# Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?



## Derren (Apr 7, 2008)

I just noticed (after a discussion about the power of the healing gods on the WotC boards) that the cleric, who imo should be the best at healing others has hardly any ability to heal NPCs at level 1.
Thats because NPCs do not have Healing Surges and the clerics Healing Word uses the targets surges. That means the only thing the cleric can do is to temporary heal a NPC by smiting someone with holy fire (not very appropriate when you for example want to heal someones broken leg outside of combat).

Maybe the cleric gets abilities which let him use his own surges like the paladins Lay on Hands later but I still think its strange that clerics can't heal most people at level 1. It also makes a good "destiny detector" When someone can be healed by Healing Word he is special (has Healing Surges) and the chance of raising him successfully is rather high.

I know that I can houserule it by giving NPCs Healing Surges or simply rule that the cleric can heal NPCs completely but I still think its funny.


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Apr 7, 2008)

*Not all of the information*

Well, healing word is a combat heal. I would imagine there is some ritual or other non-combat application of healing that can be used. We don't know because we don't have all of the rules yet.


----------



## mmaranda (Apr 7, 2008)

Who said NPCs don't have healing surges?

Or it may be that detailed healing like mending a broken leg is a ritual and not something a quick "combat" healing can do.


----------



## Derren (Apr 7, 2008)

mmaranda said:
			
		

> Who said NPCs don't have healing surges?




Their statblock







> Or it may be that detailed healing like mending a broken leg is a ritual and not something a quick "combat" healing can do.




Then how about a "combat wound"?  Still not healable by a cleric.


----------



## Satori5000 (Apr 7, 2008)

I would be disappointed if clerics couldnt heal NPC's.  Even though i am pretty sure there are going to be rules for it, it wouldnt be a big deal for a DM to make something up for it.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Apr 7, 2008)

I suspect the Heal skill would cover mundane injuries of mundane NPCs.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

rituals....


----------



## keterys (Apr 7, 2008)

Curious: Is it okay if the warlord can't heal NPCs?

Ie, is it just that clerics can't that's the problem? I wish we knew more about rituals.


----------



## Derren (Apr 7, 2008)

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> I suspect the Heal skill would cover mundane injuries of mundane NPCs.




But then the question arises why the PCs also can't use the heal skill to fix themselves up after a fight and instead have to waste Healing Surges to do it?

Another strange thing. Many people speculate that healing potions won't heal you, but instead allows you to use a healing surge. If that turns out to be true then healing potions would have no effect on NPCs.



			
				keterys said:
			
		

> Curious: Is it okay if the warlord can't heal NPCs?
> 
> Ie, is it just that clerics can't that's the problem? I wish we knew more about rituals.




I haven't seen the warlords "healing" abilities. But I think its more reasonable to say that a warlords martial "Get back on your feet soldier!" healing does not work on everyone than saying that divine healing magic coming directly from the gods can only heal a very small number of people in the world.

Maybe a ritual would solve this problem, but I have the feeling there won't be a healing ritual as it would be unnecessary  for PCs as they can trade healing surges for HP after the battle. And if the ritual exists then there will be a huge difference in staying power of groups which can use the ritual to heal and the group which has to trade healing surges for it.


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Apr 7, 2008)

*Elephant*

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the story of the three blind men and the elephant. This is the same situation. Fourth edition is an elephant and we're getting only bits and pieces of it and using those bits to make broad, sweeping generalizations about it.

In other words, we are currently grabbing hold of the tusks and proclaiming "This beast has no rectum! How can it poop? Oh my god, it can't poop!"

Just because you currently don't see a way for something to happen based on what little information we have doesn't mean it can't happen. What purpose does it serve to get everyone spun up about it?


----------



## senna (Apr 7, 2008)

At least an smart DM, those that puts rule 0 to use, could make the npc heal the bonus hp (1d6+CHA) because, most of the time, the npc would have a few hp. The other way is, that an npc is allied with the pcs, if the dmthinks it is an important character, it should be more stated out, in that case be buit more like a pc, and the problem for that case is over.


----------



## Derren (Apr 7, 2008)

Bayonet_Chris said:
			
		

> Just because you currently don't see a way for something to happen based on what little information we have doesn't mean it can't happen.




Imagine the following situation. The 1st level PCs are together with some (not story important) NPCs hunting, escorting, whatever when they get attacked. One of the NPCs gets bloodied and the cleric wants to heal him. How?

We might not see everything, but we know some powers of 1st level PCs including a (the?) battle healing power of 1st level cleric. And this power is not able to heal NPCs.


----------



## keterys (Apr 7, 2008)

All the ritual would have to do is give someone else one of your healing surges. Of course, since that's how Lay on Hands works it seems less likely, but there ya go.


----------



## senna (Apr 7, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> We might not see everything, but we know some powers of 1st level PCs including a (the?) battle healing power of 1st level cleric. And this power is not able to heal NPCs.




Your vision is clouded by a realy, REALY, strict view of the raw. Before making such claims look to how you could work *with* the rules to achieve what you want from the game, for an example look my previous post.


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 7, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Imagine the following situation. The 1st level PCs are together with some (not story important) NPCs hunting, escorting, whatever when they get attacked. One of the NPCs gets bloodied and the cleric wants to heal him. How?
> 
> We might not see everything, but we know some powers of 1st level PCs including a (the?) battle healing power of 1st level cleric. And this power is not able to heal NPCs.




Once again you're poking one part of the elephant. We don't know that NPCs don't have healing surges. We know that healing surges aren't in their stat blocks, and the designers have told us over and over that things which don't come up regularly in combat aren't in an NPC's stat block. That could suggest any number of things:

1) NPCs don't have healing surges, as you suggest, and the entire concept of magical healing is broken.

2) All monsters/NPCs have a fixed number of healing surges (maybe 1 for Heroic, 2 for Paragon, 3 for Epic) which isn't put in the stat block because most monsters don't have abilities that trigger healing surges.

3) There's a general rule somewhere that says "if a creature lacks healing surges, X times per day an effect that triggers a healing surge heals Y points of damage."

I'm sure other people can come up with even more alternatives, but bottom line is that unless you've seen a rule that explicitly says "only PCs have healing surges," you're groping a pachyderm. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


----------



## TheLordWinter (Apr 7, 2008)

I think everyone is making this a bit more complicated than it has to be... a healing surge is 1/4 of your hit points. A cleric's healing word, when used on an NPC, heals them by 1/4 of their hit points plus 1d6. Was that really so hard?


----------



## Derren (Apr 7, 2008)

senna said:
			
		

> Your vision is clouded by a realy, REALY, strict view of the raw. Before making such claims look to how you could work *with* the rules to achieve what you want from the game, for an example look my previous post.




Look at my original Post. I already said that I could houserule it that NPCs can be healed (Thats what you are doing. You are just using a different houserule). But by raw the cleric can't heal most of the people (in combat) unlike the paladin.



			
				Kordeth said:
			
		

> Once again you're poking one part of the elephant. We don't know that NPCs don't have healing surges. We know that healing surges aren't in their stat blocks, and the designers have told us over and over that things which don't come up regularly in combat aren't in an NPC's stat block. That could suggest any number of things:




I think being able to heal 25% of your HP in battle is important enough to include it in the combat statblock.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 7, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Look at my original Post. I already said that I could houserule it that NPCs can be healed (Thats what you are doing. You are just using a different houserule). But by raw the cleric can't heal most of the people (in combat) unlike the paladin.




Have you seen the RAW?


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 7, 2008)

This is silly.  Why not go further?  Argue that because the "recover all hit point loss with a full rest" rule is only applicable to adventurers, and because heal check's and paladin abilities activate healing surges, no non adventuring NPC can ever heal an injury, _ever._  Cut your hand when you're 12?  You'll die at 70 with that injury still bleeding.  You should have taken an adventuring class.

Repeat after me: The rules of the game are not laws of physics.  If you insist upon making them laws of physics, you will not have fun (unless your fun is creating wacky rules and laughing).  Why is it that, when I throw a boulder at a brick wall, the brick wall takes damage but the boulder does not?  Why is it impossible to break a spear shaft over someone else's head, but remarkably easy to break it over your own knee?  Why does falling from a mile up in the sky all the way to the ground happen in six seconds?  Why can I recover and reuse 50% of my arrows even if I fired them at a Fire Elemental bathing in a sea of lava?

Because the rules are abstractions, that's why.  If and when additional verisimilitude is necessary, the human judgment of a Dungeon Master is available.  Its a good part of what he's _for._


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 7, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Look at my original Post. I already said that I could houserule it that NPCs can be healed (Thats what you are doing. You are just using a different houserule). But by raw the cleric can't heal most of the people (in combat) unlike the paladin.




No, by RAR (Rules as _Revealed_) it appears that clerics can't heal monsters or nonclassed NPCs. Until we actually _have_ RAW, claiming anything is "RAW" is a fallacious argument. It's like reading the preamble to the Constitution and saying "Federal troops can't be prevented from quartering at my house."


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 7, 2008)

From this link... 



> Bulette number one dives into the earth so rapidly that the heroes around it don’t get opportunity attacks. Safely in the ground, *it heals some damage* and then burrows under the heroes, who are now clustered close enough that the bulette can affect them all.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 7, 2008)

Erhm........

The text for healing word says: 
Effect: the target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6+4 (most likely cha modifier, but whatever) hps. 

Nowhere does it say that if you have no healing surges left (or to begin with) you do not get the additional healing of 1d6+4.

Ergo, anyone without healing surges would just be healed 1d6+4 hps.

That is, unless you have some other source regarding the wording of the healing word?


Cheers


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Apr 7, 2008)

*Wrong focus*



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Imagine the following situation. The 1st level PCs are together with some (not story important) NPCs hunting, escorting, whatever when they get attacked. One of the NPCs gets bloodied and the cleric wants to heal him. How?
> 
> We might not see everything, but we know some powers of 1st level PCs including a (the?) battle healing power of 1st level cleric. And this power is not able to heal NPCs.




From everything we've seen, the central conceit of design for NPCs (monsters included) is stat out only what you need. If you need NPCs to be healed, give them healing surges. If you don't, then don't include it.

You're basing your argument on the fact that a single, at-will power uses a mechanic that is currently not on NPCs that you've seen. Of course, we haven't seen any stats on NPCs yet - only monsters.

If it is so important to have this injured NPC have a healing surge or two, then give it to them. I'd give them 1 + their con mod. Is it a house rule? I don't know - because I don't have the rules to create monsters and NPCs yet. Is it reasonable? Absolutely. Does not knowing somehow break the system? Absolutely not.

3.5 set this expectation that everything had to have a rule somewhere. It's already clear that 4E is getting away from this rigid structure. Is that such a problem?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 7, 2008)

TheLordWinter said:
			
		

> I think everyone is making this a bit more complicated than it has to be... a healing surge is 1/4 of your hit points. A cleric's healing word, when used on an NPC, heals them by 1/4 of their hit points plus 1d6. Was that really so hard?




QFT

It's so obvious I don't know why we're discussing it.  It's even been said (though I don't have reference) that if a DM WANTS to bother with this sort of thing they can give 'em the negative-half-HP-and-three-saves-before-they-die too. The stat block is all the information you NEED, not if-its-not-there-it-can't-be-done.

Besides, we haven't seen ANY NPC stat blocks. We've seen MONSTER stat blocks.
Yes, they will be essentially the same. But if you have an in-party ally NPC that you don't want to instantly die, you can easily give 'em a surge. (And for those that argue that this is a housrule or DM handwaving - I seriously doubt it. I'd bet money that this suggestion is mentioned in the rules, or something quite like it.)


Fitz


----------



## D'karr (Apr 7, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> QFT
> 
> It's so obvious I don't know why we're discussing it.  It's even been said (though I don't have reference) that if a DM WANTS to bother with this sort of thing they can give 'em the negative-half-HP-and-three-saves-before-they-die too. The stat block is all the information you NEED, not if-its-not-there-it-can't-be-done.




Because somewhere in the world the sky is always falling.  Previews are nice but, for some that want to see the glass half-empty, any information not provided is immediately a reason why they should like/not like the changes.


----------



## Khur (Apr 7, 2008)

The OP is mistaken in the definition of healing surge, whether and why such a statistic needs to be in a stat block, and what the fact that healing surges aren't in NPC stat blocks means. It's a shame any conclusion was based on these mistaken assumptions.

A healing surge isn't the ability to heal 25% of HP. It's the potential to heal that much or even do other things, based on the trigger/use. A healing surge, then, is a resource tapped by other powers, such as _second wind _ (use a healing surge  to heal as a standard action) or the cleric's _healing word _(allow an ally to use a healing surge to heal and add 1d6 to the total healed).

NPCs and monsters do have a certain number of healing surges. That number is easy to remember, and it makes an NPC or monster far less resilient than an typical PC—on purpose. (PCs are extraordinary heroes of great destiny.) Only exceptions to the norm need to be shown in the stat block. 

Most NPCs and monsters aren't exceptional in this way. Therefore, no need exists to repeat in the stat block the basic number of surges a particular NPC or monster might have. So typical statistics don't show that number.

In my game, the 3rd-level PCs have an NPC elf archer (from the MM) with them as a guide. They've had little trouble healing him, since the party's warlord can trigger the archer's healing surges. The archer himself can use his own surges outside of combat.

Plenty of ways can be had to manipulate how surges work in the game. That's part of their fun. Part of the individualization of the D&D game is tinkering with the parts. I can't wait to see the ways DMs customize healing surges in their games.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 7, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Repeat after me: The rules of the game are not laws of physics.



The rules of the game are not laws of physics. 

Hey! It actually works! I'm feeling better now, thanks  and It also helps me to get into the 4E design philosophy.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Thats because NPCs do not have Healing Surges



NPCs DO have Healing Surges, but we don't see them on their stats because it's usually not necessary. Assigning Healing Surges to all NPCS/monster/etc would be a waste of time and space. When the NPC's Healing Surges are important to the game, they are there. 

Cheers!


----------



## Mercule (Apr 7, 2008)

I'd have to look up the previews to be sure, but I was under the impression that the clerical healing ability healed 1d6 hp and allowed the target to optionally spend a healing surge.  So, clerics can still heal NPCs.  They just don't cause the Die Hard second (third, eighth, etc.) wind for NPCs.  I fail to see either support for the original claim or anything unreasonable in the rules as revealed.

If you also assume that higher level clerical healing grants 2d6, 3d6, etc. in addition to the healing surge (which seems at least as reasonable as the inverse assumption), things are even better.  You end up with 4e healing being just a few points worse than 3e (d6 vs. d8 and no +level pips) for NPCs, but with an added "heroic" bonus for those who are both most likely to need it and are supposed to be more heroic.  Once again, I'm not seeing an issue with this.

Certainly, there is no grounds for the sky falling.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

A RECTUM!

4Elephant can POOOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## malraux (Apr 7, 2008)

TheLordWinter said:
			
		

> I think everyone is making this a bit more complicated than it has to be... a healing surge is 1/4 of your hit points. A cleric's healing word, when used on an NPC, heals them by 1/4 of their hit points plus 1d6. Was that really so hard?



Not for some of us.

The point of simplified stat blocks is to only include information that's directly relevant to the purpose of the stat block.  But note that we are talking about a simplification of the "real" stat block, which is a more complicated thing.  On the "real" stat block, all the things that Derren repeated claims are missing actually exist.  But for almost all situations, we only care about the info listed on the simplified stat block.

Just as when we see full info on social encounters, they probably won't list the attack bonus for all of the NPCs involved, that does not mean that NPCs that talk are incapable of swinging a sword, its that there's no good reason to clutter the information with irrelevant information.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 7, 2008)

Yeah I am going with everyone else with it being simply not important to have on a NPCs stat-blocks. 

One reason we have the amount of healing-surges down for a PC is the fact that we need too, since your travelling/fighting for a while a way to know how many healing-surges you have. As well as be easily able to remember, "oh right went up a level so now have this many/this much).

So as such for one-time heals, there is no need to have it. As well as for NPC-party members, they have stated out-right it is perfectly fine to make NPCs using PC-mechanics so in these cases, perfectly fine to stat-out a regular old NPC-PC. Just you don't have to do this for the random soldier or peasant you may come across and heal.


----------



## keterys (Apr 7, 2008)

As far as I know, if you have no healing surge, you cannot spend a healing surge to regain any hit points, including that 1d6. Of course, we're all waiting on the rules to verify such things... as Derren found out when Chris Sims told him flat out that no, he was wrong


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> A RECTUM!
> 
> 4Elephant can POOOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




In before the "4E is so elephant dung" meme takes off.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 7, 2008)

Bayonet_Chris said:
			
		

> From everything we've seen, the central conceit of design for NPCs (monsters included) is stat out only what you need. If you need NPCs to be healed, give them healing surges. If you don't, then don't include it.



This.

And just because the Innkeeper's stats are resumed to +8 Insight and +8 Perception, it doesn't mean he is just a floating pair of eyes.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> In before the "4E is so elephant dung" meme takes off.




I've taken the Memesmith Pres^H^H^H^HParagon Path.  It's all good.

Blind men and the 4Elephant.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 7, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That means the only thing the cleric can do is to temporary heal a NPC by smiting someone with holy fire (not very appropriate when you for example want to heal someones broken leg outside of combat).
> [...]
> but I still think its funny.



It's actually very funny

PS: OMG! 4e is like Warhammer Online!!111


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 7, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> As far as I know, if you have no healing surge, you cannot spend a healing surge to regain any hit points, including that 1d6. Of course, we're all waiting on the rules to verify such things... as Derren found out when Chris Sims told him flat out that no, he was wrong




On what info do you base that statement on? The wording of Healing Word?


----------



## FadedC (Apr 7, 2008)

Based on the wording of healing word I'd say that yes it only works if you have healing surges to spend. The text reads that you can spend an healing surge and get an additional d6+x. Not only does spending a healing surge appear to be a "cost" but the term "additional" suggests it's only comes in addition to the healing you get from the surge.

Plus the whole point of healing surges appears to be to set a limit to the amount people can be healed in one day, which would be completely cricumvented if you could just spend a half hour after the fight to word of healing everyone back to full without any surges being spent.

As for the NPC combat injury example, it's no different then trying to heal somebody out of healing surges. They have just been injured too seriously for a healing word to help them.


----------



## Voss (Apr 7, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> NPCs and monsters do have a certain number of healing surges. That number is easy to remember, and it makes an NPC or monster far less resilient than an typical PC—on purpose. (PCs are extraordinary heroes of great destiny.)
> .




Oh, man.  That phrase is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
'The PCs are special cuz we said so' is still one of the biggest stumbling blocks I have with 4e.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 7, 2008)

The number is very easy to remember?  I'm guessing that the number is "1."


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 7, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> Based on the wording of healing word I'd say that yes it only works if you have healing surges to spend. The text reads that you can spend an healing surge and get an additional d6+x. Not only does spending a healing surge appear to be a "cost" but the term "additional" suggests it's only comes in addition to the healing you get from the surge.
> 
> Plus the whole point of healing surges appears to be to set a limit to the amount people can be healed in one day, which would be completely cricumvented if you could just spend a half hour after the fight to word of healing everyone back to full without any surges being spent.
> 
> As for the NPC combat injury example, it's no different then trying to heal somebody out of healing surges. They have just been injured too seriously for a healing word to help them.




Notice the "can" in the text? If you had to spend a healing surge in order to benefit from healing, wouldn't the text read something like: The target spends a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6+x hitpoints? Granted English is only my third language, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the "can" is the key word, if you will, and if spending a surge was mandatory, the wording would be different.

Cheers,


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Notice the "can" in the text? If you had to spend a healing surge in order to benefit from healing, wouldn't the text read something like: The target spends a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6+x hitpoints? Granted English is only my third language, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the "can" is the key word, if you will, and if spending a surge was mandatory, the wording would be different.
> 
> Cheers,



The "can" is there because maybe the target doesn't want to be healed that time.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 7, 2008)

I believe all abilities that can trigger healing surges have the word "can" in them. I think this is because they don't want anyone to be forced to spend a healing surge if they are say mistakenly targeted with healing word or drink a potion that turns out to be a healing potion. Otherwise a cleric who turns on his party could potentially use healing spells to drain all of somebodies surges or something wierd like that.

So yeah you dont have to spend a surge, but if you don't you get no benfit from healing word.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> A RECTUM!
> 
> 4Elephant can POOOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



This is the most important scoop in this whole thread.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Notice the "can" in the text? If you had to spend a healing surge in order to benefit from healing, wouldn't the text read something like: The target spends a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6+x hitpoints? Granted English is only my third language, so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the "can" is the key word, if you will, and if spending a surge was mandatory, the wording would be different.
> 
> Cheers,




"Can" presumably just means that the target has the option of not accepting the use of that healing surge. So that a wicked NPC cleric doesn't just keep "healing" you all night long to run you out of healing surges for the next day*, but if you don't spend a healing surge, you may not get any "additional" healing, because there's nothing for it to add to.

* Which, come to think of it, sounds like a wicked cool Grima Wormtongue-style ability. But it doesn't need to be part of a power called "Healing Words".


----------



## Vempyre (Apr 7, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> A healing surge isn't the ability to heal 25% of HP. It's the potential to heal that much or even do other things, based on the trigger/use. A healing surge, then, is a resource tapped by other powers, such as _second wind _ (use a healing surge  to heal as a standard action) or the cleric's _healing word _(allow an ally to use a healing surge to heal and add 1d6 to the total healed).
> 
> NPCs and monsters do have a certain number of healing surges. That number is easy to remember, and it makes an NPC or monster far less resilient than an typical PC—on purpose. (PCs are extraordinary heroes of great destiny.) Only exceptions to the norm need to be shown in the stat block.




Sweet, more crunch.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 7, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> Sweet, more crunch.



Yes! Thanks Derren.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 7, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> Sweet, more crunch.




Mmmm... sweet crunchy 4Elephant poop.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 7, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Mmmm... sweet crunchy 4Elephant poop.




What's with that fecenation of yours?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Apr 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Erhm........
> 
> The text for healing word says:
> Effect: the target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6+4 (most likely cha modifier, but whatever) hps.
> ...




The way I read it is that you use a healing surge AND heal 1d6+4.  If you don't use a healing surge, you don't get the additional 1d6+4.


----------



## Mr. Patient (Apr 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Oh, man.  That phrase is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
> 'The PCs are special cuz we said so' is still one of the biggest stumbling blocks I have with 4e.




I don't know, I think that assumption might make it easier to build a coherent game world (I'm thinking of things like the rule that only those who have a special destiny or whatnot can be raised).  It allows me to keep most of the world operating in a basically familiar and predictable fashion while letting the PCs do amazing things.

And to be fair, 3e PCs were already special relative to NPCs in a pretty important area: their equipment.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 7, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> The way I read it is that you use a healing surge AND heal 1d6+4.  If you don't use a healing surge, you don't get the additional 1d6+4.




I must admit that it seems that I am in a minority on how to interpret the wording of the spell. But do admit that my way of reading it would solve the whole healing regarding NPCs with no healing surges. Although it does seem from Chris' post that all have at least some.

Cheers,


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 7, 2008)

Mr. Patient said:
			
		

> And to be fair, 3e PCs were already special relative to NPCs in a pretty important area: their equipment.



They also had access to better classes.
Nothing really changed since 3E.
"PCs are (still) extraordinary heroes of great destiny"


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Apr 7, 2008)

*4Elephant*



			
				Jack99 said:
			
		

> What's with that fecenation of yours?




It's a reference to an earlier post in the thread.


----------



## Revinor (Apr 7, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> I must admit that it seems that I am in a minority on how to interpret the wording of the spell. But do admit that my way of reading it would solve the whole healing regarding NPCs with no healing surges.




If you don't need healing surges, it means that cleric can heal people fully between encounters after they have used all healing surges for the day. I doubt it, as healing surges seems main limiting factor for number of encounters per day and this ability would allow to extend it into infinity (at the cost of not being able to use second wind during encounter).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> They also had access to better classes.
> Nothing really changed since 3E.
> "PCs are (still) extraordinary heroes of great destiny"




As well as the simple fact that they are the only people in the world not following a DMs-script. Everyone else, DM-controls only PCs being obviously controlled by players can step outside this.

So by this simple fact they are already special by being the ones that choose to influence the world, and work outside the world's script. So in-game reasoning would mean there has to be something unique about them.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 7, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> The way I read it is that you use a healing surge AND heal 1d6+4.  If you don't use a healing surge, you don't get the additional 1d6+4.



[OffTopic]This is what I am most worried about with 4E. The power descriptions are neat and short. Easily put on a card or character sheet.
However wording something that is that short so there is little or no ambiguity in a game as complex as DnD will be very hard. I really hope that the rest of the rules will have enough info to stop lots of disagreement about powers etc. With about half of the powers released by WotC we have had discussions on this board about the wording and exact effect of that power. 
Now this is probably 'cos of 2 things: 1. We don't have the full rules to fill in the ambiguity gaps and 2. ENWorlders are a bunch of nit-picking rules lawyers! (or, at least, deeply versed in the ways of RPGs; enough to pick holes in anything )[/OffTopic]


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 7, 2008)

I think too, to make rules clearer WoTC should have a nice clear and precise, Lexicon in the PHB/DMG/(perhaps MM too for specific monster things).

This way, all you need to do if you don't understand something, is flip to Lexicon, look up word see what it means, your done.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 7, 2008)

Revinor said:
			
		

> If you don't need healing surges, it means that cleric can heal people fully between encounters after they have used all healing surges for the day. I doubt it, as healing surges seems main limiting factor for number of encounters per day and this ability would allow to extend it into infinity (at the cost of not being able to use second wind during encounter).




You are indeed right.


----------



## Khur (Apr 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Oh, man.  That phrase is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
> 'The PCs are special cuz we said so' is still one of the biggest stumbling blocks I have with 4e.



 Do you have a problem with the fact that we openly state it, or that it's true? If the former, that seems strange. If the latter, I'd guess you're not much of a fan of any heroic-scale RPG. All of them have this aspect, even if they don't come right out and say it. The D&D game has had it since very early on, so it's certainly not a departure for it to still be true.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> The number is very easy to remember?  I'm guessing that the number is "1."



 Close, but no healing surge for you.



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> The way I read it is that you use a healing surge AND heal 1d6+4.  If you don't use a healing surge, you don't get the additional 1d6+4.



 This.



			
				Mr. Patient said:
			
		

> And to be fair, 3e PCs were already special relative to NPCs in a pretty important area: their equipment.



 AND 







			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> "PCs are (still) extraordinary heroes of great destiny"



 QFT.



			
				mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> [OffTopic]This is what I am most worried about with 4E. The power descriptions are neat and short. Easily put on a card or character sheet.
> However wording something that is that short so there is little or no ambiguity in a game as complex as DnD will be very hard. I really hope that the rest of the rules will have enough info to stop lots of disagreement about powers etc. With about half of the powers released by WotC we have had discussions on this board about the wording and exact effect of that power.
> Now this is probably 'cos of 2 things: 1. We don't have the full rules to fill in the ambiguity gaps and 2. ENWorlders are a bunch of nit-picking rules lawyers! (or, at least, deeply versed in the ways of RPGs; enough to pick holes in anything ) [/OffTopic]



 I'd add a third  and fourth I discovered when working on_ Rules Compendium_:

3) Additive misinterpretation of a clear rule. That is, adding something to the rule that's clearly not there. This is very common.

4) Willful misinterpretation of a clear rule. Much rarer, but it happens.

I'd say _healing word _is clear—you can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points. Choose not to spend a healing surge, and you regain no additional hit points. You'd have to be regaining some hit points to be regaining any additional ones.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 7, 2008)

> Do you have a problem with the fact that we openly state it, or that it's true? If the former, that seems strange. If the latter, I'd guess you're not much of a fan of any heroic-scale RPG. All of them have this aspect, even if they don't come right out and say it. The D&D game has had it since very early on, so it's certainly not a departure for it to still be true.




I do still think there's a contingent of folks who prefer their town guards to be 5th level fighters and their generals to be 10th level warlords who still react like unimportant NPC's most of the time.

I think they got the idea from playing E6-like campaigns, where no one ever got to be high enough level to be "heroic."

I think that 4e is another kick in the pants to the idea that 1st level is already heroic. And that this doesn't jibe with how some people have been playing.

Note that I, personally, think that 1st level heroes should already be taking names and chewing butt and kicking bubblegum or whatever, just that, y'know, my preference really isn't the only way people have been playing D&D (even when D&D keeps trying to tell them that they heroes are heroes and NPC's aren't usually heroes). Old habits break hard, and then they get goo everywhere and...

wait....I'm all over the place.

Nevermind, I'm going to go back to talking about dragonbewbs.


----------



## med stud (Apr 7, 2008)

Even _if_ NPCs lacked healing surges, and you want to use healing word, how hard is it to get the numbers of HP healed?? Take the NPC's or monster's HP, divide it by four and voila! you got a healing surge amount. It must be the easiest house rule in the world to make.

I mean, D&D is not a computer game. You _can_ deviate from the RAW if you deem it necessary. In this case, it is a rule change that will have no spin-off effects on other areas of the game, either.


----------



## med stud (Apr 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think that 4e is another kick in the pants to the idea that 1st level is already heroic. And that this doesn't jibe with how some people have been playing.



Why is 4e against the idea that first level is heroic? Not a rethorical question, I'm curious about your reasoning here.


----------



## drjones (Apr 7, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Oh, man.  That phrase is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
> 'The PCs are special cuz we said so' is still one of the biggest stumbling blocks I have with 4e.




Yeah PCs suck!
 DMs RULE PCs DROOL!!!!!


----------



## Derren (Apr 7, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Why is 4e against the idea that first level is heroic? Not a rethorical question, I'm curious about your reasoning here.




Imo he wanted to say that some people don't want the PCs to already be heroes at level 1. I know it because I am one of them. When PCs want to be heroes they should earn it. But at level 1 they are just slightly better than most other people and in no way destined or special.


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 7, 2008)

There are different styles of play, and all are equally valid for those who play. However, I have always disliked games in which there is no qualitative difference between PCs and everyone else. I like PCs to be more capable than fragile, even at start of play. IMO this was always the promise of D&D (just look at the ways NPCs were treated in AD&D), but the game never delivered on it. That's why I've usually started D&D characters at 3rd level (at least since Dark Sun gave me the idea), played GURPS at 150+ points and HERO at 200 points (Fantasy Hero) or 350 points (Champions). 

It's not a powergamer thing. Anyone who's played with me knows that I prefer strong RP characters over power optimization. I just like playing characters who are heroes. I put a lot of work into character backgrounds and personality, and I hate to see all that work go up in smoke because I only have 5 hp, the same amount of damage that a 1st level warrior does with a longsword.

As I said, different styles for different folks. Since I don't really enjoy high level D&D (at least I haven't in any edition so far), I'm happy that the sweet spot has been extended downwards all the way to level 1 in 4e. I suspect that I am in the majority regarding my distaste for low level D&D characters (if for no other reason than the new edition will be designed with these standards in mind). The designers say they have been working from player feedback.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 7, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> They also had access to better classes.
> Nothing really changed since 3E.
> "PCs are (still) extraordinary heroes of great destiny"




Not really.

