The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[Tony Vargas]

It remains to be seen, but is irrelevant to this case, since it doesn't reference class features. Regardless of how it solves the issue of NPC classes, the whole system of skills and ability checks must remain universal.

Fighters and rogues both have class abilities that impact skill checks, IIRC, mabye ability checks, too. So there's room for those abilities to be exceptional/extraordinary rather than purely mundane.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

It remains to be seen, but is irrelevant to this case, since it doesn't reference class features. Regardless of how it solves the issue of NPC classes, the whole system of skills and ability checks must remain universal.

Because the system would break down if you had to resolve an 80-year old commoner hiding from a goblin?

 

[pemerton]

I guess we'll have to see if 5e makes PC classes pull double-duty, so every soldier is a fighter and every street urchin a rogue - or if it takes the 3e approach and provides NPC classes, or the AD&D classless approach.

Basic D&D answers this to some extent, on p 24:

Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings . . .

Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.​

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Because the system would break down if you had to resolve an 80-year old commoner hiding from a goblin?

No, because a universal system is more meaningful than a system that limits itself to expressing how a very small subset of people operate. If modeling a venerable commoner hiding from a goblin requires anything more than a Dexterity (Stealth) check against Wisdom (Perception), then your system is at least twice as complicated as it should be.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, because a universal system is more meaningful than a system that limits itself to expressing how a very small subset of people operate. .

"Meaningful?"

Odd way to phrase the value judgement.

I mean, I get that some people approach an RPG as artistic expression, but that's an approach. It's a bit much to expect from the mechanics, themselves. Unless you're thinking game design as an art?

Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.

So, not PC-only or heroic/villainous-only, like in 3e, but classless/levelless, like 1e men-at-arms and the like, with any higher order competence implying PC class levels.

Well, maybe the DMG will yet deliver some NPC classes (advancing with just a background, perhaps?) so blacksmiths don't have to have fighter levels just to get their tool proficiency bonus up a bit.

 

[Hussar]

No, because a universal system is more meaningful than a system that limits itself to expressing how a very small subset of people operate. If modeling a venerable commoner hiding from a goblin requires anything more than a Dexterity (Stealth) check against Wisdom (Perception), then your system is at least twice as complicated as it should be.

Since, presumably, neither of these are PC's and no players are involved, why do we need to invoke any rules at all?

I guess my question is, meaningful to whom? Meaningful to a player whose character is not there and has no way of actually observing the event? Meaningful to the DM? Meaningful to some sort of outside observer?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Since, presumably, neither of these are PC's and no players are involved, why do we need to invoke any rules at all?

Because there is zero in-game difference between a PC and an NPC (aside from what shows up on their respective character sheets), and because we need the resolution to only follow from things that exist within the game-world (otherwise we violate causality), we need rules to determine the outcome without invoking arbitrary bias.

The whole point of a ruleset is that it provides us with as unbiased-as-possible of a resolution for any situation.

 

[Hussar]

Because there is zero in-game difference between a PC and an NPC (aside from what shows up on their respective character sheets), and because we need the resolution to only follow from things that exist within the game-world (otherwise we violate causality), we need rules to determine the outcome without invoking arbitrary bias.

The whole point of a ruleset is that it provides us with as unbiased-as-possible of a resolution for any situation.

Only in 3e was this even close to true, and, even then, not really since PC's and NPC's follow all sorts of different rules, gaining xp being a prime example (how much xp do your followers and cohort get if you bring them on an adventure?) In every other edition, this wasn't even close to true. NPC's and PC's follow different rules many times.

Sorry, but, you're playing a game. Virtually every single element invokes arbitrary biases.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Only in 3e was this even close to true, and, even then, not really since PC's and NPC's follow all sorts of different rules, gaining xp being a prime example (how much xp do your followers and cohort get if you bring them on an adventure?) In every other edition, this wasn't even close to true. NPC's and PC's follow different rules many times.

In 4E alone, it wasn't even close to true. In every other edition, it was identical mechanics for whether an NPC or PC could hide from someone - be that a thief-specific skill check, ability check, or skill check.

The only difference between a PC and an NPC in 3.X is that we didn't follow NPCs around to specifically track their XP income, so we had other systems in place to kind of ballpark it with less effort.

In prior editions as well, the difference between a PC and an NPC was only in specifically delineated class features, where NPCs were generally level 0 and had no features of note, and PCs tended to be level 1 or higher.

 

[evileeyore]

Since, presumably, neither of these are PC's and no players are involved, why do we need to invoke any rules at all?

I guess my question is, meaningful to whom? Meaningful to a player whose character is not there and has no way of actually observing the event? Meaningful to the DM? Meaningful to some sort of outside observer?

To be honest I'm with you, however...

The PCs can easily be involved without either the old guy hiding or the goblin peeping being PCs.

The PCs are fighting the Goblin raiders, nearby a Goblin has slipped past them and is stalking his true prey, the Mayor of the town. Does he find the Mayor before the PCs can finish with the distraction and come to the rescue? Does a PC peel off to hunt the hunting hunter? Etc.



Granted in this scenario I (the Marvelous and Wonderfully Talented) DM will have figured out how I'm handling it, how long the PCs have, etc. Best suited for the mission needs (drama, story development, emotional impact, etc). But some groups really do seem to want some sort of "outside the DM's direct control" method of dealing with this (and they of course conveniently overlook all the factors the DM will directly be controlling).