very cool if true.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You seem to be conflating realism with believability.



Or, to put it another way, he concocted an argument that held no bearing.


----------



## orcgirl (Mar 12, 2008)

what does "Remove standard; Str vs. Fort." mean??


----------



## Roger (Mar 12, 2008)

If you like _one_ of these guys, try out _a lot_ of them.

Three or four of them surrounding a harpooned PC, pulling him around like a rag doll in every direction, is a good, good time.

Also useful for your all-kobold productions of Moby Dick.


Cheers,
Roger


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 12, 2008)

orcgirl said:
			
		

> what does "Remove standard; Str vs. Fort." mean??



It's instructions on how to adjudicate getting unstuck from the harpoon.  You make a strength attack vs. the picador's fort defense as a standard action.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Roger said:
			
		

> If you like _one_ of these guys, try out _a lot_ of them.
> 
> Three or four of them surrounding a harpooned PC, pulling him around like a rag doll in every direction, is a good, good time.
> 
> ...




PC's are on bridge over canyon.
Picadors are on either side of canyon, parallel to the bridge, as follows:

P B P
P B P
P B P

(B=Bridge, ' '=space, P=Picador)

I'm sure you see where this is going. Even on a miss, a PC is pulled one square....into a nasty drop. Hide the picadors beforehand, and the PCs -- if they survive -- will never cross a bridge again.


----------



## Wystan (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You seem to be conflating realism with believability.
> 
> Everyone has different things which break SOD. I don't give a damn about 1-1-1 diagonal movement or square fireballs, for instance.





You seem to be conflating D&D with reality..... 


I would assume that a PC can break himself out of this if needed at the end of his turn in a form of saving throw, the Str vs. Fort mentioned.


----------



## helium3 (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm sure you see where this is going. Even on a miss, a PC is pulled one square....into a nasty drop. Hide the picadors beforehand, and the PCs -- if they survive -- will never cross a bridge again.




No no. They'll just firesquare every space that's hidden from sight before they cross the bridge.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 12, 2008)

VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> Oh my god do I love this critter.  I never thought I could be excited about a harpoon!
> 
> If this is new weapons at work then I can't wait to see the rest.  The harpooned ability is quite cool, and kinda useful in a pseudo-_marking_ sort of way (though of course not the same).  It also ties up the enemy's action, which is always great.
> 
> I just deeply hope that other weapons have cool utilitarian concepts, as I see tons of uses for this ability, which is subtle and really minor at best.



 You want to see something really neat?

Give the picador a Ride modifier, then slap him on top of a Deathjump Spider.


----------



## Intrope (Mar 12, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> Yep, I love the Picadore.
> 
> I thought up an alternative version of a goblin ridding on the back of a giant frog, which uses it's sticky tongue to make similar "harpoon" attacks on single opponents. I haven't statted it out yet, but the idea is there.
> 
> Regarding the Harpoon... I don't imagine it as a simple spear with a single point. I imagine it more of a spear with large barbs and hooks on it. Even if the spear point "misses" the target, all the hooks and barbs will still catch on the target's clothing, armor, and shield. This allows the DM to describe why a characters is "hooked" without them actually being impaled on a spear.



 Admittedly, I can't help but picture the Goblin Picador as Scorpion from Mortal Kombat.


----------



## Chocobo (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> PC's are on bridge over canyon.
> Picadors are on either side of canyon, parallel to the bridge, as follows:
> 
> P B P
> ...



No actually the PCs can't fall - well can't fall more than 5 squares anyway...  

They can't move more than 5 squares away from the goblin, and the goblin has no ability to end the Harpooned status, only the target can end it and only voluntarily.  So the PCs just end up hanging down 5 squares below the goblins.  They use ranged attacks to kill the goblins off and then make climb checks to get back out (with the benefit of ropes of course).  

Can you tell that I think the abilities are poorly written?


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 12, 2008)

> Thrown Harpoon  (standard; at-will) • Weapon
> Range 5; +9 vs. AC; 1d4+3 plus Harpooned (see text)
> 
> Harpooned
> Can’t move more than 5 from this creature. Remove standard;




Ok, so '5' is 5 squares?

I'm trying to understand how this would work at range; I'm presuming that there is a rope tether.  Being pulled from range makes sense, but not anything else.

From melee, I don't see how you could move further than adjacent to the target.

Also, Str vs. Fort?  Why not Str vs. Str?  Shouldn't there be mechanics to do any of:
Cutting the rope;
Sundering the harpoon;
Pulling the rope or harpoon out of the hands of the attacker;
Pulling the harpoon out of the defender.

And, no save to keep from being moved by the goblin?  No size limitations?  A goblin could move a troll (or a giant or a dragon)?

Also, what would a player need to do to learn how to use the goblin's spear?


----------



## zen_hydra (Mar 12, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> You want to see something really neat?
> 
> Give the picador a Ride modifier, then slap him on top of a Deathjump Spider.




Now that actually seems to be closer to a picador.  

I have been somewhat confused as to why a harpoon wielding goblin is named after a horse-riding, lance wielding, bull-fighter.  From what I have seen, I would liken the Goblin Picador more to a banderillero, who uses small barbed spears, but then again I probably wouldn't have used a bull-fighting at all.


----------



## Chocobo (Mar 12, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> I'm trying to understand how this would work at range; I'm presuming that there is a rope tether.  Being pulled from range makes sense, but not anything else.
> 
> From melee, I don't see how you could move further than adjacent to the target.



Pull means move the target towards you, so an adjacent creature already can't be pulled.  



> And, no save to keep from being moved by the goblin?  No size limitations?  A goblin could move a troll (or a giant or a dragon)?



Of course not, that would be silly.  There is a size limitation on the pulling (max of medium).  The goblin can _only_ harpoon a colossal dragon and keep it from moving more than 5 squares away until it removes the harpoon.  It can't pull the dragon closer because it is larger than medium.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Mar 12, 2008)

Intrope said:
			
		

> Admittedly, I can't help but picture the Goblin Picador as Scorpion from Mortal Kombat.




"GET OVER HERE!" but in a squeaky goblin voice. Oh yes. Oh yes.

I am so introducing some of these into my first 4e gaming session.

How about having some hidden in the roof...?


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Chocobo said:
			
		

> Of course not, that would be silly.  There is a size limitation on the pulling (max of medium).  The goblin can _only_ harpoon a colossal dragon and keep it from moving more than 5 squares away until it removes the harpoon.  It can't pull the dragon closer because it is larger than medium.




Seems to me the dragon should be draggin' (heh) the goblin in that scenario.

Image of goblin going bouncing after a running dragon, like a man leashed to a rambunctious german shepherd...


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Chocobo said:
			
		

> No actually the PCs can't fall - well can't fall more than 5 squares anyway...
> 
> They can't move more than 5 squares away from the goblin, and the goblin has no ability to end the Harpooned status, only the target can end it and only voluntarily.  So the PCs just end up hanging down 5 squares below the goblins.  They use ranged attacks to kill the goblins off and then make climb checks to get back out (with the benefit of ropes of course).
> 
> Can you tell that I think the abilities are poorly written?




Well, I'd say that logically, the goblin could just drop the rope, but that kind of simulationist thinking is verboten.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Mar 12, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Also, Str vs. Fort?  Why not Str vs. Str?




Remember that Fort is now the best of Str or Con, so if you're very strong or very massive, you have a better chance of stayin' put.


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, I'd say that logically, the goblin could just drop the rope, but that kind of simulationist thinking is verboten.




Given 4E's "exception-based design" philosophy, I'm certain that _somewhere_ there's a global rule that says "a creature can cancel any ongoing effect it creates as a [free or minor, probably] action."


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Mar 12, 2008)

I read this monster and ASSUMED it meant "stuck in your armor" you basically go with his control, or he rips a good chunk of your armour out, or impales you.

Yes, I KNOW this doesn't work if you're without armour, but how often do you fight goblins armour-less?  That situation will at least be rarer than the other.

It's just supposed to be a bit of fun, and I like it.

Fitz


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 12, 2008)

Chocobo said:
			
		

> Pull means move the target towards you, so an adjacent creature already can't be pulled.
> 
> Of course not, that would be silly.  There is a size limitation on the pulling (max of medium).  The goblin can _only_ harpoon a colossal dragon and keep it from moving more than 5 squares away until it removes the harpoon.  It can't pull the dragon closer because it is larger than medium.




Ok, I missed that!

But still, the "harpooned" effect has no size limitation.  So a dragon still needs a standard action to remove the harpoon:



> Can’t move more than 5 from this creature. Remove standard;




(So, does that mean a troupe of goblins can pin a dragon with multiple harpoons, Gulliver vs the Lilliputions style?  Multiple harpoons against how many standard actions does a dragon have?)


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Mar 12, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Also, Str vs. Fort?  Why not Str vs. Str?  Shouldn't there be mechanics to do any of:
> Cutting the rope;
> Sundering the harpoon;
> Pulling the rope or harpoon out of the hands of the attacker;
> Pulling the harpoon out of the defender.




You DO know that this is why the game HAS a DM, right? The rules simply CAN'T and SHOULDN'T account for every variable or even a piddly Goblin would have 10 pages of notes to describe what he can do.  Any DM worth a damn can edjudicate that stuff on the fly.



			
				tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Also, what would a player need to do to learn how to use the goblin's spear?




Uh, training in a class that has a similar power?

Fitz


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 12, 2008)

Please stay on topic, folks, and don't lose your temper at other folks just because they disagree with you.  Thanks.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2008)

It's a nice idea, but...

If I'm playing Throg the Barbarian, a seven-and-a-half-foot tower of rippling muscle, and I get harpooned by an effin' _goblin_, I'm going to have some serious questions about how exactly that goblin is holding me in place, never mind pulling me toward him.  I don't care how tightly he can hang onto his harpoon rope.  I'll just drag him along behind me.  He's a goblin, he doesn't even put a dent in my encumbrance limit.

Also, what does the goblin do once he's thrown his harpoon?  Does he just have a backpack full of them or something, all with attached ropes tied to his waist?


----------



## Kishin (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Every thread? No, just the ones where it's relevant, where the conflict between design goals is slammed into my face, hard.




The point is, as ThirdWizard and Kwalish have basically said, the HP topic has been (and is still being, even) discussed in at least 3-4 different places. You've said your piece, and most are aware of your position. Would it be too much for you to ask then, to allow people to discuss something else? Also, you could probably stand to be a little less overtly snarky when you make these thread derailments.

I don't see how the Goblin Picador's ability makes the DM's life harder, in all honesty. I'm sure I'm not the only DM who is perfectly capable of rolling with it and still making combat exciting and dynamic. Numerous rationalizations for the way it works even appear in this thread, none of them any less valid than the other.

Also, re: Picador mechanics:



			
				FizTheRuke said:
			
		

> You DO know that this is why the game HAS a DM, right? The rules simply CAN'T and SHOULDN'T account for every variable or even a piddly Goblin would have 10 pages of notes to describe what he can do. Any DM worth a damn can adjudicate that stuff on the fly.




This.


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 12, 2008)

Chocobo said:
			
		

> The goblin can _only_ harpoon a colossal dragon and keep it from moving more than 5 squares away until it removes the harpoon.




Which is also quite silly.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Given 4E's "exception-based design" philosophy, I'm certain that _somewhere_ there's a global rule that says "a creature can cancel any ongoing effect it creates as a [free or minor, probably] action."




Probably. This is a problem with criticizing, or praising, 4e as it currently stands -- we don't know all the rules, especially the 'meta rules' to which various abilities are exceptions.

It's like seeing an object which is several steps down the hierarchy, i.e, Object.Visual.Interface.Button.Checkbox.threeState, seeing it has only one or two methods specified, and complaining it doesn't do all the things it should. (And those who are overjoyed at 4e are akin to those who assume it will have every function needed, beautifully and elegantly coded)


----------



## Thaumaturge (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> (Assuming you're not playing a Newtborn.)




Do these have boobs?  Hong will want to know. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> (And those who are overjoyed at 4e are akin to those who assume it will have every function needed, beautifully and elegantly coded)




And those who are dismayed are akin to those who assume it won't?

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> Do these have boobs?  Hong will want to know.
> 
> Thaumaturge.




If they're a PC race...yes.

