Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)

[BryonD]

Yeah, and it makes me wonder if I am completely missing something - if that big wall of text just above is missing the point!

I believe the answer is yes. And I hope my wall of reply helps.

Again, I'm not trying in any way to say that 4E isn't awesome for for a lot of people.

But there are things it completely FAILS at. And the fact that a lot of people don't care in the least about those things does nothing to make it any less of a failure for them.

So the question becomes, does it matter to the marketplace? I think it does.

 

[herrozerro]

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 have to agree with this statement, I have on occasion statted up an ancient dragon as a level 10 solo, just so that the party could fight the thing.

Though dropping to 0 HP meant something quite different then killing the dragon, at that point the dragon ended the fight on his own satisfied of the strength of his new "followers"

Narritively this was the same dragon that if the party were to fight it on equal ground it would have been a full level 30 solo, but as I said before, I needed osmething for my level 10 party to fight.

 

[BryonD]

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?

No, this is not the point.

In your real world knowledge of archery you can't tell me the DC difference between two shots. You intuitively know a lot about the relative difference. But you can not tell me "this is a 14" and "that is a 27".

The elf archer in game knows archery in game just as well as you. As previously discussed, the specifics of his knowledge are accurate in game even though they may have NO RELATION to true reality.

But the elf archer should perceive the world in a way that matched the way actual people perceive the world. easy/moderate/.../gnat castration

His moderate may be completely impossible to the wizard standing next to him. But they both perceive the narrative concept of the difficulty.

I *COULD* just tell them the number and, yes, that would also provide all that information. But it would also be a slap in the face to the point of being inside the story and perceiving it the way the character should.

 

[BryonD]

I have to agree with this statement, I have on occasion statted up an ancient dragon as a level 10 solo, just so that the party could fight the thing.

Though dropping to 0 HP meant something quite different then killing the dragon, at that point the dragon ended the fight on his own satisfied of the strength of his new "followers"

Narritively this was the same dragon that if the party were to fight it on equal ground it would have been a full level 30 solo, but as I said before, I needed osmething for my level 10 party to fight.

I absolutely embrace the statement that 4E kicks the ass of 3E in the task of being readily balanced.

 

[BryonD]

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.

HUH? I disagree and don't follow how you claim this.

How do you do that using the rules for PCs?

Build him up based on how I see him.

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.

Now THIS is a good point. As I said up thread, I *DO* have a complaint about 3E's reliance on HD. I wanted them to go in the opposite direction.

But at the same time, I can throw wild modifiers on stuff without any negative impact to the system. In 4E everything is built from the tables and if you start putting a -15 on that then you may as well not use the tables. And if you aren't using the tables you may as well just play a different system.

3E is vastly more resilient to this issue than 4E.
But you are very much correct that this is still an issue on that point in 3E.

I personally would like to see that changed even.
However, I think THAT changing too much in that direction would also be a really bad idea for the overall market appeal of 5E so I'm presuming I'll continue to "make do" on that front.

My personal "perfect" game would likely suck on the marketplace.

 

[Kingreaper]

In 4E everything is built from the tables and if you start putting a -15 on that then you may as well not use the tables. And if you aren't using the tables you may as well just play a different system.

3.x ALSO has a big set of tables. It's the hit die tables. It sets the hit die for Demons, the BAB for demons, the Will Save for demons, the Fort Save for demons, and the Reflex save for demons. Also the skills available to demons.
It's MUCH more restrictive than the 4e system. At least in 4e I can have my demon be any of the 20 different categories.

The hit die tables are the only things that make NPCs the same as PCs. And you ignore them.

You could just as easily ignore the 4e rules as the 3e rules.
You've just gotten so used to ignoring the 3e rules that you don't even think of it as ignoring the rules any more.

 

[Viking Bastard]

In 4E everything is built from the tables and if you start putting a -15 on that then you may as well not use the tables. And if you aren't using the tables you may as well just play a different system.

The tables give you a very good baseline. It is not holy. I throw modifiers around willy-nilly, depending on what makes common and narrative sense. But that solid baseline is sure nice to have.

 

[herrozerro]

On the note of PCs being able to do anything by the rules as NPCs, I agree up to a point.

If I give an NPC a cool item, i'd expect to allow a PC to use it the same way if not slightly modified for a few math fixes.

