Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[Charwoman Gene]

Yes because most other humans, no matter how strong and experienced can't do that.

Yes they can.

he can also heal himself at will,

No he can't. He can ignore debilitating fatigue and still fight ok

heal all wounds by sleeping for six hours

No he can't. He can be okay to fight buit I'd imagine he looks loiek hell despite HPs and HSs

has a destiny so he can come back from the death most of the time.

When powerful magic is invoked.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Only when you deviate from the default way of how D&D works

does this discontinuity you seemed to be working very hard to create exist.

 

[Lacyon]

Nice try but in 3E many NPCs had PC classes (look at published adventures or the city gerenation guidelines).
In 3E PCs where just very highly trained, but NPCs regulary got the same kind of training. In 4E PCs are special and most NPCs are just pale shadows compared to PCs even when they have the same level.
Only when you deviate from the default way of how D&D works the NPCs can achieve the same things as PCs.

Nice try but in 4E as many NPCs have PC classes as you want.

3E PCs are special and most NPCs are just pale shadows compared to PCs even when they have the same level. Only when you deviate from the default way of how D&D works can the NPCs achieve the same things as PCs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just like Conan is obviously different from the guards and soldiers of Hyboria, since he's the protagonist (aka PC) and they're not. And Faramir in comparison to other soldiers of Gondor. Or the villain/hero of an action movie. I fail to see the problem.

Not to pick on you, Mourn, but I think that this debate gets to the core of why "1st level is nothing special" guys feel on the outs.

Some people use D&D to be Conan. Some people use D&D to be Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk.

One of them is a barbarian king splattered in the blood of empires. The other is a poor kid who stumbles accross some magic beans and gets lucky. D&D has always been more about the former than the latter, but people who enjoy the latter still made it "work" in D&D because they could suspend their disbelief just enough to say "Okay, Jack's a rogue, and that doesn't make him much more exceptional than a barkeep, that's just how we'll say he's clever." But when it came down to it, D&D has pretty much always wanted you to eventually go toe-to-toe with the giant, rather than running away and cutting down the vine.

If 4e characters are brazenly more powerful, those who enjoy the more faerie-tale-esque takes on fantasy, who enjoy their heroes more like Bilbo and Sam than like Conan and Aragorn, are kind of on the outs. They're being told they're not SUPPOSED to play the game like that. That's a tough pill to swallow, after having made it work (and, presumably, enjoying it) for so long.

I mean, I'm all for fantasy stories coming from the Achilleses and Gilgameshes and Beowulfs of the world, but in more strongly asserting the "PC's are really exceptional" thing, they're pushing out some people who have so far enjoyed going against the grain.

That's kind of a side-effect, I believe, of this whole "Be clear!" kick 4e is on. Not that it's bad to be clear, just that by eradicating the vagueness of what D&D is trying to do, you kind of inherently limit what people can interpret it to do. It's more easy to see it as something you can either accept or reject, rather than something you can interpret as you see fit.

Hopefully the much-touted modularity of the game lives up to the hype, because that's what's going to let these guys who feel that they want to be "mundane heroic" embrace 4e as they have previous editions.

 

[AllisterH]

If 4e characters are brazenly more powerful, those who enjoy the more faerie-tale-esque takes on fantasy, who enjoy their heroes more like Bilbo and Sam than like Conan and Aragorn, are kind of on the outs. They're being told they're not SUPPOSED to play the game like that. That's a tough pill to swallow, after having made it work (and, presumably, enjoying it) for so long.

.

Seriously, I'm looking at the 1st level human guard (which I posted) and I'm kind of wondering where this "brazenly" more powerful schtick comes from (do people just generally ignore my points? Am I saying it wrong? Do I need to use more insults?)

The 1st level guard doesn't look like that much less powerful than a 1st level human PC. The main difference is that the PC gets an ace in the hole (the Daily) and he's got a slightly broader base of powers to draw on.

Do people actually think that a 1st level human Fighter is going to be taking on groups of 1st level human guards and WIN at the same time? I'm not even sure the 1st level pre-gen fighter can even take 3 of the guards (use a daily, use an encounter power but then she's restricted to her own at-will)

To those worried, have you actually looked at what the monsters are capable of?

