Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[herrozerro]

I think that PCs should only have the mechanics necessary to interact with what they interact with as well. I think that is a significant, but not burdensome amount.

Here is a good issue, and one I meant to bring up earlier. We're not talking about presentation of the statblock at this point, we're talking about how we got there.

Sometimes, it's necessary to break the rules and make exceptions, for NPCs and PCs. That being said, in general I think it's necessary that the PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, to give a sense of fairness.

To give an example, I once had a DM who tormented us with an illusive mage who kept disappearing whenever we got near him. It seemed incredibly unfair because his actions seemed like things that no PC mage would ever be allowed to get away with-he wasn't required to roll initiative before acting, for instance. I don't know everything that went on behind the scenes, but it was a negative experience and one that shaped my DMing when I started. In a movie, a mysterious mage with unknown power might be cool, but it's hard to make that work in the game. I've run plenty of powerful mages myself, but I always made sure their actions were possible under the rules.

I think my players would call BS on me if I tried to pit them against an opponent whose capabilities were outside the boundaries of their character creation rules. I think they'd be right to do so. They do sometimes ask how a monster/NPC was able to perform a certain action, and I feel obligated to provide an answer to demonstrate that I am not just making the stuff up or setting the numbers at whatever seems convenient.

To give another example, once I needed to kill a character and make the death final to give a sense of completeness to the campaign. The available spells and feats weren't final enough, so I wrote up an artifact sword on the day of the session and used it. This was a bit cheesy, but artifacts give me a wide range of acceptable options and the game ran fine. I'm not above compromise in the name of a good story. That being said, I've also made arbitrarily powerful artifacts for PCs (far more often, really), so the sense of fairness remains. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So at the end of the day, I firmly believe that NPC mages should follow the rules for spellcasting, that enemy monsters should get ability increases at the same rate that players do, and that any ability used by a character in the game should be describable under one set of rules (feats, spells, etc.) that apply to everyone.

Im going to say we are just going to have to agree to disagree, I can respect your likes, and understand that bad examples in the past might have shaped it (along with the positive).

I just dont understand the need to play by the same rules. In the example of the unhittable mage I can definitively see the issue, the game became unfun. While I have never really "broken the rules" in that manner, i have certantly created traits and aura's for my 4e creatures that do not emulate any kind of PC ability.

I will say that when i create abilities i first look for similar effects. For instance I had an encounter recently with a witch and her animal companion. Two things happened that night that got my group in a bit of a tizzy but we talked it out. The first being the witch was able to ride her beast like a mount. But I still presented them as two distinct creatures with full sets of actions as they both were sizable threats to the party. My paladin player got into a huff that his mount had to share his own actions so why did this creature have its own actions.

Simply stated, I told them that if they wanted intelligent mounts to have actions there would be repercussions, both that our combat times would inflate because now our group of 7 characters suddenly will be 14 separate turns, and that i would start counting their creatures in my XP budgets for encounters. I know its gamiest but if the party doubles in size im nto going to just let them steamroll over everything for the rest of the campaign.

The second issue that arose was that the back story was that the witch and her companion shared a bond and that allowed them to teleport together. Rulewise the witch had a trait that she could use her teleport speed to take her companion with her (contrary to standard mounted rules). a rule lawyer in my group pointed this out and it got a few other players aggravated.

Now i didnt just add this trait without precedence around in the same level area there are a few mounts, and items for mounts that allow for this kind of effect to happen. After the game I had to explain that sometimes monsters just dont play by the rules, just like PCs often dont. I pointed out to my brawler fighter character that normal grab rules wouldnt let him grab anything bigger then a large creature but his class features and powers allowd him to grapple with a gargantuan dragon if he wished.

The thing is with exception based design "breaking the rules" is the norm.

 

[herrozerro]

Though I would like to add that after some group forums discussion and a bunch of emails thrown about we have all fixed it up and compromised on several points. all is well.