Though if my raging Barbarian chieftain has an ability that give all of his allies a bonus to attacks because he is their boss and quite charismatic, i am probably not going to let a PC just do that because he saw that an NPC had that ability.

Now, thats not saying that a PC will never be able to get a power like that. Using the Alternate rewards introduced in the DMG2 I might let that PC take a similar power as a grandmaster training or something.

 

[RangerWickett]

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?

In 4e, his AC isn't still X, because in those 16 levels he's learned to dodge and avoid damage better. Which is odd, because his hit points also increase because . . . he's learned to dodge and avoid damage better. Hrm.

I'd actually prefer a game where HP is static, and defenses increase as you level up. So in a hypothetical 5e, my logic would go like this:


Normal Human
He's a person. Based on how well-trained (or divinely gifted, or magically infused, etc.) he is, we'll be able to set his minimum defenses. Someone who's fought a thousand demons and now is working to kill a demon lord has somehow managed to avoid death. So based on that narrative element, we decide that he's 20th level.

Since he's 20th level, all his defenses are going to be at least 20 (10 + 1/2 his level). If he puts on plate armor, his AC jumps by 8. If he's got a high Constitution, his Fortitude improves. If instead of plate armor he's got a magic robe and a high Intelligence to predict attacks, maybe his AC and Reflex jump by 6.

So say after figuring out what all he's got, we determine that he's a nimble scimitar-wielding dervish in light armor, and has AC 26, Fort 22, Ref 25, Will 20. If he's a PC, the GM might compare his defenses to what's listed as average for a 20th level PC and see whether he's in the right range. If he were a bit underpowered, the GM might figure out a way in-game to strengthen him so combat is better balanced.

On the other hand, if he's an NPC, the GM could go to the trouble of figuring out what equipment the guy has, calculating stats, and then checking to see if it's balanced. But if the NPC is mostly just there for a combat encounter, the GM can decide "I want a scimitar wielding dervish," then as a short-hand look at a table of 'standard defenses for level 20 opponents.' He could pluck stats from there, then maybe pick one of three template modifiers (Heavily Armored, Magically Defended, Agile Foe) and tweak those stats. Both as a PC or an NPC, he'd have, like, 20 hit points.


Now to me, the following two methods are practically identical:

1. The party's 20th level, and I want to throw a bad-ass dervish against them. To make him a challenge, I'm going to give him enough stuff so he's got defenses in the low 20s.

and

2. The party's 20th level, and I want to throw a bad-ass dervish against them. I'll trust this table that says to give him AC 25, Fort 22, Ref 22, Will 22, and to make his stats match his flavor, I'll use this template to tweak that to AC 26, Fort 22, Ref 25, Will 20.


Demon Lord of Brick Walls
You mentioned wanting to make a demon lord who's super tough but with a sucky Will. Great. Now compare how this works in 3e vs 4e.

3e Okay, I want his Will to suck, and his AC to be high. Hm . . . well, if he's a demon lord, he's got to be able to survive what 20th level PCs throw at him, so I guess I need an AC of at least 25, but I'll kick that up to 35 because he's tough as bricks. How do I get that? Well, I could just give him natural armor. That works. Okay, his natural armor bonus is +25. Now I want him to have a lot of hit points, because he's a demon lord, he's tough. So he probably needs 40 hit dice, and a Con bonus of +10. That'll get him 600 hit points-ish. Excellent for the demon lord of brick walls. Okay. Now for his sucky Will. Well, he's got 40 hit dice, so as an outsider that means he's got a +12 Will save. But I want it to suck, so I'll give him a . . . well, a Wisdom of 4 is really low? I mean, who wants a dumb demon lord? But sure, he's just oblivious, dumb as a stack of bricks. Boom, Will save of +8. Excellent.

4e Okay, I want his Will to suck, and his AC to be high. He's a demon lord, which means he's going to be, let's say, level 27. Okay, so as a default he'd be AC 40, Fort 37, Ref 37, Will 37. But eh, let's switch that to AC 44, Fort 41, Ref 37, Will 30. Or y'know what, screw that. Will 10. Done.



You've accomplished the same thing, but the second option is a lot faster, because you don't have to look for ways to justify your choice. You just make a choice that works.

