D&D 4E Keith Baker on 4E! (The Hellcow responds!)

[amethal]

I have plenty of 3rd edition adventure modules where minor NPCs are not stated up. Maybe not so much the WotC ones.

I don't see anything wrong in describing a village healer as "Jurgen, human male, NG, heal +12, loves to gossip".

What 3rd edition does do is tie ability to experience. So if you want the village healer to be first level (although why the heck you'd care what level the healer is I have no idea) then he probably isn't going to have heal +12. Probably more like 4+2+3 = +9. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If you want heal +12 (again, I don't see why you'd care) then make him 5th level. Or make him older, to increase his wisdom.

The fact he's 5th level theoretically tells you things about his base attack bonus, hp etc., but since he never gets into a fight this is irrelevant.

What 4th edition allows you to do is give him the kobold glue pot ability, the bugbear meat shield ability and anything else you want without having to justify it. And the PCs will never get those abilities, and again you never justify it.

I prefer the 3.5 method. If I didn't, its still not a compelling reason to switch to 4th since "I can do what the heck I want when designing NPCs" is the easiest thing in the world to houserule into any role-playing system.

 

[LordVyreth]

Or it's even simpler than all of that.

If you want an NPC who is the world famous blacksmith capable of whatever feat of blacksmithing you can imagine, you can just make him. Give him whatever bonus you want. Since he is an NPC and not required to follow the rules of players. Which means, even if he has +50 to his blacksmithing skill it doesn't matter what his level is. Heck, he doesn't even need a level...or hitpoints. Heck, you don't even need to come up with a bonus for his skill. Since whether he successfully makes a suit of armor doesn't really matter in 99% of all cases. If you want him to finish the armor in time, you say he does. If you don't want him to then he doesn't.

You'll find that the 4e philosophy is more about creating the experience you want than following a set of rules. It certainly encourages you to say "At this point I want the best blacksmith in the entire world to craft a suit of armor that is finely made for all of the PCs, personalized for them. It'll take him only 3 days, he is that legendary. That will mean they'll get their armor the night before the army is scheduled to head out to fight the evil King's army." instead of "The best blacksmith in the world is in town, the PCs might think about asking him for help, if they do he'll try to make them personalized armor with a +16 bonus to the roll, which means he can do a rush job by taking -10 to the roll and complete it in 1 day per 100 gp value of the armors made. It depends if the PCs ask for multiple sets of full plate or sets of leather as to how long it will take. The battle against the opposing army is in 3 days, so only a couple of suits might be done by then."

I'm not so sure that's a good thing. For one thing, if you're going to fiat the better armor for the PCs, why even give the blacksmith a skill bonus. It's just as good as it has to be. By giving it a value, though, I want it to make sense. Like in this case, if he's the greatest blacksmith in the entire world, he should have a level, and it should be high. Being "best in the world" should be something earned. This doesn't mean he needs hit points, or AC, or other skills. Why would he? He won't be in the fight. If the guy is so much better than the PCs that they have to ask why he's not just killing the monsters for them, then the situation shouldn't really require the world's best blacksmith in the first place. It would be as much a suspicious coincidence as having, say, Betty the High Archmage in town when the attack starts. Either Betty decides to opt out or she wins the adventure for the PCs, two unsatisfactory responses.

I guess this makes me one of the holdouts who liked the universal system. Sure, there should be ways to streamline skills and feats for NPCs and monsters, but I find the toughest parts will be the combat-related elements, like treasure and spells, anyway. I just like having a universe that makes consistent internal sense, plus the greater ease at letting NPCs/monsters serve as cohorts, allies, or even playable choices.

 

[Steely Dan]

I missed the healing kit in the possessions. But that illustrates the point pretty well; in 3E you in theory have to figure out exactly what a particular NPC can get with this stat and this many ranks and these items, to get your desired result; in 4e you can just say 'he's got a +12' and ignore all that stuff. And that really does save time.

Exactly, guys like Amadeus, Jimi Hendrix and Allan Holdsworth would have an obscene Perform (instrument) check (mass Ranks), but wouldn't have more than a few hp.

 

[Mistwell]

Also from Keith Baker's Blog:

A second thing I've heard is that 4E is somehow a copy of World of Warcraft. To set my credentials on the table, I've not only been playing D&D for almost 30 years, I've spent 7 years designing massively multiplayer computer games (MMOs). So, is there a basis for these accusations? Certainly. There are basic principles in 4E that are reflected in MMOs. The most obvious of these is the concept of character roles. Defining the fighter as the "guardian" and the rogue as the "striker" is a obvious parallel to the role of these classes in WoW. The rogue deals more damage than the fighter, but can't absorb as much. The fighter is the tank, and specializes in drawing attacks away from his allies. And the 4E fighter has abilities that allow him to do just that - encourage enemies to face him instead of his teammates.

