Nobody knows the classes like I do!

[Empath Negative]

Can't this easily be explained by level? Most guys on the court are level 1-2, while Michael Jordan is level 6? Wouldn't this explain it just as easily, without the mandatory "PCs are special" being tacked on from level 1?

No, because none of those guys will EVER be as good as Michael Jordan.

There are guys who have been in the NBA for a dozen years who were still inferior to a third year Jordan.

Level could explain why someone would be superior to a Jordan the first day out of the box...

but pound for pound, with an equal amount of experience (levels) under their belt... Jordan would whip dey azz.

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, because none of those guys will EVER be as good as Michael Jordan.

There are guys who have been in the NBA for a dozen years who were still inferior to a third year Jordan.

Level could explain why someone would be superior to a Jordan the first day out of the box...

but pound for pound, with an equal amount of experience (levels) under their belt... Jordan would whip dey azz.

Right, but this is more an issue of "how do you gain experience?" and not "they gain experience by playing the game." As far as I know in D&D, historically, PCs aren't awarded experience for working day jobs for decades at a time. I wouldn't expect NPCs to get that, either. (Though, as a side note, PCs and NPCs in my game can certainly gain experience for doing their job over a period of time.)

Again, though, depending on the experience gain rules, what you're describing isn't a problem. As always, play what you like

 

[Empath Negative]

Right, but this is more an issue of "how do you gain experience?" and not "they gain experience by playing the game." As far as I know in D&D, historically, PCs aren't awarded experience for working day jobs for decades at a time. I wouldn't expect NPCs to get that, either. (Though, as a side note, PCs and NPCs in my game can certainly gain experience for doing their job over a period of time.)

Again, though, depending on the experience gain rules, what you're describing isn't a problem. As always, play what you like

The question is whether or not Jordan is inherently superior at the game than Frank from down the street. Even if Frank played all day, everyday he would still NEVER be as good at basketball as Michael Jordan. It's not because Jordan just has "more experience" at the game. If that were true it would ONLY be a question of how much you played. No, there is an essential quality Jordan possesses that others don't.

That's the same quality the fighter has that differentiates him from the Warrior. It's why the Fighter gets specialization and virtually nobody else does.

A level 20 fighter with the exact same weapon as a warrior, the exact same stats will do +6 more damage per swing, and have a 15% greater chance to connect thanks to weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization, and melee/ranged specialization from PHB 2. There are other special abilities only the fighter gets, such as slashing flurry if I recall correctly.

Compare that to Mighty Rage from the barbarian, which greaters +8 Str and +8 Con.

That translates to +6 damage on a two handed weapon and +4 to hit... but the fighter has access to his abilities any time he's wielding his chosen weapon.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The question is whether or not Jordan is inherently superior at the game than Frank from down the street. Even if Frank played all day, everyday he would still NEVER be as good at basketball as Michael Jordan. It's not because Jordan just has "more experience" at the game. If that were true it would ONLY be a question of how much you played. No, there is an essential quality Jordan possesses that others don't.

This can be accurately represented by ability scores and level-based bonuses (4e's +½ level, 3e's BAB, etc.), and not letting the guy down the street gain experience for playing all day, every day. Give him "proficiency" but don't level him up; this way, PC "specialness" is not an automatic assumption, and you can have the difference between Jordan and Basketball Player X. As always, play what you like

 

[Manbearcat]

MJ would be the first Fighter in DnD history to be primary Charisma, secondary Wisdom. As great as his physical attributes were (and they were legend...he was quite literally a step change in evolution of athleticism from Dr J), his presence made his opponents wilt (visibly) and his teammates elevate through the sheer weight of his awe-inspiring self-determination. That and his implacable will and uncanny intuition (basketball IQ) were what truly separated him from his contemporaries and all that came before him (and since).

Tiger was very similar pre-golfclub through his back window. Outside of Tiger's various injuries you could probably say that he's no longer himself because he no longer perceives himself as bulletproof. He got Charisma drained repeatedly over a 2 year span. Sponsers hit him for 1d6 Cha + 3, Elin hit him for 2d6 Cha + 6, and all of his...ermmm...lady-friends...and the world's reaction to it all hit him for 3d6 Cha + 9. No wonder the guy didn't leave the house for several months. He must have been staring into space, slobbering all over himself with a Charisma of 0 for awhile.

