Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

The game system doesn't necessarily say that PCs are special. But it definitely say that PC-classed characters are special. Your run-of-the-mill city guard isn't special, thus he doesn't get PC levels. But it doesn't mean he is useless or weak. In fact, he might be quite dangerous, even for a PC. (Look at the DDXP Kobold statistics - aside from the Minions, most of them have hit points in the PC range! And their attack bonuses aren't much worse, and they also have special abilities.)

The in-gameworld reason why PCs are special is simply because they have a special destiny, that they are chosen by the gods, or that they have a special genetic trait that makes them different, or as a child, they fell in the pot with the strength potion...
The real-world gamist reason why PCs are special is twofold:
- Players like to take names and kick butt.
- Players like to have options when creating and advancing their characters.

---

GnomeWorks: I could never do what you did. Rolling out an army combat in my free time? That's like playing chess against yourself! Sure I might be able to do it, but it's definitely not interesting to me. I might have a background war in my campaign, but I would most likely define the outcome on my own whim. Just as I would decide on my own whether the bar wench got a child or the mayor advisor became the mayor.

 

[Lizard]

Well considering the WotC employee who posted stated quite explicitly that it was an easy to remember number that didn't need to be written down on the stat block, I expect that NO, it's not effected by any of your suggestions and is, in fact, a good, solid, unmodified NUMBER.

Fitz

I have no problem remembering simple formulae and if it's the same for all NPCs, wouldn't need to be written down. But you might well be right, and it might be just '2'. (My off-hand guess is 4, enough to completely heal once.)

 

[Green Knight]

Yeah, it'll probably be something like 2 or 4.

 

[Fifth Element]

No. While they have better ability scores than NPCs (stronger) they are better than NPCs with compareable experience because they have powers NPCs are not supposed to have. According to 4E Design the PCs are superhoeroes and NPCs are just the normal guys.

How many times does a WotC designer have to come in and say "your assumptions are wrong" before you'll give up on something?

 

[Lizard]

Let me ask you something Lizard, and Gnomeworks, I believe this applies to you too.

Do you ever use the mechanics to determine the outcome of encounters in which no PC is involved? For example, in the slimy guy becoming mayor, did you use the Diplomacy skill to determine how the election was resolved? In fact, if you did, what mechanics would you use to resolve that situation?

Partially. I look at things like racial abilities, class powers, and so on, to determine how the world works. I use the demographics in the DMG to determine if it's realistic that the PCs will even be needed to solve a particular problem -- if not, I find a different problem or move it to a different locale. And I make sure some things are possible -- that the mayor's aide has the skills needed to manipulate politics, or, if he doesn't, that there's some other, believable, explanation -- the local thieves guild rigged things. Indeed, if someone does something they shouldn't (mechanically) be able to do, that's a Clue.

Sometimes I will do roll-offs between NPCs to see how things work out. I've checked to see if NPC thieves can slip past NPC guards to reach the MacGuffin, for example. This was in a case of the PCs needing to protect it, and not doing it themselves, but hiring guards. I didn't want to fiat/handwave it.

Because, as far as I can tell, you didn't use any mechanics, so edition means bupkis to your argument.

It's a philosophical distinction. Obviously, there aren't mechanics for everything. However, there's a difference between "The world exists only when the PCs look at it" and "the PCs live in a world which exists on its own". Different mechanics for PC and NPCs -- even if those mechanics don't affect the whole world -- push the former worldview. 4e monster/NPC design, centered on the idea (explicitly stated) that NPCs only exist for 5 rounds of combat and don't need any stats beyond that, exemplifies the idea that nothing exists but the current situation. As others have noted, creatures have no skills other than the ones they need to fight the PCs *now*. The Pit Fiend, plotting ruler of hell, has all of 3 skills and no out-of-combat powers, except a once a century wish. The rules seem to model a world which exists in isolated bubbles of space-time called encounters, and the DM's job is to hustle the PCs from one stage to the next.

