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

[Obryn]

I know when and where to use the term. You keep using it when it isn't appropriate. The example using the magic item is spot on because even though the item is in the DMG, you don't have to use it and the same goes with the PC or NPC classes.

I had a friend who always loved to play an Adept who he flavored as a Witch. Now this isn't a houserule because it doesn't go against any rule that's written.

NPC and PC classes are usable by everyone and it even says in the DMG that NPC and PC classes multi class with each other.

They apparently thought some of the NPC classes weren't good enough for PC's to play but I know plenty of people that have proven them wrong. The Adept is an example of this. Also, there still isn't a rule that says a player can't use these classes therefore it doesn't qualify as a houserule if you use it.

NPC's can be anything you want them to be. I know several example NPC's that are expert 1/rogue 3 etc....

I am going to combine these together, because in both cases you seem to think I'm saying something I'm not. Yes, PCs can take NPC classes, even though the DMG discourages it. And obviously NPCs can take PC classes, too. I am saying that the following are houserules:

(1) "No PHB classes, only NPC classes" for the players.
(2) PCs are not "Elite" and do not follow the "Elite" rules like getting max HPs at 1st level and having 25-or-better point buy/4d6 rolling/etc.

If you think that either of these are on the same degree as "one magical doodad does not exist" then I think you have lost your sense of perspective in search of an argument.

3.5 makes a distinction between PCs and NPCs. PCs are better than most. This doesn't mean that an NPC can't take a PC class or a PC can't take an NPC class, and I've never once said it does.

Does the book consider NPC classes inferior to PC classes? Yes it does but that's subjective and has been proven to not always be the case.

If you want to argue that a Warrior is not inferior to a Fighter (or that the rules for "average" are not inferior to the rules for "elite"), I'd love to hear it. I'm also not talking about "fun to play" - I'm talking about how 3.5 gives PCs a mechanical edge over NPCs, and this is by design.

-O

 

[Emerikol]

I'm sorry I missed this post by triqui. The thread moves so fast. I noticed it quoted by Nagol. So I responded to the original. If i screwed up the quoting sorry. No crime intended.

Originally Posted by triqui
Ok, so the problem isn't that you want magic to be inherently better than martial/mundane, it's just that you need to rationalize it so it does not break your suspension of disbelief.

Let's see if we can agree with this:

Wizards have powers that allow them to damage several people in an area (lightnign bolt), can overcome hit points (hold monster), instantly kill a monster (finger of death), disable them (blindness), become too hard to hit (Displacement), and too hard to kill (stoneskin).

Let's see if I can build some martial movents that can be balanced toward those, without feeling "magical".

Let's suppose a power where you charge in a line, attacking with your sword everybody in your path. That's equivalent to a lightning bolt.

Let's create a power where you make an Intimidating shout, and a target cower in fear in his place.

Let's creae a power called "beheading" (or "heartseeking", to use it with arrows), that instantly kills a creature who fail saving throws, or have a certain treshold of hit dice/hit points (like Power Word to Kill)

Now let's go with a power called "gouge", that makes a creature that fails the save to be blinded.

Then let's make a "dodging stance", which makes you dodge 50% of the incoming attacks, just like Displacement does.

And now let's build a "defensive stance" which gives you DR 10, like stoneskin. As hit points aren't meat, but also stamina, will to fight, dodge, and ability to turn a big hit into a lesser hit, this damage reduction does not come from your skin being hardened (as the spell), but from you being better at dodging, parrying, and turning hits into glances.

There you go. As you don't like martial dailies, we can have two options:
1) those are at-will. Yep, the wizards will cry. But we don't care about balance, it's not a problem that a class is inferior to other, as long as there is in-world verosimilitude, and this powers are verosimile for a mundane character. The wizard will be clearly inferior in combat, but if we didn't worry about the fighter being inferior, we don't really have to worry about the wizard being inferior. Unless, of course, the problem is we secretly really want fighters being inferior, period, and everything else is just a excuse to rationalize it.