But does that make 4E D&D a clone of WoW? Does it make the experience of playing 4E just like playing WoW? Does it sacrifice the inherent experience of D&D? In my opinion, the answer is no on all counts. Combat in WoW is a real-time experience set against foes driven by AI routines. If you REALLY wanted to make a WoW clone, you'd give the DM instructions along the following lines: "Keep track of the amount of damage each player inflicts on the monster. Any concombat spell such as healing or summoning will be given an equivalent damage value. The monster will always attack the player who has inflicted the most damage on it. The attacks of a fighter are considered to inflict double damage only for this purpose, and his taunt ability adds an immediate thirty points to his threat value."... or something like that. Decision making would be taken out of the DM's hands, and you'd ignore the tactics of the situation.

Scaling it back slightly, you could simply give the fighter an ability that said "Taunt: Target must make a Will saving throw. If he fails, he must attack the fighter." More D&D, perhaps, but equally hamfisted.

Fourth Edition doesn't do either of these. Instead, it gives the guardian classes tools that hinder or harm the target if he chooses to ignore the fighter. It creates a tactical situation - something more complex than you will typically see in the real-time combat of WoW. As DM, I get to decide: is the monster going to turn against the fighter in response to his efforts? Or will he still attack the wizard, in spite of the consequences he'll suffer as a result?

So 4E D&D does draw INSPIRATION from the MMOs, in saying "Let's provide the fighter with a way to actively defend his allies - a way to protect the low hit-point/AC wizard BEYOND simply whacking the guy with a sharp piece of metal." As someone who has always enjoyed playing fighters, I think this is great. I still have my high AC, my high hit points, my high strength, my excellent weapon selection, and the ability to deal decent damage. I haven't been stripped of the basic things that have always defined fighters in D&D. But I have been given new abilities that expand what I am capable of... that allow me to defend my allies even while smashing my foes.

Games evolve, and that's what's happening here. In my years working on MMOs, I always looked to my experiences with pen-and-paper RPGs and live roleplaying for ways to add depth of story to the MMO experience. You couldn't simply transfer the pen-and-paper game to the computer and expect it to work perfectly; they're completely different mediums. But there are lessons to be learned, ideas we can try. And that's what's been done here, in reverse. 4E isn't simply World of Warcraft ripped from the computer and played at the table, because WoW wasn't designed for that. But it does draw inspiration from MMOs, looking at the ideas that have evolved over the course of a decade of MMO development and seeing if there's anything there that could enhance the traditional pen-and-paper experience. And for what it's worth, so far I love the result. The action of the game is fast and fun. It's something I wish I could share with more of my friends, and I look forward to having the chance to play instead of just DMing!

 

[LordVyreth]

Scaling it back slightly, you could simply give the fighter an ability that said "Taunt: Target must make a Will saving throw. If he fails, he must attack the fighter." More D&D, perhaps, but equally hamfisted.

I guess SOMEBODY didn't look too closely at the knight in the PHB2. Or he did, and had the same response that I did.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess SOMEBODY didn't look too closely at the knight in the PHB2. Or he did, and had the same response that I did.

I suspect he did.
The Knight was probably some kind of "let us test aggro mechanics", and it proved ... unsatisfactory.

 

[Li Shenron]

Or behind. I kept doing things like I did when I DM'd 1st and 2nd Edition. Maybe I've been doing it wrong this whole time, but I don't feel like I need to figure out how an NPC has x, I just give them x unless they are important enough to stat out. If this is something that 4E is returning to I count it as a major plus even though I obviously ignored it all these years.

If you were 3 editions ahead, doesn't mean the others weren't still 1 edition ahead.

How can you count it as a "major" plus it's up to you, but if that was the standard in old editions, then I don't see why the 3ed rules were played badly all the time, considering that the DMG did not FORCE anyone to use NPC classes.

 

[TerraDave]

Mistwell beat me to it...or took the bait. Edit: and he even used the annoying color! Good man, er meatball, er you know what I mean.

And from what we know, the knight was a playtest. I am glad they learned something from it!

 

[HP Dreadnought]

An NPC with Wisdom 18 and a a toolkit worth what, 250g? (Honestly, I can't remember, but its not cheap) is hardly an improvement over a level 4 npc.

WRT to the OP, I picked on the Action Points thing, but I don't think Keith is the first to mention it.

Buggered if I can remember where I saw it, though.

Wow!! MW Healing kits are 250gp??

This is about how things would go in my group with NPCs carrying expensive gear. . .


Hey guys, gather round!! Our group is going to go Healer hunting!!! I heard there's this whole lair of them in this building at the center of town. (A hospital or something?) They aren't worth much XP. . . but they're absolutely NO challenge whatsoever to our 1st level PCs. . . and EVERY one of them comes equipped with a 250gp item that we can sell! Let's wipe em out!!!


Now your healer just broke the wealth by level guidelines!

LOL!!

 

[amethal]

Exactly, guys like Amadeus, Jimi Hendrix and Allan Holdsworth would have an obscene Perform (instrument) check (mass Ranks), but wouldn't have more than a few hp.

They are not D&D characters.

Alexander the Great, Lassie and Hulk Hogan don't have many hit points either.