The full context of the game might be very different, but what I've seen of the 4e rules implies a flat, shallow, world. Simplified armor, simplified magic, simplified stat blocks...how much can you simplify the mechanics before you simplify the world? Yes, a world can be described non-mechanically -- indeed, most of it must -- but it's nice when you can have the mechanics reflect the flavor text meaningfully. To go back to earlier editions of the game...I could describe an orc lord as cunning, but I coudn't make that intelligence matter mechanically. I could say 'The people of the north are fierce axemen', but there was no 'Weapon Focus (Axe)' I could give to make a Northman fighter different from a longsword-wielding southman. (Yeah, I could always make a handwave 'Northmen have +1 when attacking with axes', but you can handwave in any mechanics as needed...we're discussing what the game supports OOB). Now, it does look like I can do some of that in 4e by creating a 'Northman Soldier' NPC and giving him a bonus with axes and some kind of cool axe-related combat technique pretty easily...but then we get the reverse problem, that of a player saying, "Hey, cool, my fighter is a northman...how do I learn that?" and me telling him "Well, it's balanced for NPCs with 5-round-lives, it's not for PCs to use." (See: Bugbear strangler)

I like it when an NPCs personality, interests, and needs can be modeled in their mechanics. I like being able to give someone a 'hobby skill' of a point or two in a knowledge or a craft. The binary 'trained or not' skill system of 4e removes that (for PCs as well). (Of course, there are no crafts anymore...)

 

[small pumpkin man]

How many times does a WotC designer have to come in and say "your assumptions are wrong" before you'll give up on something?

To be fair, Chriss Sims does call the PCs "extraordinary heroes of great destiny" earlier in the thread, there may well be large differences between them, although all I've seen so far puts the PC class/NPC stats of 4e as merely an extention of 3.x PC class/NPC class.

 

[hong]

The full context of the game might be very different, but what I've seen of the 4e rules implies a flat, shallow, world. Simplified armor, simplified magic, simplified stat blocks...how much can you simplify the mechanics before you simplify the world?

"We demand deep, sophisticated treatment of shallowness!"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Partially. I look at things like racial abilities, class powers, and so on, to determine how the world works. I use the demographics in the DMG to determine if it's realistic that the PCs will even be needed to solve a particular problem -- if not, I find a different problem or move it to a different locale. And I make sure some things are possible -- that the mayor's aide has the skills needed to manipulate politics, or, if he doesn't, that there's some other, believable, explanation -- the local thieves guild rigged things. Indeed, if someone does something they shouldn't (mechanically) be able to do, that's a Clue.

Sometimes I will do roll-offs between NPCs to see how things work out. I've checked to see if NPC thieves can slip past NPC guards to reach the MacGuffin, for example. This was in a case of the PCs needing to protect it, and not doing it themselves, but hiring guards. I didn't want to fiat/handwave it.

The first is something I sometimes do - that the creatures have the skills required to do their job. (That's one of my pet peeves of having Fighters or Wizards as leaders of armies or kingdoms - not a single one of them has the required skills to do so competently!)
But for me this doesn't imply that the NPCs have to use the same "character build" system. It's enough if they get the correct numerical bonuses for their task. In 3E, this could either be hand waved (which I only learned and accepted after 7-8 years of gaming 3E) or by fine-tuning skills, feats and HD/classes (which I came to dread over the 8 years of gaming 3E).

 

[small pumpkin man]

Partially. I look at things like racial abilities, class powers, and so on, to determine how the world works. I use the demographics in the DMG to determine if it's realistic that the PCs will even be needed to solve a particular problem -- if not, I find a different problem or move it to a different locale. And I make sure some things are possible -- that the mayor's aide has the skills needed to manipulate politics, or, if he doesn't, that there's some other, believable, explanation -- the local thieves guild rigged things. Indeed, if someone does something they shouldn't (mechanically) be able to do, that's a Clue.

Sometimes I will do roll-offs between NPCs to see how things work out. I've checked to see if NPC thieves can slip past NPC guards to reach the MacGuffin, for example. This was in a case of the PCs needing to protect it, and not doing it themselves, but hiring guards. I didn't want to fiat/handwave it.

