D&D 4E 4e and PC/NPC balance

[Mercule]

I'm going to hold off on my own opinion, mainly because I'm pretty torn, but also because I really want input on the issue.

Last session, I threw an Aurum Concordant (among other things) at the PCs. It was a tough fight, with PCs going up and down, but the PCs won without anyone buying the farm.

For those who haven't seen one in play, the Aurum Concordant (from Eberron) has a minor, at-will power that attacks Will and dominates the target for a round. It can only be used once every round but, as a minor action, is pretty much a no-brainer. The net result is that the fighter was pretty much a puppet for either the Concordant or the PC warlord the whole fight. I hadn't reviewed the Concordant's powers in-depth, prior to the combat, so I hadn't even had time to consider what I thought of the power before it became painfully obvious that it was a doozy.

Predictably, this didn't really thrill the group. One player, in particular, was pretty upset by both the dominate ability and the at-will/minor bit. His question was "How does a PC get that?" The answer, of course, is that a PC will never get it that good and there are only a half-dozen PC powers, all paragon or epic, that even allow PCs to dominate NPCs.

So, the big question is: Is this fair? Stuff like that happened all the time in 1e, but that doesn't make it right. Should NPCs of PC races be permitted to have powers the PCs can't even come close to matching?

Question #2 is: With the big deal that was made about the "economy of actions" in 4e, is dominate -- especially as an at-will -- appropriate to the game? One player was all but sidelined for the encounter because of a single power.

Question #3 is: Is it reasonable for the NPC to know what at-wills the PC has available, just because of the domination? Since the NPC can make the PC use at-wills, it stands to reason the NPC should be able to see the menu. The inverse is also true: should the rare PC with domination be able to learn the monsters' at-wills that way?

 

[MerricB]

So, the big question is: Is this fair? Stuff like that happened all the time in 1e, but that doesn't make it right. Should NPCs of PC races be permitted to have powers the PCs can't even come close to matching?

Yes. The NPC will be alive for about four or five rounds. The PCs will be (hopefully) around for a lot longer than that. Having an ability that works for only four rounds in the entire campaign is a lot different than otherwise!

Question #2 is: With the big deal that was made about the "economy of actions" in 4e, is dominate -- especially as an at-will -- appropriate to the game? One player was all but sidelined for the encounter because of a single power.

It shouldn't be a common ability. However, you have other dominate powers that are save ends or whatever being encounter; they are effectively the same. An at-will save ends power would be too powerful.

Question #3 is: Is it reasonable for the NPC to know what at-wills the PC has available, just because of the domination? Since the NPC can make the PC use at-wills, it stands to reason the NPC should be able to see the menu. The inverse is also true: should the rare PC with domination be able to learn the monsters' at-wills that way?

The reason the monster "knows" the at-wills is either (a) it magically learns them and then chooses itself what the character does or (b) the character itself chooses the best one to use. I favour (b): the character is actually choosing itself the best one, as its loyalties have changed.

Cheers!

 

[Nifft]

Heh. In 3.x there's a monster called the "vampire" which has an at-will gaze attack that Dominates you for twelve days.

Your players should feel lucky they were playing 4e, with its nerfed Dominate mechanics.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Zaukrie]

Why should PCs and NPCs or monsters have the same abilities at all? I've never understood that stance. Some creatures have some powers, others have others. Why can't each individual be different? I can't see any logical reason why players and non-player things are required to have access to the same powers/abilities/whatever.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Why should PCs and NPCs or monsters have the same abilities at all? I've never understood that stance. Some creatures have some powers, others have others. Why can't each individual be different? I can't see any logical reason why players and non-player things are required to have access to the same powers/abilities/whatever.

This.

I find it very turue that seperating PCs and NPCs has been one of 4E's best decisions, design-wise. Trying to make cool monstersin 3.5 that did not take hours to stat up was a real pain.

Also, the 4-5 rounds of existence ins a good point. PCs with NPC abilities (especially when they look at themost over-the-top, abuseable ones, would break the game.

Like in 3.x, with a druid able to wildshape to outsiders via a feat (I am not even touching war trolls) they would go for that one celestial who could cast CLW at will, all day long. Making a single wildshape use into unlimited healing was pretty powerful, and could break the adventure down.

I like how 4E has done it.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't like it when they make "monsters" - normal PC races - who have strange powers that would break balance if a PC had them.

In this case, since it's already been established that dwarves can do this, I would let the PCs gain access to the ability if they find a Concordian willing to train them and then spend the time and effort to learn the spell (I assume it's a spell). I'd have it take a long time of constant study (no adventuring) and after that period it would require a roll. They'd get the chance to learn the spell once per level.

There might be other limitations, too - I don't know anything about Aurum Concordians except what's in the DDI.

This power won't be balanced - it'll be used every single round - but I'd rather that than damaging the consistency of the game world.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why should PCs and NPCs or monsters have the same abilities at all? I've never understood that stance. Some creatures have some powers, others have others. Why can't each individual be different? I can't see any logical reason why players and non-player things are required to have access to the same powers/abilities/whatever.

I don't like it when they make "monsters" - normal PC races - who have strange powers that would break balance if a PC had them.

In this case, since it's already been established that dwarves can do this, I would let the PCs gain access to the ability if they find a Concordian willing to train them and then spend the time and effort to learn the spell (I assume it's a spell). I'd have it take a long time of constant study (no adventuring) and after that period it would require a roll. They'd get the chance to learn the spell once per level.

There might be other limitations, too - I don't know anything about Aurum Concordians except what's in the DDI.

This power won't be balanced - it'll be used every single round - but I'd rather that than damaging the consistency of the game world.

Unless a particular ability is a spell that can be learned by anyone who has the skills/ desire to research it I don't see any reason why there cannot be things with abilities that the players cannot learn.

Race has little to do with it. What about human cultists that have powers granted to them by the elder evil deity which they serve. Just because they are human does not mean that a human PC can access powers bestowed through years of service, rituals, and sacrifice.

Powers and abilities can come from a variety of mysterious sources. If players know how everything in the universe operates then the game world has very little mystery worth discovering.

 

[Rechan]

I personally have no problem with the rules of PCs vs NPCs.

However...

Question #2 is: With the big deal that was made about the "economy of actions" in 4e, is dominate -- especially as an at-will -- appropriate to the game? One player was all but sidelined for the encounter because of a single power.

My personal feeling is that you shouldn't have been hitting the same player with the same attack round after round.

Dazes, dominates, and especially stuns are easily a fun killer. Especially when used round after round. Therefore you should spread the hurt around, rather than just clobber one PC over the head with the thing round after round.

 

[Talysian]

Spreading it around and having the pcs attack each other is oh so much fun, especially with AOE at wills!

 

[Filcher]

There are a lot of in-world justifications for powers the PCs can never access. They spend their days and nights wandering the world beating up on stuff and hanging out in taverns. If a ninja, who has spent his entire life cloistered in an shinobi training camp, knows how to walk through walls and throw 5 shuriken at once, that is fine.

"When can I learn to walk through walls?"

"As soon as you give up the life of an adventurer and spend the next 20 years in meditation."