People with PC Classes were elite -- but that included almost every NPC of any significance. The were LOTS of clerics, fighters, wizard, etc, in the world -- the demographics in the DMG made it clear that about 1-5% of the populace was "PC Classed". Every village had a cleric, a sorceror, and a ranger or two. 

The impression I get from 4e is that the "PC's Are Special Precious Snowflakes" meme gets kicked up to 11, with even high level NPC allies/enemies usually being things like 'Elf Elite Archer' or 'Human Knight-Commander' instead of leveled characters. See the example noted earlier -- the NPC traveling with the party isn't a classed character, he's an entry from the MM.

Snowflakes FTL.

PCs already have enough advantages, just being PCs. Hard-coding it into the game world that they're special in a *rules dependent* sense is really annoying, and it places a stamp on all world building that can be hard to wash off. Not every world has/needs/acknowledges "destined heroes". I prefer worlds with rich and storied histories, where Heroic Deeds are going on everywhere -- and the PCs are just the people we happen to paying attention to. They are better than *most* people in the sense they're skilled, lucky, trained, determined -- they're the high end of the bell curve. But that's the only advantage they have; they aren't *metaphysically* different. 

Audie Murphy performed acts of heroism which would get most people killed. Leonardo da Vinci was a success at almost anything he tried, and he tried a lot of things. But none of them were "touched by the gods" or "destined for greatness", and while what they did pushed the limits of what a human can do, they weren't *different* from other people, just *better* than most. It's a curve, not a line. DaVinci was one of many great artists/scientists -- perhaps the best, but not metaphysically different from the second-best. Audie Murphy wasn't the only hero of WW2. Etc.

The difference between PC classes and NPC classes, between 'standard' and 'elite' arrays, is one of power level, not innate being. That the rules enshrine such a difference is worrisome.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 7, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Do you have a problem with the fact that we openly state it, or that it's true? If the former, that seems strange. If the latter, I'd guess you're not much of a fan of any heroic-scale RPG. All of them have this aspect, even if they don't come right out and say it. The D&D game has had it since very early on, so it's certainly not a departure for it to still be true.




First: I'm glad that NPCs/monsters DO have healing surges of some kind. It is one more step away from the 'video gamy' feel of the previews. (The idea that the only way to interact with things was to kill them, so there's no need to heal them, so there's no mechanics for healing them, is very VG-ish. So I'm glad that's not true. I have way too many NPCs which become unexpected allies to be able to run games where spells/effects work differently on NPCs than on PCs.)

Second: While the above is true for all versions of D&D, it was LESS true for 3x than for prior or, apparently, post, versions, and that was a major appeal to some of us. I enjoyed the continuum of power, and often used mixed PC/NPC classes to model NPCs -- Fighter/Noble for the ruling knight, Expert/Wizard for the master alchemist, etc.


----------



## keterys (Apr 7, 2008)

> with even high level NPC allies/enemies usually being things like 'Elf Elite Archer' or 'Human Knight-Commander' instead of leveled characters.




You can make them leveled characters if you wanted to... but it's easier not to do so. So you weigh extra work against perceived gain. For me, it being a leveled character would be a disadvantage for running it as a DM in terms of ease of use, so... I'd only want it to be a leveled character pretty rarely (such as when I want a PC able to run the character at some point, even if just as a contingency in case of a PC death).


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 7, 2008)

The 5% or so of the populace that had PC classes in 3e is still there in 4e. The difference is that they are now modeled using monster statistics rather than PC classes. An NPC who is modeled as an _Elf Archer, Elite skirmisher 10_ can be just as important to the background as he could if he were listed as _Elf Ranger 10_. The difference is in the way the rules treat the character. I definitely prefer the former for most NPCs, but I can easily imagine dozens of NPCs that I will stat out as PCs if it's necessary for the story.

So long as NPCs can be modeled using the NPC/monster format, I'll do so. It's just easier. If I notice any degredation in the depth of the NPC or his/her role in the overall setting, I'll use the other method. No one has made a rule against statting out every single NPC as if he were a PC. The designers have just given a different method for those who can run a world with _rich and storied histories_ that doesn't rely on game mechanics to reach this goal.


----------



## med stud (Apr 7, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> The 5% or so of the populace that had PC classes in 3e is still there in 4e. The difference is that they are now modeled using monster statistics rather than PC classes. An NPC who is modeled as an _Elf Archer, Elite skirmisher 10_ can be just as important to the background as he could if he were listed as _Elf Ranger 10_. The difference is in the way the rules treat the character. I definitely prefer the former for most NPCs, but I can easily imagine dozens of NPCs that I will stat out as PCs if it's necessary for the story.



Not to mention that you don't have to pick spells or assign skill points for a character that you essentially wanted to add because you wanted an elf that was good with the bow. Well, not that you had to in 3e either, but still.

I have never felt the need to flesh out NPCs for myself. I don't care if the elf ranger has Profession (sailor) +6 because he was at sea in his youth. I just care for his part in the campaign.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 7, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When PCs want to be heroes they should earn it.




By setting aside what limited time I have to play RPGs each week as well as devoting a portion of my limited expendable income, I have damned well earned the right to be a hero.


----------



## Kordeth (Apr 7, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Even _if_ NPCs lacked healing surges, and you want to use healing word, how hard is it to get the numbers of HP healed?? Take the NPC's or monster's HP, divide it by four and voila! you got a healing surge amount. It must be the easiest house rule in the world to make.




Just to nitpick, the issue wasn't "how much can an NPC heal with a healing surge," it was _"how many_ healing surges can an NPC use per day?"



> I mean, D&D is not a computer game. You _can_ deviate from the RAW if you deem it necessary. In this case, it is a rule change that will have no spin-off effects on other areas of the game, either.




Except that it's not a rule change at all because as Chris said, NPCs have healing surges.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 7, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Snowflakes FTL.




Frak that. I've already got a game where nobody is really unique, heroic, or special... it's called real life. I play games to be something special, not to transplant the day-to-day mundaneness into some fantasy world.


----------



## happyelf (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The difference between PC classes and NPC classes, between 'standard' and 'elite' arrays, is one of power level, not innate being. That the rules enshrine such a difference is worrisome.



I disagree. The PCs are the player characters. They are the characters the _players_ are _playing_. 

The NPCs are nothing compared to that. They's tools. Devices. They should never, EVER come even close to being as important or as noteworthy as the PCs in the mind of the DM. 
Ever.

Leading on from that, it only makes sense to use different mechanics for NPC as compared to PCs, since they are completly different after all and play a completly different role on the table.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Audie Murphy performed acts of heroism which would get most people killed. Leonardo da Vinci was a success at almost anything he tried, and he tried a lot of things. But none of them were "touched by the gods" or "destined for greatness", and while what they did pushed the limits of what a human can do, they weren't *different* from other people, just *better* than most. It's a curve, not a line. DaVinci was one of many great artists/scientists -- perhaps the best, but not metaphysically different from the second-best. Audie Murphy wasn't the only hero of WW2. Etc.
> 
> .




How do you know that DaVinci and Audie Murphy weren't destined for greatness? Certainly in a world with gods and magics and destinies you might reasonably expect that they were.


----------



## malraux (Apr 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> By setting aside what limited time I have to play RPGs each week as well as devoting a portion of my limited expendable income, I have damned well earned the right to be a hero.



Durn straight.  If I'm gonna sit around in a basement pretending to be an elf, its gonna be a heroic elf.


----------



## happyelf (Apr 8, 2008)

Even if the PCs aren't heroes, they're still the Player-Characters and the DM should always keep that in mind. To use an extreme example, even if they are literally faceless drones in a crowd, _these_ drones are the important ones because they are the ones the players are playing. The game should revolve around them, and the rules should reflect that.


----------



## Khur (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not really.
> 
> People with PC Classes were elite -- but that included almost every NPC of any significance. The were LOTS of clerics, fighters, wizard, etc, in the world -- the demographics in the DMG made it clear that about 1-5% of the populace was "PC Classed". Every village had a cleric, a sorceror, and a ranger or two.
> 
> ...



 You seem to think you need PC classes to make NPCs special, unique, or as powerful as PCs. That's an assumption you've made, and it's wrong. The only thing most NPCs and monsters aren't, compared to PCs, is as complex. If you think you need that largely mechanical complexity to tell your story, the PH is full of options for you.

Nobody said the PCs were the only heroes—but they should be the ones a specific D&D game focuses on. The only place where "snowlflake PCs" is truly "enshrined" is the rules for raising the dead. If that's really a problem, ignore it. Note that nobody said that PCs were superior in every way to certain NPCs and monsters. They are different, but once again, the differences are largely issues of mechanical complexity.

IMO, the fact that every town had a cleric was not only bogus, it was diminishing to any sense of specialness the PCs might have had. Why does every town need a miracle worker when a guy that knows a few helpful rituals or spells is fine? It was also a strain on the imagination when a base town is full of hero-like guys who just fail to do anything about trouble.

The rest of your post is impossible to discuss because you haven't defined your terms. I can say that plenty of people the world over believe that someone who becomes great is indeed destined for greatness or touched by God/the gods. Lots of people believe it is a metaphysical difference, such as karma or wyrd. A whole lot of people would agree with me when I say _better is different_, whether by practice, talent, or strange fate. And regardless of one's view of the real world, a fantasy game can and maybe even should include these.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 8, 2008)

happyelf said:
			
		

> The NPCs are nothing compared to that. They's tools. Devices. They should never, EVER come even close to being as important or as noteworthy as the PCs in the mind of the DM.
> Ever.
> 
> Leading on from that, it only makes sense to use different mechanics for NPC as compared to PCs, since they are completly different after all and play a completly different role on the table.



Absolutely 100% agreement.

You are my new favorite poster.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 8, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> 4) Willful misinterpretation of a clear rule. Much rarer, but it happens.



Yeah, Bag'o'Rats *Rolls-eyes*


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 8, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Do you have a problem with the fact that we openly state it, or that it's true? If the former, that seems strange. If the latter, I'd guess you're not much of a fan of any heroic-scale RPG. All of them have this aspect, even if they don't come right out and say it. The D&D game has had it since very early on, so it's certainly not a departure for it to still be true.




Actually, having thought about it, what heroic-scale RPGs with different NPC/PC rules are there, really?  Previous editions of DnD *didn't* have it in anyway I understand it.


----------



## Khur (Apr 8, 2008)

The real problem with Bag o' Rats isn't the player. It's the DM.

I'd start by saying, "Dumping the bag certainly provokes opportunity attacks . . ."


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 8, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> You seem to think you need PC classes to make NPCs special, unique, or as powerful as PCs. That's an assumption you've made, and it's wrong. The only thing most NPCs and monsters aren't, compared to PCs, is as complex. If you think you need that largely mechanical complexity to tell your story, the PH is full of options for you.



That is just, well (since I can't use cool, awesome _et al_) *w00t!*


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 8, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> The real problem with Bag o' Rats isn't the player. It's the DM.
> 
> I'd start by saying, "Dumping the bag certainly provokes opportunity attacks . . ."



I always thought that the bag o' rats was a hypothetical argument put forward to ridicule rules in a ridiculous manner. It never even crossed my mind that some one would actually use it in game


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I do still think there's a contingent of folks who prefer their town guards to be 5th level fighters and their generals to be 10th level warlords who still react like unimportant NPC's most of the time.




Like, me.

But then again, I love the utter simplicity of how NPCs could be potentially handled. Meaning, the local artisan stat block only has the appropriate Skill notations, or I can reference a table in the DMG to build more well-rounded individuals on the fly.

That would be best methinks. One of the better implimentations of this was the levels 1-20 tables in the 3E DMG for generic classes. I hope this makes a return in the new DMG, since a lot of the real estate for magic items has been displaced to the PHB.

I'd like both options, really.

Cheers~


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Frak that. I've already got a game where nobody is really unique, heroic, or special... it's called real life. I play games to be something special, not to transplant the day-to-day mundaneness into some fantasy world.




I agree wholeheartedly, though I'd add in a caveat about not necessarily _being_ special or unique, but being in a special or unique situation is also fine. Call of Cthulhu is, after all, my favorite game. There none of the Investigators are anything special- I mean one might be a particularly good Accountant, but what makes him special or unique isn't who he is, but what he does. Walk into the haunted house, face down a Great Old One sanity intact, etc.

Also, what happyelf said.


----------



## Khur (Apr 8, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I always thought that the bag o' rats was a hypothetical argument put forward to ridicule rules in a ridiculous manner. It never even crossed my mind that some one would actually use it in game



 I've never seen it, but I've heard of bad, bad stuff. But where rules trump reason coupled with fun, the rules need some tempering. A Bag o' Win is what I'm looking for. (I already have a Bag o' Wind.)



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Actually, having thought about it, what heroic-scale RPGs with different NPC/PC rules are there, really?  Previous editions of DnD *didn't* have it in anyway I understand it.



 I guess your understanding and mine are different. In my perception, old D&D monster books are full of NPCs. And even if we're talking about PC-raced characters, this remains true. Take the first sentence in the 1e MM entry on "Men." "Normal men have from 1-6 hit points each."

Sure, those entries are full of stuff about the leaders of bands of "Men," but even those guys have random armor, weapons, and spells. Similar to PCs, but different. That tradition is upheld in 4e, I'd say, only it might be even easier to make a reasonable band of bad guys in 4e.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The number is very easy to remember?  I'm guessing that the number is "1."




I suspect it is either 2 or 4. They can either heal up to half HP, or have enough to be full... once.


Fitz


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 8, 2008)

3e solution for bags of rats:

Bag of individual rats -> Bag o' swarm of rats.


----------



## Greg K (Apr 8, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> It's not a powergamer thing.




I suppose it depends on one's definition of powergamer.  In some circles, optimization and powergaming are not the same thing. Optimization is simply how you spend point points and/or allocate abiility scores to meet a concept (e.g, if your character has some training as a chef,  you put a rank  in Profession (cooking) to reflect that).  Powergaming means playing with the goal of being more powerful than the average person and/or for the acqusition of power.  Under that definition, yes, wanting to play somebody already heroic and better than the average citizen or a beginner with a destiny would make you a powergamer.  How much of a powergamer or an optimizer one is would be a seperate issue.


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 8, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> ...
> I guess your understanding and mine are different. In my perception, old D&D monster books are full of NPCs. And even if we're talking about PC-raced characters, this remains true. Take the first sentence in the 1e MM entry on "Men." "Normal men have from 1-6 hit points each."
> 
> Sure, those entries are full of stuff about the leaders of bands of "Men," but even those guys have random armor, weapons, and spells. Similar to PCs, but different. That tradition is upheld in 4e, I'd say, only it might be even easier to make a reasonable band of bad guys in 4e.




By the time you get to upper levels, the "cave-men" or "dervishes" (or the like, my 1e MM is all of 2 rooms away, but what's the point?) have vanished in 1e/2e.  Those pretty much (entirely?) only exist for humans, not for the demi-humans, anyways.  I am somewhat amused that you referred to heroic-scale RPGs, because 1e's deviations from PC/NPC transparency (and a LOT of that transparency is removed if you accept 0th level men-at-arms as an inferior class without advancement, a la 3e's warrior) was restricted to lower levels.

Now, I will grant you that, as a class-based system, DnD is one of the few games that *can* reasonably have PC/NPC non-transparency.  There is, of course, absolutely no reason to build it in in a point-based system like GURPS.  I guess Shadowrun at least used to have non-transparency with karma pool/threat rating, but I haven't followed Shadowrun 4e at all...  How about Exalted, over-the-top heroic system par-excellence I've heard?  I've never been able to generate enough enthusiasm for that to justify buying the books.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> By the time you get to upper levels, the "cave-men" or "dervishes" (or the like, my 1e MM is all of 2 rooms away, but what's the point?) have vanished in 1e/2e.  Those pretty much (entirely?) only exist for humans, not for the demi-humans, anyways.  I am somewhat amused that you referred to heroic-scale RPGs, because 1e's deviations from PC/NPC transparency (and a LOT of that transparency is removed if you accept 0th level men-at-arms as an inferior class without advancement, a la 3e's warrior) was restricted to lower levels.




Are you seriously trying to imply that 1E monsters are built the same way as 1E PCs?


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Are you seriously trying to imply that 1E monsters are built the same way as 1E PCs?




God forbid, no!  Please, I don't demand respect, but let us be serious.  I am talking about PC race, high HD NPCs.  Them, yes.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> God forbid, no!  Please, I don't demand respect, but let us be serious.  I am talking about PC race, high HD NPCs.  Them, yes.



 And what about them?


----------



## Kraydak (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And what about them?




They were built with PC classes.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> They were built with PC classes.



 And nothing stops you building NPCs with PC classes in 4E, yes?


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 3e solution for bags of rats:
> 
> Bag of individual rats -> Bag o' swarm of rats.



That's 3.5, where bag of rats stops working anyway.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> You seem to think you need PC classes to make NPCs special, unique, or as powerful as PCs. That's an assumption you've made, and it's wrong. The only thing most NPCs and monsters aren't, compared to PCs, is as complex. If you think you need that largely mechanical complexity to tell your story, the PH is full of options for you.




Let me see if I can be more specific. Based on the little I know about 4e, you might have, say, a Hobgoblin Grunt -- a level 1 soldier. You might also have a Hobgoblin Commander -- a Level 6 elite soldier (Leader). The grunt has 2-3 attacks/abilities which define him. The Commander, likewise, has 2-3...maybe 4...abilities which define him. But, one presumes, at one point, the Commander was a Grunt...so what happened to those skill/powers/talents/etc?

In 3e terms, it would be akin to having a wizard who could cast Power Word Kill...but not Magic Missile.

Maybe the argument is "He still knows his novice powers, and if they ever become important to the plot for some gods-unknown reason, he can use them. But 99% of the time, he won't use level 1 powers in a fight against level 6 PCs, so who cares?" 



> IMO, the fact that every town had a cleric was not only bogus, it was diminishing to any sense of specialness the PCs might have had. Why does every town need a miracle worker when a guy that knows a few helpful rituals or spells is fine? It was also a strain on the imagination when a base town is full of hero-like guys who just fail to do anything about trouble.




I do see this argument, but it leads to a counter-argument -- where did the PCs come from? If their power level is so beyond the curve, how do you keep them from running roughshod over the setting -- more than they do anyway, being PCs?

IAE, I've been thinking about this. I suppose my issues are twofold:First, I don't like any kind of 'mark of Cain' on PCs. We, at the gaming table, know they're special, but the world doesn't. There shouldn't be any kind of 'PC Detector' implied by the mechanics. Classes, levels, hit points, are things which approximate things which exist in the real world -- training, skill, fortitude. Scholarly wizards might group spells by complexity, or a school of fighting might have various 'novice' and 'advanced' techniques, but outside of OOTS, no one knows their level -- or who's a PC. 

Second, and perhaps more relevant, let's assume that for a given 3x NPC, 95% of the time you need, say, 10% of the stats. You don't normally need Grog Bloodrinker's Appraise check, and if the PCs decide to attack the Exchequer instead of parlaying with him, whether he has 15 hit points or 16 doesn't matter when the Barbarian crits him for 45. And, yeah, working up 100% of the data so that the 10% is accurate can be a pain, especially as levels add up. I appreciate the design goal of 4e is 'just use the 10%, screw the rest'. I just want to know if I can get the other 90% when I need it. In 8 years of playing 3x 2-3 times a week, those 5% cases have come up quite a bit. Just yesterday, we were rescuing some hapless shopkeepers (and doing a typically PC job of it, meaning, they'd have been better off if we were somewhere else), when the ogre magi shaking them down for protection money unleashed a cone of frost. Suddenly, it mattered if they were at -9 hit points or -11...because that spelled the difference between "We rescued you...mostly" and "Well, who wants to tell their next of kin?" The typical argument is "The DM decides if they live or die" is not really acceptable, because that leads to railroading. Do they live? Then the DM is telling us he'll protect us from the consequences of our half assed plans. Do they die? Then the DM is turning the game into a voyage on the Guilt Trip Express. Letting a neutral third party -- the dice and the rules -- decide is part of what makes it a *game*, where everyone -- even the DM -- is surprised at the outcome. (I find that to be my favorite part of DMing...the far end of bell curve events which veer the story in totally unexpected directions. The beloved NPC is critted and dies. The villain survives that one extra round and makes good his escape. Or vice-versa. I'd have a lot of trouble having fun DMing a diceless game. But I digress.)



> The rest of your post is impossible to discuss because you haven't defined your terms. I can say that plenty of people the world over believe that someone who becomes great is indeed destined for greatness or touched by God/the gods. Lots of people believe it is a metaphysical difference, such as karma or wyrd. A whole lot of people would agree with me when I say _better is different_, whether by practice, talent, or strange fate. And regardless of one's view of the real world, a fantasy game can and maybe even should include these.




Well, we disagree on the nature of the real world, but that's not a debate for this board. In terms of gaming, I don't mind *can include*, I do mind *must include*. If some kind of "PCs are special" mechanic is needed, I'd rather it be something that is clearly and explicitly a metagame mechanism (such as Hero Points/Action Points/Drama Cards/etc), then something which seems to want to be both a world-simulation mechanic and a narrative mechanic. Now, I try to keep in mind I haven't seen the 4e books. A lot of my issues might well be cleared up by 2-3 paragraphs of explanatory text detailing what the game mechanics actually represent -- just as the 1e DMG made it clear that having 50 hit points DIDN'T mean you could get stabbed in the chest with a sword ten times. They meant, basically, that the sword didn't stab you in the chest. (Until that final blow...)

On a final note, I keep running into the meme here that "PCs and NPCs use the same rules"=="PCs are pathetic wuss losers". This might come as a surprise to players of Hero, GURPS, D6, BESM, WOD, and many, many, other systems which have both a)Powerful PCs, and b)No mechanical 'hard line' between PCs and NPCs. (A 25 point Hero character and a 500 point Hero character are both built using the same rules...one can just juggle skycrapers.)


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I do see this argument, but it leads to a counter-argument -- where did the PCs come from?




From the players' heads.



> If their power level is so beyond the curve, how do you keep them from running roughshod over the setting -- more than they do anyway, being PCs?




Is the setting going to complain?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> I suspect it is either 2 or 4. They can either heal up to half HP, or have enough to be full... once.
> 
> 
> Fitz




1+Con Bonus? (Minimum 1)

Based on role? (Soldiers more, skulkers less?)

Based on minion, normal, elite, solo?

I rather like the "currency" of healing surges. It's an interesting mechanic with a lot of uses, and a better way to represent "life force" than levels, always one of the clumsiest mechanics in D&D.


----------



## Nytmare (Apr 8, 2008)

Would I be the only person who doesn't necessarily have a problem with schlub commoners and random guys off the street maybe not having the fortitude and wherewithal to pick themselves up and dust themselves off just because a PC tried healing them or yelled at them to get up and walk it off?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 8, 2008)

I guess this is sorta not-what some are looking for, but I view it like this:

The Commander is a Commander because that is what he is at that moment in-time, the rest of the universe and thus the happenings in the universe cease to exist outside the bubble of the PCs knowledge/influence.

The same goes for abilities, the abilities he has are the abilities he shows to the PCs at the moment he exists in that universe of influence the PCs have. If he shows up later and I have decided he is now... A General, his new abilities are those he shows the PCs and thus at that time-period those are his only abilities in the universe.

Essentially the game-world is the PCs sphere of influence and the only thing that is true and right in that world, is what the PCs are currently interacting with and see.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Essentially the game-world is the PCs sphere of influence and the only thing that is true and right in that world, is what the PCs are currently interacting with and see.




Which I guess works for most people, based on comments here, but it drives me nuts. I like to have at least a millennia of history before I even start thinking about designing the first adventure...

If the PCs foil the plans of a hobgoblin captain when they're level 6, when they run into him as a general at level 15, I want there to be a mechanical connection -- I want him to feel, in game stats, like the same character, just more uber. If he has a set of 'general' powers which don't connect/build off his 'captain' powers, that feels wrong to me. I may be the only one.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 8, 2008)

Well it is not that there isn't history or backstory to things. It is simply they are just bare-bones, they are not fleshed out till the PCs join the picture.

You would make the hob-goblin feel familiar by using dialogue, his mannerisms, etc. His mechanical abilities, sure he may know the same abilities he had before in his mind. But in practise he only used for that battle his current stat-blocks, since that is all the PCs saw so that is all that exists.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well it is not that there isn't history or backstory to things. It is simply they are just bare-bones, they are not fleshed out till the PCs join the picture.
> 
> You would make the hob-goblin feel familiar by using dialogue, his mannerisms, etc. His mechanical abilities, sure he may know the same abilities he had before in his mind. But in practise he only used for that battle his current stat-blocks, since that is all the PCs saw so that is all that exists.




If a tree falls in the forest, and there are no PCs around, neither the tree nor the forest exists, eh?

I suppose I can see how it feels in play. Not much to do about it until then.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

I wonder if the people who read Pride and Prejudice ever stay awake all night thinking about Elizabeth and Darcy because otherwise, THEY MIGHT DISAPPEAR.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If he has a set of 'general' powers which don't connect/build off his 'captain' powers, that feels wrong to me. I may be the only one.




You're not.

The players, and their characters, are not special. They are simply another group of people in the world, with the possibility of rising to great heights.

But the world should be alive around them. Things should happen that they have no connection to - that tavern they frequent burned down last week when they were out adventuring, or their local fence got caught and thrown in prison, or what-have-you. If you just focus on the adventurers and nothing around them, the world is two-dimensional; it has no substance.

The world should feel alive. It's more immersive and more interesting, that way. The games should rightly focus on the players, but that doesn't mean that there aren't things happening elsewhere.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If a tree falls in the forest, and there are no PCs around, neither the tree nor the forest exists, eh?
> 
> I suppose I can see how it feels in play. Not much to do about it until then.




Yeah, I'll admit it is quite a change from what seems to be your style of play. But it can be just as indepth and interesting as a fully thought-out, whole-world is mapped day-by-day style campaign.

I am not sure how much an issue time is for you, but it also allows for easier to build campaigns, also easier for the PCs to deviate.

To take this time example farther, say you were ready for them to face the Hob-Goblin when he is a General but by deviating plot-wise they wind up meeting him sooner, well... Then to show progression, pull up a stat-block for a major and your good to go.

As for the tree, well you the DM decides if when the PC comes across the tree if it will have fallen down then or not. If it has, well it has, if it hasn't it hasn't, if it currently in the process of it does it. 

When the PCs leave, it ceases to exist in any-three forms, but come back, it comes back to existence in the form you see fit.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I wonder if the people who read Pride and Prejudice ever stay awake all night thinking about Elizabeth and Darcy because otherwise, THEY MIGHT DISAPPEAR.




I wonder if the players in your games ever care about anything they encounter in a setting, hong. Because it's hard to care about paper cutouts.

Oh, right, that'd be thinking too hard about fantasy. Sorry, I forgot that you like vanilla.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I wonder if the players in your games ever care about anything they encounter in a setting, hong. Because it's hard to care about paper cutouts.
> 
> Oh, right, that'd be thinking too hard about fantasy. Sorry, I forgot that you like vanilla.



 ... did you just call Elizabeth and Darcy "paper cutouts"?


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> Would I be the only person who doesn't necessarily have a problem with schlub commoners and random guys off the street maybe not having the fortitude and wherewithal to pick themselves up and dust themselves off just because a PC tried healing them or yelled at them to get up and walk it off?



All I can think of now is a tough as nails adventurer who keeps his buddies up and fighting all through a fight (mostly by yelling at them) attempting to fix a small childs broken leg and succeeding only in making them cry.

And I find that a hilarious image


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> ... did you just call Elizabeth and Darcy "paper cutouts"?




Never read _Pride and Prejudice_.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Never read _Pride and Prejudice_.



 "There are more things in heaven and earth, GnomeWorks, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- some Danish dude


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I wonder if the people who read Pride and Prejudice ever stay awake all night thinking about Elizabeth and Darcy because otherwise, THEY MIGHT DISAPPEAR.




Would you wake the Red King?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> "There are more things in heaven and earth, GnomeWorks, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- some Danish dude




I fail to see what point you're trying to make by misattributing a Shakespearian quote to "some Danish dude."


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I fail to see what point you're trying to make by misattributing a Shakespearian quote to "some Danish dude."



 Oops! My bad! Obviously that quote was by some Moorish dude and not some Danish dude. (And even if it wasn't, things sure could have been turned out for the better by having them switch places.) Thanks for clearing that up, "GnomeWorks", if that is your real trading name!


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Oops! My bad! Obviously that quote was by some Moorish dude and not some Danish dude. (And even if it wasn't, things sure could have been turned out for the better by having them switch places.) Thanks for clearing that up, "GnomeWorks", if that is your real trading name!




I see that you enjoy using obfuscation and randomness in place of actual argument and discussion.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I see that you enjoy using obfuscation and randomness in place of actual argument and discussion.



 My milieu is bigger than yours.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> The world should feel alive. It's more immersive and more interesting, that way. The games should rightly focus on the players, but that doesn't mean that there aren't things happening elsewhere.




One of the best things in a well run campaign is coming back from A Trip Over Yonder and finding the world has *changed*. That bar wench now has a baby, and it looks a lot like you. Your grampa died of something no cleric can fix. The slimy advisor to the mayor...is now the mayor. Your pesky kid brother has got his first PC level and he's rarin' to go kill some kobolds. 

Likewise, if you stop the orcs from invading the lands to the south, that means the overlord of the north can rampage unopposed -- and vice versa. There's forces in motion all around the world, and while you're powerful and skilled and all that, the world is going to keep turning whether you're watching it or not -- and then you have to deal with the consequences of your decisions.

To my mind, the quantum world where only what the PCs are watching exists is a boring one, one I can neither play in nor run. I expect my DMs to run a living world, where my actions *matter to the world*, but do not *define the world*; I try to give my players a place where saving the world matters because the world feels worth saving.

In my long running D20M Shadow Chasers game, part of the story of the PCs was their discovering how vast and expansive the 'hidden world' was. The discovery of organization, cults, agencies, and informal networks, of the fact they were one band of heroes among many -- not the first, not the last -- made the world believable, and their rise in NPC estimation from "Oh, great, another bunch of wannabe scoobys" to "OK, it's getting heavy. Call THEM." was the main arc of the campaign. They didn't matter to the world because they were the PCs; they mattered to the world because of the things they did.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> My milieu is bigger than yours.




...or is it?

You don't care to flesh out anything beyond what your players are interacting with. I disagree with that particular approach, and prefer to have a world that is active outside of the player's immediate influence.

I think that would imply that my milieu is bigger than yours.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

*First -** Khur/Chris Sims*

Thank you so much for joining this thread for some enlightening revelations.  I know there is a lot of negativity toward 4E, and this thread is no exception, but I wanted to express my gratitude for what you and WotC is doing, as well as coming down into the trenches to help those of us that are interested in what you have to say.  Thank you.

