Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8829981" data-attributes="member: 29398">Er...I'm not talking about right or wrong method.&nbsp; I'm talking about the end result being achievable using the standard method regardless of what method (if any!) was actually used to get there.If the possible end result for a player is between 3 and 18 and your end result falls within that range, I don't give a frig about how you-as-DM got it there.&nbsp; But if the possible end result for a player is 3-18 and your NPC shows up with a 25, or a -1, we have a problem.For in-the-moment gameplay, no they don't...until and unless a player quite rightly asks &quot;Why can't I do what that NPC can do?&quot; or even &quot;Why can't that NPC do what I can?&quot;.I'm looking at it from a broader standpoint, however: that of consistency within the setting.&nbsp; People in the setting don't have &quot;PC&quot; tags on them just because they've got a player attached; and for the sake of setting integrity should in all ways be indistinguishable from NPCs of the same species.&nbsp; Put another way, unless the PCs are somehow alien to the setting, PCs and NPCs should be seamlessly interchangeable without having to touch their mechanics.&nbsp; From this standpoint, it goes without saying that they are the same.Neither.&nbsp; It's a good idea they perhaps took a bit too far; but I'm not sold on finely-tuned game math in any case (WotC have overdone the fine-tuning all the way along) and am happier with a bit more randomness.Sort of a toned down version of what they did with advantage-disadvantage: they hit on a good idea and then just used it way too much.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8829981, member: 29398"] Er...I'm not talking about right or wrong method. I'm talking about the [B]end result[/B] being achievable using the standard method regardless of what method (if any!) was actually used to get there. If the possible end result for a player is between 3 and 18 and your end result falls within that range, I don't give a frig about how you-as-DM got it there. But if the possible end result for a player is 3-18 and your NPC shows up with a 25, or a -1, we have a problem. For in-the-moment gameplay, no they don't...until and unless a player quite rightly asks "Why can't I do what that NPC can do?" or even "Why can't that NPC do what I can?". I'm looking at it from a broader standpoint, however: that of consistency within the setting. People in the setting don't have "PC" tags on them just because they've got a player attached; and for the sake of setting integrity should in all ways be indistinguishable from NPCs of the same species. Put another way, unless the PCs are somehow alien to the setting, PCs and NPCs should be seamlessly interchangeable without having to touch their mechanics. From this standpoint, it goes without saying that they are the same. Neither. It's a good idea they perhaps took a bit too far; but I'm not sold on finely-tuned game math in any case (WotC have overdone the fine-tuning all the way along) and am happier with a bit more randomness. Sort of a toned down version of what they did with advantage-disadvantage: they hit on a good idea and then just used it way too much. [/QUOTE]

Verification