 

[Derren]

The 1st level guard doesn't look like that much less powerful than a 1st level human PC. The main difference is that the PC gets an ace in the hole (the Daily) and he's got a slightly broader base of powers to draw on.

The PC also gets Healing surges and a way to use them. He also has much more abilities than the 1st level guard (At will, encounter and daily) an more skills than the guard.

 

[Deadstop]

Nice try but in 3E many NPCs had PC classes (look at published adventures or the city gerenation guidelines).
In 3E PCs where just very highly trained, but NPCs regulary got the same kind of training. In 4E PCs are special and most NPCs are just pale shadows compared to PCs even when they have the same level.
Only when you deviate from the default way of how D&D works the NPCs can achieve the same things as PCs.

Where are you getting this? Has anyone but you ever said these things?

Yes, in the "default D&D demographics," they are cutting down on the number of people running around with PC classes or the equivalent.

That doesn't mean "4e does not allow NPCs to achieve the same things as PCs." What about the PCs' mentors and trainers, or the intelligent villains? Obviously they're at least as powerful as PCs.

All we know is that you don't have to use the full PC rules to generate an NPC or monster (even one that is a match or better for the PCs) and that even "official" statblocks no longer have to include every detail for "walk-on" characters.

The "specialness" of the PC *classes* has been reinforced, building on ideas already present in earlier editions -- not every swordsman is a "fighter," nor every priest a divinity-channelling "cleric," nor every hedge witch a fully trained "wizard." That does not say, however, that "these things are only for the PCs." It says "these things are for special, unusual people, and the PCs are *some* of those people."


Deadstop

 

[I'm A Banana]

Seriously, I'm looking at the 1st level human guard (which I posted) and I'm kind of wondering where this "brazenly" more powerful schtick comes from (do people just generally ignore my points? Am I saying it wrong? Do I need to use more insults?)

Well it was an "if." Besides that, I didn't read every post before making my point, so yours was one of those that got skipped over.

But looking at your statblock, the fears very well may be overwrought. It does look like the 1st level fighter is more powerful (at-wills and per-encounters and dailies all trump that guard's little recharge, and they'd have more HP, second winds, action points, etc.), but perhaps not of an entirely different class of human being. That guard can handle some goblins, probably, so it fullfills my believability-o-meter. It might not be everything the "mundane hero" guy is looking for, but it's not really much more different than the difference in ability between a 1st level PC fighter and a 1st level NPC warrior.

 

[Deadstop]

The PC also gets Healing surges and a way to use them.

According to someone who has played the actual game, in this very thread, NPCs get those too.

He also has much more abilities than the 1st level guard (At will, encounter and daily)

This one's true. A first-level fighter has the "martial power source" backing him up, whereas a typical first-level guard does not. It's like the 3e "fighter" vs. "warrior," only probably even more pronounced.

There is nothing to say that you cannot (or even "aren't supposed to") have NPC guards who are in fact first-level fighters, though.

an more skills than the guard.

More skills mentioned in his statblock. Because the attention of the group follows the fighter all the time, and generally spends much less time on the guard. He might be an awesome cook, but most likely that happens "offscreen" ("off-table"?) while the actual people playing the game are concentrating on some other part of the world.


Deadstop

 

[Crosswind]

It seems borderline ridiculous for us to interpret the Guard statblock as "These are the only skills any guard, anywhere has. These are the only abilities they have".

It seems a lot more logical to interpret it as "This a basic template for building a guard - it contains most stuff that you will need. If you need something else, feel free to add on Skill: Cooking".

This isn't that tough to get.

Further, the argument that "PCs have more options than NPCs! How unfair!" is borderline lunacy.

Allow me to repeat: Most DMs don't want to spend hours statting out inconsequential NPCs, or looking through NPC stats to find the ones they want. They want good, concise building blocks to create their world. That's what 4E gives. It does not, in any way, make the PCs special that the NPCs don't contain extraneous information.

-Cross