*Second -** hong*

You are my favorite poster.

*Third -*

_If you are not the protagonist in the story of your own life, something is wrong._

This is why PCs follow different rules than NPCs.  The setting exists _solely for the benefit_ of your gaming group.

If you want your NPCs to have class levels, _4E does not prevent you from dong so_.  If you want to have NPCs exist solely for "roleplaying" purposes, with no stats or mechanics, _4E give you the tools to do so._  If you want NPCs to simply fill their role in the story centered on the PCs, you can.

In real life, you never know the "mechanics" of everyone else, and only barely of your self.  Do you know what the stranger across the street, your best friend, you mother, your wife, is thinking?  Do you know their memories, every aspect of their history?  Do you know how they will react in any situation, know what they will say before they say it?  Do you even know these things about yourself?

Real life is composed of NPCs with no stat blocks, anyway.  And from a certain perspective, the universe, and all the people in it, exist solely because you, yourself, is conscious of it.  Why should not a roleplaying game be different?


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> The world should feel alive. It's more immersive and more interesting, that way. The games should rightly focus on the players, but that doesn't mean that there aren't things happening elsewhere.



I agree, but IMO that's the DM's job and not the Rule's job.

The players can't see the Hobgoblin thug-captain-general stats, all they have is what the DM tells them. It's how the DM impersonates and plays that NPC that makes him memorable and important to the story, not the rules. 

And from the DM's perspective, my perspective, it won't be the stats that will make that NPC/monster feel "alive" to me, but how the players interact with it and consider it "real". When you realize that the players are not really talking to yourself but to the NPC that's in your mind, and that they are looking at you but actually seeing the NPC you described to them, that's when that NPC is "alive". 

Most of my memorable NPCs had a couple of stats or absolutely no stats et al, but the players still remember them, their voices, their personalities, their traits, etc even after decades. 

Some won't share my this thoughts, but I believe most will. And I hope 4E will fully, honestly and openly support this way of thinking/playing.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Let me see if I can be more specific. Based on the little I know about 4e, you might have, say, a Hobgoblin Grunt -- a level 1 soldier. You might also have a Hobgoblin Commander -- a Level 6 elite soldier (Leader). The grunt has 2-3 attacks/abilities which define him. The Commander, likewise, has 2-3...maybe 4...abilities which define him. But, one presumes, at one point, the Commander was a Grunt...so what happened to those skill/powers/talents/etc?



Sometimes, other times the Commander used to be a level 2 Elite Soldier, which can be created from the the stats of the level 6 stats if necessary.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 8, 2008)

Well you can still run those campaigns, it is simply as far as mechanics/PCs know only what they are currently seeing is real and exists.

It is like, I know for a fact that everything around me is real and only thing that I know is happening and exists is what around me. The next city over there could have been a fire that burnt down half the city, or a mother had 12 children till I read about it or see it for my own eyes it doesn't exist as far as my knowledge is concerned.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 8, 2008)

> To my mind, the quantum world where only what the PCs are watching exists is a boring one, one I can neither play in nor run. I expect my DMs to run a living world, where my actions *matter to the world*, but do not *define the world*; I try to give my players a place where saving the world matters because the world feels worth saving.




Having played in both editions currently under discussion (as well as most prior ones), I cannot begin to fathom how the above has anything to do with the 3E vs. 4E debate. I, too, prefer worlds where the PCs' actions matter, and things may happen "off-camera." But that has zero (0) intrinsic relationship to the complexity of NPC building, or whether PCs and NPCs are built with the same rules.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> This is why PCs follow different rules than NPCs.  The setting exists _solely for the benefit_ of your gaming group.




That may be your take on it, but it is not mine.

The setting is a thing unto itself; it is a project apart from the players and their game. When the players seat themselves at my table, they are attempting to immerse themselves in the setting. It is not their plaything; it is something they must interact with. There is give-and-take in both directions: they benefit from the setting, by having an evening of entertainment, while the setting is enriched by their interaction with it.



> And from a certain perspective, the universe, and all the people in it, exist solely because you, yourself, is conscious of it.  Why should not a roleplaying game be different?




Solipsism. Tasty.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> That may be your take on it, but it is not mine.
> 
> The setting is a thing unto itself; it is a project apart from the players and their game. When the players seat themselves at my table, they are attempting to immerse themselves in the setting. It is not their plaything; it is something they must interact with. There is give-and-take in both directions: they benefit from the setting, by having an evening of entertainment, while the setting is enriched by their interaction with it.




You can still create an immerse environment and setting, just you don't need to figure out and tweak mechanically every, single npc or monster. Hell it makes it so you have that much more time to create rich and deep dialogue, interesting characters, settings, etc. to make the game even better.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

_In advance, I apologize for any tone.  I like philosophical arguments, and I mean the following solely as a debate, and do not mean any insult._



			
				GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> The setting is a thing unto itself; it is a project apart from the players and their game. When the players seat themselves at my table, they are attempting to immerse themselves in the setting. It is not their plaything; it is something they must interact with. There is give-and-take in both directions: they benefit from the setting, by having an evening of entertainment, while the setting is enriched by their interaction with it.




This is *wrong.*  Unless you believe every creative endeavor never actually originates with its creator, but is instead a portal to another universe in which Elizabeth and Darcy well and truly exist.

The setting is created by the DM and the players (and the game designers, and novelists, etc).  It is not a thing unto itself, it is not a project apart.

It is, _by definition,_ *their plaything.*


----------



## Campbell (Apr 8, 2008)

The question is to what purpose the setting outside the PCs' sphere of influence evolves. Is the setting an end or is its development a means for another end ? In short: does the setting serve the needs of a game or does the setting have intrinsic value beyond the game ?


----------



## Vempyre (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> One of the best things in a well run campaign is coming back from A Trip Over Yonder and finding the world has *changed*. That bar wench now has a baby, and it looks a lot like you. Your grampa died of something no cleric can fix. The slimy advisor to the mayor...is now the mayor. Your pesky kid brother has got his first PC level and he's rarin' to go kill some kobolds.




We don't need rules for that. Most explicitly, there is no rules for that.

When a DM defines the world only around the PC's bubble of influence that doesn't stop the above quoted exemple from being possible from happening. You simply define that when the PCs come back to town, if they do, instead of predetermining it all in advance. In the end it's all determined by the DM anyway, so what difference it makes if you define it only when you need it (when the players are around or get knowledge an area)? Saves you a lot of work and you still have a great world that *seems* to live outside of what the PCs do.

_Seems_ here is the keyword. Because wether or not you define it all in advance like you love to do or define it only when the PCs become aware of it like many others do, all of it is a make-believe story cooked up by the DM, mostly.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

You do not need "that bar wench" to have healing surges in order for her to have a baby that looks like you.

The "slimy adviser to the mayor" does not need the Wizard's 7th-level utility spell _fix election_ in order to become the mayor.

*If the DM decides to have the world change "off-camera," the DM is doing it for the players.  The world changes because it will enhance the game for the players.*

And, as Vempyre just said, "there are no rules for that."  In fact, Fallen Seraph has the right idea, in that the ease of creating the mechanical world around the PCs allows the DM more time to tell these kinds of stories.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> One of the best things in a well run campaign is coming back from A Trip Over Yonder and finding the world has *changed*. That bar wench now has a baby, and it looks a lot like you. Your grampa died of something no cleric can fix. The slimy advisor to the mayor...is now the mayor. Your pesky kid brother has got his first PC level and he's rarin' to go kill some kobolds.



I agree but do we need pregnancy rules for that? Do we need rules for running medieval political elections? That has nothing to do with the rules, with NPC/monster creation, whatsoever.

That's all about the guy behind the screen.

It's art, not science.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 8, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Having played in both editions currently under discussion (as well as most prior ones), I cannot begin to fathom how the above has anything to do with the 3E vs. 4E debate. I, too, prefer worlds where the PCs' actions matter, and things may happen "off-camera." But that has zero (0) intrinsic relationship to the complexity of NPC building, or whether PCs and NPCs are built with the same rules.





I couldn't agree with you more.

This is a function of the creativity and capability of the DM at hand.. not the ruleset.
It should *not* be part of the ruleset, and in a very real sense, *cannot* be part of the ruleset.

The rules are the toolset by which the players manipulate the objects that are the PC's.

You can set your setting as independant, run multiple different groups in there, have each effect each other.

It is still an artifact of your creation, nothing more. The PC's are special because they are the *only* agents of change, other than you, the DM. Everything else is scripted, or random.. and even randominity is an expression of the DM's will against the setting. Only PC's change be real change, and only through the toolset of the rules.

/shrug.

Essentially, as I said above, I agree with Ari. The vibrancy of a world is dependant on its creator and maintainer, and is indifferent to a ruleset.


----------



## Vempyre (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> The setting is a thing unto itself; it is a project apart from the players and their game. When the players seat themselves at my table, they are attempting to immerse themselves in the setting. It is not their plaything; it is something they must interact with. There is give-and-take in both directions: they benefit from the setting, by having an evening of entertainment, while the setting is enriched by their interaction with it.




There is a simple definition for the above: you are not running a game, you are running a simulation.

It can be perfectly fine and entertaining to the right ppl but it is not the basis of what DnD has been built for. It is not what it aims for. Any version of DnD. 3E might have enabled a way to achieve the above with less pain than other iterations of DnD, but it was too much and off the market. The market wants a game, not a simulation.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> One of the best things in a well run campaign is coming back from A Trip Over Yonder and finding the world has *changed*. That bar wench now has a baby, and it looks a lot like you. Your grampa died of something no cleric can fix. The slimy advisor to the mayor...is now the mayor. Your pesky kid brother has got his first PC level and he's rarin' to go kill some kobolds.



Agreed. A living world is more immersive. 
However whether your campaign achieves this is pretty much rules independent, it is up to the DM to make this happen. How many important things happen without the PC's being involved is pretty much rules independent. A 4E conceit (AFAIK) is to _encourage_ the PC's to be involved with most of the important events relevant to level. Heroic=local, Paragon=regional, Epic=world-wide. But you don't have to let your PC's be the only movers and shakers, that is up to the DM.
Edit: Ninjaed to a bloody pile of shurikened flesh!


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> _In advance, I apologize for any tone.  I like philosophical arguments, and I mean the following solely as a debate, and do not mean any insult._




_Fair enough, but I'll warn you - I'm a student, and majoring in philosophy. I think about crazy stuff *all the time*._ 



> This is *wrong.*  Unless you believe every creative endeavor never actually originates with its creator, but is instead a portal to another universe in which Elizabeth and Darcy well and truly exist.
> 
> The setting is created by the DM and the players (and the game designers, and novelists, etc).  It is not a thing unto itself, it is not a project apart.
> 
> It is, _by definition,_ *their plaything.*




I disagree.

While I'll concede that the setting is created by the creator, my setting is not a group effort - it is mine and mine alone. That means that when the players sit down to play in my setting, they are in my playground; they can interact with it, but it is ultimately mine.

I would like to create the illusion, as much as possible, that the game is a window into "another world," as it were, in which dragons and such other absurdities exist. Anything that gets in the way of that is dentrimental, IMO, to the experience and immersion.

As a world-builder, my goal is to remove my whims as much as possible from the world, and let it run its course. Of course, that's not really feasible, but that's the ideal situation: I'm going to fall short, and I recognize that, but I still work towards it.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> There is a simple definition for the above: you are not running a game, you are running a simulation.




Ding! We have a winner. Though I think the two can be reasonably reconciled into one system.



> It can be perfectly fine and entertaining to the right ppl but it is not the basis of what DnD has been built for. It is not what it aims for. Any version of DnD. 3E might have enabled a way to achieve the above with less pain than other iterations of DnD, but it was too much and off the market. The market wants a game, not a simulation.




I agree. That's why I'm not going to 4e, and I'm leaving 3.5.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 1+Con Bonus? (Minimum 1)
> Based on role? (Soldiers more, skulkers less?)
> Based on minion, normal, elite, solo?




Well considering the WotC employee who posted stated quite explicitly that it was an easy to remember number that didn't need to be written down on the stat block, I expect that NO, it's not effected by any of your suggestions and is, in fact, a good, solid, unmodified NUMBER.

Fitz


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I fail to see what point you're trying to make by misattributing a Shakespearian quote to "some Danish dude."



Please tell me you're kidding here, GW. (Even if you are, it's not so funny.)

Regardless, I have to say that I disagree with the entire set of concepts you're promulgating. a) There's no reason for players to know an NPC's statblock; b) there's no reason why that statblock needs to contain data that's not relevant to the PCs' actual interaction with that NPC; AND c) there's no reason why either issues a or b should have anything to do with how consistent and effective a world one can build using the rules. But whatever.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Please tell me you're kidding here, GW. (Even if you are, it's not so funny.)
> 
> Weak.




Kidding about what?


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 8, 2008)

I recommend smilies for that sort of statement.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Ding! We have a winner. Though I think the two can be reasonably reconciled into one system.
> I agree. That's why I'm not going to 4e, and I'm leaving 3.5.



That is sad, I reckon that you can convert any rules set to be more or less simulationist. If you like the base mechanics e.g. /w/e/d etc. (Maybe you do not) and are not adverse to a little house ruling, a simulationist campaign is achievable, even with 4E IMO. I did it with 3E and I reckon I could do it with 4, although I don't plan to. I will create a living, consistent world within the constraints of 4E (and a little house ruling I guess) because I like the rules base math so far.
You certainly couldn't run a simulationist game using a published campaign setting IMO but with house ruling the world is your oyster (or in sim-speak huge ball of life capable rock and magma )


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Please tell me you're kidding here, GW. (Even if you are, it's not so funny.)



I tihnk it's fairly safe to blame Hong's confusion aura, in regards to all of us.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I agree. That's why I'm not going to 4e, and I'm leaving 3.5.



So where are you going?

IME, the more complex a system is, in order to try be "the physics of the gameworld", the more it fails. The more abstract/simpler systems, IMHO, are the most suited for "simulationist" desires.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I recommend smilies for that sort of statement.




I'm now going to assume that you're hong wearing a hat, because that statement seems rather hong-ish. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me by not being obtuse.



			
				mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> That is sad, I reckon that you can convert any rules set to be more or less simulationist. If you like the base mechanics e.g. /w/e/d etc. (Maybe you do not) and are not adverse to a little house ruling, a simulationist campaign is achievable, even with 4E IMO. I did it with 3E and I reckon I could do it with 4, although I don't plan to. I will create a living, consistent world within the constraints of 4E (and a little house ruling I guess) because I like the rules base math so far.




I do like a lot of the 4e mechanics.

But there are a lot of other things that both 3.5 and 4e are missing that I feel need to be in a system. I want a sensical economy, I want a detailed crafting system, I don't want level-based spells anymore (because they irk me)... the list goes on and on.

I like the base math, too. I don't like a lot of the other things they're doing to the game, or have failed to do in either edition. So this is where I'm hopping off the edition train.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

*GnomeWorks -*

First, my terminology is a little loose.  I see the DM as a player in a game of D&D.  The DM has a different function from the other players, but the DM remains a player.

Second, the setting may be the sole creation of the DM, but the DM has created it _for the players_, so the players can interact with it.

The setting, the "world" the DM has built, is not a thing apart.  It is within the mind of the DM, and created for the purpose of providing a background for the players.  The "setting" is not enriched by the players' interaction with it: you and the players are enriched by their interaction with it.  How it is created, whether "simulationist" or "narrative" or what have you, is inconsequential.  It's _purpose_ remains the same: to provide a fun time.

Bringing this back to the source of the argument: Different rules for PCs and NPCs does not preclude this.  _Especially since the DM can still run a "simulationist game" in 4E!_  You can still stat out all NPCs with character class levels, GnomeWorks, if you want.  You can make the world as active as you like, outside the player character's effects, and representing a commoner as +8 History has no effect on your ability to do so.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> So where are you going?
> 
> IME, the more complex a system is, in order to try be "the physics of the gameworld", the more it fails. The more abstract/simpler systems, IMHO, are the most suited for "simulationist" desires.




Homebrew system, all the way.

Abstraction is alright. But the abstractions need to be sensical. The things the mechanics represent need to be sensical, and have sensical explanations.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> First, my terminology is a little loose.  I see the DM as a player in a game of D&D.  The DM has a different function from the other players, but the DM remains a player.




True, the DM is also a player, in a loose sense. But his interaction with the world and the game differs from that of everyone else at the table, hence why I make the distinction.



> Second, the setting may be the sole creation of the DM, but the DM has created it _for the players_, so the players can interact with it.




Nope. I make the world for the sake of its own existence. That the players play in it is happy coincidence.



> The setting, the "world" the DM has built, is not a thing apart.  It is within the mind of the DM, and created for the purpose of providing a background for the players.  The "setting" is not enriched by the players' interaction with it: you and the players are enriched by their interaction with it.  How it is created, whether "simulationist" or "narrative" or what have you, is inconsequential.  It's _purpose_ remains the same: to provide a fun time.




That is not the purpose of the world. That is the purpose of the game, which is an interface to the world in the DM's head. The purpose of the world is to exist.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I'm now going to assume that you're hong wearing a hat, because that statement seems rather hong-ish. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me by not being obtuse.



You might want to check my join date, post count, et cetera.

I think you're ascribing obtuseness to the wrong side of this conversation here. Or are we deviating into a discussion of _Hamlet_?

Here's the thing. A lot of the stuff about which you're expressing concern may well be handled by the final version ruleset. Crafting rules, social interaction, wealth management, economics, et cetera. What IMO *does not need to be "handled" in order to create a compelling gameworld* is stuff like "Do NPCs need a method for determining healing surges by level along a similar line to PCs"? Equating NPC build rules = PC build rules with suspension of disbelief or compelling world-building is, as Mouseferatu stated earlier, a canard.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Nope. I make the world for the sake of its own existence. That the players play in it is happy coincidence.



I must say that I find this philosophy bizarre. I create a _gaming setting_ for my _gaming group_. This isn't my novel in which my players may insert bits of their own characters' stories. 

Maybe this isn't quite what you meant, but the point is that if what you're talking about is merely the "sandbox" approach, I don't see how 4e is problematic at handling it. There are NPCs, monsters, and all sorts of other people wandering around the setting just as there are in OD&D/1e/2e/3e/whatever. If what you're talking about is "monster/NPC stat blocks need to be organized just so in order to build the world I want to make," then I'd say that a) you're SOL in any edition of pretty much any game and b) you're giving yourself a bunch of makework that doesn't serve a purpose AND may actually hinder enjoyable gameplay. But suit yourself.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I think you're ascribing obtuseness to the wrong side of this conversation here. Or are we deviating into a discussion of _Hamlet_?




I didn't read much Shakespeare, and I really don't care to. Just not my style.



> Here's the thing. A lot of the stuff about which you're expressing concern may well be handled by the final version ruleset. Crafting rules, social interaction, wealth management, economics, et cetera. What IMO *does not need to be "handled" in order to create a compelling gameworld* is stuff like "Do NPCs need a method for determining healing surges by level along a similar line to PCs"? Equating NPC build rules = PC build rules with suspension of disbelief or compelling world-building is, as Mouseferatu stated earlier, a canard.




You're right - all those things might be in the final rules document. I'm willing to bet that they're not, because that doesn't seem to jibe with the general feel of the 4e philosophy.

I don't like the idea of the PCs being heroes right out of the gate. You want to be a hero? Prove that you are. Earn it. Heroes are made, not born.

Building NPCs with the same building blocks as PCs is part of the idea that everyone follows the same rules. Cite OotS all you want, but that is an absurdist (albeit rather humorous) view on 3.5 mechanics. Characters in the world don't know that they have stats, but they are aware of facts of the world that correlate to mechanics. If you don't have NPCs follow the same rules as PCs, you enter into an inconsistent setting, and that irks me.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> One of the best things in a well run campaign is coming back from A Trip Over Yonder and finding the world has *changed*. That bar wench now has a baby, and it looks a lot like you. Your grampa died of something no cleric can fix. The slimy advisor to the mayor...is now the mayor. Your pesky kid brother has got his first PC level and he's rarin' to go kill some kobolds.
> 
> Likewise, if you stop the orcs from invading the lands to the south, that means the overlord of the north can rampage unopposed -- and vice versa. There's forces in motion all around the world, and while you're powerful and skilled and all that, the world is going to keep turning whether you're watching it or not -- and then you have to deal with the consequences of your decisions.
> 
> ...




Let me ask you something Lizard, and Gnomeworks, I believe this applies to you too.

Do you ever use the mechanics to determine the outcome of encounters in which no PC is involved?  For example, in the slimy guy becoming mayor, did you use the Diplomacy skill to determine how the election was resolved?  In fact, if you did, what mechanics would you use to resolve that situation?

For that matter, what D&D mechanics did you use to determine that the bar wench became pregnant and successfully had a baby?  

Because, as far as I can tell, you didn't use any mechanics, so edition means bupkis to your argument.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I make the world for the sake of its own existence.



That's an interesting hobby. How do you call it?


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Nope. I make the world for the sake of its own existence. That the players play in it is happy coincidence.




Ah I see, and it all has become clear.

GnomeWorks: you are not playing D&D.

You are a world-builder, and want WotC to create a set of mechanics and guidelines to allow you to build a world to your liking.  _This is your purpose, this is your goal_, and the reason why you are unsatisfied with the direction of 4E.

In the *game of D&D* a world is built for the players, in either or both the general and specific sense.  Otherwise there is no game (which requires an interaction between two or more entities).

You want to build a world because you want a release for your creative energies. And you want WotC to help you do that.  Since WotC is not helping you, you are dissatisfied.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 8, 2008)

The only possible accurate simulation is the system itself.

IE - You can only carry versimililtude so far.  You can only run certain parts of a world. You lack, as do all things, the complexity to accurately simulate anything more complex than yourself. 

Versimilitude has always struck me as a strange concept. It is, I generally think, independant of the rules of the game.

The rules of the game do not present or represent the physics or engine of the game world. They present methods of manipulating that world.

As somebody posted above, the most complete simulationist world you can create is one with the smallest toolset for manipulation. Versimilitude is solely within your hands, as DM/Worldcrafter.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I do like a lot of the 4e mechanics.
> 
> But there are a lot of other things that both 3.5 and 4e are missing that I feel need to be in a system. I want a sensical economy, I want a detailed crafting system, I don't want level-based spells anymore (because they irk me)... the list goes on and on.
> 
> I like the base math, too. I don't like a lot of the other things they're doing to the game, or have failed to do in either edition. So this is where I'm hopping off the edition train.



Fair enough, the economics of my campaign have remained unchanged since 1E to make them realistic, I wouldn't bother doing the work now but when I was 13 or so I had the time to do a lot of research


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I must say that I find this philosophy bizarre. I create a _gaming setting_ for my _gaming group_. This isn't my novel in which my players may insert bits of their own characters' stories.




I never claimed that it was an average or common view, but it is my view.



> Maybe this isn't quite what you meant, but the point is that if what you're talking about is merely the "sandbox" approach, I don't see how 4e is problematic at handling it. There are NPCs, monsters, and all sorts of other people wandering around the setting just as there are in OD&D/1e/2e/3e/whatever. If what you're talking about is "monster/NPC stat blocks need to be organized just so in order to build the world I want to make," then I'd say that a) you're SOL in any edition of pretty much any game and b) you're giving yourself a bunch of makework that doesn't serve a purpose AND may actually hinder enjoyable gameplay. But suit yourself.




The mechanics just need to be sensical. Sure, I don't need to know everything mechanical about every NPC ever, but I need to be able to generate that information, and it needs to make sense and produce results consistent with the world and its mechanics.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Do you ever use the mechanics to determine the outcome of encounters in which no PC is involved? For example, in the slimy guy becoming mayor, did you use the Diplomacy skill to determine how the election was resolved? In fact, if you did, what mechanics would you use to resolve that situation?




Exactly.  And even if you did (Lizard, et al), would you have allowed the mechanics to determine the outcome, regardless.

Oh, nuts.  The slimy adviser rolled an 8.  Looks like the plot thread I had in mind will never happen...


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Do you ever use the mechanics to determine the outcome of encounters in which no PC is involved?  For example, in the slimy guy becoming mayor, did you use the Diplomacy skill to determine how the election was resolved?  In fact, if you did, what mechanics would you use to resolve that situation?




One time, I used _Cry Havoc_ (or whatever the mass combat d20 ruleset was called) to determine the outcome of a war that the players had almost no hand in, and in which they were not directly involved in.

I spent three hours working on generating an outcome using that ruleset. Because they would've had to deal with it if they were there.

I disagree with your example, because I dislike the Diplomacy skill, but I believe the above example answers your question well enough.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> That's an interesting hobby. How do you call it?




I don't know. Worldbuilding? Absurdity? 



			
				jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> GnomeWorks: you are not playing D&D.




For the time being, I beg to differ.



> You are a world-builder, and want WotC to create a set of mechanics and guidelines to allow you to build a world to your liking. This is your purpose, this is your goal, and the reason why you are unsatisfied with the direction of 4E.




That sounds about right, sure.



> In the game of D&D a world is built for the players, in either or both the general and specific sense. Otherwise there is no game (which requires an interaction between two or more entities).
> 
> You want to build a world because you want a release for your creative energies. And you want WotC to help you do that. Since WotC is not helping you, you are dissatisfied.




I'm not of the impression that the two tasks are incompatible. I can create a world as a "release for my creative energies," as you put it, that can then also be used for gaming purposes.



> Oh, nuts. The slimy adviser rolled an 8. Looks like the plot thread I had in mind will never happen...




Yep. Now he failed, so what else is he going to try? When you approach a game without knowing exactly where you want to go with it, it feels quite a bit more organic, rather than forced.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> but I need to be able to generate that information, and it needs to make sense and produce results consistent with the world and its mechanics.




But...  But, you _can._  

In fact, it makes more sense in 4E.  Your master smith does not need to have 112 hit points in order to make the finest sword in the land.  You do not need to be a Ranger12/AspirantSavant3/HierophantLord1/Expert1/EldritchSpirtualWielder2 in order to have that one ability that lets you use a bow an arrow to shoot a flying creature.

You decide what make sense in your world, and 4E (far better than 3E, and I confess to not have experience with previous editions) allows you to "generate that information" as well as "producing consistent results with [your] world."


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 8, 2008)

This is a great text about the ongoing issue. The writer is a EnWorld member.

Is your homebrew setting an Art Gallery or an Amusement Park?
http://rycanada.livejournal.com/#entry_613


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 8, 2008)

mods please remove.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Yep. Now he failed, so what else is he going to try? When you approach a game without knowing exactly where you want to go with it, it feels quite a bit more organic, rather than forced.




Well sure, I play out scenarios all the time.  Sometimes for my own benefit, sometimes for story hours, sometimes to stimulate the creative energies.  But I'm not _constrained_ by it.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I didn't read much Shakespeare, and I really don't care to. Just not my style.



Then it's not worth accusing hong of "misattributing" the _Hamlet_ quote, right? 


> You're right - all those things might be in the final rules document. I'm willing to bet that they're not, because that doesn't seem to jibe with the general feel of the 4e philosophy.



Probably not a good bet on the crafting rules at minimum, since there's already been discussion at I-Con of stuff like that.


> I don't like the idea of the PCs being heroes right out of the gate. You want to be a hero? Prove that you are. Earn it. Heroes are made, not born.



And yet this has nothing to do with "consistency" or "simulation" in the game world, but with a philosophy on PC power level. You want PCs to be at pig-farmer power level? Fine. Just drop 'em to 1/3 hp and nerf their powers and skills into oblivion, *just like starting 3e PCs using NPC classes*. Personally, I don't like that approach, since I prefer my PCs to be like the heroes in pretty much every fantasy novel or film out there; they're either tougher, or stronger, or have a unique talent, or are just really lucky/favored by the plot, than hoi polloi. But it's a flavor thing, not a "level of consistency of simulation" thing.


> Building NPCs with the same building blocks as PCs is part of the idea that everyone follows the same rules. Cite OotS all you want, but that is an absurdist (albeit rather humorous) view on 3.5 mechanics. Characters in the world don't know that they have stats, but they are aware of facts of the world that correlate to mechanics. If you don't have NPCs follow the same rules as PCs, you enter into an inconsistent setting, and that irks me.



You hit the nail on the head with the OotS reference. The problem is that everything you're bringing up is a *metagame issue*. You're assuming that the PCs use the same metrics that the players do in interacting with the game world, and worse still, you're also assuming that the PCs/players have the same information available to them about the mechanics of the game that the DM does. This results precisely in the absurd narrative situation that OotS mocks all the time: Players do things that make sense ONLY in the context of the rules and not in any sense that bears a relationship to the setting or the narrative.

Three problems with the above: First, players that do this sort of thing (like, say, ask the DM "how could that guy do that? He's got two levels of rogue? What did he have ten years ago, and why don't all his lieutenants also have rogue levels, 'cause he could have taught them!") are being obnoxious, are strongly metagaming, and will be merely *encouraged* to indulge in this sort of thinking if the ruleset actively supports it. Second, *monster stats shouldn't be transparent to players*. Period. If there is an actual, in-game reason why a designed monster has a stat that needs to be shown to the players, then the DM *should* intervene to provide the stat, whether or not it's present. As others have mentioned, all RPGs that involve a sufficiently complex world have situations that aren't covered by the rules. Pregnancy is a good one, but there are many, many more.

Finally, PCs and NPCs *do* "follow the same rules"; they roll d20s to determine the resolution of actions, they have hp, attacks, defenses, AC, et cetera. The mechanics that determine how those stats are allocated is... well, irrelevant. The guys who are being run by the players happen to use one generation and advancement method; the NPCs use another one. Big deal. They also do different things; the PCs are played by people who show up and earn XP, and the NPCs/monsters just exist in virtual space. So?

[EDIT: And really, it is the final paragraph that's what's important. I'm fully aware that players need to know that when their PC hits x wall, it has y impact and can cause z effect; likewise with a player who makes the necessary history/thievery/nature check knowing that a Knight of the Chase/Scarlet Brotherhood assassin/dire bear has p, q, or r power. But the 4e rules have no more problems handling that then the 3e rules did. It's simply the *generation* mechanic for PCs and NPCs that differs, just like it does for a Bbn2 vs an ogre in 3e, or a 25th-level rogue vs. a gloom. Given that the DM doesn't sit there running virtual encounters and leveling up NPCs by virtue of CR/EL and XP earned, I see no reason why NPCs can't just be created sui generis, so long as players have a reasonable set of expectations to work with.]


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2008)

Yeah, upthread I was saying that 4e (not unusually, and not really unexpectedly to my mind) reinforces the idea of PC's being exceptional from level 1. The dial has been turned up to 11, or at least to 8.5.  

The idea is that some people have never really enjoyed that style, and it's thusly harder to ignore in 4e. I'm not one of those people, but I can kind of see where they're coming from (even if they have been salmon on the waterfall for 30 years. ).



