Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 9272295" data-attributes="member: 20323">Uff. I appreciate you sharing all that, but you're really misreading the gist of what I've been saying. Even in what you quoted I'm not making a statement that &quot;it should be like 3.5e where I can do anything the monsters can do.&quot; People are really hammering me as if I'm making that argument, and I am not. I can only presume it's the echoes of past internet arguments rearing their ugly heads.What I've been trying to illustrate in my examples is that – for some players (as [USER=72555]@NotAYakk[/USER] and others point out this does not apply to all tables) –&nbsp; there's a world of difference between &quot;Chimera&quot; or &quot;Eldritch Occultist&quot; doing something beyond or different from a PC vs. an &quot;Apprentice Wizard&quot; doing something beyond or different from a PC (that the PC can not emulate).As I mentioned, the potential issues are player-facing: (1) Narrative dissonance (the &quot;wizard&quot; part), and (2) Power scope expectation within the confines of that specific narrative (the &quot;apprentice&quot; part)For me that's an interesting conversation.However, argument about whether the game should encourage &quot;monster/PC ability parity&quot;? Personally, I find that a dull and uninspired discussion lacking in nuance because, on the face of it, the answer is of course there should NOT be parity and also &quot;NPCs inspired by / intending to evoke the feel of class X&quot; of course should consider the narrative when breaking from parity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 9272295, member: 20323"] Uff. I appreciate you sharing all that, but you're really misreading the gist of what I've been saying. Even in what you quoted I'm not making a statement that "it should be like 3.5e where I can do anything the monsters can do." People are really hammering me as if I'm making that argument, and I am not. I can only presume it's the echoes of past internet arguments rearing their ugly heads. What I've been trying to illustrate in my examples is that – for some players (as [USER=72555]@NotAYakk[/USER] and others point out this does not apply to all tables) – there's a world of difference between "Chimera" or "Eldritch Occultist" doing something beyond or different from a PC vs. an "Apprentice Wizard" doing something beyond or different from a PC (that the PC can not emulate). As I mentioned, the potential issues are player-facing: (1) Narrative dissonance (the "wizard" part), and (2) Power scope expectation within the confines of that specific narrative (the "apprentice" part) For me that's an interesting conversation. However, argument about whether the game should encourage "monster/PC ability parity"? Personally, I find that a dull and uninspired discussion lacking in nuance because, on the face of it, the answer is [B][I]of course [/I][/B]there should [B][I]NOT[/I][/B] be parity [I]and also [/I]"NPCs inspired by / intending to evoke the feel of class X" of course should consider the narrative when breaking from parity. [/QUOTE]

Verification