If Gelatinous Cubes become a PC race, they will have boobs. Great big wiggly ones.

(I took Craft Disturbing Mental Image last level)


----------



## Chocobo (Mar 12, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Which is also quite silly.



Yeah that's what I meant.  Maybe I should have used some sort of smiley...


----------



## Thaumaturge (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If Gelatinous Cubes become a PC race, they will have boobs. Great big wiggly ones.
> 
> (I took Craft Disturbing Mental Image last level)




Yikes.  Yes you did.
...
...
...
 
 
Thaumaturge.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2008)

This looks like a great monster concept; my worry is that WotC won't do the work to rationalize how its abilities work in combat, in a way that stands up to player scrutiny.

It's kind of a blind spot WotC has.  They'll go to extravagant lengths in every other regard to make the DM's life easier.  But then they put in mechanics like the picador harpoon--mechanics which will cause major suspension-of-disbelief issues without a carefully-thought-out explanation--and slap on a shaky bit of fluff that even a mildly inquisitive player will tear apart.

My criticism above is one I absolutely expect to hear if I use this monster in combat.  The picador will throw his harpoon, snag some big strong PC, and the first words out of that player's mouth will be, "Okay, I drag him along.  He's a goblin, how the heck is he going to hold me in place?"  It's a totally rational and logical response.

Now, I can think up explanations that will cover this situation.  Maybe the picador is crazy strong for a goblin (he is, in fact), and he grabs onto a nearby terrain feature and hangs on like grim death.  Or maybe once he's harpooned you, he knows how to keep you off balance so you can't set yourself to pull away.

Either of these could work, but I don't want to have to stop and think them out mid-combat while the game comes to a screeching halt.  And not every DM is as good at rationalization as I am.  It would be really nice if WotC would put the same effort into the interface between mechanics and game world that they do into the mechanics themselves; that interface is, after all, where the rubber meets the road.  WotC's game systems tend to be like cars with massively powerful, perfectly machined engines, which are sitting on four flat tires.

Of course, we haven't seen the full monster entry, and I might be wrong.  Maybe WotC has come up with a really clear, well-considered, robust explanation for the picador's abilities.  But, based on past experience... I kind of doubt it.


----------



## Chocobo (Mar 12, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Given 4E's "exception-based design" philosophy, I'm certain that _somewhere_ there's a global rule that says "a creature can cancel any ongoing effect it creates as a [free or minor, probably] action."



So if I poison someone and it's doing ongoing damage, and then I decide that I didn't want to hurt them, I could just use a free action to cancel that?  

Hmm... I bet you that rule you're talking about doesn't exist. 

I do think there is probably DM advice to cover situations where it is reasonable for an effect to be removed.  If they had a keyword (like "Removable") instead, however, that would have been much better.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Mar 12, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Of course, we haven't seen the full monster entry, and I might be wrong.  Maybe WotC has come up with a really clear, well-considered, robust explanation for the picador's abilities.  But, based on past experience... I kind of doubt it.




This is my concern as well. It's not like it's abilties are impossible to rationalize, but it's kind of an effort, and when I pay money for monster, I kind of want the designer to make that effort. Hopefully it's been done - it just seems unlikely.

I know that the moment a Goblin Picador tries to pull a PC, there's going to be ructions at my gaming table, and questions about how heavy it is and so on. I mean, if we're talking about a 160-pound "goblin monstrosity", then it might be believable that it can jerk some Elf around, but a 220lb, STR 20 Fighter who is wearing full plate and has a backpack full of heavy junk? It's hard to play it.

Of course, one can just not use it, but then you're beginning to lose content, and how much else is like this? I'd rather have a magical explanation than a physical one that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 12, 2008)

I assume: removing the harpoon can be done by both opponents.

A dragon beeing cought by the harpoon can not move beyond 5 squares. Thats right, he cant move more than 5 squares away from the goblin... which results in a goblin beeing pulled by a dragon5 squares behind him...


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 12, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Of course, we haven't seen the full monster entry, and I might be wrong.  Maybe WotC has come up with a really clear, well-considered, robust explanation for the picador's abilities.  But, based on past experience... I kind of doubt it.



My personal feelings on the subject, since I know everyone is interested:

I don't think its possible to create streamlined, easy to use rules that allow cool stuff like a picador who spears an opponent and drags them in, but which also allow all the possible logical reactions to being speared and reeled by a picador.  The more complete your rules are, the less streamlined they become, and vice versa.

I'm really not willing to give up cool stuff because ease of play and limitations on page count prohibit putting in 10 different unusual reactions to being harpooned.

So, what if they "handled" things like this by putting in a section in the DMG that basically outlined some quick guidelines on how to ad lib this sort of thing?  Something like, "consider the possibilities available for offense, such as attacking with each stat, and the options available for a characters defenses, and mix and match as you feel appropriate based on the unusual ideas your players invent."

Because I think that sort of DM judgment is the best you're going to get.  I'd be perfectly happy if, in response to Thunk the Barbarian trying to reel in the goblin picador, Thunk made a Strength Attack versus the Goblin's Fortitude, and on a success the goblin had to either drop his rope or be pulled in by Thunk.  I know that's not going to cover every possible situation (two goblin picadors at once pulling the same way, can the picador pick the rope back up, can you fight normally with a harpoon stuck in you/your armor, etc), but it gets the job done quickly and fairly.  Thunk gets rewarded for his high strength by getting to do something cool, the goblin gets chopped into goblin-bits, and the game moves on.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If they're a PC race...yes.
> 
> If Gelatinous Cubes become a PC race, they will have boobs. Great big wiggly ones.
> 
> (I took Craft Disturbing Mental Image last level)



Ah, now I understand the Oozemaster. It's just another attempt to get close some hotties... Jelly Fish are probably to an Oozemaster are probably what mermaid are for normal people.
(Umbrielle the Yellow Mold...)


Here's my pseudo explaination that serves no real purpose: The barbs of the harpoon rope (and I assume the harpoon is barbed) hits the opponent and causes some minor injuries, and enough to keep the rope attached. Moving to far really hurts, so you don't do it. 

One note: The description of the ability seems to apply that removing the harpoon takes a standard action and requires a strength check vs fortitude. This seems to be the perfect thing for a rules argument - might the semicolon imply that the strength vs. fortitude actually tells us what to use to defend against it, or what to do to "attack" with the ability.  I can tell you, Hypersmurf will still have to explain the RAW on the D&D Rules forum in 4E!


----------



## Lizard (Mar 12, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> My personal feelings on the subject, since I know everyone is interested:
> 
> I don't think its possible to create streamlined, easy to use rules that allow cool stuff like a picador who spears an opponent and drags them in, but which also allow all the possible logical reactions to being speared and reeled by a picador.  The more complete your rules are, the less streamlined they become, and vice versa.




True. To me, here's the dividing point.

Should the game flavor text trump the RAW, or not?

IOW, if I say "The goblin harpoons you!", should the player be allowed to treat this as "real", and take actions based on a real harpoon with a real rope attached to a real goblin (real in the context of the imaginary fantasy world), with the DM adjudicating such actions according to common sense and the basic resolution mechanics ("I tug back!", "OK, roll your STr vs. the goblin's to pull him to you. If you fail, you take an additional 1d6 from jiggling the harpoon too much."), or is the "harpooning" simply meaningless flavor text, and it should be treated as if the goblin had used "Burning telekinesis" to combine a damage effect with a motion effect, and that's all there is to it, a flavorful description of two combined game effects?

Neither is 'superior' or 'inferior', but a game can't support both variably from encounter to encounter or mechanic to mechanic. The DMG ought to make it clear which model is being used.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> My personal feelings on the subject, since I know everyone is interested:
> 
> I don't think its possible to create streamlined, easy to use rules that allow cool stuff like a picador who spears an opponent and drags them in, but which also allow all the possible logical reactions to being speared and reeled by a picador.  The more complete your rules are, the less streamlined they become, and vice versa.
> 
> I'm really not willing to give up cool stuff because ease of play and limitations on page count prohibit putting in 10 different unusual reactions to being harpooned.




That's not what I'm asking for.  I just want them to describe the ability something like this:

"The picador is adept at controlling larger foes with his harpoon.  By pulling them off balance, he can force them to follow his lead, despite their superior size and strength."

That's all I need.  It covers the basic, obvious questions that players will have about how on earth a tiny little goblin is able to yank them around.  Furthermore, it gives me the basic guidance I need to adjudicate corner cases.

For instance, what if the goblin is knocked unconscious?  Obviously, if it's his skill at keeping enemies off-balance that makes his shtick work, the shtick ceases to function if he's unconscious.  I don't need a rule in the stat block to tell me that; I can extrapolate it from the fluff... but only if there's good solid fluff to start with.


----------



## IanB (Mar 12, 2008)

Please remember that we are *not* working from a full stat write-up of the Picador here. We're working from the RPG side of a D&D Minis stat card, and anyone who has looked at the RPG side of one of the 3.5 cards knows that they are nothing close to a complete stat block for the creature. I don't know what improvements may have been made to editing, either, but the 3.5 versions of these cards were relatively high in error count.

In other words, don't make too many assumptions about what you think is "missing" from the card, because it may very well exist or be different in some significant way in the actual MM entry.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 12, 2008)

I'm with Lizard on this one.  A Goblin Lassoer would make a lot more sense, given the mechanics.  I just can't rationalize being "harpooned", then being dragged around a battlefield by said harpoon, and being able to "sleep it off."  And the "it's stuck in your armor" thing assumes the PC is wearing armor (some don't) and would also seem to stretch believability that goblins with spears "hit" but goblins with harpoons "just get stuck in armor."

This is a very gross example of "violation of stated principles", as Lizard says.




			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> This looks like a great monster concept; my worry is that WotC won't do the work to rationalize how its abilities work in combat, in a way that stands up to player scrutiny.
> 
> It's kind of a blind spot WotC has.  They'll go to extravagant lengths in every other regard to make the DM's life easier.  But then they put in mechanics like the picador harpoon--mechanics which will cause major suspension-of-disbelief issues without a carefully-thought-out explanation--and slap on a shaky bit of fluff that even a mildly inquisitive player will tear apart.



This does seem to be a recurring problem.  It's very clear that the gamists have won the culture war within WotC, and I'm OK with that to an extent, but there needs to be at least one person with a simulationist point of view to "fact check" all the stuff that goes out.  There needs to be someone to say "Ok guys, this is cool and all, but it make no sense whatsover within the game context."




			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> My criticism above is one I absolutely expect to hear if I use this monster in combat.  The picador will throw his harpoon, snag some big strong PC, and the first words out of that player's mouth will be, "Okay, I drag him along.  He's a goblin, how the heck is he going to hold me in place?"  It's a totally rational and logical response.



Did you read the stat block? "Tug of War" is a Str vs. Fort check. If your barbarian is really as big and strapping as you say, he should win the check.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 12, 2008)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Harpooned seems _awfully_ powerful.  On _every_ hit the goblin now controls the movement of an opponent that requires a standard action and a successful STR vs. Fort to undo.



Well, I think that's the idea behind controller-type monsters.  If you don't want him restricting your movement, you kill him.  And he is unusually squishy... a lvl 2 controller with a 13 Con should be 37? or 31? hp, not 26.  That could be a typo though.



			
				VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> Weapons are the finer point for me though, and the reason for this thread.  I hated them in 3E, because it was mostly about picking damage, crit, or range.  True, some had little bonuses to disarm or let you trip (_yawn_), but most were just a big yawn (net was cool though).  I like the idea that different weapons have merit and tactics now, and harpooned seemed to be the best example so far.



The goblin does what he does because that's what he's designed to do, not because of his weapon.  PCs won't get his bag of tricks even if they did pick up a harpoon somewhere.  You're still thinking in pre-4e terms.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> True. To me, here's the dividing point.
> 
> Should the game flavor text trump the RAW, or not?
> 
> ...



Hmm. I hope the DMG will give the DM the tools to go the "real" route, if he wants to. (Think of the "kicking the table to throw enemies off-balance" example from Mouseferatu, which I'll cling to whenever I ponder such questions regarding "situational, realistic actions" 

 I don't need all the information in the stat block, if the "general guideline" are exhaustive/simple enough to cover this scenario.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 12, 2008)

I, too am also worried about the 'harpooning bit. 
I love the monster and his schtick. I really like the idea of WotC statting out all different sorts of the 'standard' bad guy races. In fact I hope there are literally dozens of versions each race that have their own schtick but still are 'gobliny' or 'koboldy' or whatever. As Cadfan says I can make an entire module based on mostly a single race and it won't be either dull (they are all straight from the 3E MM) or muchos hours of prep (3E monsters with classes, extra HD etc).

