Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[Fifth Element]

I think there are several posters getting worked up in this thread. Let's try to cool it down before the mods have to step in, eh? There is some good discussion going on, let's try to stick to that.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The ability to challenge x is not the same as the ability to defeat x.

A 6th lvl Solo Monster is a "challenge" for 4 6th lvl PCs - All things being equal, the PCs are expected to survive the encounter. The Monster is not.

 

[Henry]

Ladies and Gents (or just Gents), please let's go back to being a bit more civil.

Charwoman Gene, let's please not go into telling people where they can post, and what.

Gnomeworks, if you've stated your views and don't have much else to add, is there much of a reason to continue in the thread?

I'm sure everybody can be a lot more civil than to get into flame arguments.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

---
My comment here was silly but bad form. It was a comment on 5th E ruining our "fun" by reminding us to be more civil.

 

[Bayonet_Chris]

PC vs NPC powerlevel

So if NPCs are supposed to be invariably weaker than PCs, who exactly are the PCs supposed to be fighting? And how do you explain that 5th level solo NPC that is strong enough to take on four or five same-leveled PCs at once, _alone_. No PC will ever be able to single-handedly challenge four same-leveled PC enemies, so clearly there's at least one major class of NPCs that is much more powerful than any PC will ever be at that level.

To be honest, no PC will be able to single-handedly challenge two same-leveled NPCs with any regularity. I've been running some mock combats with the 1st level PC dwarven fighter versus two human guards, all level one.

Without even using the human advantages of reach (halberds) or flanking, the dwarf won only 1 in 5. This was with the dwarf using daily and encounter powers, plus second wind (which was even better for the dwarf, since it was a minor action) too. I'm really not seeing how the PCs are that much better than a similar level NPC.

The one fight where the dwarf won, she had 3 hit points left, hit with both the daily and encounter, and had pretty much expended everything she had. It's not a given that the PCs are mutant-like in their ability.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Thanks, I'm just getting a little testy that when I make points, it seems to get ignored. I'm having a bad day (usually, I could care less...)

As for the guard, er, no, I don't think the guard could take a couple of goblins. In fact, I know a pair of kobolds would probably work him over.

Kobold Skirmisher; Level 1 Skirmisher
Small Natural Humanoid; XP 100

Initiative: +5 Senses Perception +0; darkvision
HP 27; Bloodied 13
AC 15; Fortitude 11, Reflex 14, Will 13; see also trap sense
Speed 6

Spear(standard; at-will) - Weapon
+6 vs. AC; 1d8 damage; see also mob attack

Combat Advantage
The Kobold Skirmisher deals an extra 1d6 damage on melee and ranged attacks on any target it has combat advantage against.

Mob Attack
The Kobold Skirmisher gains a +1 bonus to attack rolls per kobold ally adjacent to the target

Shifty(minor; at-will)
The Kobold shifts 1 square as a minor action

Trap Sense
The Kobold gains +2 bonus to defense against all traps

Alightment Evil Languages Draconic
Skills Acrobatics +8, Stealth +10, Thievery +10
Str 8(-1) Dex 16(+3) Wis 10(+0)
Con 11(+0) Int 6(-2) Cha 15(+2)
Equipment hide armor, light shield, spear


Honestly, I'd bet on the two kobolds beating the guard into the ground. 3 kobolds? Total massacre IMHO.

(p.s. Darren, the skills ARE listed for the guard. He has the exact same skills as the PCs but the stat block only lists the exceptional ones (a.ka the ones that are Trained). From reading the other monsters, what gets listed with skills are only those one (the math works out)). It doesn't mean the monster doesn't possess any skils other than those listed, but they default to the formula which doesn't need to be statted).l

Exchange the 2 Skirmishers with 2 Minions. Suddenly, the Guard is very effective, and he might even be able to survive multiple such attacks. (Though his special abilities might become of little use).

What does this tell us? If we expect the trained Guardsmen to be useful in protecting somethig, we should assume that the potential threats are usually (considerably) lower level or typically consist of Minions (of similar level).
If we were to pretend that the XP values for monster also represent their "training and equipment" cost for a typical army (very simulationist of us - take care), this would imply that there are 4 times as many Minions as there are "regular" monsters. So, in a typical war/assault scenario, we should assume that the Guard is fending of Minions - but when a Skirmisher (or even two) attacks him, he can be in real trouble, and it's time for the PCs to enter the scene and take out some of these nasty Skirmishers, Slingers and Archers of the Kobold...
Off course, this also means that the Guardsmen himself is well-trained. A typical army might consist mostly of (badly) armed peasant Minions, and a few regular "monsters". And occassionally, they are also accomponied by "heroic" characters. They might not look that much better, but you can count on them being there where the tide of the war is turned, and the ones tipping the scale more then our average hero...

[/rambling after a long-time procastinated fitness centre visit]

 

[Ximenes088]

The ability to challenge x is not the same as the ability to defeat x.

A 6th lvl Solo Monster is a "challenge" for 4 6th lvl PCs - All things being equal, the PCs are expected to survive the encounter. The Monster is not.

A single 6th level solo NPC will almost invariably kill a single 6th level PC. Given that 6th level PC parties are expected to encounter 6th level solo NPCs as not-unusual enemies, I think it safe to say that PCs will regularly encounter NPCs much more individually powerful than them, even if the enemies don't have PC class levels.