			
				Khur said:
			
		

> IMO, the fact that every town had a cleric was not only bogus, it was diminishing to any sense of specialness the PCs might have had. Why does every town need a miracle worker when a guy that knows a few helpful rituals or spells is fine? It was also a strain on the imagination when a base town is full of hero-like guys who just fail to do anything about trouble.




There are two weird things about this statement.

#1 is that we get a dose of 4e-ish schizophrenia: this is a place, like the halfling height, where suddenly simulating realism is MORE important than it was in 3e? "It's not realistic to have a population of clerics in the world, but screw realism, 1-1-1 diagonals?"

#2 is that, similar to the halfling height issue, this hasn't been a problem for the people I mention above, or even for players like me who love the heroic feel.

The reason it isn't a problem for the people above is because the idea of "normal people facing the eerily supernatural" is a very strong fantasy staple that people want to play, and D&D has fit it "best" for them. Your 5th level fighter might just be a mid-ranking official in the town guard, but he'll fight a dragon where the captain of the guard will not: what makes him heroic isn't the abilities he has per se, it's the things he's willing to do. The captain might be able to face, the dragon, too, but the captain isn't a hero, so he will choose to run away. In 4e, D&D becomes a worse fit for them because of the dial getting turned up. 

The reason it's never been a problem for dudes who like their heroes to chew butt and kick bubblegum like me is because (a) the 3e demographics rules made it clear that, when compared to 90% of the world, I WAS exceptional, (b) it gave a reason for escalating challenges when the nine hells didn't invade because someone else was still keeping them at bay, and (c) because the idea of a world where people raid ruins for treasures is a kind of melieu I _really enjoy_, and think is rather exemplary of D&D.  

I'm no huge fan of epic-level tailors in my D&D necessarily, but I really do not have a problem with a world where the orcs still attack when my PC's aren't around, where some rogue somewhere in the world is finding the Hand and Eye of Vecna when my PC's aren't around, where the capital city is home to the miracle-working wunderpriest of the overgod even if my PC's only hear about him through the miracles he performs and don't actually go there (though they could someday), and they perhaps eventually learn how to become miracle-working wunderpriests themselves, just like their characters have heard about in legends.

In fact, I _really enjoy_ such a world. 

Oddly enough, I really enjoy itsy bitsy halflings, too.

And after nearly a decade of playing that way and loving it, I'm not going to receive the news that what I was doing isn't the way the designers think the game SHOULD be played very well.

PC's should be almost completely unique? NPC's shouldn't be having their own off-screen epic quests that they might need PC classes for?

I think that's where I share some sympathy with the "5th level heroes ain't that special" camp. They're definitely being told, not for the first time, but perhaps more loudly than before, that the way they've been playing isn't the way that D&D should be played in the new edition. No one's going to come to their house and make them change, but their style goes farther against the grain. I'm wondering, as I debate switching to 4e, if I'm in that same camp all of a sudden: do the experts think my game should be different, too? Do they think that taller halflings and exclusive PC-only content is going to improve my game? 

I remain unconvinced, but willing to be convinced.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 8, 2008)

My personal take:

The style shown so far by 4E gives me MORE freedom, as a DM, to be creative when designing my worlds, IMO. Why? Because I can decide the cause and effect (the basis of nearly all my design) of situations based upon WHAT villains/NPCs ARE and not have to worry about their stats. I know what I want them to be, what I want them to do, and when it comes time for the PCs to encounter them I can give them the necessary 10% that will *best portray this.*

Lizard, IMO, if that hobgoblin captain you mentioned was encountered again as a general I would make sure that the powers and abilities I gave him conveyed his signature as I understood it and grant him the skills necessary to fulfill the role I imagine for him. I don't think that I need mechanics to help me do that, personally. 

The game seems to have had most of the 'design' complexity taken out, with a focus placed on statting out only that which is necessary. This, to me, is an amazing thing and probably the single most attractive aspect of the new edition. The PCs are much more complex, because the PCs are 'under the hood' so to speak. Everyone else is as complex as you want them to be.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> One time, I used _Cry Havoc_ (or whatever the mass combat d20 ruleset was called) to determine the outcome of a war that the players had almost no hand in, and in which they were not directly involved in.
> 
> I spent three hours working on generating an outcome using that ruleset. Because they would've had to deal with it if they were there.




Mmm, simulationist fanfic.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> #1 is that we get a dose of 4e-ish schizophrenia: this is a place, like the halfling height, where suddenly simulating realism is MORE important than it was in 3e? "It's not realistic to have a population of clerics in the world, but screw realism, 1-1-1 diagonals?"



Don't particularly feel like diving into this, but halfling height, cleric population, et cetera, are world-building assumptions, whereas 1-1-1 diagonals are a _tactical simplification_. I really, really think that folks need to take a second look at the idea that the grid is merely a pure abstraction of the combat environment that exists in the "actual" game world.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 8, 2008)

In 3e I used partial stat blocks for NPCs and custom monsters.  They tended to be about 5 items long, every item made up from my own head.  And then I ad libbed the rest.

I rustled some papers behind my DM screen whenever a new monster came on stage, and pretended like I was taking out some lengthy notes.  If I needed quick access to a monster stat that I hadn't planned in advance, I made it up and made a note of it.  This happened very, very rarely.  None of my players ever noticed, as far as I can tell.  Certainly no one ever called me on it or complained.

What's the point of this anecdote?  The point is that players don't need to know how a monster was created.  They just need to know what it _is_ and what it _does. _


----------



## Kishin (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Ding! We have a winner. Though I think the two can be reasonably reconciled into one system.




Trying to reconcile a simulation into D&D is like trying to open a vault with a twizzler.

Also, I feel like its something of a slap in the face to treat your PCs as not special.

But, this is far and away removed from edition wars and Clerics. I suppose we should get back on topic.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 8, 2008)

I find most of this discussion odd.

I like to worldbuild myself, and I think the 4E mechanic will be great for that purpose. I really have no understanding of why GW thinks it won't, even without playing it.

Maybe it's a matter of degree? Or level of obsession? 'Cause while I enjoy a living world for my campaign and have stuff happen regardless of PC input, I sure as hell don't roll checks for NPCs while at home by myself.

Fitz


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

*Lizard's hobgoblin general*
The "problem," I think, comes from a 3E mentality.

_"Well, he was a Level 1 brute before.  How on earth am I going to advance his hit dice in order to make him a Level 13 elite leader?"_

The thing is, 4E tells you this: you can't.

What 4E tells you is this:
_"You want a Level 13 elite leader that has the abilities of the Level 1 brute in the Monster Manual?  Okay.  Give him these attack bonuses, defenses, etc.  Give him some of these abilities (if you want).  Oh, and hey, you can do this thing, too.  Take on those Level 1 abilities that you want and he should be a suitable challenge."_

3E said: you need to build up the numbers to get to where you want.

4E says: tell us what you want, and we'll give you the numbers that fit _exactly that._

*KamikazeMidget's 5th-level fighter*

4E will still allow this, I'm sure.  You can stat up NPCs with character class levels all day, if you want.  4E has simply expanded the "design space."  You can now also stat up NPCs with only the relevant information for a combat encounter, _if you want_.  Its' your world, and you can design NPCs with relative power levels as high as you want.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2008)

> Don't particularly feel like diving into this, but halfling height, cleric population, et cetera, are world-building assumptions, whereas 1-1-1 diagonals are a tactical simplification. I really, really think that folks need to take a second look at the idea that the grid is merely a pure abstraction of the combat environment that exists in the "actual" game world.




You're not wrong, but it's weird when the excuse of "It needed more realism!" comes up in one area, and then goes away the moment it becomes problematic. To use a combat example, there's 1-1-1 diagonals (abstract), but there's also the Bloodied status (a bit of realism), or the very fact that we're using a grid in the first place instead of some purely abstract battlezone (certainly the game would run a lot smoother without these slides and opportunity attacks and pushes and fiddly movement bits all over the place!). 

I don't have a good abstract world-building example, because we haven't seen the DMG, but if it uses some concept, for instance, of "A world full of clerics is undrealistic", alongside the concept of "Don't worry about how NPC's get healed if they break a leg!", it will be similarly dissonant.

Like "Halflings need to be taller, and also Eladrin can teleport" is dissonant in the field of race design. 

I mean, 4e's schizophrenia might be a good thing, for all that, it's just like, to use the elephant comparison, I've felt a trunk...and I've also felt a beak and mandibles?! It's surprising, but it could all make sense in the end.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> To use the elephant comparison, I've felt a trunk...and I've also felt a beak and mandibles?! It's surprising, but it could all make sense in the end.




Sure. You thought it was an elephant, but it was really a Grell.

Fitz


----------



## FireLance (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I don't like the idea of the PCs being heroes right out of the gate. You want to be a hero? Prove that you are. Earn it. Heroes are made, not born.



Is this another case of definition confusion? I know some people use "heroic" to mean "more competent than average" rather than "praiseworthy; deserving of emulation".

A 1st-level 4e character is certainly higher on the relative competence scale (compared to the rest of the world) than a 1st-level 3e character.

This _may_ mean that he is heroic in the other sense on a small scale: it is certainly more plausible (compared to a 1st-level 3e character) that he might have made a name for himself locally, or distinguished himself in some way in his backstory. However, I don't think this is a requirement for all 1st-level characters in 4e.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 8, 2008)

Also, a 1st level is more competent, etc. Since he isn't just a commoner. Obviously somewhere along the lines he began to learn how to do whatever it is his class does, this already sets his training and knowledge above a ordinary commoner.

He is also obviously competent in his class, so once more sets him above a commoner. A commoner didn't learn how to masterfully fire a bow like a level 1 ranger or sneak around like a level 1 rogue.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2008)

> 4E will still allow this, I'm sure. You can stat up NPCs with character class levels all day, if you want. 4E has simply expanded the "design space." You can now also stat up NPCs with only the relevant information for a combat encounter, if you want. Its' your world, and you can design NPCs with relative power levels as high as you want.




Well, the problem for the people I'm talking about is that if the game says the PC gets something extra just because they're the PC, and that the others don't have it, simply because they're not PCs, is that it sets up an inherent difference between the characters that the players control and every other character, rather than allowing that difference to come out of role-playing alone. 

Yeah, I could give the guards some more powers, but the real problem is that the 5th level PC fighter is DIFFERENT, in some way that the rest of the guards will recognize.

I mean, think of Sam or Merry from LotR. Rather mundane examples of average people in their homes. They become heroes not because they can get beat up more than other hobbits, but because they choose to face the unknown with only the same abilities that every other hobbit has. Sam helps fight evil with the power of _cooking_ and _sewing_ and _being vaguely homoerotic_. Something I'm sure the rest of the hobbits do all the time, even when they're not in the shadow of Mount Doom. 

Or think of childhood fantasy, like Alice in Wonderland. Alice is a pretty normal girl who gets in way over her head. She's not heroic because she can kill more goblins, she's not more especially suited to thwarting the Queen of Hearts than any other little girl, but she's the main character because it's about her.

D&D has never really tried to be "normal folks in fantastic situations," but people have used it for that, and 4e might very well make doing that harder.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You're not wrong, but it's weird when the excuse of "It needed more realism!" comes up in one area, and then *goes away the moment it becomes problematic.* To use a combat example, there's 1-1-1 diagonals (abstract), but there's also the Bloodied status (a bit of realism), or the very fact that we're using a grid in the first place instead of some purely abstract battlezone (certainly the game would run a lot smoother without these slides and opportunity attacks and pushes and fiddly movement bits all over the place!).
> 
> I don't have a good abstract world-building example, because we haven't seen the DMG, but if it uses some concept, for instance, of "A world full of clerics is undrealistic", alongside the concept of "Don't worry about how NPC's get healed if they break a leg!", it will be similarly dissonant.
> 
> ...



Yes, things which create problems are being removed, things which don't aren't, how is that so hard to understand? How is that "schizophrenic"?

As for the OAs and movement, it's there because it adds to tactics, notice how they're really pushing the whole "more tactical" bit? It's there because it adds something that wasn't before.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Actually, having thought about it, what heroic-scale RPGs with different NPC/PC rules are there, really?  Previous editions of DnD *didn't* have it in anyway I understand it.





			
				Khur said:
			
		

> I guess your understanding and mine are different. In my perception, old D&D monster books are full of NPCs. And even if we're talking about PC-raced characters, this remains true. Take the first sentence in the 1e MM entry on "Men." "Normal men have from 1-6 hit points each."
> 
> Sure, those entries are full of stuff about the leaders of bands of "Men," but even those guys have random armor, weapons, and spells. Similar to PCs, but different. That tradition is upheld in 4e, I'd say, only it might be even easier to make a reasonable band of bad guys in 4e.



In addition to those that Chris mentions, there are the different stat minimums for PCs (as set out in the PHB) and NPCs (as set out in the DMG) to be members of particular classes. And there are the very many different systems for allocating magic items to NPCs compared to high-level PCs (who use the tables in the DMG Appendix P, from memory).



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> By the time you get to upper levels, the "cave-men" or "dervishes" (or the like, my 1e MM is all of 2 rooms away, but what's the point?) have vanished in 1e/2e.  Those pretty much (entirely?) only exist for humans, not for the demi-humans, anyways.  I am somewhat amused that you referred to heroic-scale RPGs, because 1e's deviations from PC/NPC transparency (and a LOT of that transparency is removed if you accept 0th level men-at-arms as an inferior class without advancement, a la 3e's warrior) was restricted to lower levels.



I don't agree with much of this.

*Low-level demihumans have hit dice rather than character levels (eg Elves are 1+1 HD and Dwarves 1 HD even though the typical Dwarf has a higher CON);

*The different stat minimums for class membership are relevant at all NPC levels;

*In the PHB and DMG, only NPCs Elves and Dwarves can be clerics and only NPC Halflings can be Druids;

*Mercenary and ship captains (as set out in the Hirelings section of the DMG) have a different mechanic for levelling and level benefits than any PCs. Likewise for spies, and also for sages (although the latter are not really level-based in their mechanics, they come into play primarily at mid-to-high levels, because of the amounts of money involved in hiring them).

In short, 1st ed AD&D is rife with different mechanical systems for PC and NPC building. It also has different action resolution mechanics for PCs and NPCs at all level - for example, PCs are not governed by the Reaction/Loyalty/Moral mechanics.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, the problem for the people I'm talking about is that if the game says the PC gets something extra just because they're the PC, and that the others don't have it, simply because they're not PCs, is that it sets up an inherent difference between the characters that the players control and every other character, rather than allowing that difference to come out of role-playing alone.
> 
> Yeah, I could give the guards some more powers, but the real problem is that the 5th level PC fighter is DIFFERENT, in some way that the rest of the guards will recognize.



Yes, characters built with PC classes as opposed to NPC classes/rules have more abilities, more options and more staying power, just like in 3.x, what's your point?


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 8, 2008)

KamikazeMidget said:
			
		

> D&D has never really tried to be "normal folks in fantastic situations," but people have used it for that, and 4e might very well make doing that harder.




I think I completely agree.  Although 1st-level characters in 3E were still "heroes," you could still convincingly pull off a "normal guy" type character.  1st-level characters in 4E command a whole host of abilities that are definitely not average.

So, yes, you are right.

_However,_

I will hazard a guess that 4E will provide the tools to more easily do exactly what you are saying.  3E rules were more concrete.  They did give you the option of taking NPC classes, starting naked with no equipment, and so on, but still required you to fit a particular mold.  I imagine that since 4E is far more "customizable" it will also be far more easy to create "average normal folk."

It's already confirmed that the DMG will include a "kit" for creating the elements of the game.  If this goes for character classes, you could easily create the Sewer/Homoeroticist class.  You could create a race with a distinctly lower power level.  You can create encounters that are a better match for such characters than "equal number of opponents of equal level."

Although 4E has more "power creep" at 1st-level, I believe it will be much easier for a DM to change and manipulate than 3E.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2008)

> Yes, things which create problems are being removed, things which don't aren't, how is that so hard to understand? How is that "schizophrenic"?




First of all, don't be a jerk. I'm engaging the conversation, the sarcasm is REALLY unnecessary, and makes me not want to engage, or to engage and be a jerk back, so you can stop.

What "creates problems" is obviously going to vary with the styles of games you run, so whatever causes problems for you doesn't cause problems for hundreds of other people while something that you get away with might stick in the craw of 99% of the rest of the players out there.

So you can't say that everything that creates problems is being removed and everything that is fun is staying in, because that's myopically subjective. Things that create problems are still, apparently, in. New things that create new problems are also in. Things that didn't create problems before are out. 

The paid experts are putting a LOT more thought into this than "Does small pumpkin man like it?"

The schizophrenia comes from adhering to a certain ideal while denying that ideal in other ways, which means that I don't know how I'm supposed to render my conception. Do the races need to adhere to realism? Then why does an eladrin get to teleport? Why do we have dragonfolk? Do the races get to be high fantasy? Then why were small halflings a problem?

It's always a bad idea to adhere to any philosophy singlemindedly, so a bit of schizophrenia is a good thing, but it also obscures the intent of the design, which makes the game harder to play the way the designers intend, the way it's SUPPOSED to be played, the way it works best.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 8, 2008)

Arrgh!


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You're not wrong, but it's weird when the excuse of "It needed more realism!" comes up in one area, and then goes away the moment it becomes problematic. To use a combat example, there's 1-1-1 diagonals (abstract), but there's also the Bloodied status (a bit of realism), or the very fact that we're using a grid in the first place instead of some purely abstract battlezone (certainly the game would run a lot smoother without these slides and opportunity attacks and pushes and fiddly movement bits all over the place!).



I'd suggest that "bloodied" is an abstraction as much as "hit points" or "Armor Class" or "squares." All of these are game concepts that would have no meaning in, say, a novel, no matter how detailed that novel's portrait of practices concerning raising the dead, establishing orders of spell-casting clerics, training halflings to use reasonable-sized weapons, or any of the other things we might be talking about would be.


> I don't have a good abstract world-building example, because we haven't seen the DMG, but if it uses some concept, for instance, of "A world full of clerics is undrealistic", alongside the concept of "Don't worry about how NPC's get healed if they break a leg!", it will be similarly dissonant.



This is one of those "we haven't seen the rules yet" issues, though. Moreover, as has been discussed _ad nauseam_, "breaking a leg" is one of those things that's *never* been dealt with by the D&D engine, or rather has been dealt with the same way one *might* deal with it in 4e: Namely, narration by the DM.


> Like "Halflings need to be taller, and also Eladrin can teleport" is dissonant in the field of race design.



I don't understand how taller halflings or teleporting high elves have anything to do with simplifying abstractions such as 1-1-1 diagonals or NPC design guidelines; the former are issues that exist in the world with which the *PCs* are presumed to interact, while the latter exist in the world with which the *players and DM* interact. Apples and oranges, no?


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The schizophrenia comes from adhering to a certain ideal while denying that ideal in other ways, which means that I don't know how I'm supposed to render my conception. Do the races need to adhere to realism? Then why does an eladrin get to teleport? Why do we have dragonfolk? Do the races get to be high fantasy? Then why were small halflings a problem?




Fantasy is heightist.

TEH ENB


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 8, 2008)

Making Halflings taller is a flavour change, mostly, from what I understand, because most people don't like playing actually small characters.

Additionally, halfling size has always bothered me due to strength issues, mostly, (It beggar's my imagination to imagine somebody 3ft and 30lbs being able to lift 250lbs. over their head) -2 wasn't even close to a big enough penalty.

4e's design decision to remove penalties from races left them in a serious quandry.

While they could have gone with Prachett's gnome ideas.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 8, 2008)

I always viewed the 8, that you get without adding any more points is the standard since this is where you can walk normally without tripping, be able to lift your own body weight, be able to lift simple things, etc.

Thus why I think the negative modifiers are silly, since that means for example, you can't even pull up your own body-weight. Which is something that wouldn't be so because of your race, ie: it would have to be a flaw the player decided to have.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 8, 2008)

I think maybe the design focus was something like this:

1. Game rules should be chosen based upon how well they work in the game itself, from a purely gamist perspective.

2. Where two or more rules meet the above criteria, choose the one that makes the most 'game-world/simulationist' sense. 

So on some things they may mention how the change is more 'realistic' while on others they can't, because the gamist/balance aspect took priority. Which would be fine by me, but would explain some of the 'seeming' schizophrenia.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 8, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I always viewed the 8, that you get without adding any more points is the standard since this is where you can walk normally without tripping, be able to lift your own body weight, be able to lift simple things, etc.
> 
> Thus why I think the negative modifiers are silly, since that means for example, you can't even pull up your own body-weight. Which is something that wouldn't be so because of your race, ie: it would have to be a flaw the player decided to have.




Str 6 20 lb. or less 21-40 lb. 41-60 lb  - Apply the 3/4 limit..  = 30-45lbs

That means that a Str 6 halfling could lift 130% of its own weight OVER ITS HEAD, as an average member of their race. And that is as encumberance, not a max-lift.

See my problem?
Str 4 is more accurate. <13 lb, 14-26 lb. 27-40 lb.
Er, sorry to pull more off topic. It was one of my pet peeves with Halflings.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> First of all, don't be a jerk. I'm engaging the conversation, the sarcasm is REALLY unnecessary, and makes me not want to engage, or to engage and be a jerk back, so you can stop.
> 
> What "creates problems" is obviously going to vary with the styles of games you run, so whatever causes problems for you doesn't cause problems for hundreds of other people while something that you get away with might stick in the craw of 99% of the rest of the players out there.
> 
> ...



I wasn't refering to my point of view. I was refering to the designers, alot of the changes are coming from "what cause slowdown at my* table" and by "my" I mean "Mike Mearls'" or "David Noonan's". I don't personally care about halfing height, I don't take very long to calculate 1-2-1, I quite enjoy mostly non-tactical RPGs like CoC or True20.

If your problem is that 4e is catering to a specific playstyle, then I would probably agree, allthough I'm sure we could argue over whether or not that's a good thing, but I think for the first time the rules are very well engineered for that playstyle, I think "schizophrenic" or "all over the place" are words which describe every edition of D&D _except_ 4e.

I was going to go off into "world building" vs "system building" but it had allready been covered and my post came of as "shorter" than intended, in both senses.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yeah, I could give the guards some more powers, but the real problem is that the 5th level PC fighter is DIFFERENT, in some way that the rest of the guards will recognize.




Just like Conan is obviously different from the guards and soldiers of Hyboria, since he's the protagonist (aka PC) and they're not. And Faramir in comparison to other soldiers of Gondor. Or the villain/hero of an action movie. I fail to see the problem.


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Just like Conan is obviously different from the guards and soldiers of Hyboria, since he's the protagonist (aka PC) and they're not. And Faramir in comparison to other soldiers of Gondor. Or the villain/hero of an action movie. I fail to see the problem.




Conan and Faramir are just more experienced and stronger than most others. But 4E PCs are mutants compared to NPCs with powers they can never achieve.
4E PCs = The XMen of D&D.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Conan and Faramir are just more experienced and stronger than most others. But 4E PCs are mutants compared to NPCs with powers they can never achieve.




Tee hee. Derren's Bizarro World has a new attraction!



> 4E PCs = The XMen of D&D.




Ooh, Exalted!


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Conan and Faramir are just more experienced and stronger than most others.




And PCs are just more experienced and stronger than most others.


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And PCs are just more experienced and stronger than most others.





No. While they have better ability scores than NPCs (stronger) they are better than NPCs with compareable experience because they have powers NPCs are not supposed to have. According to 4E Design the PCs are superhoeroes and NPCs are just the normal guys.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> According to 4E Design the PCs are superhoeroes and NPCs are just the normal guys.




Normal guys... who get eaten by MUTANT GIANT SEA BASS!


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No. While they have better ability scores than NPCs (stronger) they are better than NPCs with compareable experience because they have powers NPCs are not supposed to have.




NPCs are supposed to have those abilities if the DM thinks they are supposed to. Many DMs, like me, don't think they are supposed to, because we don't want that much work.



> According to 4E Design the PCs are superhoeroes and NPCs are just the normal guys.




Normal guys that can do stuff superheroes can't. Or did you already forget the furor that accompanied the Bugbear Strangler's meat shield ability, which players don't have access to (without DM intervention)?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 8, 2008)

Also there is the difference in, for a PC to be a PC he has a CLASS. What is a class, a class is something he has trained and refined in that sets him beyond the normal standards of a ordinary person. If it didn't he wouldn't have a class.

This training can also work for NPCs, just make a NPC using PC-rules there a NPC at the same level and capacity of a same-level PC with the exact same-abilities.

Now that doesn't mean that now that NPC can automatically beat up NPC of the same level, cause oh wait! Here comes a highly trained soldier who is more then capable, in fact he could take on four or five of these NPC-PCs. Why? Because the stats for him are like that and his powers are like that, and on the DM side easy to do since... Okay, I need a solo, a good human soldier solo.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, the problem for the people I'm talking about is that if the game says the PC gets something extra just because they're the PC, and that the others don't have it, simply because they're not PCs, is that it sets up an inherent difference between the characters that the players control and every other character, rather than allowing that difference to come out of role-playing alone.



The game system doesn't necessarily say that PCs are special. But it definitely say that PC-classed characters are special. Your run-of-the-mill city guard isn't special, thus he doesn't get PC levels. But it doesn't mean he is useless or weak. In fact, he might be quite dangerous, even for a PC. (Look at the DDXP Kobold statistics - aside from the Minions, most of them have hit points in the PC range! And their attack bonuses aren't much worse, and they also have special abilities.)

The in-gameworld reason why PCs are special is simply because they have a special destiny, that they are chosen by the gods, or that they have a special genetic trait that makes them different, or as a child, they fell in the pot with the strength potion...
The real-world gamist reason why PCs are special is twofold: 
- Players like to take names and kick butt.
- Players like to have options when creating and advancing their characters.

---

GnomeWorks: I could never do what you did. Rolling out an army combat in my free time? That's like playing chess against yourself! Sure I might be able to do it, but it's definitely not interesting to me. I might have a background war in my campaign, but I would most likely define the outcome on my own whim. Just as I would decide on my own whether the bar wench got a child or the mayor advisor became the mayor.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> Well considering the WotC employee who posted stated quite explicitly that it was an easy to remember number that didn't need to be written down on the stat block, I expect that NO, it's not effected by any of your suggestions and is, in fact, a good, solid, unmodified NUMBER.
> 
> Fitz




I have no problem remembering simple formulae and if it's the same for all NPCs, wouldn't need to be written down. But you might well be right, and it might be just '2'. (My off-hand guess is 4, enough to completely heal once.)


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 8, 2008)

Yeah, it'll probably be something like 2 or 4.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No. While they have better ability scores than NPCs (stronger) they are better than NPCs with compareable experience because they have powers NPCs are not supposed to have. According to 4E Design the PCs are superhoeroes and NPCs are just the normal guys.



How many times does a WotC designer have to come in and say "your assumptions are wrong" before you'll give up on something?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Let me ask you something Lizard, and Gnomeworks, I believe this applies to you too.
> 
> Do you ever use the mechanics to determine the outcome of encounters in which no PC is involved?  For example, in the slimy guy becoming mayor, did you use the Diplomacy skill to determine how the election was resolved?  In fact, if you did, what mechanics would you use to resolve that situation?




Partially. I look at things like racial abilities, class powers, and so on, to determine how the world works. I use the demographics in the DMG to determine if it's realistic that the PCs will even be needed to solve a particular problem -- if not, I find a different problem or move it to a different locale. And I make sure some things are possible -- that the mayor's aide has the skills needed to manipulate politics, or, if he doesn't, that there's some other, believable, explanation -- the local thieves guild rigged things. Indeed, if someone does something they shouldn't (mechanically) be able to do, that's a Clue.

Sometimes I will do roll-offs between NPCs to see how things work out. I've checked to see if NPC thieves can slip past NPC guards to reach the MacGuffin, for example. This was in a case of the PCs needing to protect it, and not doing it themselves, but hiring guards. I didn't want to fiat/handwave it.



> Because, as far as I can tell, you didn't use any mechanics, so edition means bupkis to your argument.




It's a philosophical distinction. Obviously, there aren't mechanics for everything. However, there's a difference between "The world exists only when the PCs look at it" and "the PCs live in a world which exists on its own". Different mechanics for PC and NPCs -- even if those mechanics don't affect the whole world -- push the former worldview. 4e monster/NPC design, centered on the idea (explicitly stated) that NPCs only exist for 5 rounds of combat and don't need any stats beyond that, exemplifies the idea that nothing exists but the current situation. As others have noted, creatures have no skills other than the ones they need to fight the PCs *now*. The Pit Fiend, plotting ruler of hell, has all of 3 skills and no out-of-combat powers, except a once a century wish. The rules seem to model a world which exists in isolated bubbles of space-time called encounters, and the DM's job is to hustle the PCs from one stage to the next. 

The full context of the game might be very different, but what I've seen of the 4e rules implies a flat, shallow, world. Simplified armor, simplified magic, simplified stat blocks...how much can you simplify the mechanics before you simplify the world? Yes, a world can be described non-mechanically -- indeed, most of it must -- but it's nice when you can have the mechanics reflect the flavor text meaningfully. To go back to earlier editions of the game...I could describe an orc lord as cunning, but I coudn't make that intelligence matter mechanically. I could say 'The people of the north are fierce axemen', but there was no 'Weapon Focus (Axe)' I could give to make a Northman fighter different from a longsword-wielding southman. (Yeah, I could always make a handwave 'Northmen have +1 when attacking with axes', but you can handwave in any mechanics as needed...we're discussing what the game supports OOB). Now, it does look like I can do some of that in 4e by creating a 'Northman Soldier' NPC and giving him a bonus with axes and some kind of cool axe-related combat technique pretty easily...but then we get the reverse problem, that of a player saying, "Hey, cool, my fighter is a northman...how do I learn that?" and me telling him "Well, it's balanced for NPCs with 5-round-lives, it's not for PCs to use." (See: Bugbear strangler)

I like it when an NPCs personality, interests, and needs can be modeled in their mechanics. I like being able to give someone a 'hobby skill' of a point or two in a knowledge or a craft. The binary 'trained or not' skill system of 4e removes that (for PCs as well). (Of course, there are no crafts anymore...)


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> How many times does a WotC designer have to come in and say "your assumptions are wrong" before you'll give up on something?



To be fair, Chriss Sims does call the PCs "extraordinary heroes of great destiny" earlier in the thread, there may well be large differences between them, although all I've seen so far puts the PC class/NPC stats of 4e as merely an extention of 3.x PC class/NPC class.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The full context of the game might be very different, but what I've seen of the 4e rules implies a flat, shallow, world. Simplified armor, simplified magic, simplified stat blocks...how much can you simplify the mechanics before you simplify the world?




"We demand deep, sophisticated treatment of shallowness!"


