Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6555177" data-attributes="member: 2067">First point: none of those are objectively good things, and, at the very least, depend on an individual group's goals. Second point: The average on-screen lifespan of the vast majority of creatures the party encounters is something like 1-5 combat rounds. That is the entire duration that their statistics and capabilities are on display and relevant. That is not enough time to get much of a sense of anything aside from a relative measure of &quot;easy to kill&quot; and &quot;will kill us easily.&quot; Even if you create an NPC using precisely the same rules, if the players never see that NPC take a short rest or gain a level or whatever, it's not relevant to the play experience. Third point: It is not necessary to use equivalent mechanics for NPC's to give players a sense of their characters' place in the world. It can be used both ways, y'know. That little chart defines what the CR for a given value of offense and defense is. You can start with the CR and then determine a relevant offense and defense just as easily as you can start with an offense and defense and figure out what it's CR would be. I wouldn't go assuming that class mechanics are necessarily universal. A super-powerful-wizard-with-almost-no-hit-points perfectly describes, say, the young child whose soul is entwined with the half-resurrected spirit of a powerfully evil archmage who is using the little girl as a mobile pawn to gather the remaining bits of their shattered soul to eventually rise to true prominence. There's no need to think through how a PC would do that in order to put that in the game. I can just make a critter with 2 hp and meteor swarm and figure out what it's CR would be and put it in an encounter and it'll be swingy and volatile and rocket-taggy as heck, but it will function just fine for all that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6555177, member: 2067"] First point: none of those are objectively good things, and, at the very least, depend on an individual group's goals. Second point: The average on-screen lifespan of the vast majority of creatures the party encounters is something like 1-5 combat rounds. That is the entire duration that their statistics and capabilities are on display and relevant. That is not enough time to get much of a sense of anything aside from a relative measure of "easy to kill" and "will kill us easily." Even if you create an NPC using precisely the same rules, if the players never see that NPC take a short rest or gain a level or whatever, it's not relevant to the play experience. Third point: It is not necessary to use equivalent mechanics for NPC's to give players a sense of their characters' place in the world. It can be used both ways, y'know. That little chart defines what the CR for a given value of offense and defense is. You can start with the CR and then determine a relevant offense and defense just as easily as you can start with an offense and defense and figure out what it's CR would be. I wouldn't go assuming that class mechanics are necessarily universal. A super-powerful-wizard-with-almost-no-hit-points [I]perfectly[/I] describes, say, the young child whose soul is entwined with the half-resurrected spirit of a powerfully evil archmage who is using the little girl as a mobile pawn to gather the remaining bits of their shattered soul to eventually rise to true prominence. There's no need to think through how a PC would do that in order to put that in the game. I can just make a critter with 2 hp and [I]meteor swarm[/I] and figure out what it's CR would be and put it in an encounter and it'll be swingy and volatile and rocket-taggy as heck, but it will function just fine for all that. [/QUOTE]

Verification