As for why PCs can never become Sergeant Nails the 5th level solo NPC, well, it's because Sergeant Nails is at the culmination of his life and will never get more powerful, barring plot device. Or it's because he sold his soul to Chesty Puller. Or it's because of a one-off alchemical experiment. Or any other explanation that points out that being a solo NPC is optimal for him, but a bad idea for the PC.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A single 6th level solo NPC will almost invariably kill a single 6th level PC. Given that 6th level PC parties are expected to encounter 6th level solo NPCs as not-unusual enemies, I think it safe to say that PCs will regularly encounter NPCs much more individually powerful than them, even if the enemies don't have PC class levels.

As for why PCs can never become Sergeant Nails the 5th level solo NPC, well, it's because Sergeant Nails is at the culmination of his life and will never get more powerful, barring plot device. Or it's because he sold his soul to Chesty Puller. Or it's because of a one-off alchemical experiment. Or any other explanation that points out that being a solo NPC is optimal for him, but a bad idea for the PC.

Or you can go the 3E route. Yes, you can become him, but this gives you a Level XP adjustment. To be precise, you need 4 times as much XP as normally required for his level to get exactly the same abilities.
Or say: Hhe trained to be that what he is now all his life. He didn't live the life of a free-willing adventurer for it. And more importantly - he also got the time for it. He was never approached by a damsel in mistress to find her missing son. He wasn't asked to find the Elemental Orbs. He didn't find a treasure map leading to a presumably abandoned dragon hoard. He wasn't forced to prove his innocence for the murder of a trader...

 

[kennew142]

One of the best things in a well run campaign is coming back from A Trip Over Yonder and finding the world has *changed*. That bar wench now has a baby, and it looks a lot like you. Your grampa died of something no cleric can fix. The slimy advisor to the mayor...is now the mayor. Your pesky kid brother has got his first PC level and he's rarin' to go kill some kobolds.

Likewise, if you stop the orcs from invading the lands to the south, that means the overlord of the north can rampage unopposed -- and vice versa. There's forces in motion all around the world, and while you're powerful and skilled and all that, the world is going to keep turning whether you're watching it or not -- and then you have to deal with the consequences of your decisions.

To my mind, the quantum world where only what the PCs are watching exists is a boring one, one I can neither play in nor run. I expect my DMs to run a living world, where my actions *matter to the world*, but do not *define the world*; I try to give my players a place where saving the world matters because the world feels worth saving.

In my long running D20M Shadow Chasers game, part of the story of the PCs was their discovering how vast and expansive the 'hidden world' was. The discovery of organization, cults, agencies, and informal networks, of the fact they were one band of heroes among many -- not the first, not the last -- made the world believable, and their rise in NPC estimation from "Oh, great, another bunch of wannabe scoobys" to "OK, it's getting heavy. Call THEM." was the main arc of the campaign. They didn't matter to the world because they were the PCs; they mattered to the world because of the things they did.

I fail to see how any of these elements require NPCs be written up in the same style as PCs. Everything you've written above applies to every campaign I've ever run, and I've never found it necessary to treat PCs and NPCs exactly the same. In truth, unless you have a full character sheet written up for every NPC the characters interact with, you aren't treating them as the same thing either.

Also, just because the rules treat PCs and NPCs differently doesn't mean that the NPCs around them do so. PCs are more resilient in combat because they are the main characters of the campaign, and like the main characters in a novel or a movie, they have limited script immunity. They need rules that govern the use of their resources that reflect the fact that they are in encounters repeatedly throughout the day and their resource management is different from an NPC who only needs to manage resources in the scenes he is in.

I like the idea that there are some NPCs who can perform magic, heal and fight as well as the PCs. IMO it is integral to a believable setting. But I don't understand why the NPCs have to use the same mechanics as the PCs. The players in my game never see the mechanics behind the NPCs.

It isn't that NPCs only exist in their world when the PCs are present, it's that their actions are only governed by game mechanics when the PCs are involved. I don't mean to say that NPCs can do things that are logically impossible for them between scenes. What I do mean to say is that greater campaign issues are dealt with by the GM's storytelling ability. Most GMs don't stat out all of the NPCs in a town so that he can roll the Diplomacy checks of the mayoral candidates against all of the electors so that he can determine who wins the election. They just make a story decision. NPCs certainly should continue to exist when the PCs aren't present, but their off camera actions are governed by the necessities of the story, the logic of the setting and the GM's preferences.

I fail to see how game mechanics have anything to do with it.

 

[Lizard]

I fail to see how any of these elements require NPCs be written up in the same style as PCs. Everything you've written above applies to every campaign I've ever run, and I've never found it necessary to treat PCs and NPCs exactly the same. In truth, unless you have a full character sheet written up for every NPC the characters interact with, you aren't treating them as the same thing either.

Well, it boils down to this:
If, when the rules come out, I don't see any situations where there's mechanical issues with PC/NPC interaction due to the differences in writeups, then I'll agree it doesn't matter. I just never want to be in a situation where a PC says "I do X!" and I say, "Well, you can't unless I make up a ruling about how X will affect an NPC."