Demon Lord and His Twin Brother
If the demon lord's skin isn't tough as starmetal, he probably shouldn't have survived very long as a demon lord. Someone would have stabbed him. So he probably already has starmetal armor, or some other item-based way to improve his defenses.

You, as the GM, have invented this guy, and are responsible for deciding that he is tough enough to be a demon lord. Moreover, you're deciding what 'tough enough to be a demon lord' means. In the real world, the toughest mofo might only be equivalent to what a 5th level fighter in D&D is. You could certainly create a game system where a demon lord is a level 5 foe. But you, as GM, decide that a demon lord is tough enough for a 20th level party.

To match the mechanics to the narrative, you decide to give him the best resources available. He's got a cloak of resistance and robes of the archmagi and bracers of armor. And after all that, you decide "Huh, this guy's AC is still pretty low compared to other demons. I mean, if this weren't a game I wouldn't have to worry about it, but because it is a game, I want to justify why he hasn't been stabbed yet and replaced. Well, other demons have natural armor. I could give him natural armor."

And just there, you made an arbitrary mechanical decision, based on a gamist desire to make him appropriately tough. Some of the 3e monsters have just stupid natural armor bonuses, like +20, with no explanation where that comes from. It's just there to make them have the right AC for their level.

That's why in 3e it was so much easier to make monsters as high level foes, as opposed to NPCs. NPCs made GMs think they had to use PC rules, but PCs have to jump through all sorts of hoops to get high enough AC. Stats, armor, feats, magic items, spells. And players like jumping through those hoops, because they like having their preparation rewarded.

But monsters are made to fill a role. The GM needs guidelines on what's fair for his party, and then he can go back and forth between narrative and guidelines to create something compelling. But if you try to build an NPC the same way you would a PC, a) it takes too damn long, and b) you as the GM ultimately have to decide to set a power level anyway. So why not just accept that 'power level setting' should be the first step?

 

[Balesir]

No, this is not the point.

In your real world knowledge of archery you can't tell me the DC difference between two shots. You intuitively know a lot about the relative difference. But you can not tell me "this is a 14" and "that is a 27".

No, because the real world does not work on DCs! But I have a vast amount more modelling information than "it's small and it's a pretty long way away". Most of that information is held as memories, impressions, pictures, imaginary constructs and comparisons with sensory information incoming, though - it's very hard indeed to communicate even a useful and significant proportion of it in a timely manner. Give me a couple of weeks where I take you out into a field and we shoot together at a variety of targets and I can show you enough to give you a fair idea - but over a gaming table or a discussion board it's just not really feasible.

And I'm not going back to "the game world is like the real world", here, except insofar as I can't see that the quantity of information the character archer will have is significantly less than the quantity I have when I'm shooting. Quantity, in this case, has a quality all of its own.

The elf archer in game knows archery in game just as well as you. As previously discussed, the specifics of his knowledge are accurate in game even though they may have NO RELATION to true reality.

But the elf archer should perceive the world in a way that matched the way actual people perceive the world. easy/moderate/.../gnat castration

His moderate may be completely impossible to the wizard standing next to him. But they both perceive the narrative concept of the difficulty.

Sure - and the wizard's picture of the bowshot will be much more "pixellated" and much less accurate than the elf's - but the wizard will have a very much more complete model of the difficulty of casting a spell at the same target, I would expect.

I *COULD* just tell them the number and, yes, that would also provide all that information. But it would also be a slap in the face to the point of being inside the story and perceiving it the way the character should.

I can see your issue, here - but the single word description would be just as much a 'slap' to immersion to me as the number apparently would to you. Because the brief verbal description leaves me with the feeling that I still have nowhere even approaching as good an idea as I would expect my character to have what the situation is. Numeric, system data I can internalise really quickly to have an internal picture of the task before my character that is actually a lot closer to the model I have in my head for things I actually do in the real world than some single-phrase summary. As such, I actually find immersion far easier if I am told the system details (provided they are brief!) than if I am told some physical description that, generally, does not even begin to describe all of the myriad relevant factors of the situation as they present to the (skilled) eye, ear, nose and touch of a character.

Edit: Actually, I think this illustrates an advantage I see in having explicit systems. That DC figure references a whole range of system detail that I already know, and thus does not need to communicated at that time. Learning the (fixed and unambiguous) system becomes 'investment' that can be leveraged to vastly increase the amount of information communicated at the table.