Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5891429" data-attributes="member: 42582">Because (in some circumstances) it would break the game? An NPC who can both do brilliant weapon play and brilliant spellcasting is interesting. A PC who can do both is (frequently) overpowered. An NPC who gets free attacks against enemies starting adjacent to him/her is a viable foe against multiple PCs. A PC who has such an ability is (frequently) overpowered. Etc.Of course there are other ways of designing encounters or making NPCs viable. But 4e has a reasonably good system for it. (And it's interesting to note that in the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner - which is the game's "GM's guide", or the closest thing to it - the designers note problems that the game's highly simulationist action economy and build rules can cause for monsters, and suggests a range of workarounds. And in the bibliography they note they've been playing some 4e, and that it's influenced the advice in the book.Right. It can make play easier and more transparent if both NPCs/monsters and PCs use the same action resolution rules. (Although other options, like "players roll all the dice" - 4e skill challenges use this - can also work.)But there is no obvious reason why they should be built using the same rules. As I posted upthread, even games that are very austerely simulationist in their PC building rules - Runequest, Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel - don't go this far. The only non-points-buy game that I'm aware of that does take this approach is 3E. (And in points-buy, of course, you can just give the NPC/monster the number of points you need to get it to do what you want it to do. So the currency becomes somewhat meaningless outside the context of PC building.)The way you think about points buy - as metagame - is the way I think about class and level.Otherwise, I have to posit a world in which everything in human development is tied to everything else. In 1st ed AD&D this reached extreme limits in relation to the thief class: I cannot be an expert pick pocket unless I'm also an expert climber. I'm not even sure this is true as a generalisation of tendency across modern urban life, and it's certainly not a natural law about human developmental capacities. (An even more extreme example is that no PC who is not already a competent climber and pick pocket can learn to decipher languages.)So if I build a monster or NPC who is an experte pick pocket, though at best an adequate climber, I am giving that monster an ability that no PC can attain - but I don't think I'm thereby breaking down the reality of the gameworld. I'm just recognising that whatever the metagame reasons were for making thieves progress simultaneously in all abilities don't apply to this particular NPC/monster.It's interesting that 2nd ed AD&D decided to introduce more flexibility into the thief skills (but kept the obviously metagame-driven restriction on wizard's use of swords), and 3E pushed this even further with its skill system. But 3E chose to keep a few abilities, like Whirlwind Attack and Weapon Specialisation, on a level-based leash. Why? For purposes of world simulation, or for purposes of the same (metagame) kind as motivated the design of AD&D thieves? I assume the latter: PCs who can attack multiple foes will be too strong below a certain level. Whereas an NPC or monster who can attack multiple foes is not as such too strong at any level (it depends how the encounter is designed) - even the housecat gest a claws & bite routine! If someone asks how come the 3HD orc has already mastered Whirlwind Attack, "he had a better trainer, or is just more vicious than you, or is blessed by Gruumsh" all seem like viable answers to me. But I find it hard to imagine the question even coming up, at a table in which it is understood that the distribution of abilities by level is all about preserving the integrity of play at the metagame level.As to "a fighter is a fighter" - is there no one in the world who is an adequate combatant (ie low level), has mastered plate armour (ie has heavy armour proficiency), but who knows little about fighting with polearms (ie does not have proficiency in all martial weapons)?Is there no one in the world who is young, not especially bright, certainly not a duelist or assassin, but charming and skilled in many crafty matters? (This would be someone with 8 skill points per level without INT bonus, but not a rogue.)Unless you go to full points buy, the class and level system will impose constraints which cannot be justified on an ingame, fictional basis - they must be metagame. Once you go full points buy, then the metagame character of the currency for PC building becomes transparent.At least in my view.</blockquote>

Verification