 

[vagabundo]

I'm not certain you are referencing my point. But I think you are and I'm presuming that here. My apologies if I am mistaken.

You can add flavor text to any NPC in 4E you want to describe exactly the same thing I can do in 3E. There is NOTHING I can described that a 4E DM can not.

But the on the "art", "creation", "model", front 4E makes a point of not even trying. Mearls himself said that if World Building was a key interest to you then 4E would probably not be the game for you.

I respect the desire for quick and simple. But again I'm personally convinced that a system that aims for a very high ideal of creation but also allows for short cuts is much better positioned to appeal to a large market than one that fixates on simplicity.

I was not aiming my comment at you specifically, but no harm done

My point was that, for those who wish for complicated NPC, don't really need much additional rules for NPC creation, as those who wish to do so, can use the PC rules to create their NPC - and that is easier than ever with the electronic tools.

If you want the rules to be the same then no additional rules need to be presented (or very few new rules). So both systems would practically be included in the box, and are included in 4e, by default WotC only includes one in their adventures.

 

[Balesir]

But you are again turning this into something completely different than what I said.

Not consciously, I assure you - I simply react to what I read in what you write. I am very happy to accept clarification and correction, though.

I didn't say that the players and characters would know how hard something in game would be for them to try in real life. I said the players and characters generally know how well they can face an in game challenge to the same extent that the player would know their real world abilities.

Or, in the case of your archery, you need to forget your own real world archery knowledge as irrelevant but get that an in game archer would know about *in game* archery at least as well. But his *in game* knowledge need not have anything to do with real knowledge.

OK, in this we completely agree. The nub, then, is how this knowledge is communicated between the players (including the DM).

Again, the point here is that I an against giving the players a fixed DC.
I don't see anything you are saying that makes the case why I need to do that.

And, perhaps, this illuminates a difference between us; I see numbers as a natural and supremely efficient medium for communicating a huge array of knowledge - perhaps you do not? Or do you just associate them with precision, and wish to keep the players in a position of some vagueness of knowledge?

If the second is the case, why do you not simply give number ranges? Again, maybe this is a case of difference between groups of players; if I gave verbal descriptions, (1) they would actually be ciphers for numerical values, because that is generally how the information is stored in my head, and (2) several of my players would be re-converting those ciphers to numerical values, because they actually understand them, that way. My conclusion has just been "why fiddle about with the redundant conversions?" - so I just give the data out as numbers. This vastly predates the coming of 4E for our group - in the (almost totally homebrew) "D&D" we used to play some years ago, we spoke of "Levels of Difficulty" ("LoDs") that were, functionally, the equivalent of DCs. The numbers simply give clear communication without obfuscation or needless doublespeak. Uncertainty is what the dice are there to provide; there is no need for deliberately vague or confusing communication. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the bandwidth is so very restricted compared to that available to real characters perceiving a real world.

 

[Balesir]

See I read your post and I wonder why 4e's version of how things work doesn't work for you.

Meh - it's a matter of taste, and different folks have different things they just can't stomach. There doesn't have to be any very logical or factual reason for the dislike - and indeed with added broadmindedness and persistent positive experimentation the dislike might go away - but who are any of us to demand that someone submit themselves to such a degree of work and discomfort just to overcome something that they can easily avoid?

The only time I do get a tad peeved is when someone seems incapable or unwilling to either avoid or overcome some dislike and just keeps demanding that the world should be changed to suit their convenience.

It's hard for me to address a game I don't play. And the thread topic was more generic. From the 4e monster stat block I've seen, I can't understand where the skills, attacks, powers etc. would be derived from.

The DMG and the Monster Builder (original, offline version) do offer some clarification, in fact. It's not explicit on the statblock because, quite simply, it would be more a hindrance than a help during actual play.

Narrative concept. He's a demon lord, so he's going to be around the high end of the Epic Tier; the books say that means he's got a massive Fort. Which makes perfect sense to me.

