Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[med stud]

Lizard wrote:

"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."

I would answer that he could take the special Northman-class that has a grand total of two abilities over ten levels. So if they want a suboptimal character, they can go for it.

 

[VannATLC]

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".

Betcha can't prove it. For them or you.

Different mechanics for PC and NPCs -- even if those mechanics don't affect the whole world -- push the former worldview.

In your interpretation of the function of a ruleset[/quote=lizard]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. [/quote] Hustleing is your phrase, and I disagree there is anything inherent in the rules explicitly promotes it, any more than has ever been present in 3.x

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.

Why do people insiston the need for a codified framework to describe personalised things? Everything is fluff. That's not a denigration, its terminalogy. WoTC have decided to focus on bringing a coherent tactical conflict resolution system together, that is internally consistent.

I'm quite sure they will give guidelines on shoe-horning it into a world.. but that is the DM's job.
For those not suited, it is the Campaign/Adventure-Author's job.

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).

The game has always, explictly, supported DM Handwaving.

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...)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

. 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)

2 Options:
"Oh, let's create a weapon related feat or power four you that you can pick up the next time."
"Sorry, unlike you, he trained several years among the northman tribes, starting as a young child. There is no way you can reach his mastery of the axe now, as you're already an adult."

The latter would probably not work so well for the Axe-Swinging Northman, but it might explain a Hobgoblin Warcaster.

An assumption that I think is "wrong" is that the powers giving to NPCs are always unbalanced compared to PC powers. That doesn't have to be true. In fact, I think several of the "humanoid" powers looks like stuff that a PC could use just as well. At least if there was a class that fit into the niche the monster is taking. (Bugbear Strangling could be a daily or per encounter power, but there seems to be no "grappling" class, so it's not an appropriate power for any of the existing classes.)

 

[Lizard]

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.

This is true, and I rather like this, because 'boss monster' fights can be a real pain in D&D. The 4e standard/elite/solo scaling WITHIN a single level is actually very nifty, and if the benefit of this is a balanced face-off against the Evil Wizard (21st level solo controller), then it might be worth dealing with the fact the Evil Wizard only actually knows four spells.

 

[Cadfan]

Reminder- the players (and the PCs) don't read stat blocks. If you describe the northmen as cunning ax wielders, and you portray them as doing cunning things, and you portray them as wielding axes, then they ARE cunning ax wielders. Whether they have "weapon focus: ax" is entirely irrelevant. The only way things fall apart is if you portray them as 1) stupid and NOT cunning, 2) NOT wielding axes, or 3) wielding axes incompetently. But the first two are unrelated to the qualities of their stat blocks, and the last one is only based off of the overall attack bonus of a Northmen Warrior, not what contributed to creating that attack bonus. +5 is +5 no matter how it got there.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Reminder- the players (and the PCs) don't read stat blocks. If you describe the northmen as cunning ax wielders, and you portray them as doing cunning things, and you portray them as wielding axes, then they ARE cunning ax wielders. Whether they have "weapon focus: ax" is entirely irrelevant. The only way things fall apart is if you portray them as 1) stupid and NOT cunning, 2) NOT wielding axes, or 3) wielding axes incompetently. But the first two are unrelated to the qualities of their stat blocks, and the last one is only based off of the overall attack bonus of a Northmen Warrior, not what contributed to creating that attack bonus. +5 is +5 no matter how it got there.

I'd add 4): Roll sensible. Try to get a fair amount of rolls above 10.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I see that you enjoy using obfuscation and randomness in place of actual argument and discussion.

Actually he doesn't use randomness. It's usually relevant, just a strange connection.

 

[Deadstop]

Conan and Faramir are just more experienced and stronger than most others. But 4E PCs are mutants compared to NPCs with powers they can never achieve.
4E PCs = The XMen of D&D.

Since it's entirely possible to build NPCs with the PC rules, this is untrue.

Heck, you can even give a simplified-build NPC the exact spread of PC powers you want him to have, without worrying about how he leveled up to get there or anything.

We've seen quite a few monster-style 4e NPCs by now, and pretty much all of them have PC-grade powers. In fact, all but one or two are higher in level (sometimes far higher) than the 4e PCs we've seen.

It's true that the average NPC farmer, or baronet, or sage, might never achieve the power level of even a 1st-level PC class, but there are also NPCs out there as powerful as or more powerful than the PCs.

The difference isn't PC vs. NPC, such that people in the world can tell that "PCs" are special. The difference is between, well, characters that make sense as important/powerful and those that make sense as being less so.

The default 4e quasi-setting (kind of like 3e's Eberron) is built to have relatively few powerful forces of good and civilization that "compete" with or overshadow the PCs on whatever their scale is -- but even that is hardly a requirement of the rules. (No, I haven't seen the rules either, but how could it be? They give you the ability to build characters of up to 30th level right out of the box, and nothing says those rules have to be limited to PCs. You're just "allowed" to shortcut your NPCs as a DM, if you'd rather not go through the whole process.)


Deadstop

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I agree. That's why I'm not going to 4e, and I'm leaving 3.5.

I just don't get it. I got it 3 months ago, the simulationist hue and cry, save our world-wankery, and all that. But now? Simulation is Dead. Fait accompli. Be a 3.5/PF grognard, go find another system fine. But stop whining about 4e not being written for your playstyle.

 

[Derren]

Since it's entirely possible to build NPCs with the PC rules, this is untrue.

Building all NPCs according to PC guidlines in 4E is akin to making everyone a mutant. Sure it reaches the goal of everyone beig equal again, but by teh default setting the NPCs are not supposed to have all teh abilities PCs have. They are weaker and much less adaptable than PCs which are the superheroes of the setting.