I think you missed Saelorn's point. He said that a given fictional element should have only one mechanical representation. That doesn't mean that it couldn't have had other representations, only that it doesn't. In short, there's an objective game-world reality there and not a Schrodinger's Ogre which re-stats itself depending on who is looking at it. That is absolutely how GURPS and Shadowrun work. A Shadowrun Force-7 air spirit is a Force-7 air spirit. The DM could have created a Force-7 spirit of Man instead and made it play largely the same role, but he didn't.
From the way you respond it sounds as if you're discussing ambiguity from the DM's perspective: "which mechanical representation of my concept should I choose?" That's not what Saelorn is talking about.
Well, you did peg what I was talking about: the DM has choices in how to model something based on it's role in the story, challenge he wants to present to the PCs, in-world consistency, or whatever else he values. Saelorn, it seemed to me, wanted to take those choices away.
If all he's saying is he wants DM's to stick to such a choice once made, that's a lot less objectionable - but it's a DM technique or campaign-presentation concern rather than a system one.
A wizard PC is fundamentally the same entity as a wizard NPC. There is nothing within the game world to distinguish them.
They're two different people: they're distinguished, right there. 'Wizard' might be a game construct or an in-game label. Wizard, as a PC class, is a game construc: it has a lot of choices that can make one PC seem very different from the next PC (or the could take the same number of wizard levels, prep all the same spells, and seem virtually identical). Or, wizard could be an in-game description: In 5e, for instance the Court Wizard of a kingdom could be a 7th level wizard (Diviner), but he could also be a 9th level dragon sorcerer, a rogue with the charlatan background, a bard with the Sage background, an NPC with a spell list chosen by the DM, or even a rakshasa; in 3.5, that same court 'wizard' might have been PC-class wizard, or an NPC class Adept, or a monster with spell-like abilities able to disguise itself convincingly.
That's actually one of the nice thing about 'lame' old class names like fighter or magic-user - they're too generic to be used meaningfully in the in-game fiction, so they don't create that confusion.
Unless you're playing in some weird world, where the PCs literally are different - something like Exalted, perhaps - but that's nothing to do with D&D. In D&D, a wizard is a wizard.
The PC /are/ different, because the DM isn't controlling them. They're different because it's a game. You shouldn't ask a game to completely deny it's nature, as a game. It's up to the DM to take a game like D&D (any ed), and use (and mod) it to create the experience he wants. If that means using the exact same mechanics to represent a PC and an NPC wizard, he can do that - he can also use very different mechanics, or use a different design, but 'call back' some of the PC mechanics.
I did like 4E monster design from a conceptual standpoint. 5E has ported that concept from 4E. I like open-ended monster design that makes monsters unique. Allows you to design even orc tribes as having distinct differences. It also allows PCs to be very unique given monsters aren't built like PCs.
Exactly. 5e's use of a monster stat block (whether you like to think of it as a 4e-style or 1e-style or Pathfinder-style block) and giving the DM some fairly simple tools the DM create monsters and NPCs who are distinct from eachother and from PCs, is one of the many things 5e got 'right.'
In D&D imagination and rules debates are often one and the same. Explain to me how you can simply imagine that you kill some creature? Does the player explain some strategy and then say at the end, "I killed it."
I've certainly seen that happen. Not as an improvised action in combat, but as some elaborate plan, where the players spend hours coming up with it and selling the DM on it, leading to a resolution of "OK, that worked." It's an example of the kind of style that got labeled 'CaW' in the edition war.
5e works for that style. It's worth the player's while to make an end-run around the published system and get straight to a DM ruling - if they can be reasonably certain that ruling will be in their favor.
I thought it was a poor response. They didn't sufficiently analyze their game play issues. If they had they could have concluded, as we quickly did, that you were not supposed to stand around hacking at squads of monsters all day. Instead you're supposed to be say fighting the monsters on a runaway wagon while trying to dump the cargo before it goes off a cliff. In that paradigm the way the monsters work is actually quite beneficial.
There's really nothing you're "supposed" to do. There are things that work better or are more enjoyable than others. There are monsters that are fun to toe-to-toe, and monsters that are boring in that mode. There are monsters & scenarios that have the potential to be entertaining, dynamic combats, if the system is up to it or the DM can pull it off.
In short, I think 5E would work the same way that your 4E anecdote worked: by DM fiat and handwaving and the Rule of Cool.
It's always an option, even a game like 4e, but 5e brings that DM contribution front-and-center.
In 5E, unlike AD&D, you're not stuck with a cleric in every party. Prior to two weeks ago I believe no one at my table had ever cast a healing spell. Short rests, long rests, Vampiric Touch, disposable minions, and running away covered all the bases prior to that.
Even in AD&D there were alternatives - other classes that could heal, DM-placed healing items, even the completely impractical alternative of resting for weeks. The real question is how well do the alternatives take the place of the Cleric.
In 5e, any caster with Cure Wounds or Healing Word on his list can do enough in-combat healing to get by, even if he might not heal /as much/ as the Cleric, he can get an ally back into the fight when he's dropped in combat. Getting a sack of healing potions can also do the trick, at low level, though it'd be a poor, inefficient
nth choice, even then.
Other alternatives - HD, overnight healing, Inspiring Leader, healers kits, etc - can get the party through the day, but can't get a PC back into the fight when he's dropped. So while there's no absolute need for a Cleric, having one is probably pretty close to ideal. Failing that, an alternate caster with the right spell list would be better than depending on healing potions. Remaining alternatives would leave the party at a distinct disadvantage.