I think there is a "plausibility link" to the world, here, as well, actually. A level 27 solo Demon Lord who has a Fortitude defence significantly below the "level standard" is not likely to remain a Demon Lord for long. The "Survival of the Fittest" seems to me something that could be expected to apply amongst Demon Lords...

The same applies to actual species in the game world. Is this "adding flavour/colour after the fact"? Yes, it is - but on the other hand it is a factor which (a) I would expect to affect any game world and (b) which, in my experience, it is extremely easy to miss when using a "build the world then model it with systems" approach. In general, I think that, if the systems work in a coherent way, the chances are very high that it will be easy to find descriptive, game-world reasons why things work that way. Building plausibility from the ground up, building systems that model game-world processes explicitly, on the other hand, tends very strongly to lead to macro-system inconsistencies. I find D&D (all editions) to be full of these.

 

[BryonD]

Though like I said in my edit, then again they might not be identical, i might switch up one thing i might jsut take a cool power mechanic. this dragon thing might only resemble the original creature in the slightest.

Agreed. But that it irrelevant to the point.
The point is, as you yourself stated, they COULD be used exactly as is.
Agreed?

 

[Kingreaper]

And maybe this guy knows more about the history of the gods than any mortal. And maybe this guy can grant a wish to anyone who brings him a purple diamond and gets him to listen long enough to know they have a gift. And maybe this guy can polymorph people into turtles. And maybe this guy can always tell the exact location of the person whom whoever he touches cares most about. That last thing could be irrelevant flavor text. Or it could be the most scary weapon he has. Or it could be the reason this evil creature just turned into the McGuffin of the quest.

This is a very strong argument for NPCs NOT using the same rules as PCs. None of those things are things that are likely to be in the PC rules.

 

[BryonD]

They descend from him being a level 27 solo.

The big question is why is he a level 27 solo? The answer: because he's a powerful Daemon.

No, that is not a quality answer. "Level 27 solo does not mean ANYTHING other than what level of challenge he presents from a purely game point of view. There is no narrative merit.

I don't think I've ever dealt with Epic-Tier characters; my experience has been with Heroic. And with Heroic Tier I divide it into Apprentice (1-3), Journeyman (4-6), Master (7-9), and Grandmaster (10). If I were to make a veteran warrior, I'd put him within the Journeyman "Tier Band" (4th to 6th level). The stats that our veteran warrior would have are derived from that level. I'd mix it up a little bit; an archer wearing leather would have a lower AC than a guy in plate with a shield, but for the most part those numbers don't move more than two or three points. There's probably more variance in the Epic Tier.

I want to look at the archer and see what all makes him easy or hard to hit and look at the guy in armor and do the same and then figure out the same. This will tell me their AC. That and that ALONE.

Your foundation is absolutely unrelated to their narrative value. You then use narrative to tweak that 100% game based value. The game math is not a factor, it is completely dominant. Narrative gets to have no more than "two or three points" after the math has laid down the law.

What I'd actually do is look at the AC that the level table gives me, and then use that to determine what kind of equipment the NPC is carrying. Which means at level 1 the archer is probably wearing no armour, and the sword-and-boarder has chain + shield.

To be 100% clear, I'm speaking entirely based on my own personal taste here. It isn't meant to reflect on the awesome fun of your game or anyone but me and me alone.

That is insanely WRONG! What armor the guy routinely wears is part of his fundamental concept. You are looking at a table that offers nothing remotely related to narrative and letting that dictate the narrative mertis of your characters.

A guy with the same DEX, same armor and same shield has the same AC. Period. If that guy is L1 his AC is X. If that guy is level 17 his AC is STILL X.
Can you do THAT with a 4E style system?

Narrative concept. He's a demon lord, so he's going to be around the high end of the Epic Tier; the books say that means he's got a massive Fort. Which makes perfect sense to me.

