"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency"

[Hriston]

Yeah, I see you kind of got to the point I did before me. I don't think anything but PCs in AD&D LITERALLY have a class as an attribute of the character and are 'classed'. Things that have stat blocks (MM entries or similar abbreviate versions) are not 'fighters' even if, in some cases, the rules will tell you to treat them as such for some specific purpose. The example of the pirate 8th level wizard NPC special figure (for example) is a bit different, they should probably just follow the Magic User rules for attacks and such? It isn't really actually very clear though! I mean, there's not anything saying exactly that they have N hit dice either, so that makes sense in terms of "I need a rule for when this character stabs someone with his dagger." OTOH can the pirate wizard wield a cutlass? Wear leather armor like other pirates? None of this is actually spelled out anywhere! But heck, this is AD&D, its not like a really coherent set of rules...

Honestly, I think this is a little bit backwards, mostly because of the way D&D in general presents this information as player-facing first. The 8th-level magic-user pirate is like a Chainmail wizard figure operating at such and such a level. One of the features of playing a PC magic-user, once you've gotten your character to 8th level, is having the capabilities of that type of figure. So absolutely, the 8th-level magic-user pirate should attack with THAC0 19 and have 8d4 hit points like an 8th-level magic-user and should also be subject to the armor and weapon restrictions of a magic-user. But there are other things, like ability scores, that are mostly PC only and which you can probably dispense with.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Must be an untypical king then! Perhaps one in exile or something. Sounds like a good fodder for adventure.


Yes. But this is not a rule thing in D&D, so your comparison was invalid. Besides, like I already pointed out, it of course is perfectly possible for character to become a king. Point of course never was that every NPC in the setting must be representable by a starting character.

But remember where all this line of discussion arose, from the notion that all NPCs should be built using the same rules as PCs. This obviates even the possibility of a Duke that is not also a 9th level fighter, for example. That's just the tip of the iceberg here, but if you cannot even do that, then your system is garbage IMHO.

 

[pemerton]

Yes. And? What context did I miss?

Having more than 1d6 hp isn't a pathway that will enable playing a character the same as a NPC with 1d6 hp.

 

[pemerton]

Are the hit dice in B/X d8? I thought monster hit dice in that system were d6s like they are in the original game and Holmes Basic.

I just checked - both Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert call out monster HD as d8.

Which fits with my memory - I've never done monsters as other than d8, and I had no source of information other than the B/X books first, and then the AD&D MM.

EDIT: Fighters are also d8, as are Dwarves; Elves, Clerics and Halflings are d6; Thieves and MUs are d4.

Oddly, though, hp per level above 9th are +1 for Clerics and MUs, +2 for Elves, Fighters and Thieves, and +3 for Dwarves. (Halflings are capped at 8th so for them it doesn't come up.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But some NPCs in the setting are kings (barons, dukes, princes, etc) with d6 (or whatever) hit points; whereas in most approaches to D&D that I'm familiar with, a PC has to be somewhere above 1st level to become a king.

There is no pathway I'm aware of that will enable a D&D player to play a character the same as one of those NPCs.

As I pointed out, there is a way, and that's if every king is a 9th level or higher fighter! There are NO KINGS anywhere in the world that don't comply with the PC build rules! 'Cause hey, that's the rules of the world! BWAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHA! (oh, sorry, did I cackle?)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I just checked - both Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert call out monster HD as d8.

Which fits with my memory - I've never done monsters as other than d8, and I had no source of information other than the B/X books first, and then the AD&D MM.

EDIT: Fighters are also d8, as are Dwarves; Elves, Clerics and Halflings are d6; Thieves and MUs are d4.

Oddly, though, hp per level above 9th are +1 for Clerics and MUs, +2 for Elves, Fighters and Thieves, and +3 for Dwarves. (Halflings are capped at 8th so for them it doesn't come up.)

Interesting, so they basically incorporated the d8 rule of the MM. It may be that this is indicating that the MM was really designed to be a universal resource, and then at some point the AD&D logo got slapped on it. Actually, I was wrong, if you dig down to page 22 of Holmes it actually calls out monster hit dice as also being a d8, one of the few actual breaks with the original rules! That makes the 1978 Basic pretty much entirely compatible at a basic system level with the 1e MM and PHB (which was published pretty soon after Holmes). Interestingly though the PDF I have is marked 'second edition November 1978', so maybe that was a slight revision? I guess I'd have to dig out my original book, although I think the whole 2nd half is missing at this point...

 

[pemerton]

I guess I'd have to dig out my original book, although I think the whole 2nd half is missing at this point...

My B and X are both complete, although their covers are loose (and in two parts each) except for the remnants trapped by the staples . . .

 

[Lanefan]

Introducing slavers as NPCs has generally been seen by pretty much all the groups I play in as raising a "kill-on-sight death flag" on the slavers that's usually reserved for demons and undead.

I generally avoid trying to present it as uncontroversial or morally neutral outside of an explicit Greco-Roman analogue, Bronze Age morality kind of empire.

One of the long-lasting PCs in my current campaign's early days rolled "Slaver" as her pre-adventuring profession, which led to all kinds of interesting situations.

 

[Lanefan]

As I pointed out, there is a way, and that's if every king is a 9th level or higher fighter! There are NO KINGS anywhere in the world that don't comply with the PC build rules! 'Cause hey, that's the rules of the world! BWAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHA! (oh, sorry, did I cackle?)

I've missed something here: why does every monarch need to be at least a F-9 in order to comply with PC build rules?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

At least from a D&D perspective one of the sorts of characters I often need to represent are characters who very skilled in one particular area but lack the broad capabilities of D&D adventures. Diplomats, physicians, scholars, ritualists, weaponsmiths, etc. Highly skilled, but also highly vulnerable individuals.

I would argue that 3.x can plausibly model the normal range of human skills (including "highly skilled") within its mechanics, without a character ever being above 1st level. I once made a long, boring post incorporating those ideas - bear in mind that this post was made seventeen years ago, before the advent of even 4E, and the dialogue around rpgs and my own perspective has evolved a great deal since then.

Exactly this. NPCs need to be able to be non-combat, non-adventuring specialists in their field, and the broad competence that adventuring classes get (and the extreme survivability granted by Hit Points) is actively detrimental to portraying them "realistically".

I should be able to make a professor at a magical university have some 6th and 7th level spells, but not have the spell slot capacity and repertoire of a teen level wizard, and only have 10-12 HP.

This is something which I agree 3.x cannot do without stretching its mechanics beyond breaking point. Unfilled spell slots and 13hp minimum.