Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[pemerton]

Actually, having thought about it, what heroic-scale RPGs with different NPC/PC rules are there, really? Previous editions of DnD *didn't* have it in anyway I understand it.

I guess your understanding and mine are different. In my perception, old D&D monster books are full of NPCs. And even if we're talking about PC-raced characters, this remains true. Take the first sentence in the 1e MM entry on "Men." "Normal men have from 1-6 hit points each."

Sure, those entries are full of stuff about the leaders of bands of "Men," but even those guys have random armor, weapons, and spells. Similar to PCs, but different. That tradition is upheld in 4e, I'd say, only it might be even easier to make a reasonable band of bad guys in 4e.

In addition to those that Chris mentions, there are the different stat minimums for PCs (as set out in the PHB) and NPCs (as set out in the DMG) to be members of particular classes. And there are the very many different systems for allocating magic items to NPCs compared to high-level PCs (who use the tables in the DMG Appendix P, from memory).

By the time you get to upper levels, the "cave-men" or "dervishes" (or the like, my 1e MM is all of 2 rooms away, but what's the point?) have vanished in 1e/2e. Those pretty much (entirely?) only exist for humans, not for the demi-humans, anyways. I am somewhat amused that you referred to heroic-scale RPGs, because 1e's deviations from PC/NPC transparency (and a LOT of that transparency is removed if you accept 0th level men-at-arms as an inferior class without advancement, a la 3e's warrior) was restricted to lower levels.

I don't agree with much of this.

*Low-level demihumans have hit dice rather than character levels (eg Elves are 1+1 HD and Dwarves 1 HD even though the typical Dwarf has a higher CON);

*The different stat minimums for class membership are relevant at all NPC levels;

*In the PHB and DMG, only NPCs Elves and Dwarves can be clerics and only NPC Halflings can be Druids;

*Mercenary and ship captains (as set out in the Hirelings section of the DMG) have a different mechanic for levelling and level benefits than any PCs. Likewise for spies, and also for sages (although the latter are not really level-based in their mechanics, they come into play primarily at mid-to-high levels, because of the amounts of money involved in hiring them).

In short, 1st ed AD&D is rife with different mechanical systems for PC and NPC building. It also has different action resolution mechanics for PCs and NPCs at all level - for example, PCs are not governed by the Reaction/Loyalty/Moral mechanics.

 

[small pumpkin man]

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.

Yes, characters built with PC classes as opposed to NPC classes/rules have more abilities, more options and more staying power, just like in 3.x, what's your point?

 

[hbarsquared]

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.

I think I completely agree. Although 1st-level characters in 3E were still "heroes," you could still convincingly pull off a "normal guy" type character. 1st-level characters in 4E command a whole host of abilities that are definitely not average.

So, yes, you are right.

However,

I will hazard a guess that 4E will provide the tools to more easily do exactly what you are saying. 3E rules were more concrete. They did give you the option of taking NPC classes, starting naked with no equipment, and so on, but still required you to fit a particular mold. I imagine that since 4E is far more "customizable" it will also be far more easy to create "average normal folk."

It's already confirmed that the DMG will include a "kit" for creating the elements of the game. If this goes for character classes, you could easily create the Sewer/Homoeroticist class. You could create a race with a distinctly lower power level. You can create encounters that are a better match for such characters than "equal number of opponents of equal level."

Although 4E has more "power creep" at 1st-level, I believe it will be much easier for a DM to change and manipulate than 3E.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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"?

First of all, don't be a jerk. I'm engaging the conversation, the sarcasm is REALLY unnecessary, and makes me not want to engage, or to engage and be a jerk back, so you can stop.

What "creates problems" is obviously going to vary with the styles of games you run, so whatever causes problems for you doesn't cause problems for hundreds of other people while something that you get away with might stick in the craw of 99% of the rest of the players out there.

So you can't say that everything that creates problems is being removed and everything that is fun is staying in, because that's myopically subjective. Things that create problems are still, apparently, in. New things that create new problems are also in. Things that didn't create problems before are out.

The paid experts are putting a LOT more thought into this than "Does small pumpkin man like it?"

The schizophrenia comes from adhering to a certain ideal while denying that ideal in other ways, which means that I don't know how I'm supposed to render my conception. Do the races need to adhere to realism? Then why does an eladrin get to teleport? Why do we have dragonfolk? Do the races get to be high fantasy? Then why were small halflings a problem?

It's always a bad idea to adhere to any philosophy singlemindedly, so a bit of schizophrenia is a good thing, but it also obscures the intent of the design, which makes the game harder to play the way the designers intend, the way it's SUPPOSED to be played, the way it works best.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Arrgh!

 

[ruleslawyer]

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'd suggest that "bloodied" is an abstraction as much as "hit points" or "Armor Class" or "squares." All of these are game concepts that would have no meaning in, say, a novel, no matter how detailed that novel's portrait of practices concerning raising the dead, establishing orders of spell-casting clerics, training halflings to use reasonable-sized weapons, or any of the other things we might be talking about would be.

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.

This is one of those "we haven't seen the rules yet" issues, though. Moreover, as has been discussed ad nauseam, "breaking a leg" is one of those things that's *never* been dealt with by the D&D engine, or rather has been dealt with the same way one *might* deal with it in 4e: Namely, narration by the DM.

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

I don't understand how taller halflings or teleporting high elves have anything to do with simplifying abstractions such as 1-1-1 diagonals or NPC design guidelines; the former are issues that exist in the world with which the PCs are presumed to interact, while the latter exist in the world with which the players and DM interact. Apples and oranges, no?

 

[hong]

The schizophrenia comes from adhering to a certain ideal while denying that ideal in other ways, which means that I don't know how I'm supposed to render my conception. Do the races need to adhere to realism? Then why does an eladrin get to teleport? Why do we have dragonfolk? Do the races get to be high fantasy? Then why were small halflings a problem?

Fantasy is heightist.

TEH ENB

 

[VannATLC]

Making Halflings taller is a flavour change, mostly, from what I understand, because most people don't like playing actually small characters.

Additionally, halfling size has always bothered me due to strength issues, mostly, (It beggar's my imagination to imagine somebody 3ft and 30lbs being able to lift 250lbs. over their head) -2 wasn't even close to a big enough penalty.

4e's design decision to remove penalties from races left them in a serious quandry.

While they could have gone with Prachett's gnome ideas.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I always viewed the 8, that you get without adding any more points is the standard since this is where you can walk normally without tripping, be able to lift your own body weight, be able to lift simple things, etc.

Thus why I think the negative modifiers are silly, since that means for example, you can't even pull up your own body-weight. Which is something that wouldn't be so because of your race, ie: it would have to be a flaw the player decided to have.

 

[AZRogue]

I think maybe the design focus was something like this:

1. Game rules should be chosen based upon how well they work in the game itself, from a purely gamist perspective.

2. Where two or more rules meet the above criteria, choose the one that makes the most 'game-world/simulationist' sense.

So on some things they may mention how the change is more 'realistic' while on others they can't, because the gamist/balance aspect took priority. Which would be fine by me, but would explain some of the 'seeming' schizophrenia.