Viking Bastard
Adventurer
This would seem optimal: Simple base system, with opt-in complexity.
Same rules or different Rules (PC vs NPC)
- Thread starter herrozerro
- Start date
This would seem optimal: Simple base system, with opt-in complexity.
One of the things that made me fall in love with 3rd edition was this fact that PCs and monsters worked by the same rules. The Dungeon Master's Guide gave me the rules I needed to stat out cities and countries, and all the NPCs within, and it all made sense. There was a working economy, in the sense that towns had GP limits.
It's true though, that when I was playing with generating those towns and those highest-level NPCs, and how many commoners and experts were in the town, I wasn't really playing D&D. My players never fought the NPCs, and so I never needed those stats. But I believed that made my world more real to me.
So maybe what I'd ask for from a new edition, is fairly simple stats for actual play, but the modular ability to expand as needed, and therefore to be able to explain and simulate the entire world as much as I want to. I suppose it doesn't need to be in the core DMG, but what else are you going to put in the DMG? Is there even going to be a DMG this time around? Someone should start a thread about that.
It's true though, that when I was playing with generating those towns and those highest-level NPCs, and how many commoners and experts were in the town, I wasn't really playing D&D. My players never fought the NPCs, and so I never needed those stats. But I believed that made my world more real to me.
So maybe what I'd ask for from a new edition, is fairly simple stats for actual play, but the modular ability to expand as needed, and therefore to be able to explain and simulate the entire world as much as I want to. I suppose it doesn't need to be in the core DMG, but what else are you going to put in the DMG? Is there even going to be a DMG this time around? Someone should start a thread about that.
Balesir
Adventurer
Assuming D&D is not to try to be RuneQuest and simulate a "real" alien world (which no edition has done to date, as it would require root-and-branch changes to the D&D systems) I'm 100% for keeping PCs as full "Characters" and all other beings in the world as "environment effects" to be manipulated by the GM under different rules.
Having said that, I do think there need to be at lease two "monster" statblocks. One would be for Combat encounters, the other for Social encounters. Some NPCs/monsters might have both, but preparing 'social statblocks' for a bunch of orc guards that are likely to die (in)gloriously defending their shaman seems like a waste of time, to me. The shaman, on the other hand, might get a "SocBloc" to cover the eventuality that the PCs try to negotiate.
Other statblocks might also be worthwhile. "Crafting" stats, for example, or stats for the organisations and networks that the NPCs plug into (one of the high spots of 2E, for me, was the way Birthright did this for "Domains" that covered way more than just landholdings).
Having said that, I do think there need to be at lease two "monster" statblocks. One would be for Combat encounters, the other for Social encounters. Some NPCs/monsters might have both, but preparing 'social statblocks' for a bunch of orc guards that are likely to die (in)gloriously defending their shaman seems like a waste of time, to me. The shaman, on the other hand, might get a "SocBloc" to cover the eventuality that the PCs try to negotiate.
Other statblocks might also be worthwhile. "Crafting" stats, for example, or stats for the organisations and networks that the NPCs plug into (one of the high spots of 2E, for me, was the way Birthright did this for "Domains" that covered way more than just landholdings).
Connorsrpg
Adventurer
Whilst I have issues basing all main stats only on level, I despise crossreferencing stats. Put everything there and give NPCs/Creatures unique abilities.
Definitely different for me, but of course you can add/choose class powers to put into those blocks if you like. I built many NPCs this way for 4E. Used the class templates an lot too (without making them elite every time either).
Definitely different for me, but of course you can add/choose class powers to put into those blocks if you like. I built many NPCs this way for 4E. Used the class templates an lot too (without making them elite every time either).
Someone
Adventurer
Different. I don't need rules detailing how NPCs interact with NPCs, what roll they need to have to craft the sword the PCs are looking for, or what level they need to be to have a high enough Knowledge skill to know what the PCs are asking. I want freedom to create quickly the NPC I want. If I need a tough orc champion to challenge the entire party, the last thing I need is to spend an hour creating him or outright have the rules tell me that what I want is impossible and I need to design a houserule. If I need a NPC to raise an undead army, I just need him to do exactly that without the players wondering what prestige class does him have or what spell is using and how many opals did he spend.
Last edited:
I liked 3E's approach when it came out - PCs and non-PCs built using the same rules. It felt like a leveling of the playing field and seemed right and good. But having DM'd a few campaigns in 3E, I found the way that combat encounter statblocks were laid out to be cumbersome. Prep involved me cutting out a lot of what was, for me, useless information.
I really like the (comparative) simplicity of 4E combat statblocks, and I agreed with the philosophy shift that led to having Monster Math be fundamentally different from PC Math. It may have gone too far, tho.
I really like the (comparative) simplicity of 4E combat statblocks, and I agreed with the philosophy shift that led to having Monster Math be fundamentally different from PC Math. It may have gone too far, tho.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I can get behind that.
As long as it's easy for me to make what I need to make and use NPCs and monsters for whatever I want to use them for.
Similar Threads