But I _really_ hope that there is some seriously good explanation in the text for how you can be harpooned without major injury. I mean having something stick into you far enough through that it won't pull out when some one yanks you around the place is quite a wound!
I am really into the 4E HP model -every time I think of it I now think of the fight between Hector and Achiles in Troy- but this flys in the face of it if it does not include very clever fluff. I am not worried about the goblin pullling around a big guy (only upto M size, remember) 
 'cos it is really easy to unbalance someone with a rope attached to them, and thus tug them around. 
And as some one else put I don't want to have to come up with fluff that fits for absolutely everything.

However, that is a minor gripe. The MM version of this may be totally different. But this, and all the other monsters that have come out, means for once I am as excited about the MM as the other rules books.

EDIT:







			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Neither is 'superior' or 'inferior', but a game can't support both variably from encounter to encounter or mechanic to mechanic. The DMG ought to make it clear which model is being used.



Very good point


----------



## Someone (Mar 12, 2008)

And can you just cut the friggin rope holding you (and take care of the harpoon lodged in you flesh later?) instead of dislodging said piede of metal from your body in the heat of combat while a goblin bodybuilder is busy tugging you?


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Did you read the stat block? "Tug of War" is a Str vs. Fort check. If your barbarian is really as big and strapping as you say, he should win the check.




Tug of War is when the goblin tries to reel you in.  The basic "you can't move away from me" is built into the harpoon attack and does not involve any such check.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 12, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> My criticism above is one I absolutely expect to hear if I use this monster in combat.  The picador will throw his harpoon, snag some big strong PC, and the first words out of that player's mouth will be, "Okay, I drag him along.  He's a goblin, how the heck is he going to hold me in place?"  It's a totally rational and logical response.




I would respond like this:

"Roll for it.  Standard action, Str vs. Fort.  On a hit you can pull him 3 squares.  If you miss, you can only pull him 1."

I wonder how you would rule on this:

"I want to grab the tether and wrap it around my massive forearms, then swing him into his loser friends!"

I would probably say something like: Str vs Fort to yank the goblin off his feet as a standard action, then Str vs AC to hit as a standard action; 1d6+Str damage to both goblins.

I guess that means you need to spend an action point.  Cool.  Maybe give a penalty to all attacks if it's a standard and a lesser action.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 12, 2008)

4e's exception based monster design may have closed off one end of the bag through explictly enumerated abilities, but they also seem to have loosened up the drawstrings on the other side with the skill system.  If this isn't just a mirage generated by a heady haze of fanboyism, I have to say I like this approach.  It provides a solid structure for the gamists, while handing out an official bag o' houserule so that simulationists can tinker away until they arrive at their level of comfort.  Don't like the limited ways of dealing with the harpoon?  Adjudicate as needed.


----------



## Andor (Mar 12, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> The goblin does what he does because that's what he's designed to do, not because of his weapon.  PCs won't get his bag of tricks even if they did pick up a harpoon somewhere.  You're still thinking in pre-4e terms.




... If I was at your table and you told me my fighter had extra penalties on top of normal non-proficiency to use the harpoon I would accept it. If you told me it took up a minor action to hold the rope as well as my standard one to tug on it I would be fine with that. If you required special training to pick up a proficiency feat to use the harpoon I wouldn't complain.

If you told me I simply couldn't, under any circumstances use the gobbo's harpoon because that was a feature of the goblin I would walk out of your game on the spot. Perhaps you came into the game with 3e and don't know any better, but I've already put up with plenty of that crap under poor GMs in 1st and 2nd edition. No more. For that matter I put up with it in videogames where the bad guys stuff can never be recovered, but they'll drop things they never used. It doesn't make sense in a crpg, but you put up with it because you have to. In D&D if you attack me with 30 orcs wearing plate mail, I am by god going to scavange 30 suits of orc plate. 

Don't tell me it's gamist and I don't understand it. I understand it. I've seen it before, and I'm sick of it. There is a minimum about of simulation that I must see in an RPG or it's not an RPG anymore, and I won't play it. Period. In the 1st and 2nd editions of D&D the situational nature of the rules meant that it depended on the individual GM whether or not a given campaign was 'simulationist' enough for me. 3rd edition fixed that. The consistency of the rules meant that I never had to put up with nunchucks that automatically disarmed you if a Flind was weilding them, but weren't even a good club in the hands of the PCs. Now we may be going back to those days, and if so it will not be a step forward, I promise you.


----------



## DeusExMachina (Mar 12, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> But I _really_ hope that there is some seriously good explanation in the text for how you can be harpooned without major injury. I mean having something stick into you far enough through that it won't pull out when some one yanks you around the place is quite a wound!




Actually, I imagine that the harpooned character would be moving along to avoid it ripping from his flesh and causing more pain. Even a small fishhook and fishline will pull me along, simply because I don't want to endure the pain of that small hook ripping into me, but it won't really create a major wound.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> ... If I was at your table and you told me my fighter had extra penalties on top of normal non-proficiency to use the harpoon I would accept it. If you told me it took up a minor action to hold the rope as well as my standard one to tug on it I would be fine with that. If you required special training to pick up a proficiency feat to use the harpoon I wouldn't complain.
> 
> If you told me I simply couldn't, under any circumstances use the gobbo's harpoon because that was a feature of the goblin I would walk out of your game on the spot. Perhaps you came into the game with 3e and don't know any better, but I've already put up with plenty of that crap under poor GMs in 1st and 2nd edition. No more. For that matter I put up with it in videogames where the bad guys stuff can never be recovered, but they'll drop things they never used. It doesn't make sense in a crpg, but you put up with it because you have to. In D&D if you attack me with 30 orcs wearing plate mail, I am by god going to scavange 30 suits of orc plate.




Agreed.  I think 4E ought to have a general guideline for DMs (and if there isn't, I may invent one) which says, "When somebody tries to use a special ability that s/he does not have normal access to, and it's reasonable that that person should be able to attempt it, apply a -10 penalty on all associated rolls."  (Or -5, or whatever.)

So, for instance, if you pick up the harpoon, you can use the goblin's harpooning abilities, but with -10 on Tug of War checks and the like, because you don't have the specialized training and practice the goblin does.  You won't be any good at it, you'll almost always fail, but if you really want to try--go for it.

Naturally, this could not be a hard-and-fast rule; but as a guideline for on-the-fly DM calls, I think it could work.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Mar 12, 2008)

Right, the idea is to say "No", but in a subtle way that makes it sound like you are saying "Yes".  "Yes" you can use the goblin's harpoon, but "no" you won't be any good at it.  In fact, you'll be so not good at it that after a couple of rounds trying it out, you'll go back to other, more effective, maneuvers. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> Right, the idea is to say "No", but in a subtle way that makes it sound like you are saying "Yes".  "Yes" you can use the goblin's harpoon, but "no" you won't be any good at it.  In fact, you'll be so not good at it that after a couple of rounds trying it out, you'll go back to other, more effective, maneuvers.
> 
> Thaumaturge.




Precisely.  This is one of the Great Secrets of successful DMing.

"Yes, you can scavenge 30 suits of orc plate.  How are you hauling them back to town?  Also, they're sized for orcs, whose body proportions are way different from humans--longer arms, shorter legs, bent backs.  And this is plate armor, which has to be individually fitted to each wearer.  You need a blacksmith just to make it fit another orc; refitting it for a human would require melting it down completely.  So unless you plan to sell it as scrap iron for about one percent of list price, finding a buyer is going to be... challenging.

"But sure--if you really want to be, you are now the proud owner of 30 suits of orc plate."


----------



## Thaumaturge (Mar 12, 2008)

Great.  Fantastic.  It's a "Great Secret"?  I'm so screwed.  Will the zombie ninjas be killing me in my sleep tonight or do I have 1d6 days?

Crap.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## robertliguori (Mar 12, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Precisely.  This is one of the Great Secrets of successful DMing.
> 
> "Yes, you can scavenge 30 suits of orc plate.  How are you hauling them back to town?  Also, they're sized for orcs, whose body proportions are way different from humans--longer arms, shorter legs, bent backs.  And this is plate armor, which has to be individually fitted to each wearer.  You need a blacksmith just to make it fit another orc; refitting it for a human would require melting it down completely.  So unless you plan to sell it as scrap iron for about one percent of list price, finding a buyer is going to be... challenging.
> 
> "But sure--if you really want to be, you are now the proud owner of 30 suits of orc plate."




"So, what you're saying is that this plate is actually ultra-rare plate, since no one but orcs has a need for it, and I just need to find 30 orcish warlords who could use a set, keeping in mind that orcish warlords tend to be rich and can afford things like high-quality armor?"
"Er-"
"Come to that, who was making this plate, anyway? Who is putting the services of master armorsmiths to work armoring orcish minions?  How much did it cost them to get this made, and why did they do so?"
"Um-"
"I smell an opportunity for riches and adventure! Obviously there is a grand conspiracy afoot! Let us put our current dungeon-delve on hold and investigate this mystery!"

That's the problem with on-the-fly adjucation; you need to mean it.  "You can't do X because of Y." will blow up in your face unless you think through the implications of Y being true first.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> "So, what you're saying is that this plate is actually ultra-rare plate, since no one but orcs has a need for it, and I just need to find 30 orcish warlords who could use a set, keeping in mind that orcish warlords tend to be rich and can afford things like high-quality armor?"
> "Er-"
> "Come to that, who was making this plate, anyway? Who is putting the services of master armorsmiths to work armoring orcish minions?  How much did it cost them to get this made, and why did they do so?"
> "Um-"
> ...




Well, yeah.  Sometimes the players will find a logical loophole in your explanations and exploit it; that's when you have to just suck it up and find a way to cope--or, better yet, turn it to your advantage.  After all, who the heck _is_ armoring orc grunts in full plate?  That sounds like an adventure hook right there...


----------



## Rykion (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> PC's are on bridge over canyon.
> Picadors are on either side of canyon, parallel to the bridge, as follows:
> 
> P B P
> ...



I think it's important to point out that the pulling one square even on a miss happens with the tug of war attack.  The goblin has to hit with a regular attack from the harpoon first. Then it will be able to use tug of war on its next turn assuming it's alive and the PC didn't remove the harpoon.  For this encounter, I would increase the base CR, or XP as is the case for 4E, to account for the bridge environment.  That means the party would be facing fewer picadors than in a normally balanced encounter.  I hope 4E has specific rules for balancing controllers in dangerous environments.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 12, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> Right, the idea is to say "No", but in a subtle way that makes it sound like you are saying "Yes".  "Yes" you can use the goblin's harpoon, but "no" you won't be any good at it.  In fact, you'll be so not good at it that after a couple of rounds trying it out, you'll go back to other, more effective, maneuvers.
> 
> Thaumaturge.




In other words: "I have control over this game, but I will make it seem like I don't so you can't actually call me on it."

Or am I missing the point?

Anyways...

I don't see why you can't just let a player use the same tug-of-war mechanics.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2008)

> Precisely. This is one of the Great Secrets of successful DMing.
> 
> "Yes, you can scavenge 30 suits of orc plate. How are you hauling them back to town? Also, they're sized for orcs, whose body proportions are way different from humans--longer arms, shorter legs, bent backs. And this is plate armor, which has to be individually fitted to each wearer. You need a blacksmith just to make it fit another orc; refitting it for a human would require melting it down completely. So unless you plan to sell it as scrap iron for about one percent of list price, finding a buyer is going to be... challenging.
> 
> "But sure--if you really want to be, you are now the proud owner of 30 suits of orc plate."




That's pretty lame, IMO. Part 1 is that it's internally kind of inconsistent:

"So you're telling me I have 30 unique pieces of armor that have only ever been worn by these specific orcs and cannot fit another orc, let alone any other creature of similar size? Where do these orcs get their well-forged elite armor? Time to investigate the dwarves! And how do they pay for it?

