D&D 5E Monsters taking PC classes: I want it in Next.

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If there were such a universal paradigm of balance, and there were particular rules that predictably fell outside it, and those rules needed to be there, then yes. Since this rather absurd premise is false, no.

No, I'm sorry, the set of "unbalanced stuff in an RPG" is not a null set.

 

[GreyICE]

If there were such a universal paradigm of balance, and there were particular rules that predictably fell outside it, and those rules needed to be there, then yes. Since this rather absurd premise is false, no.

Strawman, you have created one.

Certainly you must agree that there is a paradigm of balance. It's simply not entirely universal, but it's adaptive. Combat everyone should have a role and strength within that role, with no class clearly outclassed. Out of combat, each character should be able to contribute in a number of situations, and no character should be dominant in the majority of situations.

This is not a universal paradigm. It will not cover the situation where the DM tries to make a game about growing crops and one person takes the background "farmer" and 4 take other backgrounds. But it's a pretty good paradigm for most D&D games.

Second, if you examine the monster rules in 3E and 4E, in an attempt to bring balance, they made most of the monsters feel weak. They lost many iconic abilities. There were monsters you were not allowed to play as PCs. Many of them. And they DID NOT ACCOMPLISH THEIR GOAL.

I am saying that Next should give up on trying to balance the monster PCs, and give DMs rules for them, and let them use the rules if they think it's fun. That way players get to REALLY FEEL like they're playing the monster, not playing a bad, half-baked version of the monster, AND it doesn't result in a DM getting blindsided by monster characters doing ridiculous things (the monster characters can still do ridiculous things, but the DM should be prepared).

 

[Steely_Dan]

1) Strawman, you have created one.

2) This is not a universal paradigm.

3) And they DID NOT ACCOMPLISH THEIR GOAL.

4) That way players get to REALLY FEEL like they're playing the monster

1) Yeah, you should stop that.

2) Ugh, "Paradigm"...

3) They do for us (just needs refining).

4) Tall Tales of the Wee Folk and Savage Species rock (not fully, room for improvement is what I want).

...and stop yelling at people.

 

[pemerton]

Pretty much every RPG where the system doesn't shove its PCs into a very narrow role (adventurers) and allows for more varied gameplay than dungeon crawling.

4e allows for more varied gameplay than dungeon crawling. So do Rolemaster, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer and The Dying Earth. None has rules for celebrity.

I assume HERO and GURPS have an option of a "celebrity" advantage or disadvantage as part of character build, but I doubt they have rules for factoring it into encounter design or action resolution.

Actually D&D would, too if you just roll with it instead of complaining that it "breaks" some rather narrow way of gaming the players obviously have no interest in.

I'm not sure which players you're talking about, and I also don't know what you mean by "roll with it". Maybe you mean freeforming? If I wanted to freeform, why would I be using a multi-hundred page system?

And this is exactly the problem. No non-combat rules -> only combat is part of the game.

4e has plenty of non-combat rules. But rules for adjudicating celebrity are a rather narrow possible component of non-combat rules.

More generally, before you start judging others' games, and what a system can do, I would suggest looking at actual play reports from those using the system.