2)If 1) doesn't work, we can give the fighter a set pool of points called "fatigue" or "stamina" or "adrenaline". He can use those to activate this skills, until he is too tired to do any more. He can repeat them, to avoid "plot coupons". He, as a character, is aware of this powers being tiring, just like he is aware of his hit points. So it's not dissociative.

Would you accept this solution?

Actually this is pretty funny. I am designing a fantasy rpg right now. I'm kind of afraid 5e isn't going to do it for me. So I've been working diligently now for a few months. Your approach is has many elements in my own. I do avoid plot coupons but most of your stuff can be designed that way. I avoided the record keeping of stamina points because I wanted to keep it to a minimum.

Everything for the fighter is either at-will or reactive. The structure of play is such that the fighter can do some of the stuff you mentioned just because he can. Spells have limitations that affect your manueverability etc... I don't want to give too much away but when I get it read to go you might be someone I'd run it by just to get the perspective from the other side. Of course I write it to please myself but that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have fun features for other styles. I'm not deliberating opposing any style. I'm just making sure mine is supported.

So no. In principle I'm not against such things. I would want to look at each power and really try to find the right fluff to make is non-dissociative. In rare cases perhaps that means the power has to be changed mechanically. But overall such an approach would work I think.

 

[Emerikol]

Some do, indeed, insist that their players use classes from the Dungeon Master's Guide instead of the better classes from the Players' Handbook. I'm not addressing house-rules, though. And certainly the book location of each of those classes implies something about a standard play-style, no?

So it looks like we are agreed that allowing PCs free choice of PC classes, and simultaneously making most NPCs in a setting Commoners, Experts, and Warriors implies a difference between PCs and NPCs?

-O

Adding class levels to a monster or as an npc was not a houserule. Yes the NPC classes were there to help in some circumstances. The only one I ever used was Expert. Otherwise if I felt the need for a class I used fighter or wizard. I do not like the gaming philosophy that sets the PCs apart from the rest of the world. I like them to go into the world like everyone else and earn their way to the top.

Edit: Oh and in doing the above no houserules were used or harmed. I as DM control the NPCs of my world. The DMG is a book of guidelines not rules.

 

[Obryn]

Adding class levels to a monster or as an npc was not a houserule. Yes the NPC classes were there to help in some circumstances. The only one I ever used was Expert. Otherwise if I felt the need for a class I used fighter or wizard. I do not like the gaming philosophy that sets the PCs apart from the rest of the world. I like them to go into the world like everyone else and earn their way to the top.

Edit: Oh and in doing the above no houserules were used or harmed. I as DM control the NPCs of my world. The DMG is a book of guidelines not rules.

OK. Once again, I am not arguing that adding PC or NPC class levels to a monster or an NPC is a houserule. I have not argued it and I will not argue it. I am further not arguing that it is impossible to play Bakers & Blacksmiths 3.5, or that your players could not decide to be a Wizard, a Cleric, and a gardener.

I am arguing that in 3.5, built right into the core, PCs are already set apart from the rest of the world. And this is just using the PC and NPC rules in the PHB and DMG. Full stop. The reasons for this include: PC classes being generally better than NPC classes, and the "Elite" vs "Average" distinction in the DMG. And that "the PCs are special" is not some bizarro weird non-standard way to play Elves in Fantasyland 3.5, but the actual rules of the game.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

Does the book consider NPC classes inferior to PC classes? Yes it does but that's subjective and has been proven to not always be the case.

The Player’s Handbook extensively describes adventurers. But what about the rest of the world? Surely not everyone’s a fighter, rogue, or wizard. Presented in this section are five classes specifically designed for NPCs. None of them, with the possible exceptions of the expert and the aristocrat, stands up as a playable class for PCs. Instead, they represent the rest of the people in the world around the PCs who don’t train to go on adventures and explore dungeons.

All PCs and all the NPCs described in this section are “elite,” a cut above the average. Elite characters (whether they are PCs or not) have above-average ability scores and automatically get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (rolled on 3d6) and don’t get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die.

