D&D General Is character class an in-world concept in your campaigns?

[DammitVictor]

Um, thing is, for 5e, exactly what they can or cannot do has not been made clear in rules. In this edition, there is no core answer to the question.

And there really shouldn't be, in the core rules, because this is practically the Platonic ideal of something that needs to be a setting question. The gods of Eberron are not the gods of Toril.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't own any of the campaign setting stuff for 4e or 5e, but let's crack open the 3.X Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

Artemis Entreri is 18th level. STR 14 DEX 20 CON 15 INT 16 WIS 16 CHA 13.

Assume he's had the benefits of ASIs at 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th level as standard for 3.X, assume best case scenario all four went to DEX, that's starting scores of STR 14 DEX 16 CON 15 INT 16 WIS 16 CHA 13.

That's 49 point buy, just under 200% the recommended 25 points for PCs or just over 150% of the highest suggested value of 32. That means that even if standard characters claw and bite their way to 18th level, they're going to be strictly inferior to the characters in the tie-in fiction, even though they're supposed to be the stars.

Drizzt is STR 13 DEX 20 CON 15 INT 17 WIS 17 CHA 14. First account for Drow mods, that's STR 13 DEX 18 CON 15 INT 15 WIS 17 CHA 12. ASIs, we're going to say that +2 DEX and +2 WIS.

STR 13 DEX 16 CON 15 WIS 15 CHA 12

Surprisingly, that is only 35 points, a mere 3 points above the most "high powered" variant, though he's sitting on a +2 Level Adjustment for his race.

It's galling when fiction based on game routinely features characters you can't actually play in the game.

Step away from point buy for a minute (better yet, forever!) and assume these guys were rolled up like PCs using 4d6 drop lowest. From that, 13-16-15-15-15-12 is not at all implausible; 14-16-15-16-16-13 is certainly a bit less likely but still not impossible by any means.

And Drizzt (yuk!), who hails originally from 2e or even late 1e, might well also have benefitted from some magical permanent stat enhancement during his career (the specific details of which I know less than nothing about); as such things were not at all unheard of in 1e-2e.

 

[Lanefan]

You show me someone who rolled those stats for their favorite PCs, and I'll show you someone who doesn't roll his stats in front of the DM. Especially when it's character after character after character.

Quite true; but remember you're talking about a couple of extremely successful cream-of-the-crop characters here, not just run-of-the-mill Joes.

Who knows how many schlubs were played to their conclusions before these two came along...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Step away from point buy for a minute (better yet, forever!) and assume these guys were rolled up like PCs using 4d6 drop lowest. From that, 13-16-15-15-15-12 is not at all implausible; 14-16-15-16-16-13 is certainly a bit less likely but still not impossible by any means.

I think the broader point is that if every major NPC has scores like that (and in FRCS 3E, at least, they definitely do), then the PCs start to look like they're actually below average. And there's a nasty sense of unfairness beyond that: while the players honestly did roll their characters' scores, the authors likely just selected whatever they wanted for the NPCs. So it's a competition in which only one side is playing by any rules. Now, it could be said that's a description of all D&D -- the DM is the DM, after all. But when I DM, at least, I try to make it look like the PCs aren't actively disfavored by the universe.

 

[Lanefan]

All magic is from the weave in 5e, IIRC, not that that matters at all to the actual topic.

Really?

I always thought the weave was something specific to the FR setting - are you saying 5e's extended it to all settings?

If so, I'm not impressed. The weave's a cool idea for FR but not cool enough to make universal.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the broader point is that if every major NPC has scores like that (and in FRCS 3E, at least, they definitely do), then the PCs start to look like they're actually below average. And there's a nasty sense of unfairness beyond that: while the players honestly did roll their characters' scores, the authors likely just selected whatever they wanted for the NPCs. So it's a competition in which only one side is playing by any rules. Now, it could be said that's a description of all D&D -- the DM is the DM, after all. But when I DM, at least, I try to make it look like the PCs aren't actively disfavored by the universe.

I see your point if looked at from the player-first view; however there's one tenet in D&D that I think this NPC design is (maybe even intentionally?) trying to follow, which is this:

There's always a bigger fish.

If the PCs ever get to the point of being the biggest fish in the pond then that campaign is, for all intents and purposes, done and dusted. Now one might argue that deities and so forth can always represent bigger fish than the PCs, but there's nothing wrong with having some great big mortal fish as well.

And I don't see the concept of "there's always a bigger fish" as being the least bit unfair to the players.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the broader point is that if every major NPC has scores like that (and in FRCS 3E, at least, they definitely do), then the PCs start to look like they're actually below average. And there's a nasty sense of unfairness beyond that: while the players honestly did roll their characters' scores, the authors likely just selected whatever they wanted for the NPCs. So it's a competition in which only one side is playing by any rules. Now, it could be said that's a description of all D&D -- the DM is the DM, after all. But when I DM, at least, I try to make it look like the PCs aren't actively disfavored by the universe.

That's just not true. I've played 3e.........a lot. By the time you hit 20th, actually epic levels, since pretty much all the major NPCs are epic, you've had multiple wishes, stat enhancing books, and have encountered other creatures that have granted stat bonuses as rewards. PCs stats rival those of the major NPCs and depending on how generous the DM is, may even exceed them. I guess if you have a stingy DM who keeps stat enhancing things way, you'd be below them, but at par or better in items/rewards, you and the major NPCs are about the same.

 

[Maxperson]

Really?

I always thought the weave was something specific to the FR setting - are you saying 5e's extended it to all settings?

If so, I'm not impressed. The weave's a cool idea for FR but not cool enough to make universal.

Yes and no. There's a universal magic constant or something that exists in every setting. It's just called the weave in the FR. So yes, the Weave is specific to FR, but the concept is no longer unique.

 

[Maxperson]

I see your point if looked at from the player-first view; however there's one tenet in D&D that I think this NPC design is (maybe even intentionally?) trying to follow, which is this:

There's always a bigger fish.

If the PCs ever get to the point of being the biggest fish in the pond then that campaign is, for all intents and purposes, done and dusted. Now one might argue that deities and so forth can always represent bigger fish than the PCs, but there's nothing wrong with having some great big mortal fish as well.

And I don't see the concept of "there's always a bigger fish" as being the least bit unfair to the players.

It's also being looked it from the point of "The PC right in front of me." rather than compared against all PCs you've ever rolled up. I've rolled up and played some stinkers stat wise. I've also had some that were comparable to these NPCs. These NPCs represent those few that the DM gets. I mean think about it. The DM has millions of NPCs with millions of stat blocks, but only a small handful that have these great numbers.

Low stats vs high stats, the players actually have a much higher percentage of high stat characters than the DM does!

 

[Umbran]

And there really shouldn't be, in the core rules, because this is practically the Platonic ideal of something that needs to be a setting question. The gods of Eberron are not the gods of Toril.

To be honest, I personally take all D&D "rules" about the nature of deific power as entirely optional. For the purposes of this discussion, whether their should or shouldn't be such rules in the core is less important than the fact that they aren't there in all editions.