Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5889301" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Yes, but this doesn't have to happen arbitrarily for NPCs. I mean, you can arbitrarily decide this about the NPC, sure, but you don't need to.Originally, this was my response to "if a PC wants X ability that an NPC has (especially when he's lacking in other areas, such as your level 1 noble example), why can't he have it?" My answer was, simply, let him have it, if he's willing to pay for it.I don't think it's the same, but to be honest, I'm fuzzy on what you're driving at. Your last post was fuzzy for me, too, so maybe I'm just dense tonight.If a player wants to get an ability an NPC has, I say let them. Don't play special treatment. Now, maybe the Wizard NPC is higher level, and you need that before getting the ability (level 5 spells, for example). That's fair. Maybe the dire bear was born with it, and so you can't really get it. That's fair. Maybe the orc warrior got Whirlwind Attack early, but paid more for it. If that's the case, let the PC do the same thing.If a player wants to be a prodigy with heaps of points and no age penalties, I say let him, if the campaign makes sense for it. That is, if his last PC died and he's bringing a new PC into a high level party, sure, let him be a prodigy. If it's "I want to be better than everyone else" and everyone's okay with it, then make him higher level. There should be no rule against it. I intend to run that exact sort of campaign soon, in fact (with low-level PCs and one higher-level PC).Basically, these are social contract issues, not rules issues. There's nothing wrong, in my mind, with letting people be different levels, as long as everyone is cool with it. Just like I'd have a problem with rules that disallowed for that, I have a problem with saying "the orc can have it because he's an NPC, and you can't because you're not an NPC." Nothing you've said has really convinced me that it's better for things to be that way. Level 5 spells can only be attained at the correct level (level 9, 10, maybe 5, or whatever).My game uses points and levels (15 points to a level, much like Mutants and Masterminds), though I give points out each session (a bit more like WoD), giving incremental increases to PCs, rather than (usually) spontaneous upgrades.And rightly so. You can see that an "exceptionally skilled" attack bonus creature (the best you can have on my guidelines) is going to be dangerous when attacking at that hit die. The same goes for AC, or hit points, or saves, or whatever.However, you can also work in a "CR" (or a similar system) based on what their actual attack bonus is. For example, let's assume the group of PCs are adventurers, and that we're measuring them against "professionally skilled" combat creatures. I can say "the king gets +2 to attack, which is less than the 'interested' level of focus for even hit die 1 creatures! So, in CR, we'll put 'CR 1: (low)' or the like, indicating that a group of level 1 adventurers will likely mop the floor with him. However, his guards get +6 to attack, so we'll put them at 'CR 3' to show that they're dangerous even to hit die 3 PCs."You don't need to just rely on numbers. If you have a "CR" (combat rating, or whatever) entry on the NPC or monster, you can still easily compare them to the average martial capabilities of the PCs.There is absolutely nothing stopping these descriptions on any creature that is either made from the ground up, or is created via simple yet accurate guidelines. For example, on the guards, I could make a note of level (general match for PCs), role (to show where they'll shine in combat), and status (to show if they're a dangerous threat solo or they'll die in droves). This is useful knowledge for many people, and I can see it being included in a stat block. I see absolutely nothing that has convinced me that it's better for things to be that way.Well, PCs can be described in exactly the same way. If they're used as descriptions of the creature after it's been created (either by quick and simple guidelines, or by taking some time to make a creature), you can apply those terms (level, role, and status) to PCs just as easily. They do not need to remain as a NPC and monster design tool, but can become a descriptor.I disagree. I mean, you can do this racially, but there's no need to. And you most certainly can create NPCs and monsters both quickly and rather accurately with guidelines, even if both follow the exact same design and creation process.I really dislike this example. It led to 3.5 pricing a 10 ft. ladder as 5 cp, but a 10 ft. pole as 2 sp. I mean, adventurers need the pole more than the ladder, so it costs more. Nevermind the fact that you can just disassemble it for two poles and some bars you can throw at traps for one-fourth the price...Basically, I dislike thinking "what would this be worth to an adventurer?" and pricing things based on that process. While game balance should be considered, I want it based on like fields. That is, my Fighter should be dangerous, as should my Barbarian. I don't want them to be only as dangerous as the Bard, though. Let him fall behind in combat, but shine in social situations.I also don't like the base assumption of adventurers as the PCs, and pricing of things based around that. Even in D&D, only about 1 in 5 parties were ever legit "adventurers" or the like (mercenaries, etc.). The rest just got caught up in things, and swept along in a series of events. But, I don't expect the next edition to break from the "PCs are adventurers" base assumption, either. I just don't like it.I think you're mistaken. I feel, based on experience, that it's not the case. I don't need to compare the numbers (though I think people should, no matter what CR system is being used). If you want a combat rating system, you can most certainly build one in (including level, role, and status descriptors). In my opinion, at least. And, you don't even need to think of classes / levels / character points as real, in-game things <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Yep, even then. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification