Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 9145529" data-attributes="member: 53980">I'm sorry, but from a world building perspective, that doesn't make sense to me. If I want to make a man who's trained 20 years with the halberd but has never laid eyes on plate mail, I need to give him proficiency in plate mail (even if he's never even seen a suit of plate)? Or make him a barbarian or monk, with all the additional things those entail (rage/ki)?Fairness exists in the CR guidelines. If I make the constable a CR 10 NPC, then I know he's not a fair encounter for a level 1 party. Whether he's a high level fighter or a custom NPC doesn't enter into the fairness equation, IMO. Am I suddenly required to let the PCs play a fire breathing lizard before I'm allowed to have them face a dragon?FWIW, IMCs, if it makes sense that a PC could learn something, they technically can. The fighter PC could potentially convince the constable to train him. It would likely take years, where the fighter devotes himself to training with the halberd and not adventuring, and there's no guarantee that the campaign wouldn't end before that happens (and I'm always transparent on those points) but it is an option.Another good example that was mentioned in this thread was priests. If I want to make a spellcasting priest, I need to give them weapon and armor proficiencies, even if the priest has never had a day of such training in their lives? That doesn't make sense to me.If you really think it's unfair, there's nothing stopping you from making NPC classes for every type of NPC, like a single-weapon-master for the constable or a cloistered-cleric for the priest, and allow players take those classes (despite the fact that they'd largely be trap options that are overall worse than the existing classes). To me, that seems like a huge waste of time that I could otherwise invest into other elements of my campaigns. I prefer bespoke NPCs as the default.</blockquote>

Verification