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Partially. I look at things like racial abilities, class powers, and so on, to determine how the world works. I use the demographics in the DMG to determine if it's realistic that the PCs will even be needed to solve a particular problem -- if not, I find a different problem or move it to a different locale. And I make sure some things are possible -- that the mayor's aide has the skills needed to manipulate politics, or, if he doesn't, that there's some other, believable, explanation -- the local thieves guild rigged things. Indeed, if someone does something they shouldn't (mechanically) be able to do, that's a Clue.
> 
> Sometimes I will do roll-offs between NPCs to see how things work out. I've checked to see if NPC thieves can slip past NPC guards to reach the MacGuffin, for example. This was in a case of the PCs needing to protect it, and not doing it themselves, but hiring guards. I didn't want to fiat/handwave it.



The first is something I sometimes do - that the creatures have the skills required to do their job. (That's one of my pet peeves of having Fighters or Wizards as leaders of armies or kingdoms - not a single one of them has the required skills to do so competently!)
But for me this doesn't imply that the NPCs have to use the same "character build" system. It's enough if they get the correct numerical bonuses for their task. In 3E, this could either be hand waved (which I only learned and accepted after 7-8 years of gaming 3E) or by fine-tuning skills, feats and HD/classes (which I came to dread over the 8 years of gaming 3E).


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Partially. I look at things like racial abilities, class powers, and so on, to determine how the world works. I use the demographics in the DMG to determine if it's realistic that the PCs will even be needed to solve a particular problem -- if not, I find a different problem or move it to a different locale. And I make sure some things are possible -- that the mayor's aide has the skills needed to manipulate politics, or, if he doesn't, that there's some other, believable, explanation -- the local thieves guild rigged things. Indeed, if someone does something they shouldn't (mechanically) be able to do, that's a Clue.
> 
> Sometimes I will do roll-offs between NPCs to see how things work out. I've checked to see if NPC thieves can slip past NPC guards to reach the MacGuffin, for example. This was in a case of the PCs needing to protect it, and not doing it themselves, but hiring guards. I didn't want to fiat/handwave it.



Yes, absolutely, most DMs I know would roll that, because the guards are the agents of the PCs, thus the PCs are interacting with the world through them, but like you said, in other circumstances, I look at the various stats and either figure out what would be most likely, or if it's close, most interesting. (also what Mustrum_Ridcully said).



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> It's a philosophical distinction. Obviously, there aren't mechanics for everything. However, there's a difference between "The world exists only when the PCs look at it" and "the PCs live in a world which exists on its own". Different mechanics for PC and NPCs -- even if those mechanics don't affect the whole world -- push the former worldview. 4e monster/NPC design, centered on the idea (explicitly stated) that NPCs only exist for 5 rounds of combat and don't need any stats beyond that, exemplifies the idea that nothing exists but the current situation. As others have noted, creatures have no skills other than the ones they need to fight the PCs *now*. The Pit Fiend, plotting ruler of hell, has all of 3 skills and no out-of-combat powers, except a once a century wish. The rules seem to model a world which exists in isolated bubbles of space-time called encounters, and the DM's job is to hustle the PCs from one stage to the next.
> 
> The full context of the game might be very different, but what I've seen of the 4e rules implies a flat, shallow, world. Simplified armor, simplified magic, simplified stat blocks...how much can you simplify the mechanics before you simplify the world? Yes, a world can be described non-mechanically -- indeed, most of it must -- but it's nice when you can have the mechanics reflect the flavor text meaningfully. To go back to earlier editions of the game...I could describe an orc lord as cunning, but I coudn't make that intelligence matter mechanically. I could say 'The people of the north are fierce axemen', but there was no 'Weapon Focus (Axe)' I could give to make a Northman fighter different from a longsword-wielding southman. (Yeah, I could always make a handwave 'Northmen have +1 when attacking with axes', but you can handwave in any mechanics as needed...we're discussing what the game supports OOB). Now, it does look like I can do some of that in 4e by creating a 'Northman Soldier' NPC and giving him a bonus with axes and some kind of cool axe-related combat technique pretty easily...but then we get the reverse problem, that of a player saying, "Hey, cool, my fighter is a northman...how do I learn that?" and me telling him "Well, it's balanced for NPCs with 5-round-lives, it's not for PCs to use." (See: Bugbear strangler)



Actually, the Pit Fiend stats are a very good example of how you can simplify the stats without simplifying the world. Your assertion that he only has "3 skills" shows a bias towards fiddly stats that are only there to be fiddly, since his diplomacy is much higher than it was, and the 3.x version didn't even have any sense motive and could be fooled by any succubus or tenth level rogue, three trained skills and a bunch of untrained skills in 4e is enough to be a mover and shaker and interact with the world (even when the PCs aren't looking) when you're a 26th level Devil and your stats are twenty something. He doesn't have non-combat magic because non-combat magic is a completely seperate system, I don't mean to say "rituals will solve all your problems", except for the part where I do.

So then you have a situation where the monster HAS non-combat abilities, and you're complaining about how the world seems less deep because they take up less room in the statblock.

As for Northman with Axes, you already know Fighters have more weapon based powers than before, and if you're making up axe based abilities for NPCs yourself, you can just balance them effects against PC abilities in the first place, there is no problem here, AND you can easily give cunning NPCs int based Warlord Powers, you know you want to.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> I like it when an NPCs personality, interests, and needs can be modeled in their mechanics. I like being able to give someone a 'hobby skill' of a point or two in a knowledge or a craft. The binary 'trained or not' skill system of 4e removes that (for PCs as well). (Of course, there are no crafts anymore...)



That's true, it does, there a tradeoff there, and there are enough people who don't overly like the system that I see houserules and variations being common. However I'm not personally seeing the link with "the PCs live in a world which exists on its own".


----------



## med stud (Apr 8, 2008)

The part of the PCs being more powerful than NPCs can go the other way as well; I think it was some 4e designer that talked about the possibility to create a human opponent as a solo. Without the opponent being a solo, you would have to add levels above the PC's levels. Then you risk either having a glass ninja or the NPC would be invulnerable to the PCs.

now you can create a NPC that is the same level as the PCs but still capable of taking them on five at a time.


----------



## med stud (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard wrote:


> "Hey, cool, my fighter is a northman...how do I learn that?" and me telling him "Well, it's balanced for NPCs with 5-round-lives, it's not for PCs to use."




I would answer that he could take the special Northman-class that has a grand total of two abilities over ten levels. So if they want a suboptimal character, they can go for it.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It's a philosophical distinction. Obviously, there aren't mechanics for everything. However, there's a difference between "The world exists only when the PCs look at it" and "the PCs live in a world which exists on its own".



Betcha can't prove it. For them or you.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Different mechanics for PC and NPCs -- even if those mechanics don't affect the whole world -- push the former worldview.



 In your interpretation of the function of a ruleset[/quote=lizard]4e monster/NPC design, centered on the idea (explicitly stated) that NPCs only exist for 5 rounds of combat and don't need any stats beyond that, exemplifies the idea that nothing exists but the current situation. As others have noted, creatures have no skills other than the ones they need to fight the PCs *now*. The Pit Fiend, plotting ruler of hell, has all of 3 skills and no out-of-combat powers, except a once a century wish. The rules seem to model a world which exists in isolated bubbles of space-time called encounters, and the DM's job is to hustle the PCs from one stage to the next. [/quote] Hustleing is your phrase, and I disagree there is anything inherent in the rules explicitly promotes it, any more than has ever been present in 3.x



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> The full context of the game might be very different, but what I've seen of the 4e rules implies a flat, shallow, world. Simplified armor, simplified magic, simplified stat blocks...how much can you simplify the mechanics before you simplify the world? Yes, a world can be described non-mechanically -- indeed, most of it must -- but it's nice when you can have the mechanics reflect the flavor text meaningfully.



Why do people insiston the need for a codified framework to describe personalised things? Everything is fluff. That's not a denigration, its terminalogy. WoTC have decided to focus on bringing a coherent tactical conflict resolution system together, that is internally consistent.

I'm quite sure they will give guidelines on shoe-horning it into a world.. but that is the DM's job.
For those not suited, it is the Campaign/Adventure-Author's job.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> To go back to earlier editions of the game...I could describe an orc lord as cunning, but I coudn't make that intelligence matter mechanically. I could say 'The people of the north are fierce axemen', but there was no 'Weapon Focus (Axe)' I could give to make a Northman fighter different from a longsword-wielding southman. (Yeah, I could always make a handwave 'Northmen have +1 when attacking with axes', but you can handwave in any mechanics as needed...we're discussing what the game supports OOB).



The game has always, explictly, supported DM Handwaving. 







			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Now, it does look like I can do some of that in 4e by creating a 'Northman Soldier' NPC and giving him a bonus with axes and some kind of cool axe-related combat technique pretty easily...but then we get the reverse problem, that of a player saying, "Hey, cool, my fighter is a northman...how do I learn that?" and me telling him "Well, it's balanced for NPCs with 5-round-lives, it's not for PCs to use." (See: Bugbear strangler)
> 
> I like it when an NPCs personality, interests, and needs can be modeled in their mechanics. I like being able to give someone a 'hobby skill' of a point or two in a knowledge or a craft. The binary 'trained or not' skill system of 4e removes that (for PCs as well). (Of course, there are no crafts anymore...)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> . Now, it does look like I can do some of that in 4e by creating a 'Northman Soldier' NPC and giving him a bonus with axes and some kind of cool axe-related combat technique pretty easily...but then we get the reverse problem, that of a player saying, "Hey, cool, my fighter is a northman...how do I learn that?" and me telling him "Well, it's balanced for NPCs with 5-round-lives, it's not for PCs to use." (See: Bugbear strangler)



2 Options:
"Oh, let's create a weapon related feat or power four you that you can pick up the next time."
"Sorry, unlike you, he trained several years among the northman tribes, starting as a young child. There is no way you can reach his mastery of the axe now, as you're already an adult."

The latter would probably not work so well for the Axe-Swinging Northman, but it might explain a Hobgoblin Warcaster.

An assumption that I think is "wrong" is that the powers giving to NPCs are always unbalanced compared to PC powers. That doesn't have to be true. In fact, I think several of the "humanoid" powers looks like stuff that a PC could use just as well. At least if there was a class that fit into the niche the monster is taking. (Bugbear Strangling could be a daily or per encounter power, but there seems to be no "grappling" class, so it's not an appropriate power for any of the existing classes.)


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> The part of the PCs being more powerful than NPCs can go the other way as well; I think it was some 4e designer that talked about the possibility to create a human opponent as a solo. Without the opponent being a solo, you would have to add levels above the PC's levels. Then you risk either having a glass ninja or the NPC would be invulnerable to the PCs.
> 
> now you can create a NPC that is the same level as the PCs but still capable of taking them on five at a time.




This is true, and I rather like this, because 'boss monster' fights can be a real pain in D&D. The 4e standard/elite/solo scaling WITHIN a single level is actually very nifty, and if the benefit of this is a balanced face-off against the Evil Wizard (21st level solo controller), then it might be worth dealing with the fact the Evil Wizard only actually knows four spells.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 8, 2008)

Reminder- the players (and the PCs) don't read stat blocks.  If you describe the northmen as cunning ax wielders, and you portray them as doing cunning things, and you portray them as wielding axes, then they ARE cunning ax wielders.  Whether they have "weapon focus: ax" is entirely irrelevant.  The only way things fall apart is if you portray them as 1) stupid and NOT cunning, 2) NOT wielding axes, or 3) wielding axes incompetently.  But the first two are unrelated to the qualities of their stat blocks, and the last one is only based off of the overall attack bonus of a Northmen Warrior, not what contributed to creating that attack bonus.  +5 is +5 no matter how it got there.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Reminder- the players (and the PCs) don't read stat blocks.  If you describe the northmen as cunning ax wielders, and you portray them as doing cunning things, and you portray them as wielding axes, then they ARE cunning ax wielders.  Whether they have "weapon focus: ax" is entirely irrelevant.  The only way things fall apart is if you portray them as 1) stupid and NOT cunning, 2) NOT wielding axes, or 3) wielding axes incompetently.  But the first two are unrelated to the qualities of their stat blocks, and the last one is only based off of the overall attack bonus of a Northmen Warrior, not what contributed to creating that attack bonus.  +5 is +5 no matter how it got there.



I'd add 4): Roll sensible. Try to get a fair amount of rolls above 10.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I see that you enjoy using obfuscation and randomness in place of actual argument and discussion.




Actually he doesn't use randomness.  It's usually relevant, just a strange connection.


----------



## Deadstop (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Conan and Faramir are just more experienced and stronger than most others. But 4E PCs are mutants compared to NPCs with powers they can never achieve.
> 4E PCs = The XMen of D&D.




Since it's entirely possible to build NPCs with the PC rules, this is untrue.

Heck, you can even give a simplified-build NPC the exact spread of PC powers you want him to have, without worrying about how he leveled up to get there or anything.

We've seen quite a few monster-style 4e NPCs by now, and pretty much all of them have PC-grade powers. In fact, all but one or two are higher in level (sometimes far higher) than the 4e PCs we've seen.

It's true that the average NPC farmer, or baronet, or sage, might never achieve the power level of even a 1st-level PC class, but there are also NPCs out there as powerful as or more powerful than the PCs.

The difference isn't PC vs. NPC, such that people in the world can tell that "PCs" are special. The difference is between, well, characters that make sense as important/powerful and those that make sense as being less so.

The default 4e quasi-setting (kind of like 3e's Eberron) is built to have relatively few powerful forces of good and civilization that "compete" with or overshadow the PCs on whatever their scale is -- but even that is hardly a requirement of the rules. (No, I haven't seen the rules either, but how could it be? They give you the ability to build characters of up to 30th level right out of the box, and nothing says those rules have to be limited to PCs. You're just "allowed" to shortcut your NPCs as a DM, if you'd rather not go through the whole process.)


Deadstop


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I agree. That's why I'm not going to 4e, and I'm leaving 3.5.




I just don't get it.  I got it 3 months ago, the simulationist hue and cry, save our world-wankery, and all that.  But now?  Simulation is Dead. Fait accompli.  Be a 3.5/PF grognard, go find another system fine.  But stop whining about 4e not being written for your playstyle.


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

Deadstop said:
			
		

> Since it's entirely possible to build NPCs with the PC rules, this is untrue.




Building all NPCs according to PC guidlines in 4E is akin to making everyone a mutant. Sure it reaches the goal of everyone beig equal again, but by teh default setting the NPCs are not supposed to have all teh abilities PCs have. They are weaker and much less adaptable than PCs which are the superheroes of the setting.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 8, 2008)

So a guy who swings his sword wide enough to hit two bad guys or who smashes an opponent with his shield, pushing him back, is equivalent to a mutant superhero?


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 8, 2008)

Er, this is the 4E statblock for the human 1st level GRUNT soldier that is on the back of the DDM card.

Human Guard Level 1 Solider
Medium natural Humanoid xp 100
Initiative +4 Senses Perception +5
HP 31 Bloodied 15
AC 16 Fortitude 14 Reflex 13 Will 12
Speed 5
m Halberd (standard at will) * Weapon
Reach 2: +8 vs AC 1d10+2 damage and the target is markes until the end of the human guards next turn.
M Powerful Strike (standard recharge 5,6) * Weapon
Requires halberd: reach 2; +8 vs AC; 1d10+6 Damage and the target is knocked prone.
R Crossbow (standard at will) * Weapon
Range 15/30; +7 vs AC; 1d8+1 damage
Alignment Any Languages Common
Skills Streetwise +6
Str 15 (+2) Dex 14 (+2) Wis 11 (+0)
Con 15 (+2) Int 10 (+0) Cha 12 (+1)
Equipment chainmail, halberd, crossbow with 20 bolts.


This is the one for the 2nd level human bandit
Human Bandit Level 2 Skirmisher
Medium natural Humanoid xp 125
Initiative +6 Senses Perception +1
HP 30 Bloodied 15
AC 16 Fortitude 12 Reflex 14 Will 12
Speed 6
m Mace (standard at will) * Weapon
+4 vs AC 1d8+1 damage and the human bandit shifts 1 square.
r Dagger (standard at will) * Weapon
Range 5/10; +6 vs AC; 1d6+1damage.
m Dazling Strike (standard encoutner) * Weapon
Requires mace; +4 vs AC; 1d8+1 damage, the target is dazed until the end of the human bandit's next turn, and the human bandit ***** 1 square.
Combat Advantage
The human bandit deals an extra 1d6 damage on melee and ranged attackes against any target it has combat advantage against.
Alignment Any Languages Common
Skills Stealth +9 Streetwise +7 Thievery +9
Str 12 (+2) Dex 17 (+4) Wis 11 (+1)
Con 13 (+2) Int 10 (+1) Cha 12 (+2)
Equipment leather armor, mace, 5 daggers

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the difference in power between a 1st level 4E fighter
and a 1st level human grunt soldier isn't any diffirent than the current split. The biggest advantage the 4E human fighter has is 1) ability to use his ace in the hole and b)he's got more options.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Building all NPCs according to PC guidlines in 4E is akin to making everyone a mutant. Sure it reaches the goal of everyone beig equal again, but by teh default setting the NPCs are not supposed to have all teh abilities PCs have. They are weaker and much less adaptable than PCs which are the superheroes of the setting.




Building all NPCs according to PC guidelines is akin to making everyone an _adventurer_ who is good at his job. By the default setting, the vast majority of NPCs _in every edition of D&D ever_ were not supposed to have all the abilities PCs have. See also NPC classes in 3E and 0-level characters in previous editions.

NPCs use PC-grade statistics when it's appropriate in 4E _just like in every edition of D&D ever_.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Building all NPCs according to PC guidlines in 4E is akin to making everyone a mutant.




Silly Derren! If everyone is a mutant, then noone is a mutant.


----------



## Crosswind (Apr 8, 2008)

With all due respect, Gnome, I think even you might admit that DMs who enjoy spending 3 hours out-of-game to resolve a war are in the minority, yes?

I admire your valiant stand (and appreciate Lizard's insightful contributions), but:

4E stats out NPCs with the things they are likely to use.  Be it spells, skills, stats.  This makes it a -lot- easier for a -lot- of DMs to prepare for sessions.  I think we can all agree that making it easier for DMs to prepare for sessions is a good thing, yes?

There are some DMs who want more detail in their NPCs - you and Lizard, for instance.  I can't tell if you want this extra detail for all NPCs, or just important ones, but...there is nothing really preventing you from making your NPCs as detailed as you like.  Take the entries in the Monster Manual, and add the relevant skills.  Make your Pit Fiend also a master ballerina.  Give him rogue sneak attack, if you like.

I don't -think- this is any harder than adding rogue levels to him.  The only uncertainty involved is how it changes his CR.  But let's be serious - you can absolutely make builds in 3.5 that have the same CR, but are universally better.  Adding certain templates to monsters makes them way more powerful than the CR change would indicate, etcetera.  So it does not seem that 4th edition hinders you in any way, here.  If anything, it gives you the freedom to make your NPCs however you like.

Lizard, you are certainly not alone in liking to have deep, involved worlds.  The campaign that I currently play in is detailed and pretty excellent.  But I don't really see how 3.X supports this better than 4th edition - other than the "Shallow Rules = Shallow Setting", which I find to be entirely untrue.

If anything, ease of creating and manipulating NPCs should make it easier for DMs to focus on their world.

Finally (and this post is poorly structured, for which I apologize) - there is no ability that PCs have that NPCs cannot also possess.  The setting I play in is low-powered, and low-level PCs are not heroes.  They are normal people, on par with NPCs, who might become heroes.    4E isn't going to change this in our setting in any way - I don't see why it would have to.

Summary:
3.X hindered our style of gameplay, by forcing our GM to follow intricate, involved rules to create the diverse array of NPCs he wanted us to meet/interact with in the world.  It enabled Lizard to create, authoritatively, the diverse array of NPCs he wanted his PCs to interact with.
4.X will give our DM blueprints and easy ways to customize them.  It also won't stop Lizard from creating diverse arrays of NPCs, but it might make it harder for him.

So I understand your objection, but I feel that you're a minority among gamers - also, that the 3.X approach was a barrier to entry for aspiring DMs.  

-Cross


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> So a guy who swings his sword wide enough to hit two bad guys or who smashes an opponent with his shield, pushing him back, is equivalent to a mutant superhero?




Yes because most other humans, no matter how strong and experienced can't do that.
And don't forget that this person can not only swing his weapon very strong, he can also heal himself at will, heal all wounds by sleeping for six hours, becomes better and better in any trade in profession even without practice and has a destiny so he can come back from the death most of the time.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes because most other humans, no matter how strong and experienced can't do that.




This is, of course, true of every D&D revision ever. Unless you mean in some platonic, never-to-be-realised ideal, that is.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 8, 2008)

> Yes because most other humans, no matter how strong and experienced can't do that.




Most other humans can't swing swords and shield bash? Speaking in specifics, do you have any reason to believe that NPC's can't be given Cleave or Tide of Iron or an equivalent? Because as has been pointed out, you can create an NPC who's a Solo challenge for a 5-man party without giving him class levels. So clearly NPC's can be pretty tough when necessary, and may have some PC abilities, without the restrictions of class or level. 



> And don't forget that this person can not only swing his weapon very strong, he can also heal himself at will




As Chris Sims pointed out, NPC's get Healing Surges, too. 



> heal all wounds by sleeping for six hours




Is there a need to keep track of longterm healing for NPC's? 



> becomes better and better in any trade in profession even without practice




So? NPC's can apparently achieve ranks in skills that far outstrip a PC, who's constrained by his class level. 



> and has a destiny so he can come back from the death most of the time




That's up to the DM. If he decides the NPC should come back to life, then the NPC can come back to life.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This is, of course, true of every D&D revision ever. Unless you mean in some platonic, never-to-be-realised ideal, that is.




Yeah. Apparently, it's only in 4E where PC's become mutant superhumans. Despite the apparent ability to build your NPC's any way you like in 4E. They weren't that way in 3E, when NPC's had, at most, a handful of levels in NPC classes which were mediocre in comparison to PC class levels. And they certainly weren't that way in 2E, where all NPC's either had PC class levels or were Level 0 characters.


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Yeah. Apparently, it's only in 4E where PC's become mutant superhumans. Despite the apparent ability to build your NPC's any way you like in 4E. They weren't that way in 3E, when NPC's had, at most, a handful of levels in NPC classes which were mediocre in comparison to PC class levels. And they certainly weren't that way in 2E, where all NPC's either had PC class levels or were Level 0 characters.




Nice try but in 3E many NPCs had PC classes (look at published adventures or the city gerenation guidelines).
In 3E PCs where just very highly trained, but NPCs regulary got the same kind of training. In 4E PCs are special and most NPCs are just pale shadows compared to PCs even when they have the same level.
Only when you deviate from the default way of how D&D works the NPCs can achieve the same things as PCs.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes because most other humans, no matter how strong and experienced can't do that.



Yes they can.


> he can also heal himself at will,



No he can't.  He can ignore debilitating fatigue and still fight ok


> heal all wounds by sleeping for six hours



No he can't.  He can be okay to fight buit I'd imagine he looks loiek hell despite HPs and HSs


> has a destiny so he can come back from the death most of the time.



When powerful magic is invoked.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Only when you deviate from the default way of how D&D works




does this discontinuity you seemed to be working very hard to create exist.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Nice try but in 3E many NPCs had PC classes (look at published adventures or the city gerenation guidelines).
> In 3E PCs where just very highly trained, but NPCs regulary got the same kind of training. In 4E PCs are special and most NPCs are just pale shadows compared to PCs even when they have the same level.
> Only when you deviate from the default way of how D&D works the NPCs can achieve the same things as PCs.




Nice try but in 4E as many NPCs have PC classes as you want.

3E PCs are special and most NPCs are just pale shadows compared to PCs even when they have the same level. Only when you deviate from the default way of how D&D works can the NPCs achieve the same things as PCs.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Just like Conan is obviously different from the guards and soldiers of Hyboria, since he's the protagonist (aka PC) and they're not. And Faramir in comparison to other soldiers of Gondor. Or the villain/hero of an action movie. I fail to see the problem.




Not to pick on you, Mourn, but I think that this debate gets to the core of why "1st level is nothing special" guys feel on the outs. 

Some people use D&D to be Conan. Some people use D&D to be Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk.

One of them is a barbarian king splattered in the blood of empires. The other is a poor kid who stumbles accross some magic beans and gets lucky. D&D has always been more about the former than the latter, but people who enjoy the latter still made it "work" in D&D because they could suspend their disbelief just enough to say "Okay, Jack's a rogue, and that doesn't make him much more exceptional than a barkeep, that's just how we'll say he's clever." But when it came down to it, D&D has pretty much always wanted you to eventually go toe-to-toe with the giant, rather than running away and cutting down the vine.

If 4e characters are brazenly more powerful, those who enjoy the more faerie-tale-esque takes on fantasy, who enjoy their heroes more like Bilbo and Sam than like Conan and Aragorn, are kind of on the outs. They're being told they're not SUPPOSED to play the game like that. That's a tough pill to swallow, after having made it work (and, presumably, enjoying it) for so long.

I mean, I'm all for fantasy stories coming from the Achilleses and Gilgameshes and Beowulfs of the world, but in more strongly asserting the "PC's are really exceptional" thing, they're pushing out some people who have so far enjoyed going against the grain.

That's kind of a side-effect, I believe, of this whole "Be clear!" kick 4e is on. Not that it's bad to be clear, just that by eradicating the vagueness of what D&D is trying to do, you kind of inherently limit what people can interpret it to do. It's more easy to see it as something you can either accept or reject, rather than something you can interpret as you see fit.

Hopefully the much-touted modularity of the game lives up to the hype, because that's what's going to let these guys who feel that they want to be "mundane heroic" embrace 4e as they have previous editions.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If 4e characters are brazenly more powerful, those who enjoy the more faerie-tale-esque takes on fantasy, who enjoy their heroes more like Bilbo and Sam than like Conan and Aragorn, are kind of on the outs. They're being told they're not SUPPOSED to play the game like that. That's a tough pill to swallow, after having made it work (and, presumably, enjoying it) for so long.
> 
> .




Seriously, I'm looking at the 1st level human guard (which I posted) and I'm kind of wondering where this "brazenly" more powerful schtick comes from (do people just generally ignore my points? Am I saying it wrong? Do I need to use more insults?)

The 1st level guard doesn't look like that much less powerful than a 1st level human PC. The main difference is that the PC gets an ace in the hole (the Daily) and he's got a slightly broader base of powers to draw on.

Do people actually think that a 1st level human Fighter is going to be taking on groups of 1st level human guards and WIN at the same time? I'm not even sure the 1st level pre-gen fighter can even take 3 of the guards (use a daily, use an encounter power but then she's restricted to her own at-will)

To those worried, have you actually looked at what the monsters are capable of?


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The 1st level guard doesn't look like that much less powerful than a 1st level human PC. The main difference is that the PC gets an ace in the hole (the Daily) and he's got a slightly broader base of powers to draw on.




The PC also gets Healing surges and a way to use them. He also has much more abilities than the 1st level guard (At will, encounter and daily) an more skills than the guard.


----------



## Deadstop (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Nice try but in 3E many NPCs had PC classes (look at published adventures or the city gerenation guidelines).
> In 3E PCs where just very highly trained, but NPCs regulary got the same kind of training. In 4E PCs are special and most NPCs are just pale shadows compared to PCs even when they have the same level.
> Only when you deviate from the default way of how D&D works the NPCs can achieve the same things as PCs.




Where are you getting this? Has anyone but you ever said these things?

Yes, in the "default D&D demographics," they are cutting down on the number of people running around with PC classes or the equivalent.

That doesn't mean "4e does not allow NPCs to achieve the same things as PCs." What about the PCs' mentors and trainers, or the intelligent villains? Obviously they're at least as powerful as PCs.

All we know is that you don't have to use the full PC rules to generate an NPC or monster (even one that is a match or better for the PCs) and that even "official" statblocks no longer have to include every detail for "walk-on" characters.

The "specialness" of the PC *classes* has been reinforced, building on ideas already present in earlier editions -- not every swordsman is a "fighter," nor every priest a divinity-channelling "cleric," nor every hedge witch a fully trained "wizard." That does not say, however, that "these things are only for the PCs." It says "these things are for special, unusual people, and the PCs are *some* of those people."


Deadstop


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2008)

> Seriously, I'm looking at the 1st level human guard (which I posted) and I'm kind of wondering where this "brazenly" more powerful schtick comes from (do people just generally ignore my points? Am I saying it wrong? Do I need to use more insults?)




Well it was an "if."  Besides that, I didn't read every post before making my point, so yours was one of those that got skipped over. 

But looking at your statblock, the fears very well may be overwrought. It does look like the 1st level fighter is more powerful (at-wills and per-encounters and dailies all trump that guard's little recharge, and they'd have more HP, second winds, action points, etc.), but perhaps not of an entirely different class of human being. That guard can handle some goblins, probably, so it fullfills my believability-o-meter. It might not be everything the "mundane hero" guy is looking for, but it's not really much more different than the difference in ability between a 1st level PC fighter and a 1st level NPC warrior.


----------



## Deadstop (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The PC also gets Healing surges and a way to use them.




According to someone who has played the actual game, in this very thread, NPCs get those too. 



> He also has much more abilities than the 1st level guard (At will, encounter and daily)




This one's true. A first-level fighter has the "martial power source" backing him up, whereas a typical first-level guard does not. It's like the 3e "fighter" vs. "warrior," only probably even more pronounced.

There is nothing to say that you cannot (or even "aren't supposed to") have NPC guards who are in fact first-level fighters, though.




> an more skills than the guard.




More skills mentioned in his statblock. Because the attention of the group follows the fighter all the time, and generally spends much less time on the guard. He might be an awesome cook, but most likely that happens "offscreen" ("off-table"?) while the actual people playing the game are concentrating on some other part of the world.


Deadstop


----------



## Crosswind (Apr 8, 2008)

It seems borderline ridiculous for us to interpret the Guard statblock as "These are the only skills any guard, anywhere has.  These are the only abilities they have".

It seems a lot more logical to interpret it as "This a basic template for building a guard - it contains most stuff that you will need.  If you need something else, feel free to add on Skill:  Cooking".

This isn't that tough to get.

Further, the argument that "PCs have more options than NPCs!  How unfair!" is borderline lunacy.

Allow me to repeat:  Most DMs don't want to spend hours statting out inconsequential NPCs, or looking through NPC stats to find the ones they want.  They want good, concise building blocks to create their world.  That's what 4E gives.  It does not, in any way, make the PCs special that the NPCs don't contain extraneous information.

-Cross


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Not to pick on you, Mourn, but I think that this debate gets to the core of why "1st level is nothing special" guys feel on the outs.
> 
> Some people use D&D to be Conan. Some people use D&D to be Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk.
> 
> ...



One thing I was surprised at first was that most of the regular NPCs of D&D 4 (or rather the D&D Experience)  had very similar amount of hit points - and they usually also had some special abilities (the latter didn't surprise me, though.)

