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

[Obryn]

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?

Dear sweet tap-dancing religious figure of your choice, no, and I never even so much as implied so in this entire thread. I have, in fact, directly stated the exact opposite. I invite you to go back and read up.

-O

 

[Emerikol]

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

It's not a myth. They added your playstyle. It used to not exist. But they didn't remove my playstyle. The DM decides this about his campaign and it varies. But case in point, the oft libeled Forgotten Realms has some pretty serious NPCs as does Greyhawk.

But saying the rules make or even encourage any one style is not true.

 

[Obryn]

It's not a myth. They added your playstyle. It used to not exist. But they didn't remove my playstyle. The DM decides this about his campaign and it varies. But case in point, the oft libeled Forgotten Realms has some pretty serious NPCs as does Greyhawk.

But saying the rules make or even encourage any one style is not true.

OK? Except the actual rules specifically talk about "elite" vs. "average," noting that the PCs are the former and most (not all!) of the world is the latter. And the "elite" vs "average" terms have real mechanical effects in better stat generation and max HPs at 1st level.

I am aware of Elminster and Mordenkainen, thanks. Where'd that come from? I am not arguing that powerful NPCs do not exist - merely that the actual rules of the game start the PCs out as "special" compared to the average butcher. And it's been this way since 1e first made "4d6 pick 3" standard for PCs. This is not some new, post-2005 invention, and it consistently shocks me when it's treated as such.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

OK? Except the actual rules specifically talk about "elite" vs. "average," noting that the PCs are the former and most (not all!) of the world is the latter. And the "elite" vs "average" terms have real mechanical effects in better stat generation and max HPs at 1st level.

The point is not whether a PC is elite or average; the ability score array is not what is at issue. The point is whether an elite PC is the same as an elite NPC (it is), given the stylistic convention that PCs are usually (but not mandatorily) elite. Both follow the same rules and have the same statistics. Similarly a nonelite PC is the same as a nonelite NPC.

The point is that a D&D character is defined by things like race, class, and ability scores, all of which are adjudicated the same way regardless of who is playing that character. A wizard with 15 Int has the same spelllcasting capabilities regardless of whether it is a PC or an NPC. A point which I suspect you either inexplicably disagree with or are about to dodge again.

 

[Obryn]

The point is not whether a PC is elite or average; the ability score array is not what is at issue. The point is whether an elite PC is the same as an elite NPC (it is), given the stylistic convention that PCs are usually (but not mandatorily) elite. Both follow the same rules and have the same statistics. Similarly a nonelite PC is the same as a nonelite NPC.

The point is that a D&D character is defined by things like race, class, and ability scores, all of which are adjudicated the same way regardless of who is playing that character. A wizard with 15 Int has the same spelllcasting capabilities regardless of whether it is a PC or an NPC. A point which I suspect you either inexplicably disagree with or are about to dodge again.

Yes, the rules for running PCs and NPCs are the same under 3.x

However, the rules for generating them are different, and the difference intentionally favors the "special" PCs, by design. Which means the array is absolutely relevant, here.

-O

 

[Hussar]

It's not a myth. They added your playstyle. It used to not exist. But they didn't remove my playstyle. The DM decides this about his campaign and it varies. But case in point, the oft libeled Forgotten Realms has some pretty serious NPCs as does Greyhawk.

But saying the rules make or even encourage any one style is not true.

You're actually going to point to EARLIER editions to support the idea that there's no difference between PC's and regular people? Really? I suggest you go back and open your 1e or Basic/Expert books and read the monster sections. You'll find rules for Normal Human, or something to that effect. And they certainly AREN'T PC classed individuals. In fact, the Basic D&D book specifically states "A normal human does not have a class" (Basic Rules p B40).

AIR, the 1e DMG did have some basic ideas for NPC classes - a witch IIRC - but, very little beyond that.

