Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6048340" data-attributes="member: 22779">Probably none.&nbsp; But, then again, a 1st level PC is hardly a raw recruit.&nbsp; In any class, the assumption is that this character has undergone many years of training to get to the point where they are actually a 1st level PC.&nbsp; A raw-recruit fighter would be an 8 year old squire.&nbsp; A raw recruit cleric would be some ten year old altar boy.My twenty year old 1st level priest is capable of miracles on a daily basis.&nbsp; He's capable of driving back the undead with the power of his faith.&nbsp; He's capable of wearing any armor comfortably and using a variety of weapons capably.&nbsp; How in the world is he a &quot;raw recruit&quot;?Why not?&nbsp; For the most part, they lack enough difference to matter.&nbsp; What's the difference between the waif like chambermaid and the third militia man on the left?&nbsp; Three hit points?&nbsp; We have no problems with every monster using the same stat block.&nbsp; Yes, you can advance monsters, I realize that, but, by and large, an orc is an orc is an orc.Heck, we have no problems with the difference between a kobold and an orc being 3 hp and 2 or 3 points of AC in every version of D&amp;D up to 3e.&nbsp; Why is it a stumbling block to say that the non-combat NPC's are going to use the same combat stat block. Note, the militia man got mixed up in this example, so, there might be a decent argument for him needing a combat stat block.&nbsp; After all, he's there, most likely, to engage in combat with somebody.&nbsp; Fair enough.&nbsp; But your other three examples likely will never engage in combat &quot;on camera&quot;.&nbsp; So, why bother?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6048340, member: 22779"] Probably none. But, then again, a 1st level PC is hardly a raw recruit. In any class, the assumption is that this character has undergone many years of training to get to the point where they are actually a 1st level PC. A raw-recruit fighter would be an 8 year old squire. A raw recruit cleric would be some ten year old altar boy. My twenty year old 1st level priest is capable of miracles on a daily basis. He's capable of driving back the undead with the power of his faith. He's capable of wearing any armor comfortably and using a variety of weapons capably. How in the world is he a "raw recruit"? Why not? For the most part, they lack enough difference to matter. What's the difference between the waif like chambermaid and the third militia man on the left? Three hit points? We have no problems with every monster using the same stat block. Yes, you can advance monsters, I realize that, but, by and large, an orc is an orc is an orc. Heck, we have no problems with the difference between a kobold and an orc being 3 hp and 2 or 3 points of AC in every version of D&D up to 3e. Why is it a stumbling block to say that the non-combat NPC's are going to use the same combat stat block. Note, the militia man got mixed up in this example, so, there might be a decent argument for him needing a combat stat block. After all, he's there, most likely, to engage in combat with somebody. Fair enough. But your other three examples likely will never engage in combat "on camera". So, why bother? [/QUOTE]

Verification