Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

One thing I was surprised at first was that most of the regular NPCs of D&D 4 (or rather the D&D Experience) had very similar amount of hit points - and they usually also had some special abilities (the latter didn't surprise me, though.)

The relative power stays, at least for the most part. But hit points have increased. The end result is that combat is less swingy. Previously, exchanging blows for several rounds in D&D meant that nobody rolled a successful attack. Now, it still allows a few successful attacks. You can actually "spill" blood without risking to die or drop unconscious in the first round.

There are still some "power level" differences. Otherwise, 4 PCs couldn't defeat 4 NPCs of equal level. 4E Pcs have powers from 1st level, but then, 1st level PCs in 3E also had special abilities, weapon profiencies, sneak attack or spells from 1st level on. You never started as a incompetent (but at least courageous) character at 1st level. You had your area of expertise from the start. And you still have in 3E.

 

[AllisterH]

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.

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

 

[HeinorNY]

This is, of course, true of every D&D revision ever. Unless you mean in some platonic, never-to-be-realised ideal, that is.

You are really enjoying this thread, aren't you?

 

[Lacyon]

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.

Well, yes. He's a normal level 1 "monster", so he'll probably lose to multiple normal level 1 "monsters". Since PCs are only expected to handle one at-level normal monster each, this doesn't seem like a problem.

He can probably handle 4 goblin minions, like a PC is expected to. He's not as good at it (has no fall-back daily powers or per-encounter powers if the dice hate him or one of the goblins turns out not to be a minion or whatever), and he probably can't keep at it for as long (has fewer healing surges per day). But he can do it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I bet most Kobolds (and goblins) are minions. Most guards are probably minions too, but that guy could probably wallop a few minions without getting too worried.

And true 1st level monsters SHOULD challenge the guy, they're equal level!

 

[Guild Goodknife]

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.
.

Your constant repeating of wrong assumptions is really tiresome. How many times more do you need to here that NPC will be comparable in power without the unnecessary complexity?

 

[Derren]

Your constant repeating of wrong assumptions is really tiresome. How many times more do you need to here that NPC will be comparable in power without the unnecessary complexity?

That argument carries little weight when the evidence we have so far (published NPC stats) show that they are indeed weaker than the PCs and that it is the openly stated design goal of 4E to make PCs special and heroic from level 1 on.

Edit: I just noticed that the dwarf NPC we have doesn't even has the dwarven racial abilities. And please don't come with "They are not important for combat". +5 vs. Poison and being able to heal yourself for 25% of your HP another time is important.

 

[GnomeWorks]

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.

You're right! I have a view on the game dissimilar from your own, therefore I shouldn't voice my opinion at all!

You want to live in a microcosm where no one challenges your views, fine. You want to tell other people to screw off if they don't play the game exactly like you do, fine.

I do not complain about 4e. I state my views, and how they are not in agreement with the direction 4e appears to be heading, and then point out that that is fine. Why you people seem to insist that people such as myself have nothing but vitriol for the system is beyond me, but it is really getting on my nerves.

 

[D'karr]

That argument carries little weight when the evidence we have so far (published NPC stats) show that they are indeed weaker than the PCs and that it is the openly stated design goal of 4E to make PCs special and heroic from level 1 on.

Edit: I just noticed that the dwarf NPC we have doesn't even has the dwarven racial abilities. And please don't come with "They are not important for combat". +5 vs. Poison and being able to heal yourself for 25% of your HP another time is important.

You forget that the stats we are seeing are from the back of a stat card for D&D Minis. There is a lot of stuff that might or might not be included there. I have the card for the Tiefling Warlock and he is level 7. He has different powers than the 1st level PC warlock. That does not surprise me, as the powers he has are probably more relevant to his role in combat.

It has been mentioned before that if a DM wanted to stat up an NPC using PC classes that option still exists. So I don't see what the "sky is falling" issue can be. But don't let me discourage you from continuing your tilting.

 

[Ximenes088]

That argument carries little weight when the evidence we have so far (published NPC stats) show that they are indeed weaker than the PCs and that it is the openly stated design goal of 4E to make PCs special and heroic from level 1 on.

Edit: I just noticed that the dwarf NPC we have doesn't even has the dwarven racial abilities. And please don't come with "They are not important for combat". +5 vs. Poison and being able to heal yourself for 25% of your HP another time is important.

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.