Wait, on second thought, screw the dwarves. If the orcs have enough wealth to individually craft 30 pieces of plate for the goons we just wiped the floor with, lets go give the tribe back their armor, and get the orcs to hire us. Obviously, the king is being scrimpy if friggin' ORCS can do this well."

Part 2 is that it's retconning the setting to bone the players for no obvious reason. What harm would it do to let them wear the smelly hand-me down of orcs? Or to sell them for 1/2 the price of a normal suit of plate? 

Similarly, the excuse for the goblin harpoon tells my players that instead of killing the guy, they win him over to their side, slap a leash on him, treat him well, and have HIM reel in his fellow goblins into smashing distance for the party fighter. Or to somehow get the proper training (surely it isn't rocket science, that goblin didn't have too high of an INT! He's A GOBLIN!). Or whatever.

Besides, saying "No" is no fun and runs counter to every good improvosational tactic known to man. Saying "Yes!" empowers the players, lets them experiment more (and find rewards when they do!), and makes me think more as a DM, while getting on with it. 

I don't want or need any game that tells me to constantly say "NO!" to players or it will become unbalanced. 

That's Infinite Suck, IMO.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 12, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> Perhaps you came into the game with 3e and don't know any better



Perhaps you shouldn't confuse a statement of the way things are, with my opinion on how they should be.  And for the record I started with the red box (Erol Otus cover).


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> In other words: "I have control over this game, but I will make it seem like I don't so you can't actually call me on it."
> 
> Or am I missing the point?
> 
> ...




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

Basically, imposing a -10 penalty on all associated rolls is a way of allowing the players to attempt stuff like this if they absolutely insist on doing so, but making it utterly sub-optimal so you don't have to worry about balance.  It's a safety net so you can deal with this kind of thing on the fly.

If a player really wants his/her PC to be able to use a goblin harpoon _effectively_, that's when you sit down with the player and hash out some mechanics for a) what will be required to learn to use the harpoon, and b) how it will work in player hands.  But that's not something you want to be doing in the middle of an adventure.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 12, 2008)

Yeah. Bottom line, what does it hurt really.  Make it a power they have to select once they are proficient (if it isnt already in the PH, which I haven't given up on).  As for adjudicating the things that can be done, we just have to turn to common sense.  I'd keep it at same or smaller size,one-at-a-time, and yes there would be vs play with the harpooned creature suffering a slight disadvantage of some sort.  

And, like mentioned above, I think there is a better description waiting for us in one of those three holy books we are all waiting on.  But if there isn't, we can roll with it


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The great thing is, it's a _magic_ harpoon, so that even after you've been impaled and dragged around, the wound closes if you have a good nap. (Or get yelled at by the Warlord)




*shrug*

As a child, my hand got electrocuted by a faulty wall socket. I had to have surgery to graft new skin onto it, as well as recurring medical treatments to ensure there was no permanent nerve damage. It took me almost a year to fully recover, with physical therapy. And that was just a hand that was shocked for a second or two.

I broke both my ankles while waterskiing when I was 15 years old. I spent about 3 months in a wheelchair, another 6 in crutches and physical therapy, learning how to walk again.

As a 3rd Edition adventurer, I can be eaten by a tyrannosaur, cut my way out, watch his wound seal itself (WTF?!) and heal from overwhelming acid damage without scars, physical therapy, or nerve damage in about a week. In fact, even before healing, I would be impaired by my whole-body acid burns in exactly no way. In 2nd and earlier, I would heal much slower than this, but it still wouldn't take 9-12 months (with outside assistance) to recover fully.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 12, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I think 4E ought to have a general guideline for DMs (and if there isn't, I may invent one) which says, "When somebody tries to use a special ability that s/he does not have normal access to, and it's reasonable that that person should be able to attempt it, apply a -10 penalty on all associated rolls."  (Or -5, or whatever.)
> 
> So, for instance, if you pick up the harpoon, you can use the goblin's harpooning abilities, but with -10 on Tug of War checks and the like, because you don't have the specialized training and practice the goblin does.  You won't be any good at it, you'll almost always fail, but if you really want to try--go for it.
> 
> Naturally, this could not be a hard-and-fast rule; but as a guideline for on-the-fly DM calls, I think it could work.



Even if we weren't already promised such guidelines, I can already see some things a DM can come up on its own.

One thing that I noticed is that most powers let you deal damage (sometimes even more then usueal) _and_ give you a special benefit. Marking Foes, sliding, pulling, pushing, or whatever else. A Trip power in 4E would probably allow you deal damage and trip your opponent.

(Skip any point that is not reasonable due to the circumstances, or just not to your taste)
(1) Is not to hand out penalties, but to remove the benefit of "damage + bonus". 
(2) Increase the amount of time it takes. If it's a standard attack, it requires a minor action + a standard attack now. If it was a minor attack, it takes a standard attack. If it was free, it's minor. If it required one move, it requires two.
(3) Require a special condition - stunned, immobilized, combat advantage, weakened, or whatever else as a prerequisite. 
(4) If it seems very hard to do, make it cost an action point. 
(5) If it is very useful, make it a "once per encounter" thing. 
(6) Leading to an instant death scenario (regardless of hp/reasonable damage per round)? Grant a save to avoid the deadly effect.
(7) Apply a penalty of -5 it its still to powerful or unbelievable.
(8) Still to awesome? Make the penalty -10. 
(9) Not happy yet? Well, just say no. But don't come to me if that makes your player cry.

There is, off course, a (0)th guideline:
Roll an Attack or Skill (including possibly an untrained skill) vs one of the defenses. Since the math "works", you don't get into the 3.x problems when trying to use skills for saves or attacks. (If you're copying a powers effect, use the listed attacks and defenses)

Basically, the goal of these guidelines should be: It sucks if the cool maneuver you just made up doesn't work. It's okay if it's hard to pull off and other maneuvers might - at least going by action cost, damage, and secondary effect - be more effective.


----------



## Kraydak (Mar 12, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

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




The mechanics are flat out stupid.  If roll was at a substantial penalty, with positive modifiers for every additional picador, no effect on a failure and 1 square movement (per picador?), it might make sense.  What is worse, it defines harpoon rules in a stupidly overpowered fashion.  Which brings us to:



> Basically, imposing a -10 penalty on all associated rolls is a way of allowing the players to attempt stuff like this if they absolutely insist on doing so, but making it utterly sub-optimal so you don't have to worry about balance.  It's a safety net so you can deal with this kind of thing on the fly.




It is not a way of saying "yes" safely.  Its is a way of saying "no" for those without the guts to be honest about it.  Never, ever, think the players won't recognize it for what it is.



> ...  But that's not something you want to be doing in the middle of an adventure.




Exactly.  The DM should not be faced with monster descriptions that force *him* rather than the (not well enough, granted) paid designers to do sanity fixes.


----------



## robertliguori (Mar 12, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's pretty lame, IMO. Part 1 is that it's internally kind of inconsistent:
> 
> "So you're telling me I have 30 unique pieces of armor that have only ever been worn by these specific orcs and cannot fit another orc, let alone any other creature of similar size? Where do these orcs get their well-forged elite armor? Time to investigate the dwarves! And how do they pay for it?
> 
> ...




It's funny.  Exhaustive, well-balanced, shared mechanics are the single best way to get "Yes you can." IMHO.

You want to rip the harpoon out of you? OK, you have rules for that.  Specifically, you make the movement limitation contingent on not ripping the harpoon out of you; you're moving with the picador because you don't want to take the additional 2d6 damage.

You want to snap off the shaft? OK.  The harpoon has stats.  That includes hardness and HP.

You want to target the rope and leave the harpoon in you? Rope has stats, as well.

You want to rip it out of you and use it against the goblin? OK.  You lack Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Harpoon), so that's a -4 on your attack roll.  You want to use the harpoon to its full potential? That's another feat.  Here they are.

The goblin? He's a goblin Ftr2, with his two fighter bonus feats going towards EWP(Harpoon) and Harpoon Tactics.  He's a low-level badass with the bulk of his badassness devoted towards harpooning.  If you devote a similar amount of badassness, you can do similar.

You want to keep the goblin around with you? OK, he's an ECL0 creature.  Since there is a unified creature mechanic, he works just fine.

You died and want to take over play from the perspective of the goblin picador that you captured from way back when?  OK, you can do that.  Here's your character sheet.


Now, you can improvise any one of those, or even any of them.  And if you are good at improvisation, then what you pull off will be consistent and balanced.  However, the reason we have rules in the first place is generally to avoid the need to adjudicate something on the fly.  This sort of thing is why I think that the 3.5E style of rules is worth doing.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 12, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> It is not a way of saying "yes" safely.  Its is a way of saying "no" for those without the guts to be honest about it.  Never, ever, think the players won't recognize it for what it is.




No, it's a way of saying "You can try."  Because the PC _can_ try it.  Often they'll try just for the heck of it.  Sometimes the circumstances are such that even with the -10, in this one bizarre situation, it's worth making the attempt.  And sometimes the player rolls a natural 20, it actually works, and everyone yells and cheers.

That's a long way from saying "No, you can't even try."  It's also a long way from saying "Yes, you can use the ability as written with no penalty," and watching half your party morph into picadors when they discover that the mechanic is in some fashion Awesome in PC hands.

(I might also allow the use of an action point to remove the -10, or at least cut it down to -5.)



			
				robertliguori said:
			
		

> It's funny.  Exhaustive, well-balanced, shared mechanics are the single best way to get "Yes you can." IMHO.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Now, you can improvise any one of those, or even any of them.  And if you are good at improvisation, then what you pull off will be consistent and balanced.  However, the reason we have rules in the first place is generally to avoid the need to adjudicate something on the fly.  This sort of thing is why I think that the 3.5E style of rules is worth doing.




No RPG ever written has had rules to cover every contingency, not even 3.5E, although God knows it tried.  To take an example I've had to deal with more than once, what if the barbarian wants to grab hold of the tail of the dragon swooping down, claw his way up its back as it soars up into the air, and start whacking at the beast as it flies?  It's not grappling, because he's not trying to restrain or hinder the dragon, just hold onto it.  There's no Climb DC listed for "flying opponent."  Nowhere in the list of attack modifiers does it tell you the bonus or penalty for "standing on the enemy's back."  The DM is going to have to improvise something, because the rules simply don't tell you how to handle that maneuver.

And there's a heavy cost to trying to create an exhaustive ruleset, which is that the core books become horribly bloated with rules to cover all kinds of weird corner cases.  Finding the rules you use on a regular basis becomes ever more frustrating as you skim past endless once-in-a-lifetime scenarios.  And when you do encounter a weird corner case, everything grinds to a halt as you go digging for that one rule, somewhere, that tells you what to do in this situation.

Much better IMO to create a ruleset that covers the most common scenarios, preferably with rules that are light, quick, and easy to remember; and that then provides _guidelines_ on improvising to fit unexpected situations.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's pretty lame, IMO. Part 1 is that it's internally kind of inconsistent:
> 
> "So you're telling me I have 30 unique pieces of armor that have only ever been worn by these specific orcs and cannot fit another orc, let alone any other creature of similar size? Where do these orcs get their well-forged elite armor? Time to investigate the dwarves! And how do they pay for it?
> 
> Wait, on second thought, screw the dwarves. If the orcs have enough wealth to individually craft 30 pieces of plate for the goons we just wiped the floor with, lets go give the tribe back their armor, and get the orcs to hire us. Obviously, the king is being scrimpy if friggin' ORCS can do this well."




Well, frankly, that's stuff you should have thought of before you put 30 suits of plate armor on a bunch of orcs.  Full plate costs 1,500 gold pieces.  That's some pretty hefty cash to outfit thirty grunts.  I'd assume these were some kind of elite guards, 4th or 5th level.

Possibly I should have made it clearer that all the stuff I described about the armor is what I would consider reasonable limitations.  If PCs want to try to make a buck off the orcs' full plate, that's fine, but just as they have the right to demand that orcs in full plate actually leave full plate behind when they die, I have the right to demand that they deal with all the difficulties that would logically ensue from taking it back to town for sale.

Verisimilitude is a two-way street; plate armor (the nonmagical kind, at least) really does require extensive individual fitting, such armor made to fit orcs really would have to be pretty much melted down before it fit humans, and hauling thirty suits of full plate back to town really would be a non-trivial undertaking.  This isn't a video game, and there isn't an automated merchant ready to shell out one-half list price for every random thing.