The relative power stays, at least for the most part. But hit points have increased. The end result is that combat is less swingy. Previously, exchanging blows for several rounds in D&D meant that nobody rolled a successful attack. Now, it still allows a few successful attacks. You can actually "spill" blood without risking to die or drop unconscious in the first round.

There are still some "power level" differences. Otherwise, 4 PCs couldn't defeat 4 NPCs of equal level. 4E Pcs have powers from 1st level, but then, 1st level PCs in 3E also had special abilities, weapon profiencies, sneak attack or spells from 1st level on. You never started as a incompetent (but at least courageous) character at 1st level. You had your area of expertise from the start. And you still have in 3E.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 8, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But looking at your statblock, the fears very well may be overwrought. It does look like the 1st level fighter is more powerful (at-wills and per-encounters and dailies all trump that guard's little recharge, and they'd have more HP, second winds, action points, etc.), but perhaps not of an entirely different class of human being. That guard can handle some goblins, probably, so it fullfills my believability-o-meter. It might not be everything the "mundane hero" guy is looking for, but it's not really much more different than the difference in ability between a 1st level PC fighter and a 1st level NPC warrior.




Thanks, I'm just getting a little testy that when I make points, it seems to get ignored. I'm having a bad day (usually, I could care less...)

As for the guard, er, no, I don't think the guard could take a couple of goblins. In fact, I know a pair of kobolds would probably work him over.

Kobold Skirmisher; Level 1 Skirmisher
Small Natural Humanoid; XP 100

Initiative: +5 Senses Perception +0; darkvision
HP 27; Bloodied 13
AC 15; Fortitude 11, Reflex 14, Will 13; see also trap sense
Speed 6

Spear(standard; at-will) - Weapon
+6 vs. AC; 1d8 damage; see also mob attack

Combat Advantage
The Kobold Skirmisher deals an extra 1d6 damage on melee and ranged attacks on any target it has combat advantage against.

Mob Attack
The Kobold Skirmisher gains a +1 bonus to attack rolls per kobold ally adjacent to the target

Shifty(minor; at-will)
The Kobold shifts 1 square as a minor action

Trap Sense
The Kobold gains +2 bonus to defense against all traps

Alightment Evil Languages Draconic
Skills Acrobatics +8, Stealth +10, Thievery +10
Str 8(-1) Dex 16(+3) Wis 10(+0)
Con 11(+0) Int 6(-2) Cha 15(+2)
Equipment hide armor, light shield, spear


Honestly, I'd bet on the two kobolds beating the guard into the ground. 3 kobolds? Total massacre IMHO.

(p.s. Darren, the skills ARE listed for the guard. He has the exact same skills as the PCs but the stat block only lists the exceptional ones (a.ka the ones that are Trained). From reading the other monsters, what gets listed with skills are only those one (the math works out)). It doesn't mean the monster doesn't possess any skils other than those listed, but they default to the formula which doesn't need to be statted).l


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This is, of course, true of every D&D revision ever. Unless you mean in some platonic, never-to-be-realised ideal, that is.



You are really enjoying this thread, aren't you?


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As for the guard, er, no, I don't think the guard could take a couple of goblins. In fact, I know a pair of kobolds would probably work him over.




Well, yes. He's a normal level 1 "monster", so he'll probably lose to multiple normal level 1 "monsters". Since PCs are only expected to handle one at-level normal monster each, this doesn't seem like a problem.

He can probably handle 4 goblin minions, like a PC is expected to. He's not as good at it (has no fall-back daily powers or per-encounter powers if the dice hate him or one of the goblins turns out not to be a minion or whatever), and he probably can't keep at it for as long (has fewer healing surges per day). But he can do it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2008)

> As for the guard, er, no, I don't think the guard could take a couple of goblins. In fact, I know a pair of kobolds would probably work him over.




I bet most Kobolds (and goblins) are minions. Most guards are probably minions too, but that guy could probably wallop a few minions without getting too worried.

And true 1st level monsters SHOULD challenge the guy, they're equal level!


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Nice try but in 3E many NPCs had PC classes (look at published adventures or the city gerenation guidelines).
> In 3E PCs where just very highly trained, but NPCs regulary got the same kind of training. In 4E PCs are special and most NPCs are just pale shadows compared to PCs even when they have the same level.
> .



Your constant repeating of wrong assumptions is really tiresome. How many times more do you need to here that NPC will be comparable in power without the unnecessary complexity?


----------



## Derren (Apr 8, 2008)

Guild Goodknife said:
			
		

> Your constant repeating of wrong assumptions is really tiresome. How many times more do you need to here that NPC will be comparable in power without the unnecessary complexity?




That argument carries little weight when the evidence we have so far (published NPC stats) show that they are indeed weaker than the PCs and that it is the openly stated design goal of 4E to make PCs special and heroic from level 1 on.

Edit: I just noticed that the dwarf NPC we have doesn't even has the dwarven racial abilities. And please don't come with "They are not important for combat". +5 vs. Poison and being able to heal yourself for 25% of your HP another time is important.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 8, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I just don't get it.  I got it 3 months ago, the simulationist hue and cry, save our world-wankery, and all that.  But now?  Simulation is Dead. Fait accompli.  Be a 3.5/PF grognard, go find another system fine.  But stop whining about 4e not being written for your playstyle.




You're right! I have a view on the game dissimilar from your own, therefore I shouldn't voice my opinion at all!

You want to live in a microcosm where no one challenges your views, fine. You want to tell other people to screw off if they don't play the game exactly like you do, fine.

I do not complain about 4e. I state my views, and how they are not in agreement with the direction 4e appears to be heading, and then point out that *that is fine*. Why you people seem to insist that people such as myself have nothing but vitriol for the system is beyond me, but it is really getting on my nerves.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That argument carries little weight when the evidence we have so far (published NPC stats) show that they are indeed weaker than the PCs and that it is the openly stated design goal of 4E to make PCs special and heroic from level 1 on.
> 
> Edit: I just noticed that the dwarf NPC we have doesn't even has the dwarven racial abilities. And please don't come with "They are not important for combat". +5 vs. Poison and being able to heal yourself for 25% of your HP another time is important.




You forget that the stats we are seeing are from the back of a stat card for D&D Minis.  There is a lot of stuff that might or might not be included there.  I have the card for the Tiefling Warlock and he is level 7.  He has different powers than the 1st level PC warlock.  That does not surprise me, as the powers he has are probably more relevant to his role in combat.

It has been mentioned before that if a DM wanted to stat up an NPC using PC classes that option still exists.  So I don't see what the "sky is falling" issue can be.  But don't let me discourage you from continuing your tilting.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That argument carries little weight when the evidence we have so far (published NPC stats) show that they are indeed weaker than the PCs and that it is the openly stated design goal of 4E to make PCs special and heroic from level 1 on.
> 
> Edit: I just noticed that the dwarf NPC we have doesn't even has the dwarven racial abilities. And please don't come with "They are not important for combat". +5 vs. Poison and being able to heal yourself for 25% of your HP another time is important.




So if NPCs are supposed to be invariably weaker than PCs, who exactly are the PCs supposed to be fighting? And how do you explain that 5th level solo NPC that is strong enough to take on four or five same-leveled PCs at once, _alone_. No PC will ever be able to single-handedly challenge four same-leveled PC enemies, so clearly there's at least one major class of NPCs that is much more powerful than any PC will ever be at that level.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 8, 2008)

I think there are several posters getting worked up in this thread. Let's try to cool it down before the mods have to step in, eh? There is some good discussion going on, let's try to stick to that.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 8, 2008)

The ability to challenge x is not the same as the ability to defeat x.  

A 6th lvl Solo Monster is a "challenge" for 4 6th lvl PCs - All things being equal, the PCs are expected to survive the encounter.  The Monster is not.


----------



## Henry (Apr 8, 2008)

Ladies and Gents (or just Gents), please let's go back to being a bit more civil. 

Charwoman Gene, let's please not go into telling people where they can post, and what. 

Gnomeworks, if you've stated your views and don't have much else to add, is there much of a reason to continue in the thread?

I'm sure everybody can be a lot more civil than to get into flame arguments.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 8, 2008)

---
My comment here was silly but bad form.  It was a comment on 5th E ruining our "fun" by reminding us to be more civil.


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Apr 8, 2008)

*PC vs NPC powerlevel*



			
				Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> So if NPCs are supposed to be invariably weaker than PCs, who exactly are the PCs supposed to be fighting? And how do you explain that 5th level solo NPC that is strong enough to take on four or five same-leveled PCs at once, _alone_. No PC will ever be able to single-handedly challenge four same-leveled PC enemies, so clearly there's at least one major class of NPCs that is much more powerful than any PC will ever be at that level.




To be honest, no PC will be able to single-handedly challenge two same-leveled NPCs with any regularity. I've been running some mock combats with the 1st level PC dwarven fighter versus two human guards, all level one.

Without even using the human advantages of reach (halberds) or flanking, the dwarf won only 1 in 5. This was with the dwarf using daily and encounter powers, plus second wind (which was even better for the dwarf, since it was a minor action) too. I'm really not seeing how the PCs are that much better than a similar level NPC.

The one fight where the dwarf won, she had 3 hit points left, hit with both the daily and encounter, and had pretty much expended everything she had. It's not a given that the PCs are mutant-like in their ability.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Thanks, I'm just getting a little testy that when I make points, it seems to get ignored. I'm having a bad day (usually, I could care less...)
> 
> As for the guard, er, no, I don't think the guard could take a couple of goblins. In fact, I know a pair of kobolds would probably work him over.
> 
> ...



Exchange the 2 Skirmishers with 2 Minions. Suddenly, the Guard is very effective, and he might even be able to survive multiple such attacks. (Though his special abilities might become of little use). 

What does this tell us? If we expect the trained Guardsmen to be useful in protecting somethig, we should assume that the potential threats are usually (considerably) lower level or typically consist of Minions (of similar level). 
If we were to pretend that the XP values for monster also represent their "training and equipment" cost for a typical army (very simulationist of us - take care), this would imply that there are 4 times as many Minions as there are "regular" monsters. So, in a typical war/assault scenario, we should assume that the Guard is fending of Minions - but when a Skirmisher (or even two) attacks him, he can be in real trouble, and it's time for the PCs to enter the scene and take out some of these nasty Skirmishers, Slingers and Archers of the Kobold... 
Off course, this also means that the Guardsmen himself is well-trained. A typical army might consist mostly of (badly) armed peasant Minions, and a few regular "monsters". And occassionally, they are also accomponied by "heroic" characters. They might not look that much better, but you can count on them being there where the tide of the war is turned, and the ones tipping the scale more then our average hero...

[/rambling after a long-time procastinated fitness centre visit]


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 8, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> The ability to challenge x is not the same as the ability to defeat x.
> 
> A 6th lvl Solo Monster is a "challenge" for 4 6th lvl PCs - All things being equal, the PCs are expected to survive the encounter.  The Monster is not.




A single 6th level solo NPC will almost invariably kill a single 6th level PC. Given that 6th level PC parties are expected to encounter 6th level solo NPCs as not-unusual enemies, I think it safe to say that PCs will regularly encounter NPCs much more individually powerful than them, even if the enemies don't have PC class levels.

As for why PCs can never become Sergeant Nails the 5th level solo NPC, well, it's because Sergeant Nails is at the culmination of his life and will never get more powerful, barring plot device. Or it's because he sold his soul to Chesty Puller. Or it's because of a one-off alchemical experiment. Or any other explanation that points out that being a solo NPC is optimal for him, but a bad idea for the PC.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 8, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> A single 6th level solo NPC will almost invariably kill a single 6th level PC. Given that 6th level PC parties are expected to encounter 6th level solo NPCs as not-unusual enemies, I think it safe to say that PCs will regularly encounter NPCs much more individually powerful than them, even if the enemies don't have PC class levels.
> 
> As for why PCs can never become Sergeant Nails the 5th level solo NPC, well, it's because Sergeant Nails is at the culmination of his life and will never get more powerful, barring plot device. Or it's because he sold his soul to Chesty Puller. Or it's because of a one-off alchemical experiment. Or any other explanation that points out that being a solo NPC is optimal for him, but a bad idea for the PC.



Or you can go the 3E route. Yes, you can become him, but this gives you a Level XP adjustment. To be precise, you need 4 times as much XP as normally required for his level to get exactly the same abilities. 
Or say: Hhe trained to be that what he is now all his life. He didn't live the life of a free-willing adventurer for it. And more importantly - he also got the time for it. He was never approached by a damsel in mistress to find her missing son. He wasn't asked to find the Elemental Orbs. He didn't find a treasure map leading to a presumably abandoned dragon hoard. He wasn't forced to prove his innocence for the murder of a trader...


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> One of the best things in a well run campaign is coming back from A Trip Over Yonder and finding the world has *changed*. That bar wench now has a baby, and it looks a lot like you. Your grampa died of something no cleric can fix. The slimy advisor to the mayor...is now the mayor. Your pesky kid brother has got his first PC level and he's rarin' to go kill some kobolds.
> 
> Likewise, if you stop the orcs from invading the lands to the south, that means the overlord of the north can rampage unopposed -- and vice versa. There's forces in motion all around the world, and while you're powerful and skilled and all that, the world is going to keep turning whether you're watching it or not -- and then you have to deal with the consequences of your decisions.
> 
> ...




I fail to see how any of these elements require NPCs be written up in the same style as PCs. Everything you've written above applies to every campaign I've ever run, and I've never found it necessary to treat PCs and NPCs exactly the same. In truth, unless you have a full character sheet written up for every NPC the characters interact with, you aren't treating them as the same thing either.

Also, just because the rules treat PCs and NPCs differently doesn't mean that the NPCs around them do so. PCs are more resilient in combat because they are the main characters of the campaign, and like the main characters in a novel or a movie, they have limited script immunity. They need rules that govern the use of their resources that reflect the fact that they are in encounters repeatedly throughout the day and their resource management is different from an NPC who only needs to manage resources in the scenes he is in.

I like the idea that there are some NPCs who can perform magic, heal and fight as well as the PCs. IMO it is integral to a believable setting. But I don't understand why the NPCs have to use the same mechanics as the PCs. The players in my game never see the mechanics behind the NPCs. 

It isn't that NPCs only exist in their world when the PCs are present, it's that their actions are only governed by game mechanics when the PCs are involved. I don't mean to say that NPCs can do things that are logically impossible for them between scenes. What I do mean to say is that greater campaign issues are dealt with by the GM's storytelling ability. Most GMs don't stat out all of the NPCs in a town so that he can roll the Diplomacy checks of the mayoral candidates against all of the electors so that he can determine who wins the election. They just make a story decision. NPCs certainly should continue to exist when the PCs aren't present, but their off camera actions are governed by the necessities of the story, the logic of the setting and the GM's preferences.

I fail to see how game mechanics have anything to do with it.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 8, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I fail to see how any of these elements require NPCs be written up in the same style as PCs. Everything you've written above applies to every campaign I've ever run, and I've never found it necessary to treat PCs and NPCs exactly the same. In truth, unless you have a full character sheet written up for every NPC the characters interact with, you aren't treating them as the same thing either.




Well, it boils down to this:
If, when the rules come out, I don't see any situations where there's mechanical issues with PC/NPC interaction due to the differences in writeups, then I'll agree it doesn't matter. I just never want to be in a situation where a PC says "I do X!" and I say, "Well, you can't unless I make up a ruling about how X will affect an NPC."


----------



## Primal (Apr 8, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Most other humans can't swing swords and shield bash? Speaking in specifics, do you have any reason to believe that NPC's can't be given Cleave or Tide of Iron or an equivalent? Because as has been pointed out, you can create an NPC who's a Solo challenge for a 5-man party without giving him class levels. So clearly NPC's can be pretty tough when necessary, and may have some PC abilities, without the restrictions of class or level.
> 
> Is there a need to keep track of longterm healing for NPC's?
> 
> ...




NPCs as sort of mechanical "hybrids" between PCs and monsters? I'm not sure whether I'd want to go there -- it's already bad enough that NPCs exist in their own mechanical niche. Therefore, I think it's preferable to either keep them there (i.e. stat them according to these 'exception-based' monster design mechanics) or statting them along the same rules as the PCs. That said, I don't see how it is any easier for me to use the 'exception-based' design, because I feel like I'd be walking on thin ice. Really. Let me explain. I'm all for any "nar" influences and mechanics that encourage narrativist play, but I don't think it's wise to try to shoehorn them into D&D at the cost of simulation. At its heart (and the hearts of D&D players), the game is very gamist in nature and encourages gamist playing style. 3E brought a lot of simulationist influences into the mix, and this, in turn, shifted the focus of the game away from the PCs and made the setting and NPCs seem more important than ever.

What I'm seeing in 4E is a lot of steps backwards towards AD&D -- case-by-case DM judgement calls and houserules to accomodate for whatever simulationist elements have been cut from the rules. Don't get me wrong -- some of the things I really like (e.g. the skill challenge system), but somehow it feels like a very dysfunctional system consisting of elements that do not fit together very well. You could even say that it seems to consist of various "subsystems" that implement different aspects of the mechanics in a very inconsistent way.    

What I mean by this is that some of the mechanics encurage purely tactical thinking and "optimal" choices over immersion and story (i.e. the combat system), while other "subsystems" (NPC/monster creation, skill challenges) function in a different way from the rest of the mechanics and also emphasize a very different abstraction . 
It may be difficult to switch between different styles -- first you're playing a chess-like boardgame against the DM, and then, suddenly, you're supposed to engage fully in the story via a skill challenge.  

No doubt 4E brings the PCs into the spotlight as the most important beings in the setting (which, in my opinion, is not necessarily a good thing) but it also "demotes" NPCs into the sidelines in the story. "As they should be!", people say. Yep, but is it *really* more interesting to have the PCs start as established and competent heroes, instead of having them slowly *grow* into this role? Are people really interested in starting out as Conans and Elrics and Aragorns, instead of "weaklings" like Rand Al'Thor and Frodo? Is it really *that* bad if there are local high-level NPCs who act as mentors for the PCs? I wonder, do they *really* steal their thunder?

Occasionally this may even lead to players exploiting the situation -- my first D&D campaigns often devolved into pillaging/raping/murdering sprees as my 13-year old players wanted to feel like kings of the world and there were no "pesky" NPCs to stop them in those small 'Points of Light-ish' villages.

Another major difference in 4E seems to be that "lazy" DMing (and "stealing" stuff) is encouraged, and even mechanically supported by the rules. Worldbuilding is not important anymore, nor is a realistic or vividly portrayed setting with believable NPCs -- it's more about throwing realism and simulationism to the winds in favor of "fantastic" and "evocative" scenery and "Well, it's magic!"-type of explanations. It works for some groups, but it won't work for mine. And really, being a DM has always more or less meant that you are expected and encouraged to spend time on pre-play prep. I like it. I can spend hours after hours crafting new NPCs, towns, encounters, and generally improving on the stuff I've written. It's fine by me that not everyone likes it, though, but in that case you should ask if you're the "best" guy in your group to act as DM. And if it seems that the players are also expecting you to do more prep, would someone else enjoy the DMing "chores" more than you do? If so, wouldn't it benefit everyone to let him DM? 

It's a good thing *if* 4E streamlines the process of creating and running NPCs and monsters, but does it, really? Combat seems to be much more complicated than in 3.0, and as I said before, a DM must probably make a lot of quick judgement calls. What if the fighter tries to emulate a monster's "power"? Should he be able to do that? If so, does it invalidate the feat system, if said power is derived from a feat (such as 'Improved Trip')? How would it happen mechanically? What if the situation escalates from a friendly conversation into combat, and you need quickly to come up with relevant stats to a "non-heroic" NPC? What would be 
Note that you *still* need to consult MM (instead of DMG) to look up which template you're going to apply to that NPC -- unless you're going to come up with completely "trumped-up" stats. And if you're constantly doing the latter, at which point is it becoming a system with so many "exceptional" NPCs with unrealistic and unbelievable "powers" that it beggars belief? AD&D had a lot of weird NPCs that existed on the very edge of the rules, such as 0-level weaponsmiths with 30 HPs (go figure) and completely unrealistic NWP modifiers and/or 'exception-based' abilities ("He is one of the most legendary smiths in the land, able to craft magical weapons and armor up to +3 enchantment").

I have run games that didn't really have any sort of organized rules -- you just rolled a die (the higher the better) if it felt approbriate and it seemed logical that your PC should possess a talent/skill/ability relevant to the situation (e.g. if you were playing a woodsman who wanted to climb a tree to escape a pack of wolves).  And I could do NPCs in *two seconds* -- I just had to decide whether they had any skill that enabled them to roll in a conflict (if not, only the players rolled and any result over 10 was a victory -- otherwise it was an "opposed" roll). Hell, I could create stats for *monsters* in *five seconds*, or less. The funny thing is, it didn't feel any less of a game than Rolemaster or D&D, and it sure was easy to DM. The only difference to 4E is that everyone (PCs, NPCs and monsters) operated and were created with the same rules. Does this make my little storytelling game superior to 4E in the eyes of "lazy" DMs?

And has it been really that hard to come up with stats for an NPC in 3E? I can stat up pretty much anything in less than a minute -- if the PCs suddenly decide to assault, say, a friendly innkeeper, I can just decide that he's 'N Com4/Exp2' and it doesn't take me long to write down his ability scores, HPs, AC, Saves and skills (e.g. +10 on any skill rolls relevant to his profession). Usually my "non-heroic" NPCs have 14 or 12 (depending on their importance, profession/class and level) as their highest ability score and 10-11 in the rest of the abilities (that's for any "quick" NPCs -- "heroic" NPCs and villains have, naturally, have much higher ability scores ). Feats may take time, but I have pretty much memorized the Feats from PHB and if it's absolutely necessary to spend more time to dig up "proper" feats (such as for a high priest), I can always call a cigarette/coffee break and do that (takes me about 5-10 minutes or so, but then again, I'm not allowing too many "splat books" in my campaigns).


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> how much can you simplify the mechanics before you simplify the world?




So, basically, the only way to have complex worlds is to have complex rules?

Needless to say, I vehemently disagree.


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 8, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, it boils down to this:
> If, when the rules come out, I don't see any situations where there's mechanical issues with PC/NPC interaction due to the differences in writeups, then I'll agree it doesn't matter. I just never want to be in a situation where a PC says "I do X!" and I say, "Well, you can't unless I make up a ruling about how X will affect an NPC."




We're all still in the dark about these elements will work together (or won't). I'm hopeful that the designers have looked at this issue from all the angles. If I'm wrong, if there are problems with PC/NPC interaction due to the differences in the write ups, I'll have to switch to using NPC classes. I won't even have to make them up; someone will likely do it in these forums.

I'm hopeful that I'm right and that the fears you've expressed are just fears.

I've said before that most of us arguing both sides of this issue seem to be desiring the same thing, a well developed setting/world that allows for immersive storytelling. We just disagree over what mechanics will accomplish that goal best. For me, it's always been 'rules light' NPCs.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If 4e characters are brazenly more powerful, those who enjoy the more faerie-tale-esque takes on fantasy, who enjoy their heroes more like Bilbo and Sam than like Conan and Aragorn, are kind of on the outs. They're being told they're not SUPPOSED to play the game like that. That's a tough pill to swallow, after having made it work (and, presumably, enjoying it) for so long.




This is like saying that because 3e and all previous editions started you out as a turd farmer that could die from tripping over a loose flagstone, they were telling the "heroic fantasy" types that they aren't supposed to play the game like that. In other words, this is completely untrue.

In 4e, just like every other edition, you can make a substandard character (like a bard in 3e) if you want to play Sam or Frodo, or just leave your character as-is to play Aragorn. Nothing's stopping you from shafting yourself to play a kid who gets conned into buying magic beans, but don't be surprised that a game about heroic fantasy focuses on making you fantasy heroes instead of fantasy chumps like Jack.



> I mean, I'm all for fantasy stories coming from the Achilleses and Gilgameshes and Beowulfs of the world, but in more strongly asserting the "PC's are really exceptional" thing, they're pushing out some people who have so far enjoyed going against the grain.




There's still options to make everyone the same as PCs (and thereby telling your players that they aren't special). There's nothing preventing you, except some kind of faulty pre-conceived notion that trying to use the same rules for all PCs/NPCs will cause some kind of system meltdown or something. If you want to pile extra work on yourself, so that each town has a level 5 cleric or whatever, feel free. However, requiring a DM to put the same amount of work into each NPC (of which I usually have dozens in my games) that a player puts into his one PC is enough to make a busy DM look elsewhere. I don't have the three hours to simulate a single NPC versus NPC war like GnomeWorks, nor would I want to, even if I had the time.


----------



## Henry (Apr 9, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> What I'm seeing in 4E is a lot of steps backwards towards AD&D -- case-by-case DM judgement calls and houserules to accomodate for whatever simulationist elements have been cut from the rules. Don't get me wrong -- some of the things I really like (e.g. the skill challenge system), but somehow it feels like a very dysfunctional system consisting of elements that do not fit together very well. You could even say that it seems to consist of various "subsystems" that implement different aspects of the mechanics in a very inconsistent way.




Actually, the "lazy" DMing was the standard for decades before 3E ever came along -- and to me it was in part what made the game as popular, because it didn't take as much backgrounding to run a game. One of the things i did around 2002, after two years of doing it the "3E" way, was to start statting NPCs up in that exception based fashion common to earlier versions of D&D. Cut a few corners, and statting up an NPC was really easy, because the fact that there was a plethora of feats, flaws, skills, and classes out there meant you could hide a multitude of sins that way. Heck, someone just showed me "Nup Nup the Kobold" recently (a legally created 20TH LEVEL CHARACTER WITH ZERO HIT POINTS!!!!) and I believe a man can fly, again. 

But frankly, anything that can make D&D as easy to run for 6 friends in a couple hours' play time as it used to be in the days of 1E and 2E is a good thing, to me. If not, I still have Castles and Crusades (THANK YOU, OGL.)


----------



## Kishin (Apr 9, 2008)

Gnomeworks said:
			
		

> Nope. I make the world for the sake of its own existence. That the players play in it is happy coincidence.




No offense, but then you should probably writing novels, not running an RPG. I'm trying not to invoke wrongbadfun in saying this, but this seems contrary to the whole point of RPGs, which are designed for playing, and not as a worldbuilding exercise.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> don't be surprised that a game about heroic fantasy focuses on making you fantasy heroes instead of fantasy chumps like Jack.




Have you read Fables?  Jack is the Man.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 9, 2008)

> This is like saying that because 3e and all previous editions started you out as a turd farmer that could die from tripping over a loose flagstone, they were telling the "heroic fantasy" types that they aren't supposed to play the game like that. In other words, this is completely untrue.




Actually, it's nothing like saying any of that gobbledegook.

It's exactly like saying that in further reinforcing the idea that every 1st level PC is unique in actual capability, they're diminishing the ability for DMs to make PC's not unique in actual capability, which is going to annoy some players who like PC's who aren't obviously superhuman.

In other words, obviously true. PC's can't be both turd farmers and Gilgamesh at level 1. A game has to make a choice. D&D has, ostensibly, chosen "Gilgamesh," but people who prefer turd farmers have still made it work. If 4e makes it harder to be 1st level turd farmers, and easier to be Gilgamesh, they'll be adding another straw to these camels' backs.

I don't even really _know_ what your post means, man, so I'll just stick with re-iterating my position.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> NPCs as sort of mechanical "hybrids" between PCs and monsters? I'm not sure whether I'd want to go there -- it's already bad enough that NPCs exist in their own mechanical niche.




By "bad", you of course mean "good".



> What I mean by this is that some of the mechanics encurage purely tactical thinking and "optimal" choices over immersion and story (i.e. the combat system), while other "subsystems" (NPC/monster creation, skill challenges) function in a different way from the rest of the mechanics and also emphasize a very different abstraction .
> It may be difficult to switch between different styles -- first you're playing a chess-like boardgame against the DM, and then, suddenly, you're supposed to engage fully in the story via a skill challenge.




It is very easy. Just treat it like a video game.



> No doubt 4E brings the PCs into the spotlight as the most important beings in the setting (which, in my opinion, is not necessarily a good thing) but it also "demotes" NPCs into the sidelines in the story. "As they should be!", people say. Yep, but is it *really* more interesting to have the PCs start as established and competent heroes, instead of having them slowly *grow* into this role? Are people really interested in starting out as Conans and Elrics and Aragorns, instead of "weaklings" like Rand Al'Thor and Frodo? Is it really *that* bad if there are local high-level NPCs who act as mentors for the PCs? I wonder, do they *really* steal their thunder?




Is it _really_ possible that Conan, Elric and Aragorn are very, very not 1st level characters in any D&D ruleset ever created, even this one? Is it similarly possible that extending the sweet spot down to 1st level, and thus making it slightly tougher, is not the same as removing power progression and differing levels of competence from the game? Can we one day aspire to an edition war thread where bizarre leaps of fantasy will no longer pop up as regular occurrences? And why are we suddenly ending all our sentences in rising inflections?


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In other words, obviously true. PC's can't be both turd farmers and Gilgamesh at level 1. A game has to make a choice. D&D has, ostensibly, chosen "Gilgamesh," but people who prefer turd farmers have still made it work. If 4e makes it harder to be 1st level turd farmers, and easier to be Gilgamesh, they'll be adding another straw to these camels' backs.




Intentional suck is easily achieved by the strategem of not rolling the dice.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Actually, it's nothing like saying any of that gobbledegook.
> 
> It's exactly like saying that in further reinforcing the idea that every 1st level PC is unique in actual capability, they're diminishing the ability for DMs to make PC's not unique in actual capability, which is going to annoy some players who like PC's who aren't obviously superhuman.
> 
> ...




Fundamentally, whether or not you're a "turd-farmer" in the sense that people are talking about here is relative to the world around you. If you start with exactly the same stats as a 4th-level NPC, but damage is boosted such that you're now somewhat likely to be dropped or killed in one hit, you're back to being a "turd-farmer" in at least some sense of the word (and, in fact, due to the scaling of 4E hp, you'll stay a turd-farmer for much longer).

You're right that it becomes a bit more difficult to do so, in the sense that you can't just roll up a first-level character, fight some first level monsters, and watch characters get killed in one hit, but nonzero work isn't the same as making it all that hard.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Apr 9, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> No offense, but then you should probably writing novels, not running an RPG. I'm trying not to invoke wrongbadfun in saying this, but this seems contrary to the whole point of RPGs, which are designed for playing, and not as a worldbuilding exercise.




The general idea is that the world is not made specifically for the players, while the game is.

There's a distinction there, and I think it's an important one. The world isn't made specifically for them, and it's not their playground. The game is a window into the setting, and arguably should focus almost solely on the players, but that doesn't mean that the world is static around them, nor does it mean that everything that happens revolves around the players.

The world isn't the game, and the game isn't the world. The game is meant to be an entertaining abstraction of the world's physics, and is meant to be a vehicle for immersion in the setting.

Take SWSE as an example. That is an adequate mechanical representation of the setting in which it is being played - the game adequately abstracts and represents the physics of the setting. The setting is a cinematic one, and the cinematic nature of the game captures that feeling.

