D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[Ahnehnois]

You read wrong. The problem of 3e is they made the mistake to belief that monsters and players following the same rules, is balance, when it's not.

Are you sure you want to state that?

Let's get this straight.
Balance is some immutable property of the rules; it remains the same whether you or I are playing them, whether we're playing urban intrigue or kick on the door, whether we're system experts of newbies, whether we're trying to break the game or not, none of that matters. 3e is an unbalanced ruleset. Period.

But it matters which arbitrary metagame role is assigned to a particular character? It matters which person has control of that character, despite the fact that that designation is a social contract and not part of the game rules? PCs and NPCs don't need to be balanced on the same level?

Seriously?

They live in the same fantasy world, but live to different standards. That's why there is no problem with Fire Giants having +16 to STR, but there will be problems with a PC race having +16 to STR.

Not once you factor in LA or the equivalent. Same standards.

There are a relatively small number of monsters that have characteristics that make them poorly suited to be adventurers, such as unintelligent, immobile, or otherwise unbalanced monsters, but even in this case, they'r just as poorly suited to become NPC adventurers as they are PCs.

Those somebodies have a hard time then, because almost any published adventure give the important NPC elite array or some other stuff. I'm quite confident that the goblin's two healing potions are ussually held by the Goblin King and not the Goblin Lackey in 99% of the adventures out there.

Well yes, higher level goblins have more treasure; that's part of the expected wealth by level guidelines. But say you gave that NPC an ability or item that wasn't within the basic advancement structure of the game (say, give it double hit ponts for its level). Then there would need to be a reason.

Because the target is making them happy whatever their *playstile* is. If I happen to like Conan books much more than Elminster books (which I do), I shouldn't be punished with an inferior class just because I like an archetype better than others.

Of course not. Who said they should?

By playing in the same league, you mean like Nigeria playing the same baskeball tournament in London 2012 than USA's Dream Team? Yeah... Nigeria has been playing basketball for a long time.

You are remarkably dismissive of all the D&D games that don't fit this description at all. Do you really think that all or most or even many fighters played over the last three decades fit your model? Do you really think that every 3.5, PF, TB, and other 3.X fighter (to say nothing of the other versions) is being categorically outshown by a spellcaster?

It's the class balance what I'm talking here. Especifically, full spellcasters balance.

Sure, class balance is at issue. There are dead levels, weak abilities, all kinds of problems with 3e D&D classes, and other rules. Unbalanced feats, spells, races, items, etc. That doesn't mean the system itself is unbalanced (though it is to some extent; number scaling can get wonky). More to the point, it doesn't mean the system itself needed to be thrown out.

 

[triqui]

3e is an unbalanced ruleset. Period.

We agree on this. I'd add it's a fun ruleset as well. I think we can agree on that too.

Not once you factor in LA or the equivalent. Same standards.

No way you can convince me that LA are balanced

Well yes, higher level goblins have more treasure; that's part of the expected wealth by level guidelines. But say you gave that NPC an ability or item that wasn't within the basic advancement structure of the game (say, give it double hit ponts for its level). Then there would need to be a reason.

I was talking about abilitie scores. Players have to (or should) spend the same amount of points (in a point buy system) or roll the same die (in random generation). NPC does not: the lackey have poor stats, the goblin king has elite stats (or better than the lackey at the very least), and nobody cares or claim he is unbalanced. Because the standards of balance are different between PC and NPC. That's why there's no problem if the Goblin king have Fighter levels while their lackeys are bound to warrior (or expert, adept, etc) levels. Players would not find fair if you force Bob to roll an Expert and allow Joe to roll a Rogue. Goblins don't have that luxury.

Of course not. Who said they should?

3e ruleset.

You are remarkably dismissive of all the D&D games that don't fit this description at all. Do you really think that all or most or even many fighters played over the last three decades fit your model? Do you really think that every 3.5, PF, TB, and other 3.X fighter (to say nothing of the other versions) is being categorically outshown by a spellcaster?

They are outshown and unbalanced, unless the spellcasters are intentionally pulling their punches or have a clearly lower system mastery, yes. That does not mean those players aren't having fun, or those characters aren't viable or fun. Nigeria had fun when playing in the London 2012 too. However, they are inferior, balance-wise. Because Angel Summoner and BMX aren't balanced, even if you can have a lot of fun riding a BMX.

More to the point, it doesn't mean the system itself needed to be thrown out.

Why would I want to do that? I'm playing Pathfinder tomorrow, and I'm going to DM it next month. What I'm going to do with my Way of the Wicked Adventure Path if the system is thrown out?

 

[underfoot007ct]

I would define it as them all being important, but different, for each single character.

I full well expect the average wizard to max Int and dump Str, I just think that it should matter that their Str is low. Even moreso, I think that it should matter if a character's Int, Wis, or Cha is low (or high). Too often in 3e, this was not the case.

All you have is disdain for 4e. Liking you favorite edition is fine. As for 4e, How do you get any "sense" on a game you admit you have had no interest in ever playing after read the rules. You seen to know everything about 4e, also also admit to lurk 4e forums. Why would you do such things for a game you have no interest in playing, interesting use of your time.

Everything argument you respond to as, "not as I see it", "very creative", "in a narrow sense" etc. I enjoy when people discuss differences, but you just ignore all things that you don't agree with".

I get the sense 4e worsened the problem.