So, can someone please explain to me why orcs are always 1st level warriors and not fighters in 3e? After all, they certainly qualify as fighters and you'd think a race that fights all the time would be baseline fighters, not warriors. Or, better yet, Hobgoblins. Here we have a race that's described as a pretty straight up warrior race. Yet, for some reason, they never get very good at it. Most of them you meet will be 1st level warriors, with those with character classes will be considered elites. And, again, going back to the actual text of the rules:

Elite Array

The elite array is: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. While the monster has one weakness compared to a typical member of its race, it is significantly better overall. The elite array is most appropriate for monsters who add levels in a player character class.

Nonelite Array

The nonelite array is: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. The nonelite array does not necessarily make a monster better than normal, but it does customize the monster as an individual with strengths and weaknesses compared to a typical member of its race. The nonelite array is most appropriate for monsters who add class levels in a NPC class. (bold mine)

Funny that. PC classed individuals are presumed to be significantly better overall than other members of thier race.

How much evidence do you folks really need here?

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and I'd point one more thing. The elite array PC wizard has twice as much expected wealth as the NPC elite array wizard. That's also baked right into the mechanics.

 

[Emerikol]

OK? Except the actual rules specifically talk about "elite" vs. "average," noting that the PCs are the former and most (not all!) of the world is the latter. And the "elite" vs "average" terms have real mechanical effects in better stat generation and max HPs at 1st level.

I might give you that stats are likely above average for sure. And when you say PC you didn't specify level. At first level PCs are not elite. They may be elite biologically but not as classes. They aren't powerful at all relative to the world. In my worlds, they are above average relative to a farmer but relative to the average fighting man they are below average. It really is all world specific. But when discussing "elite" pcs, no one would argue that a 10th or 20th level character is not elite. We are I think debating the low levels.

I am aware of Elminster and Mordenkainen, thanks. Where'd that come from? I am not arguing that powerful NPCs do not exist - merely that the actual rules of the game start the PCs out as "special" compared to the average butcher. And it's been this way since 1e first made "4d6 pick 3" standard for PCs. This is not some new, post-2005 invention, and it consistently shocks me when it's treated as such.
-O

Maybe it's just miscommunication. I will concede that PCs are biologically "elite" even at 1st level. But biology was not how you came across in your discussions. It was related to class. And a 1st level fighter is not elite in most campaigns that I've ran across. In my worlds, most "warriors" who are human are represented by fighter levels. And if they are any good, by multiple levels.

 

[Ahnehnois]

How much evidence do you folks really need here?

I would need some evidence that a player character class is exclusively for players, which your quote itself makes obvious is not the case.

A warrior is obviously different from a fighter; that is irrelevant to the point at hand unlesss PCs or NPCs are prohibited from taking levels in one of those classes.

Are you making the case that a PC with a particular race, class, level, ability array, equipment set, and so on, is different from an NPC with the same characteristics?

Or are you making the case that most NPCs won't have those same characteristics because the PCs are typically above average individuals (which is obviously true and not really relevant)?

So, can someone please explain to me why orcs are always 1st level warriors and not fighters in 3e?

Presumably because they don't have access to the training required to become fighters. Just like all the human warriors.

The elite array PC wizard has twice as much expected wealth as the NPC elite array wizard. That's also baked right into the mechanics.

"Expected" wealth isn't what I would call baked in.

 

[Obryn]

I might give you that stats are likely above average for sure. And when you say PC you didn't specify level. At first level PCs are not elite. They may be elite biologically but not as classes. They aren't powerful at all relative to the world. In my worlds, they are above average relative to a farmer but relative to the average fighting man they are below average. It really is all world specific. But when discussing "elite" pcs, no one would argue that a 10th or 20th level character is not elite. We are I think debating the low levels.

Maybe it's just miscommunication. I will concede that PCs are biologically "elite" even at 1st level. But biology was not how you came across in your discussions. It was related to class. And a 1st level fighter is not elite in most campaigns that I've ran across. In my worlds, most "warriors" who are human are represented by fighter levels. And if they are any good, by multiple levels.

"Elite" is a specific game term in 3.5 (and I think in 3.0). Check the DMG 3.5 p. 110.

That's what I'm referring to here, instead of the more colloquial definition.

-O