The guys who were basically just freakish, athletic robots would be Sampras at Wimbledon and Mariano Rivera from 1996 - 2008.

 

[Empath Negative]

This can be accurately represented by ability scores and level-based bonuses (4e's +½ level, 3e's BAB, etc.), and not letting the guy down the street gain experience for playing all day, every day. Give him "proficiency" but don't level him up; this way, PC "specialness" is not an automatic assumption, and you can have the difference between Jordan and Basketball Player X. As always, play what you like

But that's the point... PC "Specialness" IS the automatic assumption. It's built into the rules themselves. By simply creating a character you're gaming the system that everyday ordinary people abide by.

Your ordinary person is 10, across the board. Your ordinary PC? Not so much. The baseline character creation rules set you head and shoulders above any commoner in town of equal level.

 

[gyor]

I'd say Clinton would make a better Warlord, same with Obama, Bush, and most politicians. Obama I'd say more of the charming sort, while others are more of the intelligence sort, Tactians. For Bards I'd go more with Rockstars, PUA gurus, and Actors. Politicians think long term and use thier talents for sweeping adgendas that fit warlords better, Rockstars and the like tend to focus on, entertaining, creativity, and fawning adoration for its own sake, the pleasure filled sensual now.

Jordan covers the martial power source more then anyone type.

For Sorceror's are all about bloodline, not just charm, charm is just how one gets the most out of thier hertiage and is a side effect of the confidence boost that comes with it. My example would be Princess Diane. The power to change the world and hearts with in it.

For Fighter take your pick of any Special Ops types from around the world, the elite units.

For Rogue Richard of the first survivor, he could back stab when needed, he could con people, and in the end he was a thief (didn't pay his taxes).

Wizard Steven Hawking. Enough said.

Artificer, any of the engireers that build things like Robots to amazing skyscrappers ect... Wizards study arcane magic and know how forces work through study and exiperiments,,Enigeers take that knowedge and apply it to solving problems and building things.

Ranger, the crocodile hunter.

Druid, David Suzukyou.

Warlock, drug users that use drugs to get ahead like Ben Johnson.

Paladins, clean cops are the closest real world, but still aren't close enough. I'd go with starfleet captains, the way Janeway goes after Ranson or Sisko after Eddington reminds me of,Paladin going,after Blackguards, and starfleet regulations reminds me of the Paladin code, especially the Prime Directive.

Assassins, Drone Pilots. When they strike its like thier not even there

Stealthy too.

Clerics, social activists, Nielson Mandela, the leaders of the Wall Street Protests, Micheal Moore and on the otherside Corporate Lobbyists.

Barbarians, Ultimate Fighters or the Hunk, Barbarians are all about the Andrline.

Monks Bruce Lee mixed with a less peaceful Gandi.


All of this us subjective, but fun.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But that's the point... PC "Specialness" IS the automatic assumption.

I disagree that it's based on class, though.

It's built into the rules themselves. By simply creating a character you're gaming the system that everyday ordinary people abide by.

Again, I disagree. From the 3.5 DMG:

ELITE AND AVERAGE CHARACTERS
All PCs and all the NPCs described in this section are "elite," a cut above the average. Elite characters (whether they are PCs or not) have above-average ability scores and automatically get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (rolled on 3d6) and don't get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die.

So far, we've established that there is an "average" and that these is a "cut above the average" in the assumed setting. We've also established that there are "elite" characters (that can explicitly be PCs or NPCs), so we know that there are "elite" NPCs, just like there are "elite" PCs (who are both a "cut above the rest"), which seems to work somewhat against your "the PCs are special" argument, though it doesn't say that the PCs aren't special. But, it goes on to say:

Likewise, some fighters, wizards, and so on are average people rather than elites; they have fewer hit points and lower ability scores than the NPCs described here.

Obviously, the PC "specialness" is still assumed (PCs get maximum hit points at first level, and roll 4d6 rather than 3d6). However, the DMG explicitly mentions that some "PC" classes are "average" people, and doesn't say whether this is for PCs or NPCs (which means that you could have an "average" PC as a Fighter, potentially, even if that's not the base assumption).

