Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4338376" data-attributes="member: 710">The important part to me is that the rules still &quot;interface&quot; on the aspects that matter. NPCs still have ability scores, skill modifiers, attack rolls and even powers. They just weren't arrived using different rules, and took into account the different goals.I am not sure I could enjoy a system where this wasn't true, but on the other hand, but I didn't drink such a systems kool-aid yet <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />There are some fundamental aspects that will always lead to contradictions and inconsistencies.In 4E the inconsistency is that a NPC Fighter uses different rules to achieve his ability scores, attack rolls and powers then a PC Fighter of the same level.In 3E, you get into problems creating consistency between PC level and monster CR. Theoretically, CR maps 1:1 with PC levels, but if you look closer, this isn't true anymore - nonassociated class levels for NPCs, but level adjustment for PCs. They exist because what works as a level 10 ability for a monster doesn't necessarily work as a level 10 ability for a PC (Fireball at/will - no problem for a monster, but breaks for a PC). The final question is what part of inconsistency works better for the game as a whole? There seems to be no universal answer, as some people think the goal to use rules to &quot;simulate&quot; all aspects of the game world, and others prefer a system that works easy and fast and give up parts of the game mechanics = physics of the game world scheme. These days, I am in the latter camp. I probably wasn't always. But my 3E experience and my 4E experience tells me that the gameplay value is just better having NPCs use different rules for PCs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4338376, member: 710"] The important part to me is that the rules still "interface" on the aspects that matter. NPCs still have ability scores, skill modifiers, attack rolls and even powers. They just weren't arrived using different rules, and took into account the different goals. I am not sure I could enjoy a system where this wasn't true, but on the other hand, but I didn't drink such a systems kool-aid yet ;) There are some fundamental aspects that will always lead to contradictions and inconsistencies. In 4E the inconsistency is that a NPC Fighter uses different rules to achieve his ability scores, attack rolls and powers then a PC Fighter of the same level. In 3E, you get into problems creating consistency between PC level and monster CR. Theoretically, CR maps 1:1 with PC levels, but if you look closer, this isn't true anymore - nonassociated class levels for NPCs, but level adjustment for PCs. They exist because what works as a level 10 ability for a monster doesn't necessarily work as a level 10 ability for a PC (Fireball at/will - no problem for a monster, but breaks for a PC). The final question is what part of inconsistency works better for the game as a whole? There seems to be no universal answer, as some people think the goal to use rules to "simulate" all aspects of the game world, and others prefer a system that works easy and fast and give up parts of the game mechanics = physics of the game world scheme. These days, I am in the latter camp. I probably wasn't always. But my 3E experience and my 4E experience tells me that the gameplay value is just better having NPCs use different rules for PCs. [/QUOTE]

Verification