You want to sell the armor to an orcish warlord?  Go for it--but you have to find the warlord, and then you have to convince him to not just kill you and take the armor.  It won't be easy, but if you pull it off, you'll come away with a load of cash.  Could make for a pretty fun adventure, in fact.

What all this boils down to is, if PCs want to do something weird and potentially disruptive to the game, I'm going to think about what obstacles might reasonably stand in their way.  I will announce those obstacles and let them decide whether it's worth it.  If they decide it is in fact worth it, so be it; I'll figure out a way to cope with any problems that result.  But by making them work for it, I ensure that if I am in fact putting in the effort to incorporate whatever-it-is into the game, it's for something the players are genuinely interested in.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 12, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Now, you can improvise any one of those, or even any of them.  And if you are good at improvisation, then what you pull off will be consistent and balanced.  However, the reason we have rules in the first place is generally to avoid the need to adjudicate something on the fly.  This sort of thing is why I think that the 3.5E style of rules is worth doing.



Options have value (just ask Mr. Black and Mr. Scholes).  But consider the following Activities:

1. Times My PCs Have Killed Goblins: 10,562 (est.)
2. Times My PCs Have (Deliberately) Been Reincarnated As A Goblin: 0

Options have value, but they also have a cost. Imposing a cost (C) on Act.1 for the benefit of receiving a value (V) on Act.2 is only worth it where {C*Act.1 < V*Act.2}.  Regardless of the value of C (expressed in units of time) and V (subjective), we know that the value of Act.2 is 0 and that the values of C and Act.1 are positive.  Therefore, {C*Act.1 < V*Act.2} is always false.

This sort of thing is why I think that the 3.5E style of rules is not worth doing.


----------



## hong (Mar 12, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> For that matter I put up with it in videogames where the bad guys stuff can never be recovered, but they'll drop things they never used. It doesn't make sense in a crpg, but you put up with it because you have to. In D&D if you attack me with 30 orcs wearing plate mail, I am by god going to scavange 30 suits of orc plate.




... of course, only in a CRPG could you carry 30 suits of orc plate.

I solve this problem by banning gold.



> Don't tell me it's gamist and I don't understand it. I understand it. I've seen it before, and I'm sick of it. There is a minimum about of simulation that I must see in an RPG or it's not an RPG anymore, and I won't play it.




Oh well.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 12, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Part 2 is that it's retconning the setting to bone the players for no obvious reason. What harm would it do to let them wear the smelly hand-me down of orcs?



None, as long as the players understand the following: 
1. Penalty to AC. The armor doesn't fit and has gaps.
2. Penalty to Att. The armor doesn't fit, and restricts natural movement.
3. Penalty to Social Encounters. You stink like an Orc.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Or to sell them for 1/2 the price of a normal suit of plate?



Who says you'd get that much? It's not worth much to anyone not an orc except for its weight in iron. Armor you can't wear or use sells for 0 gp unless you've found a collector of smelly orc armor (these people exist - just check out E*Bay).

And because I know that everyone in this thread is just dying to know, I'll let you in on how I solve this in my campaigns: Inferior materials.  Goblins and orc usually only have hide armors and wooden or bronze weapons.  Hobgoblins have iron (as opposed to steel) weapons and armor.  The bronze stuff suffers a -2 penalty to Dmg/AC, while the Iron stuff is 1.5x as heavy as steel.  This allows PCs to use the weapons in a pinch (like if they escape from an Orc prison), but they usually ditch them as soon as good human/elven/dwarven steel is available.  It also means that these armor and weapons usually only sell for 1-5% list price for equivalent steel alternatives in any human/elven/dwarven settlement that has access to (superior) steel.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Besides, saying "No" is no fun and runs counter to every good improvosational tactic known to man. Saying "Yes!" empowers the players, lets them experiment more (and find rewards when they do!), and makes me think more as a DM, while getting on with it.



I fully agree! But saying "Yes!" to everything without imposing reasonable conditions isn't the answer either.  The best way forward (IMO) is "Conditionally, Yes!"


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Methinks the lady doth protest too much.



Youthinks wrong.  Very very wrong.

Funny how the clinging need to falsely compare to reality keeps being the refuge of these arguments.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 12, 2008)

Also aren't we talking about something that has already been slightly addressed by the AICM review? I know people will say it was biased, and wasn't a proper review, etc, etc.

But he does state that 4E really helps with letting the DM go, YES! So I imagine there will be some just generic-stamp on rules in the DMG/PHB which can work for a variety of things.

As for the Goblin I absolutely adore the guy, I can't wait till we have the Barbarian, so I can do the following.

"Four Goblin Picador surround the Barbarian they each throw and embed their barbs in his flesh. Then hold tight, the Barbarian begins to Rage, thrashing about, but being unable to move (he is right in the middle of the group so it is 5 Squares all the way around). Using his extra-strength from Rage, he grabs the rope and swings the Goblins into the air, making himself a 4-pronged Goblin flail"


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 12, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Youthinks wrong.  Very very wrong.
> 
> Funny how the clinging need to falsely compare to reality keeps being the refuge of these arguments.




When someone says it's more believable to recover from grave injuries in 10 days than 6 hours, and realistically those injuries would take a person a year or so to recover from with modern medical science, their sense of "realism" and "believability" is so skewed as to not merit those descriptive terms.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that hit points have never been realistic. Ever.


----------



## Protagonist (Mar 12, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> When someone says it's more believable to recover from grave injuries in 10 days than 6 hours, and realistically those injuries would take a person a year or so to recover from with modern medical science, their sense of "realism" and "believability" is so skewed as to not merit those descriptive terms.
> 
> And that doesn't even touch on the fact that hit points have never been realistic. Ever.




what he said!


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 12, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The great thing is, it's a _magic_ harpoon, so that even after you've been impaled and dragged around, the wound closes if you have a good nap. (Or get yelled at by the Warlord)
> 
> (If you want hit points to be explicitly non-wounding, then, don't include game effects which are explicitly wounding...)



What, you mean like rules for trolls regrowing limbs or the _regenerate_ spell? We've had this problem for a long, long time.

If this is so offensive, stick a harpooning victim with an injury penalty that lasts a few days or requires magical healing. Nice and easy.


----------



## IanB (Mar 13, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> As a child, my hand got electrocuted by a faulty wall socket.




OFF TOPIC PET PEEVE NITPICK WARNING

If you are still alive, you didn't get electrocuted. You got shocked.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled on-topic argument.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 13, 2008)

Hell, you can even change the kind of harpoon if you want, you can switch from the classic pronged harpoon too a barbed one, and have it that the harpoon has hooked onto the PCs flesh with the barbs.

Barbs would be quite painful and hard to take out, which constitutes the control the Goblin has, cause come on. No matter how strong you are, unless you have gone total berserk (like my Barbarian idea) when your flesh is being tugged on by barbs you will follow that tug to lessen the pain.

Also while barbs are quite dangerous, they really aren't all that life-threatening, you just have some gouges that can be patched up pretty well.

Also and finally, barbs can hook onto clothing and armour as well, so if you wished to, (say it hit but barely) it can simply be hooked on the clothing.


----------



## baberg (Mar 13, 2008)

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?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 13, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> That hit points don't cause lasting damage does not mean that they are not associated with wounds. That PCs regain all their hit points does not mean that they are unwounded.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to continue this discussion on every thread, but I wish you would stop beginning all your posts with a straw man argument regarding the rules, other posters, or both.



QFT.  There is already a thread for this.  If you don't like that thread, start a new one for complaining about HP.  All this cross-posting of snarky commentary concerning pet peeves by everyone with pet peeves is really starting to stink.  If you have a dead horse that you think needs more beating, by all means start your own thread.  But your horse is dead, and we don't need to watch you beating it, because it ain't gonna get up and dance.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 13, 2008)

Wystan said:
			
		

> I apologize, just tired of sitting around whilst others concoct arguments that hold no bearing. If my Suspension of Disbelief allows me to understand overnight healing, why must I be told so often that I am wrong?
> 
> As to the Picador's abilities, I would assume they are more in line with the Bugbear Strangler and a monster ability, not a weapon ability.



I get the feeling that this sort of thing is what they meant when they were talking about how it matters now what weapon you take as a fighter.  This is exactly the sort of thing I envision fighters being able to "unlock" by being proficient in a particular weapon.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 13, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I get the feeling that this sort of thing is what they meant when they were talking about how it matters now what weapon you take as a fighter.  This is exactly the sort of thing I envision fighters being able to "unlock" by being proficient in a particular weapon.




Can you say Dragon-hunter!


----------



## med stud (Mar 13, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> When someone says it's more believable to recover from grave injuries in 10 days than 6 hours, and realistically those injuries would take a person a year or so to recover from with modern medical science, their sense of "realism" and "believability" is so skewed as to not merit those descriptive terms.
> 
> And that doesn't even touch on the fact that hit points have never been realistic. Ever.



Amen. A playable RPG will not have realistic or believable healing times. If realistic/believable is out, then it makes sense to have playable healing times instead.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 13, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, I'd say that logically, the goblin could just drop the rope, but that kind of simulationist thinking is verboten.



By Hypersmurf, maybe.  But applied to the rest of us, it's just more hyperbole.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 13, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I would respond like this:
> 
> "Roll for it.  Standard action, Str vs. Fort.  On a hit you can pull him 3 squares.  If you miss, you can only pull him 1."
> 
> ...



Forcing a player to spend an action point in order to pull off something ridiculous but flashy is a perfectly acceptable trade-off, IMO.  I'm going to use that.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 13, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> "So, what you're saying is that this plate is actually ultra-rare plate, since no one but orcs has a need for it, and I just need to find 30 orcish warlords who could use a set, keeping in mind that orcish warlords tend to be rich and can afford things like high-quality armor?"



And high-level minions who will kill you for a fortune in orcish plate armour?


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> My criticism above is one I absolutely expect to hear if I use this monster in combat.  The picador will throw his harpoon, snag some big strong PC, and the first words out of that player's mouth will be, "Okay, I drag him along.  He's a goblin, how the heck is he going to hold me in place?"  It's a totally rational and logical response.



_"How? He's diggin in and holding tight."_ And if the player makes a good point, then you make a ruling. You tell the player _"Sure, standard action, Str vs. Fort. If you win, move up to your speed and gobbo's gotta chose whether to be pulled along or to let you keep the harpoon."_


----------



## william_nova (Mar 13, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If they want to explicitly make hit points cuts/bruises/exhaustion/stress, then, they should not build mechanics into the game which imply explicit wounds.
> 
> Suppose I have a monster called the Hobgoblin Executioner who wields a Great Big Axe. He has a per encounter power which slices off a limb, with the effect of you drop anything you were holding and take 2d10 damage. The game effect is 'drop items and take damage', but the flavor text is 'the hobgoblin chops your arm off'.
> 
> ...




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).  

Personally, I've played tons and tons of RPGs.  None are perfect.  All of them sacrifice some mechanics for others, attempt to get one feel at the expense of another.  Personally I don't see 4e as a wargame *or* a brutal WoW'ing down.

As a disclaimer, I played 1e and 2e, but I swore off 3e.  I hated it.  Now 4e, that's more the game I think it always should have been.  

So say what you will, but WotC got me back.  Never thought I'd be saying that.  But come Keep on the Shadowfell I will be back.  Playing D&D.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Mar 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> This looks like a great monster concept; my worry is that WotC won't do the work to rationalize how its abilities work in combat, in a way that stands up to player scrutiny.
> 
> It's kind of a blind spot WotC has.  They'll go to extravagant lengths in every other regard to make the DM's life easier.  But then they put in mechanics like the picador harpoon--mechanics which will cause major suspension-of-disbelief issues without a carefully-thought-out explanation--and slap on a shaky bit of fluff that even a mildly inquisitive player will tear apart.
> 
> ...




I think this a list of very good and well thought out concerns, even though non of us don't quite know the rule exceptions 4e has.


----------



## Andor (Mar 13, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

william_nova said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				baberg said:
			
		

> 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?






			
				baberg said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

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



I feel like that sometimes.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 13, 2008)

*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 (Mar 13, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 13, 2008)

> 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.




I dig this, anything is doable if a sacrifice of time and effort are made.  Barring what could be seen as supernatural or spell-like, damn near every monster feature is a feat, a power slot, or both away.  It just takes forethought from the DM, and willingness to go along from the player who wants it (and he or she better be damned sure about it because they gotta earn what they want, is my motto).  I hate soft _yeses_ that wrap around hidden _nos_ because they make my tongue thicken and reek as I'm uttering them.  I'll make a deal with the players if its on level terms, which are more often my terms than theirs.

I mean I've sit down and written up entire races, classes, feats, spells, and lots more to helpthose folks have the game thy want, with the balance I need.  In the end you kind of have to, to a degree.  I mean they _are_ the ones who show up to listen to your story, and you won't have one without them.  If it can be imagined then it can be realized, and I learned long ago that at my table I don't hold the monopoly on good ideas.

Damn, I'm not even sure if I'm on-topic anymore....GOBLIN PICADOR FTW!!!!


----------



## FadedC (Mar 13, 2008)

There may actually be a very simple way to adjudicate a player who wants to use a picador's harpoon.

Throwing a harpoon is an at will power. At various points during character progression a character gains access to new at will powers. Simply allow them to substitute throw harpoon for whatever new power they would otherwise get. Problem solved.

Might not work for everything, but seems perfectly balanced for the harpoon. In 3.x you'd need to wait til you got a new feat to learn the weapon, in 4.0 you wait til you get a new power.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (Mar 13, 2008)

With a 1:1 ratio of opponents or worse, the harpoon ability is likely worse than useless.  

It looks like it can be a good tactical option, but only if you outnumber the oppositions against whom you are using the harpoon.  Say you have 8 goblins including 2 picadors, two soldiers type and four skirmishers.  You  can use the two Picadors to tie the fighter and warlord and send the four skirmishers against the Wizard and Warlock.  The fighter won't be able to help them until he's killed the damn picador.  And the picador could be hiding behind the soldier, making it harder to get to him, all but guaranteeing that the two weaker PCs are on their own against the skirmishers.  That's great!

But 1:1 (4v4), it's silly because just as the picador ties a PC, that picador ties himself.  He hasn't accomplished much.  If he has harpooned a defender, the fighter won't care much because he intends to move forward anyway in order to kill the goblins!  If there is an additional goblin protecting the picador, the controller and striker are free to do what they want because there is only two goblins left for three PCs.  And if there is no soldier protecting him, he'll die fast.

It's like attempting to blitz in football by using as many or fewer rushers as there are offensive linemen (which technically isn't a blitz, I know, and is my point).  

If you harppon a ranged attacker, it's no better with only 4 goblins.  Say you harpoon the ranger (or any PCs who is trying to avoid melee with your goblins).  Next round, what?  You pull him?  Tug of war is a standard action.  Your goblins will be sacrificing 25% of their damage dealing potential against PCs who aren't returning the favour.  And since the defender and leader (the two likely melee combatants) are free of their movements, you have accomplished squat.  What does it matter that you pull the ranger toward the picador?  If you have no soldier in front of you to attack the ranger, he'll just shoot at you while you waste your time pulling.  If you do have soldiers to pull the ranger against, the lots of you are obviously open to an area attack from the controller and will then get charged by the defender and leader.  With just 4 goblins against 4 PCs, you are wasting your time with this harpoon schtick.

As a result, it's a poor PCs weapon because they rarely have numerical advantage.  And when they do have it, they are often facing monsters who are either too big to be harpooned or have great fortitude.    

But for a horde of goblin, it looks like a fantastic opportunity to make the fight memorable.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 13, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> 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 you're looking for a pro-4e echo chamber, there may be other forums more suited to that sort of thing.  If you want an actual discussion, welcome to ENworld.  There are a few rabidly anti-4e posters here, along with a number of rabid pro-4e posters.  I tend to skim over posts made by either set.  But if you truly think someone has nothing to say that's worthwhile to you, there's an ignore function.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 13, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> If you're looking for a pro-4e echo chamber, there may be other forums more suited to that sort of thing.




No, there aren't. ENWorld is the friendliest place on the net towards 4e.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 13, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> If you're looking for a pro-4e echo chamber, there may be other forums more suited to that sort of thing.  If you want an actual discussion, welcome to ENworld.  There are a few rabidly anti-4e posters here, along with a number of rabid pro-4e posters.  I tend to skim over posts made by either set.  But if you truly think someone has nothing to say that's worthwhile to you, there's an ignore function.



Nah, use the ignore function with care. You need to read a lot of posts to gauge someone "ignore-worthy", in my opinion. 4E is the first time I ever used the function, and my ignore list contains only one poster so far. Maybe there is a second in the making ATM, but I just say: Use it carefully. 

And note that it doesn't protect you entirely. You still see answers (including quotes) to the post of an ignored poster... Which means if a thread derails, you'll still see the whole derailment except for the "offending" post.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Even if we weren't already promised such guidelines, I can already see some things a DM can come up on its own.
> 
> One thing that I noticed is that most powers let you deal damage (sometimes even more then usueal) _and_ give you a special benefit. Marking Foes, sliding, pulling, pushing, or whatever else. A Trip power in 4E would probably allow you deal damage and trip your opponent.
> 
> ...



*channels hong*  
Why does no one listen to me? 
No one listens to meeeee!


----------



## hong (Mar 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> *channels hong*
> Why does no one listen to me?
> No one listens to meeeee!



 I'm listening, Mustrum! I love you man!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 13, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm listening, Mustrum! I love you man!



Ah... I am feeling all warm and fuzzy inside now...


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 13, 2008)

Too me it looks like the new rules are going to actually going to need a lot  'common sense' vs 'rules lawyer' conflict.

Rule Lawyer - It seems to appear that the goblin can *at will* harpoon several characters, IE: He could harpoon one, one round and another the next.

Common Sense - Once a character is harpooned the goblin should be restricted to *Tug of War* until the player removes the harpoon.

Plus while is says Standard action, Str vs Fort to remove, surely some player is going to ask if he just can't cut the rope? Or Tug the goblin on his turn. To which the DM is going to have to rule on the fly.

I personally am happy to see this, the rules in 3rd Ed covered too much IMHO and made it hard for the DMG to ad lib something without the players pointing to a rule in some book somewhere.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 13, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> To which the DM is going to have to rule on the fly.



Speaking strictly for myself (as an incredibly lazy DM), I find dealing with hundreds of fiddly little rules more annoying than making ad hoc rulings.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 13, 2008)

Exactly rather than have a rule for every possible method of dealing with a harpoon (which would have been 3rd Ed's approach), I'd rather have the standard rule, and then guidelines on how to improvise (from the DMG).


----------



## Tuft (Mar 13, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> But 1:1 (4v4), it's silly because just as the picador ties a PC, that picador ties himself.  He hasn't accomplished much.




Just put a chasm or a few pit traps between the PCs and the goblins.  Or any other kind of hazardous terrain... Remember, the puller gets to choose which square to pull to, as long as it is closer. See the later parts of the unexpected tactics thread.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Nah, use the ignore function with care. You need to read a lot of posts to gauge someone "ignore-worthy", in my opinion. 4E is the first time I ever used the function, and my ignore list contains only one poster so far. Maybe there is a second in the making ATM, but I just say: Use it carefully.
> 
> And note that it doesn't protect you entirely. You still see answers (including quotes) to the post of an ignored poster... Which means if a thread derails, you'll still see the whole derailment except for the "offending" post.




Yeah, I put someone on my ignore list recently... then I realized there wasn't any point, since everyone else replied to his posts anyway.  The only difference was that now I'd have to wait until somebody quoted the original post before I understood why the thread was derailing.  So I took him off again.

Ultimately, I think it's best just to learn not to take it personally.  When a poster you find consistently irritating posts something, cultivate an attitude of "Oh, that's just so-and-so going off again," enjoy a sense of superiority, and move on without replying.


----------



## Goblyns Hoard (Mar 13, 2008)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> That might be even better than my proposed save ends; instead both characters get the benefit of Tug of War and make it STR vs. STR opposed roll instead of STR vs. Fort attack roll?
> 
> Either party can initiate Tug of War against the other.  The character that uses the Tug of War action gets the benefit (pull 3 squares on hit; pull 1 square on miss).  The attacker holding the harpoon can drop the weapon as free action to avoid the effects of being Tugged by his target.
> 
> Man, the possibilities here . . .





Agreed, would be a nice touch.

However I'd say that the harpoonee should not get the same effect as the harpooner.  On a narrative basis - the harpoonee is pulling the harpooner around based on something that's sticking in him - that's going to hurt, so he's probably not pulling as hard.  Plus it's not his thing, he's unlikely to have the training to know how to pull the other guy to best effect.  And on a purely gamist aspect - it's the picador's special ability, if the victim gets to use it against him, then there are times (e.g. against high strength characters) where he's going to get the shaft for 'doing his thing'.  

So I'd scale down the effect that the harpoonee can have so it's a little less than that of the harpooner, but otherwise definitely a nice extension to put abilities into weapons beyond just damage and crit range


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

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




Look at the sample PCs.  Not a single one of them can make that attack roll (except on a natural 20).  The dwarven fighter has a +3 Str.  She can't even hit Fort 14 on a 20 with a -10 penalty (except for the "natural 20" auto-hit factor).

You'd need a Str mod of +14 to have a 50-50 chance of pulling the level 2 goblin 3 squares with that -10 penalty.  What are we talking about, 8th level Fighters?

Okay, so you're not actually saying no.  It's just that the modifier makes that action, which I think is cool, completely worthless.



			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> 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.




Of all the monster special abilities I've seen, how many could the PCs use?

I can see this one, and using the kobold slinger's special ammo.  That's about it.  Neither one is terribly broken in the PC's hands.



			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> 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_.




Even if the PCs can use this Tug-of-War ability, I don't think they would do it often.  Only in certain circumstances whould a 50% chance of pulling the goblin a few squares be worth trading a standard action for.



> 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.




Notice that I'm not talking about being able to use the harpoon the same way the goblin does.  I'm saying that, once you're hit by the harpoon, allowing a PC to tug on it to pull the goblin (the Tug-of-War entry) seems fine.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Mar 13, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> I love the picador, too, and I've already figured out an encounter where the PCs have to cross logs where these guys will come in handy. Heh heh.




You, sir (uh..or ma'am), are evil and I shall have to steal this idea.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 13, 2008)

Goblyns Hoard said:
			
		

> And on a purely gamist aspect - it's the picador's special ability, if the victim gets to use it against him, then there are times (e.g. against high strength characters) where he's going to get the shaft for 'doing his thing'.




Goblin = NPC, so we don't have to worry about his feelings.  We only have to worry if he's a good enough challenge for the amount of XP he has to offer.  (reward/risk)

What we do have to worry about is making the option balanced - so that sometimes it's good and sometimes it sucks.  That way you give the gamist a meaningful choice to make.  The smart player will realize when the right moment comes and capitalize on it!

That's something that I would like to promote when playing with a gamist agenda.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> *channels hong*
> Why does no one listen to me?
> No one listens to meeeee!




I'm listening.  I thought that was a great list.  I expect we'll see something along those lines in the DMG.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 13, 2008)

I really like the Picador. I´m going to use one in my 3e game tonight.

.
..
...
....

You know, i should always post on the third page of threads when most of the rage has a little bit dissipated. It´s more fun. Almost... serene.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 13, 2008)

Has anyone already mentioned the Kuo-Toa Harpooneers in MM5? Could they be considered to be a preview for these goblin picadors?

IIRC, to simulate what the Kuo-Toa Harpooneers were doing required expotic weapon proficiency plus a specific feat to use the weapon in this specific way, making it pretty unattractive to player characters.


			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> Yeah, I put someone on my ignore list recently... then I realized there wasn't any point, since everyone else replied to his posts anyway.



Hehe, sounds familiar. 
I noticed the same thing and thought 'wouldn't it be nice if all posts quoting said person would be removed as well?'
There are quite a few threads where all post that are on-topic would fit on a single page instead of having to wade through 10 pages to find a single relevant post...ah, well...