My argument is that 4e is made for a similarly cinematic-style setting. My setting is not such a setting, therefore 4e makes for a poor tool for immersion in my setting. It doesn't make 4e a bad game, but it does mean that I'm not interested in using the system.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Actually, it's nothing like saying any of that gobbledegook.




"They're being told they're not SUPPOSED to play the game like that."

So, you're saying that 4e's choice of beginning play (hero) is telling you that you're doing it wrong because you have a different desire for beginning play (non-hero). Then, you're turning around and saying that 3e's choice of beginning play (non-hero) isn't telling me that I'm doing it wrong because I have a different desire for beginning play (hero).

Sounds like another "3e is the holy grail" argument, since the exact same thing applies (one version supports one play style far better than the other).



> It's exactly like saying that in further reinforcing the idea that every 1st level PC is unique in actual capability, they're diminishing the ability for DMs to make PC's not unique in actual capability, which is going to annoy some players who like PC's who aren't obviously superhuman.




Nothing's stopping you from making a crappy character. You can ignore your per-day and per-encounters. You can lower your hit point total. Reduce your attack roll. Hell, not even roll an attack roll.



> PC's can't be both turd farmers and Gilgamesh at level 1.




Sure they can. I make Gilgamesh, and you make the kid that fell of the turnip truck. I'll get all my class powers, and you'll ignore them. Problem solved. You've got your doorstop character and I've got my hero, and everyone should be happy.

Just don't complain that I can do more with Gilgamesh, since you intentionally decided to play a substandard character.



> A game has to make a choice. D&D has, ostensibly, chosen "Gilgamesh," but people who prefer turd farmers have still made it work. If 4e makes it harder to be 1st level turd farmers, and easier to be Gilgamesh, they'll be adding another straw to these camels' backs.




D&D has chosen Gilgamesh after like 30 years of favoring the turd farmer, because playing a turd farmer isn't exactly a match for a "heroic fantasy" game.

And nothing makes it harder to play 1st-level turd farmers. It's simple: *intentionally shaft your character*.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 9, 2008)

I'm thinking we're talking about something different here.

Yes, the 1st level pre-gen fighter has more options (making her more versatile = more power) but she isn't dropping even a guard with her daily on average. Hell, she most likely won't even kill a kobold skirmisher with her daily.

1st level heroes in 4E ARE better than the non-PC classed opponents, but this has been true since forever.

What has changed is that at 1st level, a 1st level monster can't drop a PC in one hit (which I think people are focusing on) but also, a 1st level PC can't kill a monster in one hit either (which I think people are ignoring).

So wouldn't this be seen as a power-down of the PCs when compared to the previous situation where a 1st level PC could kill a kobold with one swing of his sword?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> "
> D&D has chosen Gilgamesh after like 30 years of favoring the turd farmer, because playing a turd farmer isn't exactly a match for a "heroic fantasy" game.




Then how has the game survived 30 years, since the paradigm it has always used evidently has always sucked, and we just didn't know it until now?


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then how has the game survived 30 years, since the paradigm it has always used evidently has always sucked, and we just didn't know it until now?




We used scrolls and clay tablets for quite a while, too. They served their purpose. Bound codices just serve it better. I'm sure a lot of people dealt with dirt farmer PCs, though anecdotal evidence shows a lot of campaigns starting at 3rd level. It's just that starting at effectively 3rd level is a more fun option for more players- hence, serving the game's market in a better way.

Yes, it's going to come out of the fun for those who like playing dirt farmers, or who feel that dirt farmer PCs are vital to their game world. I can't say I've got a lot of sympathy for those people. I suspect that almost all of them are experienced enough to house-rule their own limits in, whereas some new player picking up the game for the first time is much less likely to take up the hobby if his first combat round results in a greataxe death.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then how has the game survived 30 years, since the paradigm it has always used evidently has always sucked, and we just didn't know it until now?




I'm pro 4E and I disagree with those that think 1st level PCs are gilgamesh. I'm not sure how a PC can be classified as uber when their best shot probably won't take down even a 1st level guard/skirmisher in one shot.

How's that uber in any way? I repeat again, it doesn't look like the relative difference of power between a PC and a NPC is any greater than previous editions. The only difference is that neither PC or NPC has any chance of one shotting the opponent whereas before this was possible 

It seems like people are focusing on what a PC can do at 1st level and compare it to a 1st level 3E PC but forget to look at the actualy opponents.  For example, suppose I place a 4E human guard/kobold skirmisher in a 3E game. Does this mean that kobolds/guards have become Gilgamesh since barring criticals, a single 4E kobold/guard looks like it has the "oomph" to decimate an entire 1st level 3E party


----------



## Henry (Apr 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Then, you're turning around and saying that 3e's choice of beginning play (non-hero) isn't telling me that I'm doing it wrong because I have a different desire for beginning play (hero).




I really don't consider 1st level 3E characters as "non-heroes", because they've always been head and shoulders above the average joes. Even as far as 1st edition AD&D, they have been better than commoners.

OD&D -- common NPCs have 1 hit dice, and no more. on par with PCs at first level, PCs quickly leave them behind.

AD&D1 -- 0-level commoners, at most 5 to 7 hit points, usually 1 hit point, and no special powers. 1st levels have the power, but not the hit points, but again quickly changes after level 2.

AD&D2 -- same thing.

D&D 3 -- the NPC classes are still head and shoulders worse off than any equivalent level PC, even at first level, where PCs have max hit points.

But the main difference is that 4E PCs seem to be immediately more proficient than the common man, or at least we're told so in the previews. However, even though PCs are heroic, they aren't ridiculously so, since they can still die in one level 1 monster's sword stroke. In 4E, they're not outclassed, admittedly, but the fight is guaranteed to go on for multiple rounds, unless you're using minions. Therefore, where people used to gloss over the "heroic traits" of 1st level if not wanted, just like people used to gloss over the 1st level's non-heroic traits by auto-starting at 3rd level or so, now the tables are turned. Just like you might have glossed over it by being forced to start at higher level, now the game forces someone else to willingly ignore or handicap their characters to make the "zero to hero" they want to make.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 9, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> whereas some new player picking up the game for the first time is much less likely to take up the hobby if his first combat round results in a greataxe death.



"We played Dungeons and Dragons for three hours.  Then I was slain by an elf."


----------



## Vempyre (Apr 9, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> How's that uber in any way? I repeat again, it doesn't look like the relative difference of power between a PC and a NPC is any greater than previous editions. The only difference is that neither PC or NPC has any chance of one shotting the opponent whereas before this was possible




The problem is that ppl thinking the Gilgamesh rote unconsciously stage fights in their mind where there is a 1st lvl 3e wizard vs a 1st lvl 4e wizard and it colors their thinking process.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 9, 2008)

Vempyre said:
			
		

> The problem is that ppl thinking the Gilgamesh rote unconsciously stage fights in their mind where there is a 1st lvl 3e wizard vs a 1st lvl 4e wizard and it colors their thinking process.




How come nobody stages in their mind, "Oh, what would happen if I put a 1st level 4E monster in a 3E game" to see how it goes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 9, 2008)

> So, you're saying that 4e's choice of beginning play (hero) is telling you that you're doing it wrong because you have a different desire for beginning play (non-hero). Then, you're turning around and saying that 3e's choice of beginning play (non-hero) isn't telling me that I'm doing it wrong because I have a different desire for beginning play (hero).




Actually, I've said, over and over and over again, that all editions of D&D have preferred the uber-heroic character over the "mundane heroic" character.

Over. And over. And Over again.

If you can't be bothered to read my posts, I really don't need to bother with this convo, cap'n.


----------



## KidSnide (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That argument carries little weight when the evidence we have so far (published NPC stats) show that they are indeed weaker than the PCs and that it is the openly stated design goal of 4E to make PCs special and heroic from level 1 on.




Of course a PC of level X is stronger than a standard monster/NPC of level X.  The PCs are supposed to win that fight most of the time.  PCs are like *elite* monsters and I strongly suspect that an elite monster of level X is comperable in power to a PC of the same level.


----------



## Immolate (Apr 9, 2008)

What makes Player characters special in a way that is unmatched by any but classed NPCs? That's really the sell they're trying to make, isn't it? Why is a level 1 PC more capable than a level 1 guard or a level 1 bandit? Mechanically, it is obvious. If the characters aren't a bit more powerful than their opponents, they will die 50% of the time. That isn't a playable system in D&D. But what if there were a logical reason for these people to be special?

I think there is. Let's set aside level one for the moment and consider levels two through thirty. What do PCs do that no other profession does? They kill for a living. I'm not talking about Sam and Merry and Pippin. I'm talking about the characters we play in D&D. We kill things and take their valuables. We do it over and over again, in circumstances where the stakes are kill or die for both sides. Who else does that?

Guards don't kill for a living. They guard for a living. Soldiers? They train and march for a living. Assassins don't even kill for a living. They stalk and stalk and stalk, and then kill their target in a purposefully staged setting that gives them every advantage and eliminates every possible opportunity for their victim to survive. Gladiators may fight to live, but they're arguably closer to soldiers in their day-to-day lives than PCs, and have a short life expectancy. 

Nobody else gets up in the morning and thinks "what should we go kill and loot today". They are special because they live the most voluntarily brutal lives possible. Samwise wouldn't last a month tagging along with a party of D&D PCs, unless he started to level. 

That doesn't make hobbits from LotR invalid or stupid or uninteresting. They are none of those things because they are small and weak and relatively defenseless except in their spirit and character. But in spite of its origins, D&D has never been a game envisioned to get a couple of 0-level hobbits to Mordor alive and intact. Our mechanics have never been particularly good at safeguarding perpetually low-level companions over time. Put them on their own and they die every time. That isn't the model this game is supposed to follow.

I also understand that 4E is a change from 3.5, and that it favors gamism more than its predecessor did. I appreciate that this displeases some, and also appreciate that it pleases others. WotC did it intentionally because they think a simpler, less-wonky, more playable game will have greater appeal. They are in a fight for viability in a changing world, and they have to find a way to reverse the trends of recent years and start growing the game again. I don't blame them. 

I started playing at the start and have lived through every change. We'll survive this one too, and if we're lucky, there'll be a lot more of us a few years from now.


----------



## Immolate (Apr 9, 2008)

Almost forgot. What makes a level 1 PC somewhat better than a level one anything else? Because they are the type of person who has the unmitigated gall to set off on a live of violence and mayhem. It is who they are that makes them special, and makes it possible for them to be PCs in the first place.


----------



## KingCrab (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats because NPCs do not have Healing Surges and the clerics Healing Word uses the targets surges. That means the only thing the cleric can do is to temporary heal a NPC by smiting someone with holy fire




Cleric blasts party member with holy fire to heal NPC then uses healing word on party member?

Just a thought.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> We used scrolls and clay tablets for quite a while, too. They served their purpose. Bound codices just serve it better. I'm sure a lot of people dealt with dirt farmer PCs, though anecdotal evidence shows a lot of campaigns starting at 3rd level. It's just that starting at effectively 3rd level is a more fun option for more players- hence, serving the game's market in a better way.




This argument would make sense if there were no games but D&D. However, there are LOTS of game, many of which follow the 'PCs are t3h 133t' paradigm, many of which disdain the 'peasant to lord' model of D&D. None of them -- with the exception of Vampire, for one month -- outsold D&D.

This tells me that the D&D paradigm is popular. People like to grow and magnify in power. 4e starts you tougher...but you increase in power at a slower, more steady, rate, and from what I've seen, the high end game looks an awful lot like the low end game. You have bigger numbers but the general probabilities seem to remain at the same point. It doesn't look like it will *feel* different, especially since class differences, overall, have been flattened. The fighter will still be a bit better in melee than the wizard, but not overwhelmingly so. They'll both have the same number of powers, more or less. WOTC, and many posters, seem to feel this is a feature...I have a feeling that, for many D&D players, it's a bug. It changes the nature of the game more than any mechanical changes do, because it changes the core model of play. And if it's not the model of play which draws people to D&D, what is it? Is it just the brand name?

(Artificial distinctions between tiers like 'at 11th level you get to wear rings!' make it seem even more likely that actual play doesn't feel any different at level 30 than at level 1.)


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> This argument would make sense if there were no games but D&D. However, there are LOTS of game, many of which follow the 'PCs are t3h 133t' paradigm, many of which disdain the 'peasant to lord' model of D&D. None of them -- with the exception of Vampire, for one month -- outsold D&D.
> 
> This tells me that the D&D paradigm is popular. People like to grow and magnify in power. 4e starts you tougher...but you increase in power at a slower, more steady, rate, and from what I've seen, the high end game looks an awful lot like the low end game. You have bigger numbers but the general probabilities seem to remain at the same point. It doesn't look like it will *feel* different, especially since class differences, overall, have been flattened. The fighter will still be a bit better in melee than the wizard, but not overwhelmingly so. They'll both have the same number of powers, more or less. WOTC, and many posters, seem to feel this is a feature...I have a feeling that, for many D&D players, it's a bug. It changes the nature of the game more than any mechanical changes do, because it changes the core model of play. And if it's not the model of play which draws people to D&D, what is it? Is it just the brand name?
> 
> (Artificial distinctions between tiers like 'at 11th level you get to wear rings!' make it seem even more likely that actual play doesn't feel any different at level 30 than at level 1.)



QFT 

I like D&D for the model of play it uses, the changes in model of play are what has driven me away from 4e.  If I wanted to play a game with that sort of play model I would have gone to another system by now.  Instead the new edition is bringing an unwanted play model that could be had in any number of systems and removing my preferred play model and unique quirks from the game to make it feel more like other systems I don't like.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 9, 2008)

*KamikazeMidget -*

First, I wanted to let you know that I, for one, appreciate your participation in this thread.  Your posts and arguments are well-constructed, and I thank you for persevering despite your frustration.

Just in case you missed my last post -

I completely agree with your issue regarding the power level of even 1st-level characters.  Not only are they above-and-beyond average, but they seem to be even more so than previous additions.  As you say, 4E does not seem to encourage the "average joe" type of character.

_However,_

I don't see an issue with having a character and selecting to not use your abilities.  Yes, the system won't cater to the "average joe" style of play, but it can be done.
Customizability seems to be built into 4E.  I can easily see guidelines in the PHB for creating classes and races, as well as guidelines in the DMG to build your own setting, that will fit your style.  Speculation, of course, but at first blush it should be _easier_ to pull off than previous editions.
Finally, most of us don't know how the characters will be _in actual play._  I've played one quick demo, and that's it.  None of us have touched anything above that, let alone the final ruleset.  _In play_ you might be able to pull off the "average joe" character via roleplaying while still leeping your suite of abilities.  Not only that, but the cinematic feel and ease of play just might _trump_ your wish to play an "average joe."

I will say, with my extremely limited experience, that *1)* 4E is more fun to play, more cinematic, and far more smooth.

And *2)* despite the seemingly high power level, _I didn't notice it_.  Yes, we had more powers, and more choices, as well as the monsters we fought, but it did not feel epic or overly heroic.  I did not feel like Gilgamesh or Beowulf: I felt like a lowly 1st-level adventurer fighting for my life.


----------



## Fiendish Dire Weasel (Apr 9, 2008)

I'm looking forward to 4E being "heroic" focused. Because D&D always has been that way to once you made it past the first few levels, starting at level 1 just makes it less of a wierd transition. I find GURPS to be superior to all D&D for "low fantasy" more "realistic" games, and wouldn't bother with D&D if thats what I was shooting for. D&D just fails in this area once you pass level 3 or so anyways.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 9, 2008)

KidSnide said:
			
		

> Of course a PC of level X is stronger than a standard monster/NPC of level X.  The PCs are supposed to win that fight most of the time.  PCs are like *elite* monsters and I strongly suspect that an elite monster of level X is comperable in power to a PC of the same level.



 [totally off topic] Hey, hi! Didn't know you were back on the site. It's good to see you. [/totally off topic]


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> This argument would make sense if there were no games but D&D. However, there are LOTS of game, many of which follow the 'PCs are t3h 133t' paradigm, many of which disdain the 'peasant to lord' model of D&D. None of them -- with the exception of Vampire, for one month -- outsold D&D.




None of the games that follow the "PCs are nothing more than faces in the crowd" paradigm outsell D&D either. Isn't this fun?



> This tells me that the D&D paradigm is popular. People like to grow and magnify in power.




Grind is still and will always be a part of the D&D paradigm. Your point is...?



> 4e starts you tougher...but you increase in power at a slower, more steady, rate, and from what I've seen, the high end game looks an awful lot like the low end game.




As long as raise dead, fly and teleport are still around, the high-end game will be nothing like the low-end game.



> You have bigger numbers but the general probabilities seem to remain at the same point.




The general probabilities will be about the same for the same class of opposition. The higher levels open up more possibilities for facing different classes of opposition.



> It doesn't look like it will *feel* different, especially since class differences, overall, have been flattened. The fighter will still be a bit better in melee than the wizard, but not overwhelmingly so. They'll both have the same number of powers, more or less. WOTC, and many posters, seem to feel this is a feature...I have a feeling that, for many D&D players, it's a bug.




... says the guy who didn't play D&D for 20 years and never uses half the D&D stuff he buys.



> (Artificial distinctions between tiers like 'at 11th level you get to wear rings!' make it seem even more likely that actual play doesn't feel any different at level 30 than at level 1.)




So... it's going to be exactly the same, except where it's different?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> As long as raise dead, fly and teleport are still around, the high-end game will be nothing like the low-end game.




Teleport is now a first level power.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Teleport is now a first level power.



 No, it's not.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, it's not.




Then what do Eladrin do?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Teleport is now a first level power.




You're not _really_ equating a 25-ft. battlefield hop with world-spanning, game-changing teleportation, are you?

That sort of hyperbole is Hong's bailiwick.


----------



## xechnao (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> This tells me that the D&D paradigm is popular. People like to grow and magnify in power.




IMO you have jumped to the wrong conclusion. People do not grow and magnigy in power in gameplay. They simply can explore more areas and thus expand. It is about exploration. Video games levels may happen to be more explicit due to the graphical rapresentation but D&D levels are the same thing.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

xechnao said:
			
		

> IMO you have jumped to the wrong conclusion. People do not grow and magnigy in power in gameplay. They simply can explore more areas and thus expand. It is about exploration. Video games levels may happen to be more explicit due to the graphical rapresentation but D&D levels are the same thing.



 Grind is still and will always be a part of all the dominant RPGs in every medium. Along with bling.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> You're not _really_ equating a 25-ft. battlefield hop with world-spanning, game-changing teleportation, are you?
> 
> That sort of hyperbole is Hong's bailiwick.




And who am I debating with?

"To each according to their abilities..."

EDIT: Actually, Eladrin teleport bothers me a lot more than world-jumping, because there's a lot more 1st level (or no level) eladrin than world-hopping wizards. I'd think that any eladrin entering a human/dwarf/etc city would be blindfolded and required to be escorted everywhere, under pain of death, because otherwise, anything he can see, he can get to. It also makes you wonder how eladrin cities are built -- are there windows? 

But that's another thread.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Then what do Eladrin do?




Step into the feywild, walk 25 feet, then step back out.  They can only do this when they can see where they want to step out before they step in.  And they can only do it again if they've had 5 minutes of rest, so I suspect they feel a bit off after doing it.

Fitz


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And who am I debating with?
> 
> "To each according to their abilities..."



 You are debating with the hivemind, of course.

So. Tell me what you think eladrin do.


----------



## Khur (Apr 9, 2008)

Holy crap, this thread is big! I canno’ possibly keep up. Or can I? Here’s trying.

*Jeremy_dnd,* thank you for playing the game. In fact, thank all of you for that—no matter which edition you are playing.

*Lizard,* you make a lot of extrapolations and leaps from what I say. I can address them in brief. 

Nobody said PCs are so special that nobody else (NPC) compares. Nobody said the world has only one set of hero-caliber characters. Nobody even suggested that the world has PC-detectors. It’s a shame nobody did, because what you said about all that stuff is a hoot. Maybe someone said you want PCs to be wuss losers, but it weren’t me. (How can you lose a wuss, I’d like to know?)

A hobgoblin commander does know his 1st-level-like power. It’s a simple attack with the weapon. Just like the lich’s at-will ranged attack.

If you read the upcoming FRCG, these things will become obvious. Heck, once you digest the real 4e, it’ll all be obvious. A whole bunch of monsters and NPCs are superior to PCs, even of equal level.

Most NPCs aren’t. But can you get the 5% data you need when you need it, even on the fly? Yes. And your winging it is likely to be more accurate than it was in 3e. (No, that’s not a “3e bad” jab. I enjoyed 3e, and I think it’s a good game. I think 4e is better, but I digress.) You won’t have to resort to fiat unless you want to do so.

You can’t know if we disagree as to the nature of the real world, because I’ve never stated what I personally believe about the real world.

You’re not the only one who wants history and connection. You’re not the only one who wants events going on in the background while the PCs are bumbling about. The 4e DMG certainly supports that play style, and thank goodness. If it didn't, it wouldn’t be the game for me, even as fun as World Famous Game Designer James Wyatt’s GenCon Random Dungeon is. (Try it at 4 AM, Mearls optional.)

I don’t know how we got from what was said initially to the idea of a “quantum world.” I do know that nothing in 4e prevents a changing world. The guidelines in the DMG encourage it.

And a whole lot of PCs are going to die ignominious deaths at low level, without really touching the setting in any way. Any hero-potential they had will go with them. The things PCs do still matter most, despite mechanical differences. But once a PC is, say, 15th level, that PC is special compared to most people. He has risen to great heights, to sorta quote GnomeWorks.



			
				GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> The mechanics just need to be sensical. Sure, I don't need to know everything mechanical about every NPC ever, but I need to be able to generate that information, and it needs to make sense and produce results consistent with the world and its mechanics.



The mechanics are “sensical.” They’re sensical enough for any NPC or monster to be enough like the PCs for any deviation to be largely meaningless or easily extrapolated on the fly. I’ve done it more than a few times. How does what you said here fall in line with your philosophy that rules for NPCs and PCs need to be the same? The two don’t follow, since the rules don’t need to be the same to live up to what you say here. You don’t need the same building blocks, what you really need are compatible ones. Like, you can build with all different colors of Legos.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think that's where I share some sympathy with the "5th level heroes ain't that special" camp. They're definitely being told, not for the first time, but perhaps more loudly than before, that the way they've been playing isn't the way that D&D should be played in the new edition. No one's going to come to their house and make them change, but their style goes farther against the grain. I'm wondering, as I debate switching to 4e, if I'm in that same camp all of a sudden: do the experts think my game should be different, too? Do they think that taller halflings and exclusive PC-only content is going to improve my game?



 I would say I’m too dumb to keep up with a lot of what you said, but instead I’ll blame it on English—an imprecise language only made worse when we have to type it. And no, this isn’t some sort of insult aimed at you. Seriously, your post lost me somewhere along the way, and I can’t bring myself to believe it’s because you weren't clear. It's probably this splitting headache . . . . and my hatred for language.

That said,  you can play 4e any way you like. 

You won’t see a lot of wunderpriests in implied 4e story/world. You will see some. And you’ll see more in 4e campaign settings. It’s just that for every one wunderpriest, there are about 80 guys called “priests” that can’t cast divine prayer one. Those guys are great for marriages and funerals, and some of ‘em can even help you out with a few cool rituals, but they aren’t true spellcasters.

Your world can differ. I didn’t use the word “may,” because that would imply I’m giving you permission. You don’t need mine or anyone else’s to make your D&D, whatever the edition, any way you like it.

I hope you like it. If not, I hope you enjoy whatever else you choose to play.



			
				VannATLC said:
			
		

> (It beggar's my imagination to imagine somebody 3ft and 30lbs being able to lift 250lbs. over their head) -2 wasn't even close to a big enough penalty.



 I think halflings are like chimpanzees, and I'll keep saying so until Andy Collins goes mad. All seriousness aside, small creatures can be alarmingly strong.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Conan and Faramir are just more experienced and stronger than most others. But 4E PCs are mutants compared to NPCs with powers they can never achieve.
> 4E PCs = The XMen of D&D.



 Oops. Sorry again, Derren. 4e NPCs can have PC powers—without using the character creation rules in the PH. And 4e PCs are the New Mutants, thank you.

BTW, cool movie on your shameless self-promotion. Everyone should take a look at Derren’s sig. Fun!

Now I can’t blame your stance on lack of imagination. Damn!



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> To be fair, Chriss Sims does call the PCs "extraordinary heroes of great destiny" earlier in the thread, there may well be large differences between them, although all I've seen so far puts the PC class/NPC stats of 4e as merely an extention of 3.x PC class/NPC class.



 And I regret doing so. Blown out of proportion is putting it mildly. I hate you English (language). I hate you.



			
				med stud said:
			
		

> now you can create a NPC that is the same level as the PCs but still capable of taking them on five at a time.



This. Wait till you see Jarlaxle—or Szass Tam.




			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Seriously, I'm looking at the 1st level human guard (which I posted) and I'm kind of wondering where this "brazenly" more powerful schtick comes from (do people just generally ignore my points? Am I saying it wrong? Do I need to use more insults?)
> 
> The 1st level guard doesn't look like that much less powerful than a 1st level human PC. The main difference is that the PC gets an ace in the hole (the Daily) and he's got a slightly broader base of powers to draw on.
> 
> ...



 You’re right. And the 1st-level fighter would probably lose against a few of these guards.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Tell me what you think eladrin do.



 Whatever they do, they do it with style.

*Final Note:* I can show you how to make Jack.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> *Final Note:* I can show you how to make Jack.




But only I can show you how to do Jack!

No, wait, that didn't come out right.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, it boils down to this:
> If, when the rules come out, I don't see any situations where there's mechanical issues with PC/NPC interaction due to the differences in writeups, then I'll agree it doesn't matter. I just never want to be in a situation where a PC says "I do X!" and I say, "Well, you can't unless I make up a ruling about how X will affect an NPC."



I agree that this would be a problem. Though I can see there is one point where this can often lead to a problem - using Diplomacy on NPCs works, using Diplomacy on PCs... doesn't. 

Aside from this, the only point where this problem seemed to exist was in regards to lack of Healing Surges for NPCs - now that this is out of the way, I see no real problems. The fundamental interface between PCs and NPCs seems to be the same - you've got hit points*, ability scores, skills, defenses, attacks and saves. Nothing that directly has to interact seems to lack a counterpart on the other side.

*) including healing surges, according to Khur/Chris Simms, just in case someone forgot...


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 9, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> You’re right. And the 1st-level fighter would probably lose against a few of these guards.





THIS^^^...

I was sold on 4e, but I didn't appreciate this point until I ran the preview adventures with the pregens. Now it is so much easier to protect the king with a bunch of elite soldiers.  Groups and mobs are much more powerful in 4e and it was one of the things that really really bugged me in 3e.

OT: Give us info on leveling the pregens please and a few new monsters. In my 4e game the lads are getting close to levelling up and I cannot go back to 3e.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 9, 2008)

and in all this I cannot think they didn't put rules for

long term disease
long term poison
long term impairment
long term damage

probably more like an option for gritty campaign, but if the ritual to quickly heal a broken bone is X level highter than the ritual I can use maybe it could be also used in low level play

(btw if lava immersion -> death, maybe falling -> Fall distance/5 vs Reflex or long term damage and so on)

it's so easy to think of rules for long term conditions from what we know of the system
(e.g. make a saving throw each day/week/month untile you heal or untill you collect Y failure) 
that it would be really strange if there is no rule (optional or not) for it on the DMG


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Teleport is now a first level power.



...It's an ability available by level 1 if you take the right class levels in 3.5.  I dont see people posting about how game breaking the Totemist is, though.  AKA, I dont think it's a huge issue.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> The PC also gets Healing surges and a way to use them.



Considering we've already been told by one of the designers (You DO realise Chris Simms is one of the designers, right?) that all NPC's have healing surges, your continued insistence that only PC's have them is quite amazing, really.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> ...It's an ability available by level 1 if you take the right class levels in 3.5.  I dont see people posting about how game breaking the Totemist is, though.




The complaint about fey step is not generally that it's game breaking. It's one of those philosophical issues, akin to whether the angels dancing on the head of a pin rotate clockwise or counterclockwise, depending on the Coriolis effect.


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Considering we've already been told by one of the designers (You DO realise Chris Simms is one of the designers, right?) that all NPC's have healing surges, your continued insistence that only PC's have them is quite amazing, really.




Having Healing Surges doesn't automatically mean that NPCs have a Second Wind ability (=way to use them). Next time read the sentence before replying


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Having Healing Surges doesn't automatically mean that NPCs have a Second Wind ability (=way to use them). Next time read the sentence before replying



 I'm searching for "second wind" in the original post and coming up with nothing. Clerics... healing... NPCs... nope! No second wind!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> ...It's an ability available by level 1 if you take the right class levels in 3.5.  I dont see people posting about how game breaking the Totemist is, though.  AKA, I dont think it's a huge issue.
> 
> Considering we've already been told by one of the designers (You DO realise Chris Simms is one of the designers, right?) that all NPC's have healing surges, your continued insistence that only PC's have them is quite amazing, really.



I think he just doesn't want risk being fooled by Chris Simms into accidentally buying the 4E books and playing the game just because Chris claimed that there were Healing Surges for NPCs. Khur/Chris might be lying, after all. For all we know, the 4E rulebooks are just the OD&D rulebooks, minus every rule that at least barely seemed to make sense and with new art-work (predominantly dragonborn with boobs). The cool rules the designers constantly imply or have described on the DDXP are just made up on their spare time and will not actually be in the book. They don't want anyone else to have fun with them. Photocopying and printing rules is what photography is to humans - it steals your soul!

Or he just missed it.


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

Oh, sorry that I expected that you know that Healing Surges can only be used when they are triggered and that the only way to trigger them yourself without outside help is Second Wind which NPCs still might not have.

But now I know that you are unable to make the connection Second Wind = Way to use Healing Surges and will post accordingly.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry that I expected that you, when you argue about 4E rules, know that Healing Surges can only be used when they are triggered and that the only way to trigger them yourself without outside help is Second Wind which NPCs still might not have.




Bad Derren. The goalposts were <--- that way!



> But now I know that you are unable to make the connection Second Wind = Way to use Healing Surges and will post accordingly.




There are many ways to use healing surges, besides second wind. I expect that you will acknowledge this and post accordingly.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry that I expected that you,, when you argue about 4E rules, know that Healing Surges can only be used when they are triggered and that the only way to trigger them yourself without outside help is Second Wind which NPCs still might not have.
> 
> But now I know that you are unable to make the connection Second Wind = Way to use Healing Surges and will post accordingly.




Try reading yourself:



			
				Khur said:
			
		

> In my game, the 3rd-level PCs have an NPC elf archer (from the MM) with them as a guide. They've had little trouble healing him, since the party's warlord can trigger the archer's healing surges. The archer himself can use his own surges outside of combat.




