Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[I'm A Banana]

Do you have a problem with the fact that we openly state it, or that it's true? If the former, that seems strange. If the latter, I'd guess you're not much of a fan of any heroic-scale RPG. All of them have this aspect, even if they don't come right out and say it. The D&D game has had it since very early on, so it's certainly not a departure for it to still be true.

I do still think there's a contingent of folks who prefer their town guards to be 5th level fighters and their generals to be 10th level warlords who still react like unimportant NPC's most of the time.

I think they got the idea from playing E6-like campaigns, where no one ever got to be high enough level to be "heroic."

I think that 4e is another kick in the pants to the idea that 1st level is already heroic. And that this doesn't jibe with how some people have been playing.

Note that I, personally, think that 1st level heroes should already be taking names and chewing butt and kicking bubblegum or whatever, just that, y'know, my preference really isn't the only way people have been playing D&D (even when D&D keeps trying to tell them that they heroes are heroes and NPC's aren't usually heroes). Old habits break hard, and then they get goo everywhere and...

wait....I'm all over the place.

Nevermind, I'm going to go back to talking about dragonbewbs.

 

[med stud]

Even if NPCs lacked healing surges, and you want to use healing word, how hard is it to get the numbers of HP healed?? Take the NPC's or monster's HP, divide it by four and voila! you got a healing surge amount. It must be the easiest house rule in the world to make.

I mean, D&D is not a computer game. You can deviate from the RAW if you deem it necessary. In this case, it is a rule change that will have no spin-off effects on other areas of the game, either.

 

[med stud]

I think that 4e is another kick in the pants to the idea that 1st level is already heroic. And that this doesn't jibe with how some people have been playing.

Why is 4e against the idea that first level is heroic? Not a rethorical question, I'm curious about your reasoning here.

 

[drjones]

Oh, man. That phrase is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
'The PCs are special cuz we said so' is still one of the biggest stumbling blocks I have with 4e.

Yeah PCs suck!
DMs RULE PCs DROOL!!!!!

 

[Derren]

Why is 4e against the idea that first level is heroic? Not a rethorical question, I'm curious about your reasoning here.

Imo he wanted to say that some people don't want the PCs to already be heroes at level 1. I know it because I am one of them. When PCs want to be heroes they should earn it. But at level 1 they are just slightly better than most other people and in no way destined or special.

 

[kennew142]

There are different styles of play, and all are equally valid for those who play. However, I have always disliked games in which there is no qualitative difference between PCs and everyone else. I like PCs to be more capable than fragile, even at start of play. IMO this was always the promise of D&D (just look at the ways NPCs were treated in AD&D), but the game never delivered on it. That's why I've usually started D&D characters at 3rd level (at least since Dark Sun gave me the idea), played GURPS at 150+ points and HERO at 200 points (Fantasy Hero) or 350 points (Champions).

It's not a powergamer thing. Anyone who's played with me knows that I prefer strong RP characters over power optimization. I just like playing characters who are heroes. I put a lot of work into character backgrounds and personality, and I hate to see all that work go up in smoke because I only have 5 hp, the same amount of damage that a 1st level warrior does with a longsword.

As I said, different styles for different folks. Since I don't really enjoy high level D&D (at least I haven't in any edition so far), I'm happy that the sweet spot has been extended downwards all the way to level 1 in 4e. I suspect that I am in the majority regarding my distaste for low level D&D characters (if for no other reason than the new edition will be designed with these standards in mind). The designers say they have been working from player feedback.

 

[Lizard]

They also had access to better classes.
Nothing really changed since 3E.
"PCs are (still) extraordinary heroes of great destiny"

Not really.

People with PC Classes were elite -- but that included almost every NPC of any significance. The were LOTS of clerics, fighters, wizard, etc, in the world -- the demographics in the DMG made it clear that about 1-5% of the populace was "PC Classed". Every village had a cleric, a sorceror, and a ranger or two.

