D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[hamstertamer]

Of course, Waid could be statted up many, many ways. For instance, in AD&D, simply assign hit dice, hit points, and stats as you see fit, and the skills are simply described. In 4e, he could be statted as a full NPC, or as a "monster". Only in 3e do the rules give a detailed treatment to statting out the NPC like that.

I guess I really appreciate having those tools and it's one of the best parts of 3rd edition for me. Because once I was familiar with the concept then I understood the game logic. Most of the NPCs didn't have stats especially randomly encountered ones but do to my experience creating NPCs I could create them in my head if needed. It wasn't even a big deal.

When I ran 3e, I foolishly began using the RAW for every little situation. I spent loads of time making sure the stats on NPCs and monsters were "correct". Of course, it usually didn't matter. What really counted were the numbers and stats that showed up in the respective encounter.

I don't really understand the concept of RAW, the DM's guide is a guide book and it even explicitly states that they giving you alternatives and options for you to use. The NPC classes are giving you structure to build from. The random NPC creation charts are there for your convenience, just like most of the charts.

It didn't usually matter that the hobgoblin chief had Profession: Blacksmith if he was simply part of a combat encounter. Likewise, it didn't matter that the town blacksmith had 23 hit points and an attack bonus of +3.

Over the years, I gave up worrying about such levels of detail. Once I began writing up monsters and NPCs only for the situations they would appear in, everything became much easier. Realizing that the CR/Monster Advancement rules were simply ballpark numbers, I created new monsters as "build-to-suit", and pegged CR to existing monsters. I spent time detailing what NPCs would know, or might say, rather than worrying about class, level, or skill ranks. Of course, this is what I used to do back in AD&D, and what I would do in games that use the Storyteller system.



To me, it isn't verisimilitude for NPCs, monstes, and PCs to all use the same system as PCs. All such systems are just game rules, after all.

I don't know what you mean by verisimilitude. I definitely believe that there should be a structure and it should be the same system. Knowing how to create a detailed PC, I would know to create detailed NPC as well. It's easier and it's logical. Two systems would be illogical to me and make it much harder to conceptualize while playing. But you don't mean two different systems I imagine. What you really mean is that you don't want to bother with detail. Which isn't a different system just a play style preference. I don't write down every detail either, but I want the detail there when I want it though. Of course, I do enjoy making interesting NPCs, and I think it's important. I really do enjoy prep time. Some people think you should be able to DM with no preparation time and not knowing any rules. I think that's lunacy.

So, what about first-level characters? I want a system to be a little flexible--provide a simple way for characters, AT LEVEL ONE, to have a range of power levels. Give a default, and then, in a rules sidebar, provide some options. For instance:

SIDEBAR: More or Less Heroic PCs
1. For PCs that are more like common folk, strictly enforce 3d6 for ability scores (or use a lower-point array), only give 1/4 the starting wealth, and give no bonus for Con to starting hit points.

2. For PCs that are already heroes, allow rolling 5d6 (best three) for ability scores (or use a higher-point array), give each character a bonus feat, and give bonus hit points equal to Con score, rather than only Con bonus.

I don't understand you. You already can do that. How you create PCs and NPCs is up to you and always has been. Want to roll? Fine. Want a custom ability array? Fine. Want a custom point buy system? Fine. It's all up to you. Don't want to bother with skills for goblin chief? Fine. Yet, the goblin chief should still theoretically have some skills even if they are being ignored. Maybe your PCs take the goblin chief hostage, then what? Then you might need to add more detail to that NPC, no big deal.

 

[Cadence]

I don't understand you. You already can do that. How you create PCs and NPCs is up to you and always has been. Want to roll? Fine. Want a custom ability array? Fine. Want a custom point buy system? Fine.

I completely agree for the experienced player ... and think the DMG darn well better have the standard "only a guide" disclaimer.

One of the concerns that has been expressed about 5e is making sure that there is a default to help the starting players and newbie DM get off on a solid footing without drowning them in choices and options they don't have the experince to handle or pick between. Hence the suggestions for a default with the options off to the side.

 

[Mallus]

I guess I really appreciate having those tools and it's one of the best parts of 3rd edition for me. Because once I was familiar with the concept then I understood the game logic.

3e's tool set is fun to play around with, but it's hard to get around the illogic of the game logic re: using the same chargen rules for both PCs and NPCs.

Having 15 ranks in Perform: Lute should imply an NPC is damn good with a lute. It shouldn't imply anything about his hit points.

 

[Mattachine]

I don't know what you mean by verisimilitude. I definitely believe that there should be a structure and it should be the same system. Knowing how to create a detailed PC, I would know to create detailed NPC as well. It's easier and it's logical. Two systems would be illogical to me and make it much harder to conceptualize while playing. But you don't mean two different systems I imagine. What you really mean is that you don't want to bother with detail. Which isn't a different system just a play style preference. I don't write down every detail either, but I want the detail there when I want it though. Of course, I do enjoy making interesting NPCs, and I think it's important. I really do enjoy prep time. Some people think you should be able to DM with no preparation time and not knowing any rules. I think that's lunacy.
.
.
.
I don't understand you. You already can do that. How you create PCs and NPCs is up to you and always has been. Want to roll? Fine. Want a custom ability array? Fine. Want a custom point buy system? Fine. It's all up to you. Don't want to bother with skills for goblin chief? Fine. Yet, the goblin chief should still theoretically have some skills even if they are being ignored. Maybe your PCs take the goblin chief hostage, then what? Then you might need to add more detail to that NPC, no big deal.

