NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6559373" data-attributes="member: 6787650">I understand why someone might say something like this about monsters, or even NPCs, but I think it's important to remember where NPCs came from: the idea that not all "characters" (fighters/wizards/elves/dwarfs/etc.) are played by the players, that there are other people in the world following the same rules that the PCs do. I think if you make a habit of letting NPCs violate rules that apply to PCs you eventually get into a bad place that makes the world less appealing, at least to simulationists.For example: I've mentioned before that I played 4E only briefly, due to DM issues. What happened was that after a few sessions of play, I realized that all the monsters were doing immense amounts of damage compared to the PCs, but they would also drop like glass cannons when we hit them. It turns out that the DM thought 4E combats were too long, so he was arbitrarily doubling the damage dealt by all the monsters and halving their hit points. For me, this was beyond the pale: it meant that the world doesn't work the same way for everyone. An NPC fighter would have had significant, observable differences from a PC fighter of the same level just because he has a player attached. As a simulationist, I can't play in such a world because I can't suspend my disbelief--it attacks the very core of what I enjoy about D&D as an "alternate universe".TLDR; consistent rules for PCs and NPCs matter a lot to some people.</blockquote>

Verification