In the absence of any other information this is a good presumption. But think about what you just said. You just said that EVERY demon lord has very similar stats. Yes, you have room to wiggle in "epic tier" but not all that much. Certainly not NEARLY enough to satisfy me. And before you get hung up trying to prove the size of the range, please keep in mind that the limits on the range on just icing on the cake. Looking it up in the first place is the cake.

What if I want a demon lord of really evil brick walls? And I want him to have triple the HP and 75% higher AC than a completely "typical" demon lord. And I want his Will save to suck. Not be -3, I want it to SUCK.

Now, clearly I can just kludge every bit of that on there. I can scratch off the numbers from your template and write in whatever the hell I want. But ignoring 4E is not a case for the goodness of 4E. ("for Bryon")

Probably not, though that's because of the guidelines we're working with. I'd probably figure out what the demon lord is lord of, then work out some special abilities from that. If I were to stat up Mammon, he'd have powers that magically brought out people's lust, avarice, and greed. (Which is why Deja's powers focus around those things. Well, lust in particular.) A level 27 Storm Giant - I'd give him the power to conjure storms and direct lightning bolts down from them, to shape the earth (erosion and rock), and basic stuff from being a big guy.

Yeah, that is great narrative stuff. And ever word of that is edition neutral.

If I stated them up for my system of choice I'd think about how to best mechanically capture the nature of those things.
If I state them up for 4E I'd look at a table to see what the DCs and damages for a L27 solo should be. The fact that this table was built without the slightest input from my narrative ideas is beside the point. I get plus or minus 2 or 3 for that.......

You are going to use the same mechanics with just different flavor text. And, as I've said before I have no doubt whatsoever that in your game you can describe things AWESOME. But you can provide those same descriptions regardless of edition. What you or I bring to the table doesn't contribute to the merits of one edition over another.

I want awesome flavor text AND mechanics which are tied to the narrative merits of the creature.

Depends on the bonus, but I'd go with +2 or something like that. The reason being that his bare-chested AC 41 glory is as strong as starmetal. He's a demon lord; he doesn't need to wear armour! Putting on another layer of steel isn't going to help much.

Nope, this is MY narrative. You don't get to trump me on MY story.

I want you to describe MY story. You have your L27 solo stated and ready to go. Now his twin brother walks in. The starmetal ain't steel. And it is vastly tougher than the demon's skin. He is THRILLED to have this protection.

Don't tell me how it works FOR YOU. You are selling 4E TO ME. Show me how your mechanics fit MY narrative demands. Or agree that they don't.

What I did was take the narrative and use that to determine where I should look on the table, in the same way that one uses the narrative of a glass window vs. metal shutters to determine where you should look on the table to figure out how hard it is to break through. I don't think that's painting narrative on top.

That isn't what 4E says and that is not what you have been saying.

The just confined the narrative of my starsteel armor so that it would follow the orders of the 4E lookup table. You gave it +2 compared to the table. You painted the description on top of the same mechanic, but left the mechanic itself as sacrosanct.

The +29 is derived from: lvl 21 + 5 magic item bonus + 3 for targeting Will.

What does level 21 have to do with ANYTHING?

 

[BryonD]

This is a very strong argument for NPCs NOT using the same rules as PCs. None of those things are things that are likely to be in the PC rules.

If a PC had any of those abilities, it should work exactly the same for them.

 

[Kingreaper]

f

If a PC had any of those abilities, it should work exactly the same for them.

But they don't, and won't, have those abilities, because those abilities AREN'T IN THE PC RULES.

You're arguing for NPCs to be made using the same rules as PCs, but your example is an NPC made using COMPLETELY DIFFERENT rules from the PCs.

What if I want a demon lord of really evil brick walls? And I want him to have triple the HP and 75% higher AC than a completely "typical" demon lord. And I want his Will save to suck. Not be -3, I want it to SUCK.

How do you do that using the rules for PCs?

I mean, he's got triple the hit dice, right? So his base will save must be AT LEAST double that of the "typical" demon lord.