For me, the under-the-hood rules for deciding how many ranks of a skill an NPC gets don't even enter into verisimilitude. What matters to me is simply whether or not the NPC's abilities make sense in the scenario. Like others have said, I don't think an NPC master of some skill should necessarily have the hit points, attacks, and saves of high-level hero.


As to character creation, if different methods are presented, with a brief discussion about how each might affect the feel of the game, then play groups (NOT just DMs) can make better decisions about the type of game they will create together.

Plenty of game systems (like Storyteller, Hero, and Burning Wheel) have specific advice/rules for makes PCs more or less powerful, depending on the flavor of game the group wants.

Why not D&D?

 

[hamstertamer]

3e's tool set is fun to play around with, but it's hard to get around the illogic of the game logic re: using the same chargen rules for both PCs and NPCs.

Having 15 ranks in Perform: Lute should imply an NPC is damn good with a lute. It shouldn't imply anything about his hit points.

Yeah but your attacking the whole idea of the class level rank system. That's has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. What you want is a point buy system like gurps or hero system if that's a major issue for you.

If a wizard sat in a tower and never went adventuring and I wanted him to have high level spells, would it make sense that his Attack bonus went up, his saves, his hit points. Probably not, but it does not mean it does absolutely. It could make sense depending on how I create his background.

I don't have the same issue as you obviously. If want to create a traveling musician that was excellent with the lute, all I need is one or two levels of expert to do that just like my royal blacksmith. 1st level expert with decent charisma, and skill focus should be good enough to wow the crowds. I could just allow skill focus (or another new feat) to increase his perform skill above normal maximum. Or maybe an new Artist class that has no arbitrary limits on skill ranks per level. It's not hard to conceptualize. Not hard to implement either. I don't why people would want to ditch NPC detail and consistency just because well what ever issue they are having.

I definitely don't agree in two systems. I would rather they just turn D&D next into a point buy system. I like those so it's not a problem for me, it just wouldn't be D&D anymore. Since we are sticking to the class level system then the NPCs and monsters should be built on that assumption as well. And more importantly I think if NPCs are being made in different type of system (like a point buy system) then players are going to ask "Why can't I build my character uniquely like a NPC?" Good question right. The situation will be of course, that many people may start building their PCs like NPCs even if the rules state they shouldn't.

 

[hamstertamer]

Plenty of game systems (like Storyteller, Hero, and Burning Wheel) have specific advice/rules for makes PCs more or less powerful, depending on the flavor of game the group wants.

Why not D&D?

D&D does. Always has.

Where you asking the wrong question?

 

[Obryn]

Yeah but your attacking the whole idea of the class level rank system. That's has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I personally have no qualms about a class/level/rank system for PCs. It's only when NPCs are shoehorned into it that it gets squirrely. Because classes and levels are all about combat skill, and you're shoehorning NPCs into a system that was designed without them in mind.

I could just allow skill focus (or another new feat) to increase his perform skill above normal maximum. Or maybe an new Artist class that has no arbitrary limits on skill ranks per level. It's not hard to conceptualize. Not hard to implement either. I don't why people would want to ditch NPC detail and consistency just because well what ever issue they are having.

If you need to houserule to get the system to work right, it's not a good system.

-O

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually, that isn't true. If combat advancement guaranteed that you (somehow?) automatically gained some specialized skill-set (such as potato farming) that is not something that is fundamentally correlated to your everyday experience/behavioral/formal training regimen, then your point would translate. As it stands though, every adventurer does not possess the exact same understanding/formal training (and corresponding advancement with their trade where they possess formal training and everyday experience) of a narrow trade, such as a potato farmer (or any other specific expertise in a non-combat trade/art).

Currently, the opposite stands. Every non-combatant (whether you are a desk clerk, a merchant, a farmer, a cobbler, a cart-wright, or a painter) symmetrically assimilates a martial combat acumen. Therefore, it logically follows that the process of NPC construction pressupposes some training regime/experience is fundamentall correlated (somehow) to those NPC's' everyday lives. You cannot become a desk clerk. You're a butt-kicking desk clerk with plot protection HPs, BAB advancement and a weapon proficiency. That's fine if every setting everywhere is Israel (where pretty much all citizens are conscripted into a rotational national guard) but does every town/city in every implied setting have this? Wouldn't allow for much creativity/variance (and would be more than a little odd to possess that level of symmetry).

It is kind of problematic that things like base attack and saves are mandatory aspects of advancement by level, while other things are not.

That being said, the same issue is still present in PC classes. I don't imagine the typical wizard, bard, or cleric as doing much training with weaponry (and certainly not every member of those classes has substantial combat experience or training). Yet they get weapon proficiencies and BAB. Again, this is what happens with class systems, not an issue with the way NPCs in particular are treated.

 

[Manbearcat]

I personally have no qualms about a class/level/rank system for PCs. It's only when NPCs are shoehorned into it that it gets squirrely. Because classes and levels are all about combat skill, and you're shoehorning NPCs into a system that was designed without them in mind.

Going back through the thread, this is exactly what I put in my XP comment to Ahnehnois immediately above.

 

[slobo777]

And more importantly I think if NPCs are being made in different type of system (like a point buy system) then players are going to ask "Why can't I build my character uniquely like a NPC?" Good question right. The situation will be of course, that many people may start building their PCs like NPCs even if the rules state they shouldn't.

NPCs are built differently in 4E, and this has not happened in that system.

Don't know if has not happened at all, but for any reasonable take on "many", definitely not.

For 4E, that is because NPCs are built to fit around the PC system, as game constructs that the players get their PCs to interact with. Having an NPC or monster build for your character would be a bit like playing as the Candlestick in Clue . . .