D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Dannager]

Not necessarily.

It's not a matter of "necessarily." There may be some (really) corner cases where the general rules outlined below don't apply. That's not the point. The point is that, in general and in very large part, the ways that NPCs are utilized in the course of a game are fundamentally different from the ways in which PCs are utilized, and that their design should reflect those differences.

Not necessarily. It may be that an evil cleric is less likely to prepare a healing spell, because he is evil.

That's not a function of his being an NPC; it's a function of his being evil. That said, a party of otherwise neutral PCs will be at a far more significant disadvantage if they are packing a Cleric who memorizes Inflict spells rather than Cure spells than a comparable NPC villain's entourage would be, because the PCs will be relying on healing magic to accomplish their purpose in the game construct while the NPC villain Cleric's entourage will not.

It may be something that a character who lives at the end of a dungeon and is expecting a fight doesn't think it's important. It may be that a character with a good fort save and a bunch of undead servants is not particularly worried about disease. But those considerations are independent of who is playing the character. That being said, I see more NPCs with Remove Disease than PCs, even evil ones; that's totally campaign dependent.

That's because NPCs in the system you run are designed with the same rules that PCs are, and as a result they have Remove Disease (which, I'd wager, you've almost never had any of them use; contrast with PC Clerics, who - in my experience - have nearly all had cause to use Remove Disease at least once in the course of their career).

Most NPCs are not enemies, unless your campaign is the PCs against the world.

That's true. Most NPCs whose mechanics I care about, however, are enemies. In all likelihood, I don't need to know that the local magewright who runs the potion shop prepared Shield this morning, or that the tavern wench has a -1 to attack with her pitcher of ale. I do need to know that sort of information for enemies.

But even if they are, those NPCs have lives, careers, and mechanics that go deeper than what we ever see "on screen" or in a game session.

Yes, and if we let ourselves get carried away with mundane details that will never have an impact on the game, you could be sitting there forever generating pointless trivialities and translating them into game mechanics.

So do PCs.

And they only have to worry about one person: their own character. You have to worry about dozens, if not hundreds. DMs don't have time for that level of (likely pointless) detail.

Their lives before the battle are not irrelevant.

Sure, but I'm not arguing that they are.

And even when NPCs are enemies, they may be ongoing foes,

The exception rather than the rule, and certainly not something that is hindered in any way by creating a better way to represent NPCs mechanically than with the same level of detail as PCs.

they may engage in a variety of activities before attacking, they may escape, they may be taken captive, they may take the PCs captive, they may change their mind and no longer be enemies. And PCs sometimes last only one combat encounter. So again, not necessarily.

If it is your belief that a PC is as likely to last one encounter as an enemy NPC, then you have a point.

Since that's ridiculous, you don't.

Simplicity and depth are not antithetical. My examination makes fewer assumptions than yours; you make a plethora of generalizations that are not explicitly stated in the rules, are not natural consequences of those rules, and are not necessarily the case in any particular D&D game.

I very much doubt that you have ever run a D&D campaign wherein your average enemy NPC has anywhere near the same longevity and mechanical impact as a function of their stat block as your average PC. Furthermore, I very much doubt that, even if you had, the same would hold true for any significant number of DMs.

The fact is that, for all the talk of every D&D game being unique and cautioning against making sweeping generalizations, the vast majority D&D games fall within a pretty predictable set of bounds.

In other words, it sounds to me like you are relying on your experiences to explain how the game works for people who are not you.

No, I'm pretty sure that the generalizations I've made are pretty non-controversial on the whole, and that you're being contrary about accepting them because your entire position is based on the idea that the exceptions to those generalizations are far-and-away more important than facilitating typical gameplay.

 

[Sunseeker]

So my point is that if you wanted to, in 3e you could have a 20th level character take up singing or arcane knowledge or psychic power and pick up, for example, 4 ranks (You could take more or less). You'd be as good as a 1st level character. You could (if you had a lot of skill points to spare) be as good as the norm for your character level, or anything less than that.

However, the standard modifier precludes that. If you're a 20th level character, you have +10 to start with in everything. Even if you're a really stupid barbarian, you likely know more about arcana than a 1st level wizard. Unless you're 1st level, it's impossible to be a beginner at anything. You basically have two choices; you can be good at a task for your level by being trained and having the right ability mods, or you can be bad at it for level, by not having those bonuses.

The same issue is present in earlier versions of D&D mostly with attack bonus. Even in 3e, your wizards get a better attack bonus than barbarians if they have a level advantage. I'd argue that that should never happen (unless you're playing a wizard who actually does melee combat, like Gandalf). Sure, there are other modifiers besides your BAB, and damage and other abilities are relevant too, but I don't see why someone who isn't actively training in something needs to get better at it. With the (3e) skills approach, you only get better at something when you choose to and invest into doing so. So my issue with 4e is that given the choice between hard-coded level-based bonuses, and level-independent skill bonuses, the made everything like the former rather than the latter. It does allow you to readily predict what a character of X level can do (which some might argue is good for balance), but you lose flexibility, granularity, and simulation. The range of bonuses a character can have at any particular thing is smaller. Characters are more homogenous. To me, that's not worth it.

Sure, in 4e you can never be as "bad" as a low-level player can be "good". It's half-level mechanics is part of this, but I don't know if it's intent is to work as you're seeing it.

In 4e, the half-level mechanic ensures that all players have some chance of success when doing at-level challenges. It's not that Bob the Barbarian knows more about arcana than Sally the 1st-level wizard, it's that Bob the Barbarian has more experience with arcane stuff by 20th level than Sally does at 1st level. By 20th level, Bob has most likely had a significant amount of exposure to arcane devices, creatures, and all sorts of other things that Sally may have only read about. So, when Bob encounters the strange formation of magical crystals all arranged in a specific shape, Bob's experience says "Oh hey, this is probably an arcane thingy." When the actual DC is also scaling with level, Bob is still going to have one heck of a time hitting that 35 in order to find out that it's actually a magical cloning device.

The half-level mechanic doesn't serve to sameify characters, it serves to allow them to participate, even if at an incredible disadvantage whereas in previous editions the Barbarian would have a low int-score(1 would be amazing, 0 is more likely) and never have enough skill points to spare to get any learning in arcane subjects. So when Bob's turn came, he'd just sit his dice down or make a dice-tower while Sally kept making all the roles.

In any edition, Sally is going to be more likely to get those answers quicker and more accurately, but when Sally is unconscious from some rough fighting in Arcanium's Arcane Labyrinth of Arcanum, earlier edition groups are screwed until they get her better, while 4e groups can at least make an attempt, even if a poor one, to solve arcane challenges. The "assist" mechanic *badumtish* assists a lot here too, that a bunch of knickledragers, even at 20th level, can put their heads together and maybe come up with a solution is, IMO, a good thing to encourage.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=30619]Siberys[/MENTION]
Fair enough. YMMV on this issue. That being said, your point reinforces what I was saying: different editions of D&D are different.

Thus, I find it odd when people who know this claim that you "can't" do something in D&D or it's "not D&D" or one should go to "some other game" to access a particular mechanic. What makes (for example) hit points, or Vancian magic, or class and levels sine qua non, when so many other things are not.

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]
If you ask a yes or no question, you may get a one word answer. That's not a quip, it's what you asked for. Frankly, I wish people would respond that way sometimes when I ask such questions, rather than going off on tangents (this is a wizard thread after all, or it was whenI started posting in it). Could I provide counterexamples and discuss the issue further...[see below]

[MENTION=40176]MarkB[/MENTION]
Could I? Yes. Unfortunately me and my books are currently separated due to a partially completed move, so I'm rather limited in that regard.
However let's take a quick stab (so to speak):