The impression I get from 4e is that the "PC's Are Special Precious Snowflakes" meme gets kicked up to 11, with even high level NPC allies/enemies usually being things like 'Elf Elite Archer' or 'Human Knight-Commander' instead of leveled characters. See the example noted earlier -- the NPC traveling with the party isn't a classed character, he's an entry from the MM.

Snowflakes FTL.

PCs already have enough advantages, just being PCs. Hard-coding it into the game world that they're special in a *rules dependent* sense is really annoying, and it places a stamp on all world building that can be hard to wash off. Not every world has/needs/acknowledges "destined heroes". I prefer worlds with rich and storied histories, where Heroic Deeds are going on everywhere -- and the PCs are just the people we happen to paying attention to. They are better than *most* people in the sense they're skilled, lucky, trained, determined -- they're the high end of the bell curve. But that's the only advantage they have; they aren't *metaphysically* different.

Audie Murphy performed acts of heroism which would get most people killed. Leonardo da Vinci was a success at almost anything he tried, and he tried a lot of things. But none of them were "touched by the gods" or "destined for greatness", and while what they did pushed the limits of what a human can do, they weren't *different* from other people, just *better* than most. It's a curve, not a line. DaVinci was one of many great artists/scientists -- perhaps the best, but not metaphysically different from the second-best. Audie Murphy wasn't the only hero of WW2. Etc.

The difference between PC classes and NPC classes, between 'standard' and 'elite' arrays, is one of power level, not innate being. That the rules enshrine such a difference is worrisome.

 

[Lizard]

Do you have a problem with the fact that we openly state it, or that it's true? If the former, that seems strange. If the latter, I'd guess you're not much of a fan of any heroic-scale RPG. All of them have this aspect, even if they don't come right out and say it. The D&D game has had it since very early on, so it's certainly not a departure for it to still be true.

First: I'm glad that NPCs/monsters DO have healing surges of some kind. It is one more step away from the 'video gamy' feel of the previews. (The idea that the only way to interact with things was to kill them, so there's no need to heal them, so there's no mechanics for healing them, is very VG-ish. So I'm glad that's not true. I have way too many NPCs which become unexpected allies to be able to run games where spells/effects work differently on NPCs than on PCs.)

Second: While the above is true for all versions of D&D, it was LESS true for 3x than for prior or, apparently, post, versions, and that was a major appeal to some of us. I enjoyed the continuum of power, and often used mixed PC/NPC classes to model NPCs -- Fighter/Noble for the ruling knight, Expert/Wizard for the master alchemist, etc.

 

[keterys]

with even high level NPC allies/enemies usually being things like 'Elf Elite Archer' or 'Human Knight-Commander' instead of leveled characters.

You can make them leveled characters if you wanted to... but it's easier not to do so. So you weigh extra work against perceived gain. For me, it being a leveled character would be a disadvantage for running it as a DM in terms of ease of use, so... I'd only want it to be a leveled character pretty rarely (such as when I want a PC able to run the character at some point, even if just as a contingency in case of a PC death).

 

[kennew142]

The 5% or so of the populace that had PC classes in 3e is still there in 4e. The difference is that they are now modeled using monster statistics rather than PC classes. An NPC who is modeled as an Elf Archer, Elite skirmisher 10 can be just as important to the background as he could if he were listed as Elf Ranger 10. The difference is in the way the rules treat the character. I definitely prefer the former for most NPCs, but I can easily imagine dozens of NPCs that I will stat out as PCs if it's necessary for the story.

So long as NPCs can be modeled using the NPC/monster format, I'll do so. It's just easier. If I notice any degredation in the depth of the NPC or his/her role in the overall setting, I'll use the other method. No one has made a rule against statting out every single NPC as if he were a PC. The designers have just given a different method for those who can run a world with rich and storied histories that doesn't rely on game mechanics to reach this goal.