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

[ExploderWizard]

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."

Heh. " He's tracking us over ROCKS! At night! I can't do that. Can you do that?"

 

[LostSoul]

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.

Nor do I. I don't know what the deal is with the Aurum Concordian, so I can't say for sure. I do know that the Human Wizard's Dancing Lightning is a spell that I can't see any reason not to allow PCs to learn. I was assuming it was like Dancing Lightning, otherwise there wouldn't be much point to asking if the PCs should be able to use it or not. That may have been the wrong assumption.

 

[nightwyrm]

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

I let the dominated player(s) roll his own attacks. I've never seen a player on a hot streak curse at his own dice that much. muhahhaha

But yeah, stun or dominate locking a single PC is very unfun. I always try to spread the love around.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

While I don't have a problem with the PC vs. NPC divide, an at-will minor action dominate is stupidly awesome. If it were just one of the two, it'd be fine but as it is...

To make an analogy, designing that power is like calling your g/f names on your anniversary while forgetting that it's your anniversary -- you know what the result will be, even if you tell yourself that it's not your fault.

 

[Obryn]

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?

Yep, it's perfectly fair. I have no problem with NPCs having abilities PCs don't... The opposite is often the case, too - most NPCs don't have four encounter, four daily, and multiple Utility powers per combat.

Not everyone can learn everything, pure and simple. Be it pacts with dark gods, long experience in a secret society, independent study with learned masters, and so on - there's stuff NPCs do that PCs don't, and vice versa.

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.

I think that's a bit much, frankly. An at-will, minor action dominate is just a bit overwhelming for most fights. I'd switch it to a Recharge power of some sort. With that said, this is basically the Aurum Concordian's only trick. They're an Elite who can basically do nothing else.

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?

I'd say yes to both.

-O

 

[Rechan]

Yep, it's perfectly fair. I have no problem with NPCs having abilities PCs don't... The opposite is often the case, too - most NPCs don't have four encounter, four daily, and multiple Utility powers per combat.

Not to mention that NPCs rarely if EVER get to heal.

 

[Mercule]

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

Two points on this.

First, the PCs pretty much forced it so the fighter was the only one in range, so there were no other valid targets. The first target was the wizard -- twice -- then everyone else bailed on the fighter.

Second, good tactics are good tactics. It's just as much of a fun-killer to play the NPC too far below their competency level (unless they're a construct, berserking, etc.). Even barring the self-selection, the fighter was actually the only choice that made any sense for most rounds. The rogue might have been a reasonable target, except he managed to get himself flanked by two NPCs with a sneak-attack-like ability.

 

[Rechan]

Two points on this.

First, the PCs pretty much forced it so the fighter was the only one in range, so there were no other valid targets. The first target was the wizard -- twice -- then everyone else bailed on the fighter.

Second, good tactics are good tactics. It's just as much of a fun-killer to play the NPC too far below their competency level (unless they're a construct, berserking, etc.). Even barring the self-selection, the fighter was actually the only choice that made any sense for most rounds. The rogue might have been a reasonable target, except he managed to get himself flanked by two NPCs with a sneak-attack-like ability.

1) If the party intentionally set it up so the fighter got hammered every round, then I get the feeling the player should be equally as mad at his fellow PCs. Either that, or he did his job by taking the hits.

2) I disagree that good tactics are good tactics. If it's not fun, it's not fun. Not every enemy is a tactician, and enemies are people too, who can do it for nonsensical reasons.

3) Dominate can be used for more than just "Make a basic attack". I dont' think you can use it to force the target to become helpless, but I think dominating the rogue and making him lay prone so that the two enemies could get the CA bonus plus the +2 to hit a prone target, plus removing the Rogue's move action (so if he stood up and shifted, his actions were gone).

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

It makes me a sad panda, because of stuff like this. I don't see any reason that some dwarf with a golden mallet should be better than a telepathic psion (for instance) at dominating people.

However, I also have no problem with a PC getting the following:

Silver-Tongued Devil
Level 5 Daily Power (Charm)
Prerequisite: Requires the Aurum Concordian feat (that feat does nothing aside from providing access to this power).
Effect: For the rest of the encounter (or for the next 5 minutes), the character who used this ability can use the following attack.
Target: One humanoid within 5 squares
Attack: Minor Action 1/round; Charisma vs. Will: No damage. The target is dominated until the end of your next turn. You can dominate only one creature at a time.

A level 5 bard can dominate people, too, at a longer distance, and adds an attack to boot, though not for an entire combat. A level 1 (!) cleric of the Undying Court can do it, too, though once per encounter, with Channel Divinity, and only to Undead. This is clearly more powerful, but it's "within the league," I think. It's potent, mostly because it can be done every turn.

And I'm okay with that. I really don't have a problem with a PC being able to do that. One encounter, you get to try and dominate a critter every round. Go wild. It might bone a solo monster, if you've got the luck o' the rolls, but it requires an attack roll every round, and it doesn't do damage, and it's not good for long-term effects, even if it's good for the entire combat. And if it bones a solo monster I can always pull reinforcements out of the aether.

I actually have a bigger problem doing it to a PC, since they only get one character to control, whereas a PC dominating a monster for me is almost a relief sometimes, in big combats.

But I'm boldly unafraid of characters having significant power, so I suppose the more timid DM's amongst us could reasonably conclude that I'm some sort of permissive maniac for allowing a PC to do that. I'd also let PC's fly and teleport without absurd costs and limits, too, so clearly I must be out of control.

 

[Mercule]

Excellent.... I get to play devil's advocate, so to speak. My group has had a number of conversations along this line, so I'm going to be a bit contrary, just to make sure I really get the ideas.

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.

That's a fine argument, if you're comparing dwarves to, say, vampires. I have absolutely no problem with vampires or any other non-PC race doing wild stuff.

If you're comparing dwarves to eladrin, that doesn't really hold water. Both are PC races, and a PC in an intrigue-oriented campaign could expect to occupy pretty much the same role as the Aurum Concordant (essentially a super-cool guild thief, disguised as a merchant). So, shouldn't a player who has a dwaven character who is a member of the Aurum be able to have a reasonable facsimile of that same power?

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!

Okay. This is one that really boggles my mind. The NPC existed before the fight and will exist afterward, if the PCs lose or the NPC runs. Either a power is appropriate for use once, twice, or at-will during an encounter or it isn't. The justification that the NPC is created just for that fight breaks the 4th wall way too much for my tastes. This is one of the few explanations I'm actually hostile towards.

But, it does take me in the direction that I finally went, internally. This encounter was 2-3 levels above the PCs. They won, but it was a pretty tough battle that forced them to regroup afterward and take an extended rest. This includes the fact that the players rolled numerous 1s and I critted about five times. So, the encounter was mechanically fair. For most games, that's all that's necessary. The difficulty was dead on.

For a roleplaying game, though, there's also a "spiritually" or "story" fair. By that, I mean that the PCs feel like they're part of an actually world or story and that the events happen in a predictable and consistent manner. Dominate kinda sucks, okay, but sometimes things suck. There is no way the PCs can ever replicate that ability, or even approach it.