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

[hong]

If Dm Fiat a valid answer, then why not:

"Healer: hp 6, Heal +12"

And then you ask "where is he getting that skill from?", to which I reply "+8 circumstance bonus from doing that daily, instead of adventuring".

Absolutely no reason why you couldn't do that. Circumstance bonuses and racial bonuses have always been ways to ignore the rigid build framework. But if you're going to do that as a matter of course, it raises the question of why you have that rigid build framework in the first place.

 

[hong]

Because ALL the rules don't apply ALL the time. Sometimes you only need the NPC to have certain abilities. Why not just give them what they need? This is one of the aspects that turned me on to Savage Worlds. They specifically tell you in the rulebook "Don't follow character creation for NPC's. Just give them what you want them to have." Is it really going to affect the game if the healer who never does anything outside his shop has a +12 heal skill at first level or at 6th?

Er, and the underlying philosophy of 4E is that you don't "follow character creation" for NPCs (ie, you build them according to what you need, without having to shoehorn them into an unsuitable framework). So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

 

[Pbartender]

If Dm Fiat a valid answer, then why not:

"Healer: hp 6, Heal +12"

To which Keith has pre-emptively replied, "Why not, indeed?"

In fact, if the characters are unlikely to fight the Healer, then:

"Healer: Heal +12"

 

[Caedrus]

Er, and the underlying philosophy of 4E is that you don't "follow character creation" for NPCs (ie, you build them according to what you need, without having to shoehorn them into an unsuitable framework). So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

This isn't an argument against 4e. I like that it is going that way. This is against 3.x, which made you build unrealistic NPC's just to get a couple bonuses where you wanted them to be.

 

[Stogoe]

I don't see why it has to be a big selling point for 4E.

Because it's explicit. Because it's that way in the rules. Because for some people, the text of the rules is the only thing that matters.

 

[Klaus]

This isn't an argument against 4e. I like that it is going that way. This is against 3.x, which made you build unrealistic NPC's just to get a couple bonuses where you wanted them to be.

My argument is against using that argument as something you can do in 4e that you can't in 3.x. Because you can. So it's a non-issue.

 

[Lackhand]

My argument is against using that argument as something you can do in 4e that you can't in 3.x. Because you can. So it's a non-issue.

By ignoring the rules for building characters and/or encounters.

I mean, yes, you can do it, but it wasn't encouraged. Now it is. Yay, yet another way in which D&D 4e continues the mighty banner of that which is D&D!

It's great that the way people actually play the game is being codified, isn't it?

 

[hong]

My argument is against using that argument as something you can do in 4e that you can't in 3.x. Because you can. So it's a non-issue.

You can do it without having to pay dollars and brain cells to learn, and then ignore, the rules. Which sounds like a real advantage to me.

 

[Caedrus]

You can do it without having to pay dollars and brain cells to learn, and then ignore, the rules. Which sounds like a real advantage to me.

Exactly! That's what I was getting at.

 

[Pale]

And it doesn't make the editors cry!

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

That right there, I believe, is the biggest motivating factor for such a change.