Yes, absolutely, most DMs I know would roll that, because the guards are the agents of the PCs, thus the PCs are interacting with the world through them, but like you said, in other circumstances, I look at the various stats and either figure out what would be most likely, or if it's close, most interesting. (also what Mustrum_Ridcully said).

It's a philosophical distinction. Obviously, there aren't mechanics for everything. However, there's a difference between "The world exists only when the PCs look at it" and "the PCs live in a world which exists on its own". Different mechanics for PC and NPCs -- even if those mechanics don't affect the whole world -- push the former worldview. 4e monster/NPC design, centered on the idea (explicitly stated) that NPCs only exist for 5 rounds of combat and don't need any stats beyond that, exemplifies the idea that nothing exists but the current situation. As others have noted, creatures have no skills other than the ones they need to fight the PCs *now*. The Pit Fiend, plotting ruler of hell, has all of 3 skills and no out-of-combat powers, except a once a century wish. The rules seem to model a world which exists in isolated bubbles of space-time called encounters, and the DM's job is to hustle the PCs from one stage to the next.

The full context of the game might be very different, but what I've seen of the 4e rules implies a flat, shallow, world. Simplified armor, simplified magic, simplified stat blocks...how much can you simplify the mechanics before you simplify the world? Yes, a world can be described non-mechanically -- indeed, most of it must -- but it's nice when you can have the mechanics reflect the flavor text meaningfully. To go back to earlier editions of the game...I could describe an orc lord as cunning, but I coudn't make that intelligence matter mechanically. I could say 'The people of the north are fierce axemen', but there was no 'Weapon Focus (Axe)' I could give to make a Northman fighter different from a longsword-wielding southman. (Yeah, I could always make a handwave 'Northmen have +1 when attacking with axes', but you can handwave in any mechanics as needed...we're discussing what the game supports OOB). Now, it does look like I can do some of that in 4e by creating a 'Northman Soldier' NPC and giving him a bonus with axes and some kind of cool axe-related combat technique pretty easily...but then we get the reverse problem, that of a player saying, "Hey, cool, my fighter is a northman...how do I learn that?" and me telling him "Well, it's balanced for NPCs with 5-round-lives, it's not for PCs to use." (See: Bugbear strangler)

Actually, the Pit Fiend stats are a very good example of how you can simplify the stats without simplifying the world. Your assertion that he only has "3 skills" shows a bias towards fiddly stats that are only there to be fiddly, since his diplomacy is much higher than it was, and the 3.x version didn't even have any sense motive and could be fooled by any succubus or tenth level rogue, three trained skills and a bunch of untrained skills in 4e is enough to be a mover and shaker and interact with the world (even when the PCs aren't looking) when you're a 26th level Devil and your stats are twenty something. He doesn't have non-combat magic because non-combat magic is a completely seperate system, I don't mean to say "rituals will solve all your problems", except for the part where I do.

So then you have a situation where the monster HAS non-combat abilities, and you're complaining about how the world seems less deep because they take up less room in the statblock.

As for Northman with Axes, you already know Fighters have more weapon based powers than before, and if you're making up axe based abilities for NPCs yourself, you can just balance them effects against PC abilities in the first place, there is no problem here, AND you can easily give cunning NPCs int based Warlord Powers, you know you want to.

I like it when an NPCs personality, interests, and needs can be modeled in their mechanics. I like being able to give someone a 'hobby skill' of a point or two in a knowledge or a craft. The binary 'trained or not' skill system of 4e removes that (for PCs as well). (Of course, there are no crafts anymore...)

That's true, it does, there a tradeoff there, and there are enough people who don't overly like the system that I see houserules and variations being common. However I'm not personally seeing the link with "the PCs live in a world which exists on its own".

 

[med stud]

The part of the PCs being more powerful than NPCs can go the other way as well; I think it was some 4e designer that talked about the possibility to create a human opponent as a solo. Without the opponent being a solo, you would have to add levels above the PC's levels. Then you risk either having a glass ninja or the NPC would be invulnerable to the PCs.

now you can create a NPC that is the same level as the PCs but still capable of taking them on five at a time.