"Tank"
Fighter 3
HP: 3d10+6 (27 hp)
AC: 19 (+1 Dex, +8 armor)
Attacks: Greatsword +6 (2d6+3; 19-20, x2), or +3 (2d6+9; 19-20, x2)
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +2
Abilities: Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
Feats: Cleave, Diehard, Endurance, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack
Skills: Climb +3, Intimidate +5, Jump +3
Items: MW Full plate, +1 Greatsword

"Swashbuckler"
Human Fighter (Thug) 3
HP: 3d10 (21 hp)
AC: 16 (+2 Dex, +3 armor, +1 shield)
Attacks: Rapier +6 (1d6+1; 18-20, x2), or +3 (1d6+1; 18-20, x2; +3 AC)
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +0
Abilities: Str 12, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 8, Cha 15
Skills: Bluff +10, Climb +4, Gather Info +6, Handle Animal +4, Intimidate +10, Jump +4, Knowledge (Local) +4, Ride +4, Sleight of Hand +10, Swim +4
Feats: Combat Expertise, Persuasive, Run, Weapon Finesse
Items: MW Studded Leather, MW Buckler, MW Rapier, Longbow, 100 arrows, Hat of Disguise


***

This is just a quick sketch with SRD stuff, not nearly what one could do with the system. So here's a really simple explanation. Character #1 is the generic fighter, character #2 is not. Character #1 basically is only meaningfully skilled at hitting things repeatedly with his sword, or bull rushing weaker opponents. Character #2 is a career criminal, who holds people up or scams them, intimidates them a bit if necessary, and runs away when the going gets tough. #1 clearly obliterates #2 in a straight-up fight, and is significantly better in almost every meaningful combat statistic. #2 has chosen to spend skills, feats, and money on noncombat resources.

The biggest difference between #1 and #2 is in the skills block, where #2 has spread out is skill points to become a jack of all trades master of none, charismatic con man, while #1 has the generic choices for being athletic and intimidating.

Now, in the 4e blocks above, I didn't see trained skills (which I thought should be there; am I missing something?). But the training concept doesn't offer you the level of granularity, and there aren't as many skills. But the bigger picture is that I see two characters who have the same number of powers, both of which recharge at the same rate and are all combat related. Then there's a long block of text that says that the powers deal a certain amount of damage and/or impose some minor status effects or forced movement. The specific text of those powers is somewhat different, but I read them as being two variations of the same character. They're the same fighter, just optimized for a different fighting style.

Whereas mine are two characters with completely different capabilities suited for completely different types of games.

And that's just a starting point. I mean, what if I gave one of them psychic powers?

 

[Ahnehnois]

The fact is that, for all the talk of every D&D game being unique and cautioning against making sweeping generalizations, the vast majority D&D games fall within a pretty predictable set of bounds.

They do? Where did you get that information from? Certainly not from reading these boards.

Beyond that, you've set up a ridiculous straw man. I never said that every character required the same amount of information. Only that whatever information is required is generated and used in the same way.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by Siberys
I just want to point out that I /very much/ disagree with this. Structure-wise, 4e is 3e with heavily cleaned-up math and a couple of rules flipped (the change from saving throws to attacks for spells, for example). Except for a couple of basic changes born from the above and the character-building rules, they're very close to being the same game. I picked up 4e extremely easily /because/ of my familiarity with 3e.

Now compare 3e to 2e; if we're just talking a core book to core book comparison, 3e is mechanically miles from 2e. I couldn't use my familiarity with 3e at all to learn 2e, except on the descriptive side where edition doesn't really matter. (As I understand it, the Player's Option books closed the gap a bit, but I've little experience with those and late-cycle books are really outside the point I'm trying to make.)

I just wanted to ditto this. Coming from a game that used a lot of the excellent late-era 3.5 stuff, 4e felt like a natural extension of what we were already doing. Of course a familiarity with Star Wars Saga probably helped, too.