The NPC classes presented in Chapter 4 of this book showcase the difference between PCs and the rest of the world: The PCs are among the most capable members of the populace, or at least among those with the greatest potential. The variance of ability scores (from 3 to 18 or higher) shows that not all people in the world are created equal, and not all have the same opportunities.

Seems the intention is pretty well spelled out. If a DM wants to use such classes instead, he is welcome to, but its not the norm nor the assumption of the game.

 

[Emerikol]

OK. Once again, I am not arguing that adding PC or NPC class levels to a monster or an NPC is a houserule. I have not argued it and I will not argue it. I am further not arguing that it is impossible to play Bakers & Blacksmiths 3.5, or that your players could not decide to be a Wizard, a Cleric, and a gardener.

I am arguing that in 3.5, built right into the core, PCs are already set apart from the rest of the world. And this is just using the PC and NPC rules in the PHB and DMG. Full stop. The reasons for this include: PC classes being generally better than NPC classes, and the "Elite" vs "Average" distinction in the DMG. And that "the PCs are special" is not some bizarro weird non-standard way to play Elves in Fantasyland 3.5, but the actual rules of the game.

-O

Sorry I didn't see some of your responses before I posted.

I still think though that the occurance of the fighter vs the warrior in any campaign dictates how common or uncommon it is. For example the Warrior and the Adept do not appear in my campaign world. The Expert has. So in my campaign it is not true that fighters are more uncommon. Most martial men are fighters. Since the NPC classes are purely to be used or not by the DM you can't say anything about how common they are. I know plenty of campaigns that never used these NPC classes.

 

[Obryn]

Sorry I didn't see some of your responses before I posted.

I still think though that the occurance of the fighter vs the warrior in any campaign dictates how common or uncommon it is. For example the Warrior and the Adept do not appear in my campaign world. The Expert has. So in my campaign it is not true that fighters are more uncommon. Most martial men are fighters. Since the NPC classes are purely to be used or not by the DM you can't say anything about how common they are. I know plenty of campaigns that never used these NPC classes.

All of which is fine for your campaign but beside the point.

The pervasive myth these days is that PCs are not "special" or "better" than NPCs in 3.x through the rules when starting. This is false. They use a similar rule structure, but PCs are specifically and intentionally given an edge over the general populace, through the actual rules in the actual rulebooks.

-O

 

[ForeverSlayer]

All of which is fine for your campaign but beside the point.

The pervasive myth these days is that PCs are not "special" or "better" than NPCs in 3.x through the rules when starting. This is false. They use a similar rule structure, but PCs are specifically and intentionally given an edge over the general populace, through the actual rules in the actual rulebooks.

-O

Not correct.

This is only true if you use certain NPC classes for your NPC's. PC classes are shared by PCs and NPCs and the rules cover both so the rules aren't designed to give PC's an edge. They are designed for both depending on which route the DM takes.

 

[Obryn]

Not correct.

This is only true if you use certain NPC classes for your NPC's. PC classes are shared by PCs and NPCs and the rules cover both so the rules aren't designed to give PC's an edge. They are designed for both depending on which route the DM takes.

You know, if you would rather ignore than address the arguments and actual quotes from the DMG above (note specifically the part about "elite and average characters" and how "NPC classes are not suitable"), that's fine. I think we're done here, in that case.

-O

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You know, if you would rather ignore than address the arguments and actual quotes from the DMG above (note specifically the part about "elite and average characters" and how "NPC classes are not suitable"), that's fine. I think we're done here, in that case.

-O

Cutting off the argument doesn't make you right.

Are you going to actually sit there and try to tell me that PC classes are for PC's only?

If you are then I can post you a quote from the DMG that will stop you dead in your tracks.

Oh what the hell, I think I will post it anyway.

"It’s possible for NPCs to multiclass, and even to obtain levels in PC
classes if you so desire." 3.5 DMG pg 107.

So once again I will say it again. NPC's are not strictly inferior to PC's according to the rules. Certain classes may be according to the DMG but not all, as the DMG has even stated.

You may be done but I'm not.