The NPCs only need a Second Wind or other special ability if they're going to use healing surges in combat.


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> The NPCs only need a Second Wind or other special ability if they're going to use healing surges in combat.




Which is exactly the advantage PCs have over NPCs. Without a leader all the (two?) Healing Surges a NPC has in combat is useless. PCs on the other hand can use at least one of their Healing Surges in combat, two if they are dwarves.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 9, 2008)

> Having Healing Surges doesn't automatically mean that NPCs have a Second Wind ability (=way to use them).






> Bulette number one dives into the earth so rapidly that the heroes around it don’t get opportunity attacks. Safely in the ground, *it heals some damage*




You really think they're going to have Healing Surges, but not actually be able to use them?


----------



## D'karr (Apr 9, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> You really think they're going to have Healing Surges, but not actually be able to use them?




Why would they?  It would break the carefully crafted but nonsensical argument, which has already been disproven by one of the designers.  Tilting at windmills is fun...


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Which is exactly the advantage PCs have over NPCs. Without a leader all teh Healing Surges a NPC has in combat is useless.




It is still only an assumption on your part that NPCs don't get a Second Wind.

Even if it's true, it's just more hp that the PC has to spend a standard action to get instead of starting the fight with. PCs have had more hp than NPCs for a while now.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> PCs on the other hand can use at least one of their Healing Surges in combat, two if they are a dwarf.




I haven't seen anything which gives the dwarf an extra Second Wind in a single encounter. He gets to use it as a minor action instead of standard, though, which is a big deal.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Apr 9, 2008)

...Yeah.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry that I expected that you know that Healing Surges can only be used when they are triggered and *that the only way to trigger them yourself without outside help is Second Wind* which NPCs still might not have.






			
				Khur said:
			
		

> In my game, the 3rd-level PCs have an *NPC elf archer * (from the MM) with them as a guide. They've had little trouble healing him, since the party's warlord can trigger the archer's healing surges. *The archer himself can use his own surges outside of combat.*




Like I said...Amazing.


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> It is still only an assumption on your part that NPCs don't get a Second Wind.




Its also an assumption that NPCs do get a Second Wind ability. Considering that it is rather official that PCs and NPCs are build according to different rules it means that just because the PCs have it the NPCs don't necessarily have it too. And as it was pointed out, even without a Second Wind ability those surges can be used, just not in combat.

Have you heared of any instance from DDXP where a monster healed itself with a Second Wind? 



> I haven't seen anything which gives the dwarf an extra Second Wind in a single encounter. He gets to use it as a minor action instead of standard, though, which is a big deal.




My mistake, I somehow thought that Dwarfs could use a second 2nd Wind.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And as it was pointed out, even without a Second Wind ability those surges can be used, just not in combat.




Exactly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

IIRC, Derren is not a native English speaker/reader. Maybe that explains his confusion. 

Though he is (at least technically) correct so that there was no explicit mention of Second Winds available to NPCs. I am not sure if or how that's important, though. Fact still is - NPCs can be healed (even in combat) which means that their interaction with the PCs should pose no problems. The PC/NPC Interface works fine.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Its also an assumption that NPCs do get a Second Wind ability. Considering that it is rather official that PCs and NPCs are build according to different rules it means that just because the PCs have it the NPCs don't necessarily have it too. And as it was pointed out, even without a Second Wind ability those surges can be used, just not in combat.




Wrong. It's 100% official that NPCs use PC build rules any time the DM wants to put that much work into them. It's been stated over and over and over again from official sources. Which means at least some NPCs do get Second Wind.

If the "less work, not full-fledged hero" NPC rules don't give them Second Wind, or simplify it by just giving them some bonus hp instead, or whatever else, so be it.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Have you heared of any instance from DDXP where a monster healed itself with a Second Wind?




Nope. Then again, I _have_ heard of various monsters in playtest reports healing themselves.


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Though he is (at least technically) correct so that there was no explicit mention of Second Winds available to NPCs. I am not sure if or how that's important, though. Fact still is - NPCs can be healed (even in combat) which means that their interaction with the PCs should pose no problems. The PC/NPC Interface works fine.




I never disputed that after Chris clarified it. But then somehow the discussion drifted (without my doing) to how PCs are better than NPCs and here Second Wind is important.

What is strange is that, as far as I know, no monster at the DDXP used Second Wind, so either this ability was left out or they indeed don't have this ability.



			
				Lacyon said:
			
		

> Nope. Then again, I _have_ heard of various monsters in playtest reports healing themselves.




And was it through Second Wind or a racial ability? We don't know.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 9, 2008)

> Nope. Then again, I _have_ heard of various monsters in playtest reports healing themselves.




Just look at the Elite Bulette article which I linked to in my previous post. One of the Bulette's healed himself.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I never disputed that after Chris clarified it. But then somehow the discussion drifted (without my doing) to how PCs are better than NPCs and here Second Wind is important.
> 
> What is strange is that, as far as I know, no monster at the DDXP used Second Wind, so either this ability was left out or they indeed don't have this ability.




This is not at all strange. A Kobold Skirmisher gets back something like 7 HP from a healing surge. A PC is going to be doing more than that on average from a single hit. It's just not a great option for the kobold most of the time, compared to attacking and trying to bring down a PC (or make a PC spend his standard action healing instead of attacking).

(For that matter, Second Wind doesn't look to be that much of a boon to PCs either in a lot of cases - except for dwarves)

Elites and Solos are much more likely to find it useful, except that they're going to be facing the combined attacks of multiple PCs.

There are times when Second Wind matters. If simple NPCs and monsters don't get it, they'll be disadvantaged when there's a lull in the action or another character takes the heat off of them for a round, or they would otherwise be able to retreat for a round or two to lick their wounds. If NPC Dwarves don't get their racial ability, that'll be a big hit to their effectiveness.


----------



## eleran (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Having Healing Surges doesn't automatically mean that NPCs have a Second Wind ability (=way to use them). Next time read the sentence before replying





Nor does it automatically imply that they don't have a way to use them, which is the conclusion you have put forth for no other reason than it is the most negative way to view things.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And was it through Second Wind or a racial ability? We don't know.




From the DDM card, rpg side

Burrowed Refuge: Standard, only when bloodied (limited power, costs 1 action point): Brw 6, no opp atk, heal 47, no recharge.

Definitely a racial ability.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

> (For that matter, Second Wind doesn't look to be that much of a boon to PCs either in a lot of cases - except for dwarves)



It depends on how many "immediate" attacks or opportunity attacks you can count to make each round. The playtest Fighter in our group was a Dwarf, so the results are a bit skewed, but I definitely remember hertaking down a few Kobold with his immediate attack when shifting. The defense bonuses from Second Wind do help make this option a little more benecial, too.

Still, it's not the best option.


----------



## Khur (Apr 9, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think he just doesn't want risk being fooled by Chris Simms into accidentally buying the 4E books and playing the game just because Chris claimed that there were Healing Surges for NPCs. Khur/Chris might be lying, after all. For all we know, the 4E rulebooks are just the OD&D rulebooks, minus every rule that at least barely seemed to make sense and with new art-work (predominantly dragonborn with boobs). The cool rules the designers constantly imply or have described on the DDXP are just made up on their spare time and will not actually be in the book. They don't want anyone else to have fun with them. Photocopying and printing rules is what photography is to humans - it steals your soul!
> 
> Or he just missed it.



Mwuhahahahahahahahaha!

Seriously. Just so the discussion can get on yet another track, not all NPCs/monsters have second wind or any way to use healing surges in combat.

The game itself has tools for customizing this to taste, of course. As designers, and I count every DM in that camp, we all want to be able to tinker.

I have to agree with the sentiment that, a lot of times, a monster is actually harming its survivability by using a standard action to just heal a little. Sometimes that's true for PCs too—but desperation can lead to bad choices. That's probably okay, since you take the good with the bad.

Oh, and yeah, that dwarf ability is uber. Second wind as a minor action. Wheeee! Love it.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Mwuhahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> Seriously. Just so the discussion can get on yet another track, not all NPCs/monsters have second wind or any way to use healing surges in combat.
> 
> The game itself has tools for customizing this to taste, of course. As designers, and I count every DM in that camp, we all want to be able to tinker.




Amen.



			
				Khur said:
			
		

> I have to agree with the sentiment that, a lot of times, a monster is actually harming its survivability by using a standard action to just heal a little. Sometimes that's true for PCs too—but desperation can lead to bad choices. That's probably okay, since you take the good with the bad.




Absolutely. Even when it's a subpar action, it's not usually a really _crappy_ action, because you get a meaningful amount of hp and a defense bonus, and you can take advantage of the defense bonus to maybe avoid some OAs as you position yourself better. But having an extra option that's only a really good idea some of the time means that you're only really better off than someone who doesn't have it some of the time.



			
				Khur said:
			
		

> Oh, and yeah, that dwarf ability is uber. Second wind as a minor action. Wheeee! Love it.




After a serious look it definitely appears that all the racial powers are pretty potent.


----------



## Khur (Apr 9, 2008)

You realize, of course, that you started the 12th page? Now we can't stop until we get to 13.

*sigh*


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Elites and Solos are much more likely to find it useful, except that they're going to be facing the combined attacks of multiple PCs.




You know that there was a huge solo monster in the DDXP adventure? Do you really think the dragon can't benefit from regaining 25% of its HP?



> If NPC Dwarves don't get their racial ability, that'll be a big hit to their effectiveness.




The sample Dwarf NPC (Statcard) doesn't has this ability.....


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 9, 2008)

Hahaha, sorry I lost ya. 



			
				Khur said:
			
		

> You won’t see a lot of wunderpriests in implied 4e story/world. You will see some. And you’ll see more in 4e campaign settings. It’s just that for every one wunderpriest, there are about 80 guys called “priests” that can’t cast divine prayer one. Those guys are great for marriages and funerals, and some of ‘em can even help you out with a few cool rituals, but they aren’t true spellcasters.




Well, yeah, I'd hope so. 3e had this, too, though they had the "true spellcasting" of an adept, and I do look forward to 4e's more ritualized approach. 

What I'm wondering about is all the OTHER people in the world who go into dungeons and kill monsters for fame and fortune. 

The people who aren't the PC's, but who would keep power with them, because they're engaged in the same things.

The ones who maybe retired after finding the MacGuffin or slaying the Dragon. The ones who guard the Portals to the Abyss against further incursion. The heroes of the Olde Days, whom the bards will compare the current PC party to. 

Or the rival group from the Easterlands who are racing the PC's to the treasure. Or the last guys who went down into that dungeon and weren't quite at the PC's level. 

I guess it's totally possible that the implied setting ditches the idea of NPC "adventurers" entirely, but that'd be a little sad. I like a world where the PC's aren't the only movers, shakers, and temple-raiders, and portal-guarders, and evil-vizier-killers, where it's implied that this is a whole world of mythic adventure and at any moment, the PC party could be any of these adventures, that they're one group amongst many with legendary stories to tell.

I guess, to put it more plainly: if the PC's use special rules that are for the PC's only, what about the people who, in the world, are functionally equivalent to the PC's, but who just don't happen to be the party we're focusing on? Maybe that's totally not a problem, though? 



> Your world can differ. I didn’t use the word “may,” because that would imply I’m giving you permission. You don’t need mine or anyone else’s to make your D&D, whatever the edition, any way you like it.
> 
> I hope you like it. If not, I hope you enjoy whatever else you choose to play.




IMO, I think my reception of 4e is kind of hindered by 3e's success. 2e, for me, had become unplayable without heavy modification. 3e I can still enjoy from levels 1-15, and that's a LOT of gaming time (longer than most of my campaigns last!). 4e might be better, but it's a diminishing return. I think I'll go start a new thread about that.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What I'm wondering about is all the OTHER people in the world who go into dungeons and kill monsters for fame and fortune.
> 
> The people who aren't the PC's, but who would keep power with them, because they're engaged in the same things.




AAAAAAAARRRRGH! Why are people obsessed about this.  Of course there are "PC-Power Level" people elsewhere in the rules, there is just a streamlined way to make their bloody Statblock if you want it.  If you need to PC stat all PC-Power level humans you CAN!


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 9, 2008)

*"*



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> You know that there was a huge solo monster in the DDXP adventure? Do you really think the dragon can't benefit from regaining 25% of its HP?



Talking about monsters:
Do you really want monsters to have Second Wind, or some similar ability?
I'm sorry, but that would end up being bad game design IMO. Monsters are there to be killed, at least 99% of those who appear in the game. If monsters had Second Wind, one of the 2 situations would come up:
-Monster's second wind heals less than what a character can deal of damage in one round, so it's better for the monster to keep attacking. Second Wind is useless and will never be used anyway. No reason to be there.
-Monster's second wind heals good and it's very useful for the monsters, so monster's will always activate it in combat (since they are there to die remember?). But if every monster is always using second wind anyway, just make it into extra HPs. No reason to be there, again.

It's just better for the game that some monsters will have very specifically types of "second wind", like the Bullete's. Those customized "second winds" are better game design than copying "second wind" and pasting into all monsters stats.




> The sample Dwarf NPC (Statcard) doesn't has this ability.....



I'd like to hear a little more about NPCs not having their racial abilities, from designers or anyone else.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I guess, to put it more plainly: if the PC's use special rules that are for the PC's only, what about the people who, in the world, are functionally equivalent to the PC's, but who just don't happen to be the party we're focusing on? Maybe that's totally not a problem, though?



Well, as I understood it, you can choose to use PC rules for NPCs. If that's what you "need" for the story  - or your personal sense of versimilidingsbums  - then you can do it.

What I am wondering is: What XP values are assigned to PCs? Are they treated like "regular" monsters? Or are they treated more like Elites?


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> You know that there was a huge solo monster in the DDXP adventure? Do you really think the dragon can't benefit from regaining 25% of its HP?




Given that a big chunk of tables were TPKed (or otherwise lost that fight), no. In those cases, at least, it wouldn't have really benefitted from regaining 25% of its hp.

In the other cases, you have to guess or calculate if regaining 25% of your hp and boosting your defenses for a turn is better than dishing out a bunch of damage and potentially dropping a couple of opponents. Since the dragon is suffering every PC's attack each round, it could well be losing around 25% of its hp on average against at-level opponents, in which case spending a round to heal isn't usually a good idea. The playtest would have been an exception, because the first-level characters wouldn't have as much damage output.

Given that Chris has already confirmed that not all monsters and NPCs have healing surges, it's totally possible that the Dragon doesn't have it. Heck, maybe the designers decided to just give him a 25% boost to hp and say "He doesn't need an action to get it back, he just has it for free". Nobody would know the difference if they didn't peek behind the screen.


----------



## eleran (Apr 9, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Nobody would know the difference if they didn't peek behind the screen.





THIS.  I get the feeling from a lot of the posters here and in the WotC forum that there are far too many DMs out there who let their players in on every bit of minutiae about everything.  Maybe its just me, but what happens on my side of the screen stays on my side of the screen, and I expect that from my DMs as well.


----------



## Benimoto (Apr 9, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> It's just better for the game that some monsters will have very specifically types of "second wind", like the Bullete's. Those customized "second winds" are better game design than copying "second wind" and pasting into all monsters stats.



I agree with ainatan here.  Monsters should be able to use their healing surges in combat if a specific ability allows them to, but giving all monsters a "second wind" type ability doesn't really appeal to me.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 9, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> AAAAAAAARRRRGH! Why are people obsessed about this.  Of course there are "PC-Power Level" people elsewhere in the rules, there is just a streamlined way to make their bloody Statblock if you want it.  If you need to PC stat all PC-Power level humans you CAN!



I feel your pain, bro.  I feel your pain.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 9, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What I am wondering is: What XP values are assigned to PCs? Are they treated like "regular" monsters? Or are they treated more like Elites?




In-between. Monsters of X level are not designed to actually kill a PC of the same level but to provide a decent challenge.

An Elite is too strong for one PC, but just right for 2 PCs thus you split the difference.

Thus, for every 3 PCs in the party, you should use 2 opposing NPC (who use the class structure). Which if you think about it, makes sense given that 3 on 2 favours the more numerous side but it isn't a complete domination.


----------



## Moribund (Apr 9, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I'd like to hear a little more about NPCs not having their racial abilities, from designers or anyone else.




It's entirely possible that the NPCs of PC races won't have the same racial abilities as PCs.  For instance, if NPCs don't have Second Wind, I fail to see how Dwarven NPCs could have Dwarven Resilience.

It is true that the stats we have for NPCs of PC races don't list any racial abilities, but that could be for a number of reasons:

The miniature stat card may have abbreviated stats.

Those abilities weren't finalized at the time Dungeons of Dread was printed.  (The presence of cones in those stats is a testament to DuOD's time in the development schedule.)

Nor do all NPC races list iconic racial abilities like the Kobold's Shifty or the Gnoll's Pack Attack.  Drow don't have one, as an example.


----------



## Immolate (Apr 9, 2008)

I think we can all agree that self-healing as an ability of opponents in a game is a dish best served in moderation. If that ability is limited to those creatures who have it as a racial feature (because it makes sense or makes them more fun to fight) or to leveled opponents that use PC-style creation mechanics, I will be satisfied. Most of the time, I'd rather be fighting things that die in a reasonable number of rounds. That may not seem fair to everyone, but I'm in it for the fun - not to give the bad guys an even chance at winning.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 9, 2008)

> Well, as I understood it, you can choose to use PC rules for NPCs. If that's what you "need" for the story - or your personal sense of versimilidingsbums - then you can do it.




Then I, at least, won't have any new problems with 4e NPCing. And this might go a long way to rectifying the problems of the "1st level is nothing" folks, because they could populate their world with 20th level village healers, if they want the PC's to be like everyone else in capability.

Sounds good to me, a nice place where "NPCs and PCs are different!" is set aside in the interest of perhaps finding a middle ground.



> What I am wondering is: What XP values are assigned to PCs? Are they treated like "regular" monsters? Or are they treated more like Elites?




Good question. If I was to pit an equal-level party of "evil bizarro twins" against the PC's, would it be an equal-level challenge (like 3e kind of pretended it would be), or something tougher?


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 9, 2008)

IMO giving second wind to all NPCs would be a terrible idea. One of the best pieces of GMing advice I ever read was in the HERO game. I don't have the book with me, so I'll have to paraphrase.

_If you want to make sure that everyone has a terrible experience, please be sure to give every agent a RECOVERY on each of his phases._

The point is that NPCs should be down for the count once they've been dropped. The experience is more enjoyable for most players, and makes for a better story. If you're one of those players who don't find this more enjoyable, you can give all of your NPCs and monsters one second wind per encounter. You should always do what makes a better game for you and your fellows.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> IMO giving second wind to all NPCs would be a terrible idea. One of the best pieces of GMing advice I ever read was in the HERO game. I don't have the book with me, so I'll have to paraphrase.
> 
> _If you want to make sure that everyone has a terrible experience, please be sure to give every agent a RECOVERY on each of his phases._
> 
> The point is that NPCs should be down for the count once they've been dropped. The experience is more enjoyable for most players, and makes for a better story. If you're one of those players who don't find this more enjoyable, you can give all of your NPCs and monsters one second wind per encounter. You should always do what makes a better game for you and your fellows.




Well, this is a good point.

In Hero, agents/mooks/whatever *have* REC -- the GM is just (well) advised to ignore it, either completely, or after they drop to 0 STUN. They aren't weird non-healing mutants (well, unless they ARE, this being Hero and all...); for purely game-efficiency reasons, the DM is given the *option* of having them "forget" to recover.

This is different, very different, from "Low level minions don't have hit points" and "You know a dwarf is destined to grow up to be a great hero/villain if he has Second Wind".

How hard would it be to have, say, a note which said "If minion level<=party level, you should consider ignoring their hit points and just having them drop from anything the players do which damages them"?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> This is different, very different, from "Low level minions don't have hit points" and "You know a dwarf is destined to grow up to be a great hero/villain if he has Second Wind".



It's really not for most people.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How hard would it be to have, say, a note which said "If minion level<=party level, you should consider ignoring their hit points and just having them drop from anything the players do which damages them"?




As far as I know, that's exactly what's in there, with the exception of the Kobold minion (which looks to have something akin to 1 HP plus an 'Evasion'-like ability that prevents him from dying on a missed fireball.

Of course, they _also_ have really low hit points.

As I mentioned in the minion thread, it's not terribly hard to 'rationalize' this as PCs sensing that those kinds of creatures aren't good fighters and thus 'Power Attacking' them enough to kill them in one hit (except that in-game, we give them fewer hit points and higher defenses so that everything's precalculated and we don't have to do it on a round-to-round or attack-to-attack basis). Likewise, these weak creatures sense that they're far outclassed and constantly use 'Careful Attacks', sacrificing their damage potential for increased accuracy so that the group has a chance of taking down the target.

The main differences are that you don't have to spend character feats to get the ability to do this (like 3E's power attack), and you don't have to recalculate your attack and damage values every round. The math probably won't match up exactly with Power Attack either.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> In Hero, agents/mooks/whatever *have* REC -- the GM is just (well) advised to ignore it, either completely, or after they drop to 0 STUN. They aren't weird non-healing mutants (well, unless they ARE, this being Hero and all...); for purely game-efficiency reasons, the DM is given the *option* of having them "forget" to recover.



It seems the distinction between HERO and 4E is that the later has smarter game designers. Why waste space and effort and then say "see all these mechanics here, don't use them"?


----------



## Khur (Apr 9, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What I'm wondering about is all the OTHER people in the world who go into dungeons and kill monsters for fame and fortune.



 These people are there, especially in campaign settings. The old barkeep who used to take it to the goblins, the wicked and mercenary adventurers who are the Belloq to your Indiana Jones, and so on. But even these people are exceptional enough not to be commonplace. They don't fill towns wall to wall. 

When we do Eberron stuff, I expect to see rival adventurers as potential villains.

The way I see it, you'll have a lot of ways to make up these types of people, depending on how competent and detailed you want them to be.


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (Apr 10, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> It seems the distinction between HERO and 4E is that the later has smarter game designers. Why waste space and effort and then say "see all these mechanics here, don't use them"?




It's an optional rule, as Lizard mentioned in his post. If you want all the mooks to keep getting up every post phase-12 recovery, go ahead.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 10, 2008)

Dr. Confoundo said:
			
		

> It's an optional rule, as Lizard mentioned in his post. If you want all the mooks to keep getting up every post phase-12 recovery, go ahead.



I don't think it's an optional rule, it's an advice for the GM to not use the rules as presented, since the way the rules are presented, the game doesn't work well.

The advice tells you that using the rules makes the game worse than when you don't use them, can you believe it?

It's like WOTC assigning Second Wind to all Monsters in the MM, for the sakes of "Realism", so they don't become "non-healing mutants", and then saying the following, in the last chapter of the book: "It's better that monsters do not use their Second Winds, so you and your players will have a better D&D experience and much more fun while in combat." :\

Do we really need to put in the monsters stats the they have to sleep, eat and drink, that some of them have two legs and two arms, a head, that they bleed when wounded, etc etc etc? How far should we go? If some NPC stats are resumed to +8 bluff and + 9 diplomacy, is he a mutant flying mouth?


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (Apr 10, 2008)

I don't have my copy of the HERO rulebook here at work, so I can't verify whether or not it is described as an optional rule, or helpful advice to the GM... not sure there's much of a difference in any case.

HERO has a very specific way of building characters/monsters/NPCs/villians/etc, so that everything is balanced and paid for with points. If you prefer, when you build your mooks, you can buy down their REC, or put a limitation on it like 'Not usable after being reduced to 0 Stun'. Or you can handwave it, and not give them a post Phase 12 Recovery.

In HERO, all of those items ('sleep, eat and drink, that some of them have two legs and two arms, a head, that they bleed when wounded, etc') are assumed to be the baseline. You need to pay extra points to not have to do some of them (Sleep, Eat, Bleed) or to do/have others (Extra Limbs). 

So far, we don't know what the baseline assumptions for all monsters are in 4E. If one of them is 'Has Second Wind', and then later in the rules it says 'Don't use Second Wind to make your game go quicker', that *would* be odd. But for now, that's just a straw man.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 10, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> It seems the distinction between HERO and 4E is that the later has smarter game designers. Why waste space and effort and then say "see all these mechanics here, don't use them"?




It says "Here are all the mechanics you will ever need. Here's when you should use them, and when you shouldn't."

I'd rather have a kit of 100 tools than just a hammer, even if all I need *at the moment* is a hammer.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 10, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> It's like WOTC assigning Second Wind to all Monsters in the MM, for the sakes of "Realism", so they don't become "non-healing mutants", and then saying the following, in the last chapter of the book: "It's better that monsters do not use their Second Winds, so you and your players will have a better D&D experience and much more fun while in combat." :\




You mean, like when they said "NPCs and monsters die when they hit 0 hit points, unless the DM decides they don't"?


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It says "Here are all the mechanics you will ever need. Here's when you should use them, and when you shouldn't."
> 
> I'd rather have a kit of 100 tools than just a hammer, even if all I need *at the moment* is a hammer.



 Yes, this is another common collector's rationalisation.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, this is a good point.
> 
> In Hero, agents/mooks/whatever *have* REC -- the GM is just (well) advised to ignore it, either completely, or after they drop to 0 STUN. They aren't weird non-healing mutants (well, unless they ARE, this being Hero and all...); for purely game-efficiency reasons, the DM is given the *option* of having them "forget" to recover.
> 
> This is different, very different, from "Low level minions don't have hit points" and "You know a dwarf is destined to grow up to be a great hero/villain if he has Second Wind".




Different in the sense of angels dancing clockwise or counterclockwise on the head of a pin, yes.



> How hard would it be to have, say, a note which said "If minion level<=party level, you should consider ignoring their hit points and just having them drop from anything the players do which damages them"?




And you can see that you have already solved the problem.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 10, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a kit of 100 tools than just a hammer, even if all I need *at the moment* is a hammer.




Personally, I prefer a smaller toolkit with everything I will use, because I don't see the point in purchasing a set with a wet tile saw, since I don't do bathrooms.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 10, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Personally, I prefer a smaller toolkit with everything I will use, because I don't see the point in purchasing a set with a wet tile saw, since I don't do bathrooms.




You never know when you will be kidnapped by aliens and told that if you can't redo the bathroom on their spaceship, they will blow up the Earth.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 10, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You never know when you will be kidnapped by aliens and told that if you can't redo the bathroom on their spaceship, they will blow up the Earth.




Surely if they can kidnap him they could steal him some tools?


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 10, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> You mean, like when they said "NPCs and monsters die when they hit 0 hit points, unless the DM decides they don't"?



No. Monsters dying when they hit 0 is a pretty good rule, since that's what gonna happen anyway in 99% of the time a monster is dropped.
Assigning a specific stat to monsters and then saying that rule should not be used in 99% of the situtations is pretty lame.

About those games that claim they provide "everything the game is ever gonna need", man.. I just don't trust those.

I prefer a game (and I believe much more in a game) that gives me the tools I need and also tells me how to make my own tools, when I might need them, or provides me a very simple and customizable system.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 10, 2008)

What ainatan said.

The best tools are those that allow you to make your own tools to fit the needs you have.

4e has suggestively indicated the prescence of such tools.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 10, 2008)

IN theory, a game that had a list of "here are several ways you could handle combat/health/magic/monsters/npcs. . . " would be great.  The problem is that they then have to test and balance each and every possible permutation of those options.  Realistically, there is no way they could reasonably do so and there is no way they would all balance equally as well.


----------



## Crosswind (Apr 10, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It says "Here are all the mechanics you will ever need. Here's when you should use them, and when you shouldn't."
> 
> I'd rather have a kit of 100 tools than just a hammer, even if all I need *at the moment* is a hammer.




...what if you had to take them on a backpacking trip?  Still going to take 99 heavy things that you don't need?

(The more options you provide, the more cumbersome the rules set.  At some point, the marginal utility isn't worth the marginal pain.)

-Cross


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 10, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> These people are there, especially in campaign settings. The old barkeep who used to take it to the goblins, the wicked and mercenary adventurers who are the Belloq to your Indiana Jones, and so on. But even these people are exceptional enough not to be commonplace. They don't fill towns wall to wall.
> 
> When we do Eberron stuff, I expect to see rival adventurers as potential villains.
> 
> The way I see it, you'll have a lot of ways to make up these types of people, depending on how competent and detailed you want them to be.




Great! I'm very happy with that. 

Though it could just be the rediculously pleasant spring weather here in NYC at the moment, I'm gonna run with being very happy with that for a while.


----------



## Khur (Apr 10, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> It says "Here are all the mechanics you will ever need. Here's when you should use them, and when you shouldn't."
> 
> I'd rather have a kit of 100 tools than just a hammer, even if all I need *at the moment* is a hammer.



Hey, I don't know about 100 tools for NPCs and monsters. I can safely say that you actually have more tools in 4e than you did in 3e, and 3e had more than hammer. But I realize, at this point, you'd just have to take my word for it.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 10, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Hey, I don't know about 100 tools for NPCs and monsters. I can safely say that you actually have more tools in 4e than you did in 3e, and 3e had more than hammer. But I realize, at this point, you'd just have to take my word for it.




Well, that's impressive, if true -- and while I can take your word on it, I'll need to see the rules. (Like you said) The impression I've got from marketing -- which isn't necessarily accurate, due to either my fault or theirs -- is "3e gave you too many options and possibilities. You don't need all those options and possibilities. (Jedi handwave) We know what's fun, we know what you need, and we're removed all those 'decisions' from you. Making decisions isn't fun."

When marketing says "Easier!", I hear "Dumbed down". When marketing says "Simpler!", I hear "Fewer options". But, hey, you've seen (and written) the rules, and I haven't. If it actually provides more tools than 3x, then, it might be worth it.


----------



## Khur (Apr 10, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Well, that's impressive, if true -- and while I can take your word on it, I'll need to see the rules. (Like you said) The impression I've got from marketing -- which isn't necessarily accurate, due to either my fault or theirs -- is "3e gave you too many options and possibilities. You don't need all those options and possibilities. (Jedi handwave) We know what's fun, we know what you need, and we're removed all those 'decisions' from you. Making decisions isn't fun."
> 
> When marketing says "Easier!", I hear "Dumbed down". When marketing says "Simpler!", I hear "Fewer options". But, hey, you've seen (and written) the rules, and I haven't. If it actually provides more tools than 3x, then, it might be worth it.



And the truth is, you might disagree with my assessment once you've seen the rules. That's fine, and I'd like to know that and why you feel that way if that ends up being the case. I can say I'm speaking as a DM who sees 4e's tools as providing enough options along with "Easier!", but I know my opinion isn't fact. Also, someone who doesn't know me really can't just take my opinion without considering I'm a Wizards employee.

I just hope that those who still disagree with me when the rules are out, and I'm sure some will, don't color me as disingenuous because of the disagreement. I don't have to be here  or say anything at all. And I might be goofy, but even I'm not dumb enough to put something I believe to be false (or even half true) in writing  . . . on the interweb . . . in front of fellow gamers.


----------

