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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7003401" data-attributes="member: 6775031">I think that's the wrong way to ask the question. The relevant question is whether the difference between PCs and NPCs is something reflected within the rules or outside of the rules.If my level 1 fighter has 16 Dexterity and the archery style, then they are at +7 to shoot a bow. An equally-inexperienced NPC might have only 14 Dexterity, and lack the style bonus, giving them only +4 to shoot a bow. My PC is better than the NPC for reasons that are covered within the rules.The real danger is, if the rules only apply to PCs and don't apply to NPCs, then we have no idea what the rules covering NPCs actually are. If I can look at an ogre and realize that it's too dumb to apply leverage correctly in order to knock over a tree, then that's one thing. And if I watch and it turns out that this ogre is smart enough to figure that out (because this one is trained in Athletics), then that's also fine. But if the rules for NPCs are different, then looking at that ogre tells me nothing, because I have no frame of reference. If it knocks over a tree without demonstrating trained skill, then all of the information available to me (based on my own capabilities and what I have observed among others who follow PC rules) tells me that this ogre is way stronger than my fighter. If I have Strength 20 and training and can't knock over a tree, then this ogre must have a Strength of at least 30 in order to do that, which means it should be absolutely terrifying to fight and I should probably run away. It's the logical answer based on the information available to me, but it's the wrong answer, because the real answer is that the DM is just making stuff up.</blockquote>

Verification