Is that the best you got,you admit that this is a problem in 3.x!
This just sounds like "edition waring" to myself.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I was talking about abilitie scores. Players have to (or should) spend the same amount of points (in a point buy system) or roll the same die (in random generation). NPC does not: the lackey have poor stats, the goblin king has elite stats (or better than the lackey at the very least), and nobody cares or claim he is unbalanced. Because the standards of balance are different between PC and NPC.

It's not because the standards are different between PC and NPC; it's because the standards are different between king and lackey. If you were playing a game where one PC was a king and another was his lackey, you probably would use a different ability array to generate them.

Players would not find fair if you force Bob to roll an Expert and allow Joe to roll a Rogue.

Typically, we assume that the players' characters are on the same level, but this assumption is not a requirement. I've played in games where things like that were done.

We agree on this. I'd add it's a fun ruleset as well. I think we can agree on that too.

I'd like to think that we can also agree that it depends who's playing and how they're playing, on both counts, rather than being strictly a property of what's in the books.

They are outshown and unbalanced, unless the spellcasters are intentionally pulling their punches or have a clearly lower system mastery, yes. That does not mean those players aren't having fun, or those characters aren't viable or fun. Nigeria had fun when playing in the London 2012 too. However, they are inferior, balance-wise.

YMMV. Really, anyone's MMV.

No way you can convince me that LA are balanced

Really? Works for me. Not that that's likely to convince you.

 

[triqui]

It's not because the standards are different between PC and NPC; it's because the standards are different between king and lackey. If you were playing a game where one PC was a king and another was his lackey, you probably would use a different ability array to generate them.
.

I wouldn't. Why would I?

 

[Ahnehnois]

All you have is disdain for 4e. Liking you favorite edition is fine. As for 4e, How do you get any "sense" on a game you admit you have had no interest in ever playing after read the rules.

I have an interest in playing D&D. I have a sense of the rules because I read them. D&D is sold in book form; reading the books to form an opinion is hardly an unreasonable step. I also have an interest in revising D&D and making it better, and would have liked to play a 4e that did that.

You seen to know everything about 4e, also also admit to lurk 4e forums. Why would you do such things for a game you have no interest in playing, interesting use of your time.

I also follow news related to political parties I don't vote for, read journals for fields I'm not involved in, and have friends who aren't carbon copies of myself. Because D&D is a hobby of mine; I felt it important that I give 4e a fair chance and learn as uch about it as possible. Had it been more to my liking, I would have used it. As it was not, I have an informed dislike of it.

If you're saying that I've spent too much of my life on 4e, you are right.

Everything argument you respond to as, "not as I see it", "very creative", "in a narrow sense" etc. I enjoy when people discuss differences, but you just ignore all things that you don't agree with".

If I were ignoring them, wouldn't they be on my ignore list (which, incidentally, I have only ever used on one 3.5-oriented poster)? I find their statements unpersuasive, so I say so. Not exactly usual behavior on an online forum.

Given, as as been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, the negative influence that online forum posts seem to have had on game design, I think it's important to counteract that.

Is that the best you got,you admit that this is a problem in 3.x!

How dogmatic I am! I can have opinions that aren't what you expect! Largely my objections to 4e can be characterized in this manner, that it took problems that existed and made them worse, while ignoring fixes that needed to be made and even creating new problems. I hardly think any game is perfect. If I thought 3e was without flaw, there would be no reason for me to be disappointed with 4e's (or 5e's) failures.

Did you have a point in all of this?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I wouldn't. Why would I?

Because they're different.

Are you really saying you can't imagine a situation in which it might be appropriate for the different PCs to be built using different parameters?

You might not personally choose to do so, but it's a reasonable thing to do sometimes.

 

[triqui]

Because they're different.

Any two persons in the world are different. Why would the Knight and the Squire, or the Cleric and the Rogue, who are also different, share the same point buy system, but the king and the lackey do not?

Are you really saying you can't imagine a situation in which it might be appropriate for the different PCs to be built using different parameters?

I remember playing in Stormbringer where you rolled your race and background. One player was a leprous beggar, and the other was a noble from Melnibone. I'm not sure if that holds as "appropiate", but I'm quite sure it wan´t balanced, nor fun.

You might not personally choose to do so, but it's a reasonable thing to do sometimes.

I try to avoid that, because I don't think it helps that much to have "first class" and "second class" players in the same table. I know the players often classify themselves like that anyways (because some are more active than others), but I, as a DM, wouldn`t like to push that envelope or force them. I'd rather have the king and the lackay has the same stats and call it a day. It's a PC lackey, anyways. He doesn't have to have the same stats than other lackeys, who are NPC.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Any two persons in the world are different. Why would the Knight and the Squire, or the Cleric and the Rogue, who are also different, share the same point buy system, but the king and the lackey do not?

They don't have to.

I try to avoid that, because I don't think it helps that much to have "first class" and "second class" players in the same table. I know the players often classify themselves like that anyways (because some are more active than others), but I, as a DM, wouldn`t like to push that envelope or force them.

Neither would I. I also haven't always enjoyed it when this was the case. "Start players with the same ability score power level" is perfectly good advice for a DMG. On a broader level "PCs and NPCs are different" is a perfectly fine DMing style and one that I use in various ways. DMing style does not belong hardcoded into the rules though.

 

[Obryn]

On a broader level "PCs and NPCs are different" is a perfectly fine DMing style and one that I use in various ways. DMing style does not belong hardcoded into the rules though.

If you have "NPC classes," PCs and NPCs being different is already hardcoded into the rules.

-O