D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Maxperson]

Post-UA 1e and all of 2e would beg to differ, as they had weapon specialization such that you could get better with a bow than (most) other same-level warriors.

Which fighters could not get bow specialization? How does one fighter specialized with a bow and of the same level and dex stat become better than the other with bows?

Those editions couldn't hold a candle to 3e for versatility in realizing character concepts.

 

[Hussar]

Because no such ability exists to explain the hobgoblins, while the abilities do exist in the game for those classes. And the DM will very rarely have to actually do the creating or adding. The possibility just has to be there. Most players won't want to spend the time and effort in the middle of a campaign that likely won't wait for them, to achieve the new class or ability.

Narrating something that doesn't exist after the fact is weak justification for something that should have a reason already built in. The designers were lazy and put this on the DMs when they shouldn't have.

But those “classes” don’t exist. You are simply justifying them after the fact.

 

[Maxperson]

But those “classes” don’t exist. You are simply justifying them after the fact.

You think the only classes that exist are the ones that WotC publishes in the PHB or other player facing book?

 

[Hussar]

Because the generic stat block for an Elf should be different that that of a Dwarf or a Hobbit or a Goliath or a Human; all of which should also be different from each other.

Like it used to be for humanoids wher the only difference between stat blocks was 1 hp? Goblins had 1 more hp than kobolds, orcs had one more hp than goblins. Hobgoblins had one more hp.

Everything else was identical.

Those kinds of differences you mean?

 

[Hussar]

Ayup.

Exactly. As a player, I want there to be at least the possibility of getting this (e.g. if my PC is an Assassin then I should either already know o be able to learn that poison trick); and as a DM, I expect the game to give me the tools to provide it.

Then it’s great that you aren’t playing 5e then isn’t it?

 

[Hussar]

You think the only classes that exist are the ones that WotC publishes in the PHB or other player facing book?

Yes.

Because, and I know this seems to be hard to get across so I’ll repeat it again:

PCs and npcs are not built using the same rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes.

Because, and I know this seems to be hard to get across so I’ll repeat it again:

PCs and npcs are not built using the same rules.

Yes they are, by RAW even. There are three RAW ways in the 5e DMG to build NPCs, and as PCs is one of them. Just because the MM uses one way, doesn't mean that the class built as a PC doesn't exist.

Edit: Changed PHB to DMG.

 

[Hussar]

Yes they are, by RAW even. There are three RAW ways in the 5e PHB to build NPCs, and as PCs is one of them. Just because the MM uses one way, doesn't mean that the class built as a PC doesn't exist.

Nope. You are factually wrong.

There is no way to build a NPC using the PC rules. To build and NPC, under the rules for creating a creature, you start with the CR first and then work backwards. THAT'S how NPC's are built. That you build NPC's using PC rules doesn't change that. That is 100% NOT how NPC's are built. And haven't been built that way since day 1 of 5e.

 

[TiQuinn]

Nope. You are factually wrong.

There is no way to build a NPC using the PC rules. To build and NPC, under the rules for creating a creature, you start with the CR first and then work backwards. THAT'S how NPC's are built. That you build NPC's using PC rules doesn't change that. That is 100% NOT how NPC's are built. And haven't been built that way since day 1 of 5e.

Might wanna double check what the 5th edition DMG says about that.

 

[Hussar]

Might wanna double check what the 5th edition DMG says about that.

Care to be more specific? When you build an NPC, you start with the CR, and then build to that. What did you have in mind?