Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6047703" data-attributes="member: 42582">My comment on ingame logic is this:* If defences are based on some sort of resource-allocation system (as in HARP and, to a lesser extent, Rolemaster) then level isn't a measure of defences, and hence not a meaningful measure of challenge;* If defences are based not on resource-allocation, but are simply a function of level, then the same points made by [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] and others upthread re-emerges - why does improving my skill as baker also make me better at dodging explosions and swallowing toxins? That is the issue of ingame logic I'm referring to.This is not the aim of any edition of D&D. Every edition of D&D intends that the level of a PC doesn't just establish an upper limit of ability, but also an actual degree of ability. Hence the idea, in AD&D, that XP rewards and dungeon levels are in some sense related to PC level (though it's complicated in that game by the varying XP requirements for different classes); hence the idea in 3E of CR, and in 4e of encounter level.This outcome is achieved by baking certain mandatory elements of numerical progression into a class: to hit, hit points, saves (defences in 4e), skill bonuses (for thieves in classic D&D and for all classes in 4e) etc.It's also worth noting that those points in which numerical progression is split off from level - as with skills and AC in 3E (though wealth by level puts some outer limits on the degree of AC variation) - are also the points where the correlation between level and challenge is notorious for breaking down.A system like Rolemaster and HARP in which level tells you nothing about the actual capabilities of a being, and only (i) the number of build resources that can be spent on it, and (ii) the maximum bonus it can enjoy in any category, means that level can't be used as a measure of challenge.Once you start designing your various NPC classes in which level has no meaningful correlation to any particular degree of numerical potency, you will be in the same position as Rolemaster and HARP - the level of a being will not tell you anything interesting about the challenge it poses. Which is to say, it won't do the job for which you, upthread, argued that it is required.Huh? The context is the degree of ability that fits the fictional circumstances of the NPC. With that in mind, we assign a bonus.As [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] suggested, perhaps roll 3d6. Or just make up something consistent with the established fiction about the baker - if s/he has been described already as "fit" or "strong", assign something between 12 and 16, whereas if s/he has been described as "weedy" or "consumptive" assign something between 7 and 9. If there is no relevant established fiction, then just make something up that seems like it will be fun!I have to confess, if a GM is having trouble assigning a STR score to an NPC baker, how is s/he going to make the more complex choices that typically arise in encounter design?</blockquote>

Verification