Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[Cadfan]

In 3e I used partial stat blocks for NPCs and custom monsters. They tended to be about 5 items long, every item made up from my own head. And then I ad libbed the rest.

I rustled some papers behind my DM screen whenever a new monster came on stage, and pretended like I was taking out some lengthy notes. If I needed quick access to a monster stat that I hadn't planned in advance, I made it up and made a note of it. This happened very, very rarely. None of my players ever noticed, as far as I can tell. Certainly no one ever called me on it or complained.

What's the point of this anecdote? The point is that players don't need to know how a monster was created. They just need to know what it is and what it does.

 

[Kishin]

Ding! We have a winner. Though I think the two can be reasonably reconciled into one system.

Trying to reconcile a simulation into D&D is like trying to open a vault with a twizzler.

Also, I feel like its something of a slap in the face to treat your PCs as not special.

But, this is far and away removed from edition wars and Clerics. I suppose we should get back on topic.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I find most of this discussion odd.

I like to worldbuild myself, and I think the 4E mechanic will be great for that purpose. I really have no understanding of why GW thinks it won't, even without playing it.

Maybe it's a matter of degree? Or level of obsession? 'Cause while I enjoy a living world for my campaign and have stuff happen regardless of PC input, I sure as hell don't roll checks for NPCs while at home by myself.

Fitz

 

[hbarsquared]

Lizard's hobgoblin general
The "problem," I think, comes from a 3E mentality.

"Well, he was a Level 1 brute before. How on earth am I going to advance his hit dice in order to make him a Level 13 elite leader?"

The thing is, 4E tells you this: you can't.

What 4E tells you is this:
"You want a Level 13 elite leader that has the abilities of the Level 1 brute in the Monster Manual? Okay. Give him these attack bonuses, defenses, etc. Give him some of these abilities (if you want). Oh, and hey, you can do this thing, too. Take on those Level 1 abilities that you want and he should be a suitable challenge."

3E said: you need to build up the numbers to get to where you want.

4E says: tell us what you want, and we'll give you the numbers that fit exactly that.

KamikazeMidget's 5th-level fighter

4E will still allow this, I'm sure. You can stat up NPCs with character class levels all day, if you want. 4E has simply expanded the "design space." You can now also stat up NPCs with only the relevant information for a combat encounter, if you want. Its' your world, and you can design NPCs with relative power levels as high as you want.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Don't particularly feel like diving into this, but halfling height, cleric population, et cetera, are world-building assumptions, whereas 1-1-1 diagonals are a tactical simplification. I really, really think that folks need to take a second look at the idea that the grid is merely a pure abstraction of the combat environment that exists in the "actual" game world.

You're not wrong, but it's weird when the excuse of "It needed more realism!" comes up in one area, and then goes away the moment it becomes problematic. To use a combat example, there's 1-1-1 diagonals (abstract), but there's also the Bloodied status (a bit of realism), or the very fact that we're using a grid in the first place instead of some purely abstract battlezone (certainly the game would run a lot smoother without these slides and opportunity attacks and pushes and fiddly movement bits all over the place!).

I don't have a good abstract world-building example, because we haven't seen the DMG, but if it uses some concept, for instance, of "A world full of clerics is undrealistic", alongside the concept of "Don't worry about how NPC's get healed if they break a leg!", it will be similarly dissonant.

Like "Halflings need to be taller, and also Eladrin can teleport" is dissonant in the field of race design.

I mean, 4e's schizophrenia might be a good thing, for all that, it's just like, to use the elephant comparison, I've felt a trunk...and I've also felt a beak and mandibles?! It's surprising, but it could all make sense in the end.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

To use the elephant comparison, I've felt a trunk...and I've also felt a beak and mandibles?! It's surprising, but it could all make sense in the end.

Sure. You thought it was an elephant, but it was really a Grell.

Fitz

 

[FireLance]

I don't like the idea of the PCs being heroes right out of the gate. You want to be a hero? Prove that you are. Earn it. Heroes are made, not born.

Is this another case of definition confusion? I know some people use "heroic" to mean "more competent than average" rather than "praiseworthy; deserving of emulation".

A 1st-level 4e character is certainly higher on the relative competence scale (compared to the rest of the world) than a 1st-level 3e character.

This may mean that he is heroic in the other sense on a small scale: it is certainly more plausible (compared to a 1st-level 3e character) that he might have made a name for himself locally, or distinguished himself in some way in his backstory. However, I don't think this is a requirement for all 1st-level characters in 4e.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Also, a 1st level is more competent, etc. Since he isn't just a commoner. Obviously somewhere along the lines he began to learn how to do whatever it is his class does, this already sets his training and knowledge above a ordinary commoner.

He is also obviously competent in his class, so once more sets him above a commoner. A commoner didn't learn how to masterfully fire a bow like a level 1 ranger or sneak around like a level 1 rogue.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4E will still allow this, I'm sure. You can stat up NPCs with character class levels all day, if you want. 4E has simply expanded the "design space." You can now also stat up NPCs with only the relevant information for a combat encounter, if you want. Its' your world, and you can design NPCs with relative power levels as high as you want.

Well, the problem for the people I'm talking about is that if the game says the PC gets something extra just because they're the PC, and that the others don't have it, simply because they're not PCs, is that it sets up an inherent difference between the characters that the players control and every other character, rather than allowing that difference to come out of role-playing alone.

Yeah, I could give the guards some more powers, but the real problem is that the 5th level PC fighter is DIFFERENT, in some way that the rest of the guards will recognize.

I mean, think of Sam or Merry from LotR. Rather mundane examples of average people in their homes. They become heroes not because they can get beat up more than other hobbits, but because they choose to face the unknown with only the same abilities that every other hobbit has. Sam helps fight evil with the power of cooking and sewing and being vaguely homoerotic. Something I'm sure the rest of the hobbits do all the time, even when they're not in the shadow of Mount Doom.

Or think of childhood fantasy, like Alice in Wonderland. Alice is a pretty normal girl who gets in way over her head. She's not heroic because she can kill more goblins, she's not more especially suited to thwarting the Queen of Hearts than any other little girl, but she's the main character because it's about her.

D&D has never really tried to be "normal folks in fantastic situations," but people have used it for that, and 4e might very well make doing that harder.

 

[small pumpkin man]

You're not wrong, but it's weird when the excuse of "It needed more realism!" comes up in one area, and then goes away the moment it becomes problematic. To use a combat example, there's 1-1-1 diagonals (abstract), but there's also the Bloodied status (a bit of realism), or the very fact that we're using a grid in the first place instead of some purely abstract battlezone (certainly the game would run a lot smoother without these slides and opportunity attacks and pushes and fiddly movement bits all over the place!).

I don't have a good abstract world-building example, because we haven't seen the DMG, but if it uses some concept, for instance, of "A world full of clerics is undrealistic", alongside the concept of "Don't worry about how NPC's get healed if they break a leg!", it will be similarly dissonant.

Like "Halflings need to be taller, and also Eladrin can teleport" is dissonant in the field of race design.

I mean, 4e's schizophrenia might be a good thing, for all that, it's just like, to use the elephant comparison, I've felt a trunk...and I've also felt a beak and mandibles?! It's surprising, but it could all make sense in the end.

Yes, things which create problems are being removed, things which don't aren't, how is that so hard to understand? How is that "schizophrenic"?

As for the OAs and movement, it's there because it adds to tactics, notice how they're really pushing the whole "more tactical" bit? It's there because it adds something that wasn't before.