The thing is, though, that the classes are better than the "NPC" classes (which PCs can take), but that doesn't make the person with that class inherently a "cut above average" as described by the game's assumptions; it explicitly calls out "average" fighters and wizards.

Your ordinary person is 10, across the board. Your ordinary PC? Not so much. The baseline character creation rules set you head and shoulders above any commoner in town of equal level.

I'd, once again, disagree. Even at 4d6, we're looking at, what, a 12.2 across the board? That's "above average", but it's hardly "head and shoulders" better than NPCs based on abilities. And, if we're judging things by class (of which fighters and wizards can be "average"), we can always roll on the Random NPC Class table on page 110 of the DMG; of course, if we did so, none of the "NPC" classes are listed (only the 11 PHB "PC" classes are listed).

If we skip to page 131 of the 3.5 DMG, we get this:

PCs and NPCs
The NPC classes presented in Chapter 4 of this book showcase the difference between PCs and the rest of the world: The PCs are among the most capable members of the populace, or at least among those with the greatest potential.

This, once again, states that PCs are indeed "special", but is it based on class? Let's read on:

Training is the difference between an adept and a wizard, a warrior and a fighter, a commoner and an expert [insert: NPC to NPC class!].

So, the difference between the classes is based on training, not on PC "specialness" or the like. Reading on:

An NPC with good ability scores might still be a warrior rather than a fighter because she never had the opportunity to obtain the following training to be a fighter. She can swing a sword, but she does not have the finesse of a trained fighter. In theory, however, she could be trained as a fighter at some point after beginning her career as a warrior, gaining fighter levels through multiclassing.

Again, NPCs are fine to have above average ability scores, be "elite", and even take PC classes. It seems to be assumed that this is the case, based on the NPC and the training that NPC has had.

What separates the PCs and the NPCs aren't the classes, it's that "elite" status (maximum HP at level 1, and above average ability scores), but even those are assumed to be bypassed and for NPCs to have this status. They aren't better than the rest of the world, they're just a "cut above the average" (and not head and shoulders above the rest).

The Fighter isn't like Michael Jordan, he's like a professional basketball player: he's well trained, practiced, and has a natural gift. Michael Jordan, though, is just a higher level version of that same thing, with potentially better stats rolled.

Again, just my views, and it's okay that we disagree. And, once again, this isn't even how my RPG works, but D&D as I'm familiar with it and within the context that you used it (basically 3e PHB classes). Thanks for the thoughts, though. As always, play what you like

 

[Empath Negative]

But PCs don't simply roll d6s. They roll 3d6 eight times... and take away two.

Advantage... PC.

And 12.5 IS head and shoulders above everyone else. Factor in that's 12.5 across the board. That would make them stronger, faster, smarter, wiser, tougher, and more attractive than the overwhelming majority of people.

I'm sorry, but PCs are a cut above, simple as that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But PCs don't simply roll d6s. They roll 3d6 eight times... and take away two.

Well, they roll 4d6 (drop lowest) six times, and assign to taste. At least, that's RAW in the 3.5 PHB.

Advantage... PC.

Not at all via class, and it talks about "elite" NPCs, too.

And 12.5 IS head and shoulders above everyone else.

I believe it's 12.2 compared to 10.5.

Factor in that's 12.5 across the board. That would make them stronger, faster, smarter, wiser, tougher, and more attractive than the overwhelming majority of people.

True. By 5%. And in my book, 5% is not head and shoulders above average people, especially when they're outshined by most "average" people. Sure, you're 5% better at hunting than the average guy, but you're a lot worse than the average hunter (because he has ranks). Sure, you're 5% better than the average guy at crafting (not that this really helps you), but you're worse than the average craftsman (because he has ranks).

You're 5% better than the average guy at things, unless they're invested in them (like it's their profession). And then you're worse, unless you're invested (by 5% still). Again, not head and shoulders in my book. Just a little above average.

I'm sorry, but PCs are a cut above, simple as that.

Assumed as a cut above? Yes. Head and shoulders? No. Because of class? Definitely not (in my book). Again, just my take on it, but I'm totally okay with your interpretation at your table. As always, play what you like