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 13, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> With a 1:1 ratio of opponents or worse, the harpoon ability is likely worse than useless.
> 
> It looks like it can be a good tactical option, but only if you outnumber the oppositions against whom you are using the harpoon.  Say you have 8 goblins including 2 picadors, two soldiers type and four skirmishers.  You  can use the two Picadors to tie the fighter and warlord and send the four skirmishers against the Wizard and Warlock.  The fighter won't be able to help them until he's killed the damn picador.  And the picador could be hiding behind the soldier, making it harder to get to him, all but guaranteeing that the two weaker PCs are on their own against the skirmishers.  That's great!
> 
> ...





See I agree with you here that the harpoon is not a universal weapon, but would have to be saved for useful situations.  But my 3E fighter likewise carried a net in his haversack for those times when the -4 nonproficient penalty was worth it.  I see the use of situational items, and that it takes a good player to anticipate their use.

I'd really like to see what other type of weapon tactics they have, I've even been considering what type of homebrew feats and powers I might implement down the line for useful and memorable NPCs.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 13, 2008)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Has anyone already mentioned the Kuo-Toa Harpooneers in MM5? Could they be considered to be a preview for these goblin picadors?
> 
> IIRC, to simulate what the Kuo-Toa Harpooneers were doing required expotic weapon proficiency plus a specific feat to use the weapon in this specific way, making it pretty unattractive to player characters.
> Hehe, sounds familiar.
> ...




Since I can do stuff like this


			
				Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Mustrum Ridcully is the smartest person ever and his improvised powe guidelines should be in the DMG, if they probably weren't already! And actually, this is a fake quote. Jhaelen never said this, to my knowledge...



Or like this: 

This is what Jhaelen wrote on that topic: 


> I noticed the same thing and thought 'wouldn't it be nice if all posts quoting said person would be removed as well?'



I guess there are some practical limitations due to the board software. 


On a related note, 2 members on the ignore list! Hahahaha [/Impersonate_Count_Count] 


Spoiler



but probably not you, fellow reader


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> No, there aren't. ENWorld is the friendliest place on the net towards 4e.



Truth


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 13, 2008)

> *channels hong*
> Why does no one listen to me?
> No one listens to meeeee!




I hear you.

I still think "Make Stuff Up" sucks as a rule. 

But if the guidelines in the DMG take your post as a baseline and go into some more depth on it, it might be "good enough."


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Mar 13, 2008)

Picador has been pretty well summed up I guess, cool monster that I'm going to use for tomorrow nights run through Second Son.  (I've got a plan!!!!)

Guess we'll have to find another thing to discuss now, I'm sure I can find something.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 13, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> No, there aren't. ENWorld is the friendliest place on the net towards 4e.



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


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 13, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

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




Ehh, it isn't so much the friendliest place as so much as it is the place where the most dead-set on either side duke it out, hell the CoC is like a battlefield.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 13, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

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



The nerd rage over there was almost an art form last I checked.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 13, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Plus while is says Standard action, Str vs Fort to remove, surely some player is going to ask if he just can't cut the rope? Or Tug the goblin on his turn. To which the DM is going to have to rule on the fly.




Cut the rope?  Sure, give me a Str vs Fort to succeed.

Tug the goblin?  Give me a Str vs Fort.  You missed?  He doesn't move.  You hit?  Okay, he drops the rope, so he doesn't get tugged, but hey, you're loose!

-Hyp.


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 13, 2008)

Mal Malenkirk said:
			
		

> With a 1:1 ratio of opponents or worse, the harpoon ability is likely worse than useless.
> 
> It looks like it can be a good tactical option, but only if you outnumber the oppositions against whom you are using the harpoon.  Say you have 8 goblins including 2 picadors, two soldiers type and four skirmishers.  You  can use the two Picadors to tie the fighter and warlord and send the four skirmishers against the Wizard and Warlock.  The fighter won't be able to help them until he's killed the damn picador.  And the picador could be hiding behind the soldier, making it harder to get to him, all but guaranteeing that the two weaker PCs are on their own against the skirmishers.  That's great!




Well, I would say that is useful whenever your opportunity cost (say, an action) is less than the cost to your opponent (their forced movement).

For example, when fighting an elite or a solo.

Are goblins still small?  If a human (== medium sized) fighter used a similarly scaled harpoon, should he be able to harpoon a large creature?

Hmm, as a side note, how does this compare with the Ranged Pin feat?


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 13, 2008)

Someone said:
			
		

> And can you just cut the friggin rope holding you (and take care of the harpoon lodged in you flesh later?) instead of dislodging said piede of metal from your body in the heat of combat while a goblin bodybuilder is busy tugging you?




Good question.

also if a goblin harpoon you there will be a rope that cross the battlefield, if there are thre more picadores there will be more ropes, and the pcs are moving and the goblins are moving, and the other monsters are moving. Think if there are columns into the room or obstacles like that, Can you see how this could be a problem? Or are they supposed to be magical ropes that never obstacle no one or get tied up, but just keep you near the picador? Either way, I have some problem here.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 13, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Think if there are columns into the room or obstacles like that, Can you see how this could be a problem? Or are they supposed to be magical ropes that never obstacle no one or get tied up, but just keep you near the picador?



It doesn't become an issue unless one of the participants wants to capitalize on it.  Example, 3 successes on a skill test to sweep the enemies with the rope moored between the goblin and the column.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 13, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Well, I would say that is useful whenever your opportunity cost (say, an action) is less than the cost to your opponent (their forced movement).
> 
> For example, when fighting an elite or a solo.
> 
> ...



Purely mechanical or "mechanical interacting with flavour"? A little bit better in the second regard, I think - I can see a harpoon with a barbed wire sticking to someone without creating a terrible wound and all this limiting the targets movement. It's at least not sticking you affixed to a place... But well, maybe there will also be a ranged pin power for Rangers in the core books or supplements, so I might have to retroactively say that I loved Ranged Pin even in 3E


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 13, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> It doesn't become an issue unless one of the participants wants to capitalize on it.  Example, 3 successes on a skill test to sweep the enemies with the rope moored between the goblin and the column.



I like that.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 13, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> Good question.
> 
> also if a goblin harpoon you there will be a rope that cross the battlefield, if there are thre more picadores there will be more ropes, and the pcs are moving and the goblins are moving, and the other monsters are moving. Think if there are columns into the room or obstacles like that, Can you see how this could be a problem?




Only if you make it a problem.



> Or are they supposed to be magical ropes that never obstacle no one or get tied up, but just keep you near the picador?




Not magical just "filmed" in such a way so as not to present a problem.



> Either way, I have some problem here.




I don't.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 13, 2008)

Interestingly enough, I'm about to try out the Harpooner from MMV in a game. Reading through it, and the Kuo Toa 'specials', it's interesting to see how most of the question I have about the Picador are explicitly answered, from how to use the harpoon (take an EWP) to how to gain the abilities of the Monitor. Assuming MMV is part of the 'dry run' for 4e, perhaps there are more detailed rules in 4e we're not yet privy to?


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> No RPG ever written has had rules to cover every contingency, not even 3.5E,



GURPS come pretty near, I think 



> although God knows it tried.  To take an example I've had to deal with more than once, what if the barbarian wants to grab hold of the tail of the dragon swooping down, claw his way up its back as it soars up into the air, and start whacking at the beast as it flies?  It's not grappling, because he's not trying to restrain or hinder the dragon, just hold onto it.  There's no Climb DC listed for "flying opponent."  Nowhere in the list of attack modifiers does it tell you the bonus or penalty for "standing on the enemy's back."  The DM is going to have to improvise something, because the rules simply don't tell you how to handle that maneuver.




For the climb DC is trivial, the GM has just to adjudicate how hard he think the action is and pick the appropriate DC. For the attack, it looks like a touch attack, obviously the dragon can't dodge, maybe with a balance check to stand up, or  -4 to hit from prone, because you lack the necessary leverage, unless you use a small weapon (dagger or similiar).


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2008)

nevermind


----------



## DamnedChoir (Mar 13, 2008)

I'd think this was really cool, if D&D were a videogame.

It's not, however.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 13, 2008)

Recently in a game (that we posted about here) a new player wanted to try something different in a game.  We were fighting some kind of big ungainly thing, and there was a rope and grappling hook around.  The player wanted to try and hook the monster's leg with the hook, and make a long range trip with it.

The most experienced players (myself included) had an initial reaction of "you cannot do that, it's not in the rules".  

It took a moment to stop and think "wait...who cares if it's in the rules - in this situation, it makes sense that he should be able to try, at least at a penalty".

Sometimes it's easy to get bogged down in the rules and lose track of the fact that the game really does call for a lot of ad hoc ruling if the players are allowed to be as creative as they should be allowed to be in a tabletop RPG.

And this harpoon is actually a bit similar to that grappling hook concept, and will likely involve similar ad hoc type rulings.  If the DMG gives better guidelines for making ad hoc rulings, all the better!


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 13, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

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




The 3e fanboys, not the 4e ones. As ENWorld has a better moderation policy AND gets the 4e news the fastest, most 4e fans flock here.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 13, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Recently in a game (that we posted about here) a new player wanted to try something different in a game.  We were fighting some kind of big ungainly thing, and there was a rope and grappling hook around.  The player wanted to try and hook the monster's leg with the hook, and make a long range trip with it.
> 
> The most experienced players (myself included) had an initial reaction of "you cannot do that, it's not in the rules".
> 
> It took a moment to stop and think "wait...who cares if it's in the rules - in this situation, it makes sense that he should be able to try, at least at a penalty".




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.

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.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The most experienced players (myself included) had an initial reaction of "you cannot do that, it's not in the rules".



I find that jaw-dropping to the point of disbelief.
I mean, if you say so, then fine, it is true.  But WOW!!!!

I think back over the debate after debate about ad-hoc DMing and the art of rulings and I can't recall anyone every claiming you can't do things for no better reason than a rule doesn't exist.  And I can not recall every once having a single person, much less a group, at a table with me even hint that this type of restriction should exist.  

If 4e services this kind of mindset, then that is a pretty backhanded compliment of 4e.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

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



  Huh????      Since when did 3e have a "rule for everything"?  (Note that much of this thread has been about it NOT having a rule for the situation at hand... )  

It is very clear that the two games speak to vastly different groups, by and large.


----------



## pukunui (Mar 13, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The 3e fanboys, not the 4e ones. As ENWorld has a better moderation policy AND gets the 4e news the fastest, most 4e fans flock here.



 QFT.

Funnily enough, the Wizards boards are waaaay behind when it comes to news scoops and the like. Also, ENWorld posters are noticeably more mature and less taken to imbecilic trolling and baiting (or maybe that's just cos, as you say, these boards have better moderation).


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 13, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Huh????      Since when did 3e have a "rule for everything"?  (Note that much of this thread has been about it NOT having a rule for the situation at hand... )
> 
> It is very clear that the two games speak to vastly different groups, by and large.




It didn't have a rule for everything, no.  But it tried to.  That's my point; 3E's explicit goal (there's a column by Monte Cook where he talks about this) was that in any situation, DMs should feel that the rulebook and the game designers "had their backs"--in other words, that they could fall back on the rulebook if they didn't know how to handle a given situation.

(To be fair, Monte doesn't actually go so far as to say that they tried to create a rule for every possible circumstance--he surely knows the impossibility of that.  But the implication is that whenever you as DM get in a weird situation, there's a rule to help you out of it.  The title of the column, "An Occasion for Every Rule, and a Rule for Every Occasion," speaks volumes.)

The flaw in his reasoning, of course, was his idea that you could create such a ruleset and yet have it be "optional," that you can make a book full of rules and then expect DMs and players to treat those rules as disposable whenever they slow down the game or get in the way of roleplaying.  In practice, of course, when people know there's a rule for X, they quickly develop a strong prejudice in favor of using it.  Most DMs and players won't dispense with a rule unless it drags the game to a complete halt, and often not even then.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 13, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think back over the debate after debate about ad-hoc DMing and the art of rulings and I can't recall anyone every claiming you can't do things for no better reason than a rule doesn't exist.  And I can not recall every once having a single person, much less a group, at a table with me even hint that this type of restriction should exist.



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.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 13, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> The flaw in his reasoning, of course, was his idea that you could create such a ruleset and yet have it be "optional," that you can make a book full of rules and then expect DMs and players to treat those rules as disposable whenever they slow down the game or get in the way of roleplaying.  In practice, of course, when people know there's a rule for X, they quickly develop a strong prejudice in favor of using it.  Most DMs and players won't dispense with a rule unless it drags the game to a complete halt, and often not even then.



