Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9145915" data-attributes="member: 29398">Not at all.  Fire-breathing lizards aren't a PC-playable species therefore no symmetry is required.But I'm assuming here that ol' Constable Bob is Human (let's take it that he is, for these purposes), meaning that as a Human his mechanics and those of a Human PC should match up.  If they don't, there's a consistency problem in the setting: why can't Bob do what a PC can, or why can't a PC do what Bob can. (and "just because" is not an acceptable answer to that rhetorical question <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )  In 5e, for example, this would also mean that Bob in theory gets whatever species-based mechanical benefits a Human PC would get, because if it's species-based that by default means it applies to every member of that species on the planet.  (in most other editions Humans are the flat baseline , and thus a poor example for the point I'm trying to make)Which means, if you allow Bob to function as a 20th-level Fighter* when it comes to halberd use and yet not know plate mail from plate glass, those same mechanics have to be available to Human PCs...which doesn't square very well with the adventuring-class paradigm the game is built on, where a class bestows kind of an all-or-nothing ability set.Now you could, I suppose, break out all the various dozens if not hundreds of abilities given by classes and say that each character (PC and NPC alike) gets x number of these abilities, mix and match, per y-number of xp earned; but that would make it in effect a classless game and IMO not really D&D any more.* - by this I mean when using a halberd he uses the same combat matrix or BAB or whatever as would a F-20; my shorthand term for this is "Fight Level", or FL.That's cool.That's why there needs to be what I call "stay-at-home" versions of these classes.  That said, a good case can be made for most Clerics getting at least some basic weapon and armour training anyway, for if they ever need to come to the defense of their temple, or their lay people.That's actually the route I'm very slowly starting to go, with the specific intent that these classes or part-classes be such obvious trap options (as in so clearly sub-optimal, e.g. they specifically don't and can't gain xp from killing things and taking risks) that nobody in their right mind would play one.  They'll even be labelled up front as unplayable as field adventurers.So far I've vaguely waved at Artificer (stay-at-home designer and crafter of magic items) and Sage (stay-at-home researcher and fount of knowledge).What I'm trying to do is fill holes in the system where there's no mechanical support for common archetypes.  It's work I only have to do once (my favourite kind!), I just have to do it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification