Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 4199172" data-attributes="member: 15999">His ability scores were 3-18, same as PCs.  The strongest Normal Man was as strong as the strongest PC hero.  His damage was "by weapon," same as a PC did.  His AC was normally 9, although Mentzer notes that monsters' AC might change by armor worn (seems obvious, I know).  His HP were 1-4 in Moldvay, boosted to 1-8 in Mentzer (and in either case it was suggested to assign by hardiness and not roll).  Your 1st-level fighter did have to roll, so even in Moldvay he had only a 50% chance of having more HP than the blacksmith. True, Normal Man's hit rolls and saves were slightly worse than those of the PCs.  But, he would instantly convert to a PC class if he gained XP through an adventure.  This, along with the ability scores, suggested that he was not fundamentally any different than a PC except through his career choice.  And that, to me, is a really important point.  The vibe I get from reading material about 4E is that the PCs are just plain better because they're the PCs.  This was true in 3E as well, and it was one of my least favorite things about the system.3E gave PCs 3 mechanical advantages: better class abilities (as they had in BECMI), plus better ability scores AND maximum HP on the first die (neither of which they had in BECMI).  In some campaigns, they'd have action points or other plot-protection devices.  I know it's cinematic, but even in movies and TV there are levels of overt plot protection that I dislike.  My tolerance for that trope in movies is less, I think, than that of many of my friends, so take that for what it's worth.</blockquote>

Verification