It goes both ways, of course.  The lack of a ruling for obvious situations leads to its own problems.  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.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 13, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> 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.



But this time, they got it right!

(Please, let this be true... Please...)


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 13, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 14, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 14, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 14, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 14, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 14, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> 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 (Mar 14, 2008)

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 (Mar 14, 2008)

Skyduke said:
			
		

> So... After reading all of this thread, it boils down to:
> 
> The goblin picador isn't realistic.
> 
> ...




*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 (Mar 14, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> *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 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 (Mar 14, 2008)

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.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 14, 2008)

VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> 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.




This is a goblin, remember?  You're talking about the equivalent of a person harpooning a grizzly bear.  If the bear wants to go elsewhere, it's damned well going to, and you dragging on the rope is not going to stop it; all you'll accomplish is to make it really, really mad.  Not only that, but this particular grizzly bear can grab hold of the rope, so you can't even use the pain to force him to move.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 14, 2008)

Naszir said:
			
		

> 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).



It's not that hard.  Hitpoints represent physical wounds AND luck, dodging etc.  If an attack requires physical contact to make sense...then it got it.  If it doesn't, it might not have hit.  Or it could simply be that ALL hits actually have physical contact.  However most of them are small scratches.

This is what both sides of this argument are missing.  It doesn't have to be one or the other.


----------



## Naszir (Mar 14, 2008)

But doesn't the Goblin Picador imply that it has to hit enough to be more than a little scratch?  The harpoon has to sink in deep enough so that it has enough grabbing power to be able to pull a character to wherever it wants to go.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 14, 2008)

Naszir said:
			
		

> But doesn't the Goblin Picador imply that it has to hit enough to be more than a little scratch?  The harpoon has to sink in deep enough so that it has enough grabbing power to be able to pull a character to wherever it wants to go.



Sure, you can get the harpoon through someone's shoulder and get that sort of grabbing power.  However, like most heroes in movies who get shot in the shoulder, it isn't a bad wound for the heroes of the story.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 14, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Or it could simply be that ALL hits actually have physical contact.  However most of them are small scratches.




*succumbs*

This is my interpretation.  At least in my games, any attack that takes off hit points is an attack that connected.  Partly this is because most "rider" effects, like poison and harpoons, only make sense if the attack hits; mostly, however, it's because the terminology of the game reinforces the idea very, very strongly.

When players, especially newbie players, make an "attack roll," and that attack roll "hits," and the enemy loses "hit points," they expect that to mean that they, y'know, hit something.  It really throws them for a loop if you announce a narrow miss.  I see no reason to fight the English language on this one.  It may only inflict a bruise or a scratch, but a hit is a hit.


----------



## Naszir (Mar 14, 2008)

I would think having a bullet pass through a shoulder you can make a case for but a harpoon that stays lodged and is meant to rip flesh if an attempt to remove it is made?  That is one wound that you just don't heal overnight unless you have magic.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 14, 2008)

Well I think for the Harpoon, it can be for lower levels a different style, when you reach Epic I think a pronged-harpoon going through a shoulder be nothing to them... For lower levels though:



> You can even change the kind of harpoon if you want, you can switch from the classic pronged harpoon too a barbed one, and have it that the harpoon has hooked onto the PCs flesh with the barbs.
> 
> Barbs would be quite painful and hard to take out, which constitutes the control the Goblin has, cause come on. No matter how strong you are, unless you have gone total berserk (like my Barbarian idea) when your flesh is being tugged on by barbs you will follow that tug to lessen the pain.
> 
> ...


----------



## Naszir (Mar 14, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well I think for the Harpoon, it can be for lower levels a different style, when you reach Epic I think a pronged-harpoon going through a shoulder be nothing to them... For lower levels though:






> ]
> You can even change the kind of harpoon if you want, you can switch from the classic pronged harpoon too a barbed one, and have it that the harpoon has hooked onto the PCs flesh with the barbs.
> 
> Barbs would be quite painful and hard to take out, which constitutes the control the Goblin has, cause come on. No matter how strong you are, unless you have gone total berserk (like my Barbarian idea) when your flesh is being tugged on by barbs you will follow that tug to lessen the pain.
> ...




This is a very good point.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 14, 2008)

I'm going to chuckle if, after all this, the goblin picador's harpoon ability is in the PHB under Fighter.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Mar 14, 2008)

Skyduke said:
			
		

> 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.



Actually, some people jump out of airplanes, have a failure with the parachute, fall several _thousand_ feet and survive.  Some rare few walk away with nary a scratch.  Most get splattered, of course.  Many people survive falls from lower heights as well.

So, it's not like every fall over 15' is invariably fatal.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 14, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Actually, some people jump out of airplanes, have a failure with the parachute, fall several _thousand_ feet and survive.  Some rare few walk away with nary a scratch.  Most get splattered, of course.  Many people survive falls from lower heights as well.
> 
> So, it's not like every fall over 15' is invariably fatal.




Well maybe not without a scratch but yeah they do survive. There is actually video of a woman who's parachute didn't employ properly and she spiralled down to the ground, landing face first onto cement and lived (had to go facial reconstruction, but she lived).


----------



## FadedC (Mar 14, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> This is a goblin, remember?  You're talking about the equivalent of a person harpooning a grizzly bear.  If the bear wants to go elsewhere, it's damned well going to, and you dragging on the rope is not going to stop it; all you'll accomplish is to make it really, really mad.  Not only that, but this particular grizzly bear can grab hold of the rope, so you can't even use the pain to force him to move.




This goblin has a 16 strength, the same as the dwarven fighter. I'm fairly sure your harpooning a grizzly bear analogy doesn't work.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 14, 2008)

My only concern is that if every monster ability has o be explained just in case the PCs want it, as a DM, I'm less likely to use it just to forestal the headache


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 14, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> This goblin has a 16 strength.




So what?  He still weighs thirty pounds.  If he hauls on the rope _really hard_, he's just going to pull himself toward me, not the other way around.

 (Unless they made goblins a lot bigger, which I suppose is possible given the changes to halflings.)


----------



## FadedC (Mar 14, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> So what?  He still weighs thirty pounds.  If he hauls on the rope _really hard_, he's just going to pull himself toward me, not the other way around.
> 
> (Unless they made goblins a lot bigger, which I suppose is possible given the changes to halflings.)




I never really had a good feel for how big goblins were in 3e, but yeah I'd assume they must be more like vicious dwarves now.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Mar 14, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> So what?  He still weighs thirty pounds.  If he hauls on the rope _really hard_, he's just going to pull himself toward me, not the other way around.
> 
> (Unless they made goblins a lot bigger, which I suppose is possible given the changes to halflings.)



Doesn't that make the ability rather useless against anything larger than the goblin, then?  Namely, the PCs?


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 14, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> *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.
> 
> ...



Firstly, those are the *minature stats* don't expect too much. Secondly, harpoons and similar weapons on the end of chains or ropes have been used by humans to catch creatures much larger than us since history began, their kinda designed to do that.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 14, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> 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.



True20 and M&M are both d20 yes, and I didn't make that clear, no. Yes, it was an improvement, but the one place where it was still clunky was "special case combat actions" which tended to involve 2-3 rolls at different things, often opposed rolls and AoOs, when they could have just been "roll one d20, add bonuses, check vs dc"


			
				Spatula said:
			
		

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



Sure, I meant more so than earlier editions.


			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> 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.



The problem is disarm, feint and grapple all use completely different rules, so if you make up a new combat action on the fly, it's in no way obvious what you should be rolling against. 4e makes it easier to figure out what you should be rolling against, making the process, well, unified. I consider this a "marked improvement", although I can see why other people wouldn't see much of difference.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 14, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> The problem is disarm, feint and grapple all use completely different rules, so if you make up a new combat action on the fly, it's in no way obvious what you should be rolling against. 4e makes it easier to figure out what you should be rolling against, making the process, well, unified. I consider this a "marked improvement", although I can see why other people wouldn't see much of difference.



Well, excepting grapple (ugh) and to a lesser extent bull rush (how far do I move him?), these were all very simple - opposed attack rolls if you're going after a weapon (disarm, sunder), opposed ability check if you're trying to move the target (trip, overrun, bull rush).  Grapple is largely a mess.  Here's hoping the 4e version finally gives us some simple wrestling rules without making it mostly useless (I'm looking at _you_, SW SAGA).  And it looks as if feinting has been sort-of absorbed into the rogue's at-will attack powers, which don't target AC directly as I recall.

But judging by trip, 4e resolved the issue by simply removing these actions as general combat maneuvers.  If you don't have the power, you can't do them, unless perhaps there's rules for performing martial exploits that you don't actually have and that may not even be a part of your class (and if so, why not rules for using arcane, divine, etc. powers "untrained"?).  So I'm not sure I'd label that as fixing the problem - anyone can simplify things by axing the troublesome parts.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 15, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> *succumbs*
> 
> This is my interpretation.  At least in my games, any attack that takes off hit points is an attack that connected.  Partly this is because most "rider" effects, like poison and harpoons, only make sense if the attack hits; mostly, however, it's because the terminology of the game reinforces the idea very, very strongly.




Beside you add constitution to hit points, not dexterity.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 15, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Well, excepting grapple (ugh) and to a lesser extent bull rush (how far do I move him?), these were all very simple - opposed attack rolls if you're going after a weapon (disarm, sunder), opposed ability check if you're trying to move the target (trip, overrun, bull rush).  Grapple is largely a mess.  Here's hoping the 4e version finally gives us some simple wrestling rules without making it mostly useless (I'm looking at _you_, SW SAGA).  And it looks as if feinting has been sort-of absorbed into the rogue's at-will attack powers, which don't target AC directly as I recall.



Oh, I'm not saying things like disarm or overrun were difficult to use in play, they weren't. I'm saying that because they all use different rules, if someone wants to do something different, because there isn't a universal rule, it becomes more difficult.

The example given was kicking a table out from under someone, now it's not that you _couldn't_ figure out how to model that in 3.x, it's that because there are 3 or four completely different ways to do it (opposed stat check, ref save, opposed attack roll...) making rules like that up on the fly becomes annoying enough that many groups don't do it. The groups that still do, obviously will get little to no benefit from 4e's standardization into "make stat attack vs defense".


			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> But judging by trip, 4e resolved the issue by simply removing these actions as general combat maneuvers.  If you don't have the power, you can't do them, unless perhaps there's rules for performing martial exploits that you don't actually have and that may not even be a part of your class (and if so, why not rules for using arcane, divine, etc. powers "untrained"?).  So I'm not sure I'd label that as fixing the problem - anyone can simplify things by axing the troublesome parts.



Actually, currently I'm assuming most martial encounter and at will powers will work like the 3.x feats, with the exception of where in 3.x, it allowed you to do it without provoking an AoO (and gave you a bonus in 3.5), in 4e, you get to do damage as well as applly the effect.

So, while there's going to be a trip power, I'd expect it to do damage as well as make the target prone, just like Iron tide is both a bull rush and does damage on top of that, which means you can just let players use their action to make a str attack vs fort to knock people over until they get up without it being overpowered, or even needing it to be written up in the rules.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 15, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Actually, currently I'm assuming most martial encounter and at will powers will work like the 3.x feats, with the exception of where in 3.x, it allowed you to do it without provoking an AoO (and gave you a bonus in 3.5), in 4e, you get to do damage as well as applly the effect.
> 
> So, while there's going to be a trip power, I'd expect it to do damage as well as make the target prone, just like Iron tide is both a bull rush and does damage on top of that, which means you can just let players use their action to make a str attack vs fort to knock people over until they get up without it being overpowered, or even needing it to be written up in the rules.



We shall see!  In any case, the lack of a rule, combined with the ability of some classes to perform the feat in question, will cause many DMs to conclude that other PCs cannot do it.  "You want to trip him?  But you don't have the trip power."  That's the worst of both worlds IMO.  If you don't need the specific power to try it, or if you can attempt Exploits "untrained," then say so in the rules.  "If you want to knock an opponent prone, you must first be adjacent to it.  Make a STR check vs the target's Fort or Ref defense, whichever is higher.  Doing so provokes an Opportunity Attack from the target." - done!


----------