-O

I just wanted to tri-ditto this; natural extension of what we were already doing et al.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

First off, I already solved the edition wars forever over on the WOTC boards:

The powers of the different 4e classes had a very different feel from each other. But they were all allotted the same way, via AEDU, which was disconcerting to players accustomed to dealing with resource management in-character. (That is, a 3e wizard was actually deciding in-character whether to save his spells for later; that doesn't necessarily make sense for every 4e martial power, so 4e resource management was typically an out-of-character tactical decision for the player.)

So yes, a 4e wizard did different stuff than a 4e fighter, but they both had the same style of resource management.

Argument solved forever!

So that's why there's an argument over "sameness" in 4e. (The ideal for 5e, at least IMHO, would be to combine the mechanical differentiation of 4e with the resource-management variety of late-stage 3.5e.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

(The ideal for 5e, at least IMHO, would be to combine the mechanical differentiation of 4e with the resource-management variety of late-stage 3.5e.)

I think that if everything, magic and otherwise, were defined in skill/feat terms (or similar language of your preference) and the recharge mechanics and effects generated were suitably different (and layered with options and variety) that would be the ideal for me. Sounds similar.

 

[Neonchameleon]

However, the standard modifier precludes that. If you're a 20th level character, you have +10 to start with in everything. Even if you're a really stupid barbarian, you likely know more about arcana than a 1st level wizard.

Of course you do! You've spent the past twenty levels working alongside and fighting against spellcasters. In terms of theoretical knowledge the first level wizard might know more. But he's wet behind the ears. You on the other hand have seen more combat magic than even the average battlemage. You've been to other planes and held and used more magic items than most archmages see in their life. And you're telling me that the first level apprentice wizard should know more about the uses and effects of magic than you've picked up along the way?

Unless you're 1st level, it's impossible to be a beginner at anything.

It's impossible to be a beginner at adventuring unless you're a first level adventurer. Because that's what being a first level adventurer means.

Sure, there are other modifiers besides your BAB, and damage and other abilities are relevant too, but I don't see why someone who isn't actively training in something needs to get better at it.

Because actively training or not, they are using it. And they are seeing examples of it used extremely well to add to their own knowledge base, and to remember. I might not do much sneaking as a wizard, but I've seen the rogue disappear into the shadows enough times to know how it's done and clumsily imitate him. And I might not have the toughness of my companions - but I've crossed the Desert of No Return, I've climbed the Icy Mountain of Peril to face the legendary Dragon Aschathak, and I've crossed the planes. I know what I'm doing and have picked up more practical experience along the way than any wet behind the ears newbie has, however talented.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Because actively training or not, they are using it. And they are seeing examples of it used extremely well to add to their own knowledge base, and to remember. I might not do much sneaking as a wizard, but I've seen the rogue disappear into the shadows enough times to know how it's done and clumsily imitate him. And I might not have the toughness of my companions - but I've crossed the Desert of No Return, I've climbed the Icy Mountain of Peril to face the legendary Dragon Aschathak, and I've crossed the planes. I know what I'm doing and have picked up more practical experience along the way than any wet behind the ears newbie has, however talented.

In other words, you think that characters get better at "stuff" when they level up, and which stuff they happen to be best at is a secondary concern. You're that saying that characters are more homogenous in 4e, but because they should be. Apparently, they were discombobulated in every other edition.

Whereas I'm suggesting that adventuring doesn't inherently make you better at any particular task, you only get better in specific ways and for specific reasons.

Not much is going to bridge that philosophical divide that I can see.

 

[Dannager]

They do? Where did you get that information from? Certainly not from reading these boards.

Yes, from reading these boards - not to mention discussions by industry professionals on how D&D games are typically run. Individual games do not vary anywhere near as dramatically as you are undoubtedly inclined to think that they do.

Beyond that, you've set up a ridiculous straw man. I never said that every character required the same amount of information. Only that whatever information is required is generated and used in the same way.

That's what I'm arguing against. The information is not used in the same way, and therefore it ought not to be generated in the same way. And I've gone through the trouble of explaining to you exactly what the differences are between how PCs use their mechanics and how NPCs use their mechanics, precisely because I was trying to avoid having you come back at me with inane strawman accusations.