D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[Emerikol]

"Elite" is a specific game term in 3.5 (and I think in 3.0). Check the DMG 3.5 p. 110.

That's what I'm referring to here, instead of the more colloquial definition.

-O

I don't have the book handy. But what is your ultimate point? Maybe its gotten lost in the shuffle.

In my world 1st level fighters aren't that special however you want to define the term. 5th level are well trained veterans. 10th are lords and knights. Above that and your legend is growing. I believe I'm still playing RAW given that situation.

 

[Remathilis]

How bout some Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd edition Goodness?

Nor are all the people in your campaign world fighters, mages, thieves, or whatever. The situation would be utterly ridiculous if every NPC had a character class. You would have fighter chambermaids, mage teamsters, thief merchants, and ranger children. The whole thing defies logic and boggles the mind. Most non-player characters are people, just people, and nothing more.

Only a few people actually attain any character level. Not every soldier who fights in a war becomes a fighter. Not every urchin who steals an apple from the marketplace becomes a thief. The characters with classes and levels have them because they are in some way special.

This specialness has nothing to do with ability scores, class abilities, or levels. Such characters are special by definition. The fact that player characters are controlled by players renders them special. Perhaps these special characters are more driven or have some unknown inner spark or just the right combination of talents and desires. That's up to the players. Similarly, non-player characters with classes are special because the DM says so. Plain and simple. There is no secret reason for this--it just is.

 

[Obryn]

I don't have the book handy. But what is your ultimate point? Maybe its gotten lost in the shuffle.

In my world 1st level fighters aren't that special however you want to define the term. 5th level are well trained veterans. 10th are lords and knights. Above that and your legend is growing. I believe I'm still playing RAW given that situation.

My ultimate point (once again ) is that the PCs' mechanical "specialness" is hardcoded into the default 3.5 rules at character generation. My specific examples have been (1) free access to PC classes whereas the world as a whole is largely using NPC classes, and (2) "elite" status which includes better stats and max HPs at 1st level.

Remithalis quoted most of the relevant passages up-thread, but here we go:

All PCs and all the NPCs described in this section [this section being "pre-built PCs of every level"] are “elite,” a cut above the average. Elite characters (whether they are PCs or not) have above-average ability scores and automatically get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die. Average characters, on the other hand, have average abilities (rolled on 3d6) and don’t get maximum hit points from their first Hit Die.

I am, once again, not arguing any of the following:
(1) that PCs cannot take NPC classes.
(2) that NPCs cannot take PC classes.
(3) that PCs, NPCs, and monsters cannot take and/or multiclass in any combination PC and/or NPC classes, only that some NPC classes are absolutely worse, mechanically, than similar PC classes.
(4) that PCs and NPCs are playing entirely different games past generation or that their ability scores or statistics mean different things.
(5) that you or your players have not had fun using NPC classes for PCs in your games.
(6) that you cannot use the 3.5 rules to play "butchers & bakers" if you so choose.

-O

 

[Obryn]

How bout some Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd edition Goodness?

Let's go crazy and go back to AD&D 1e.

CREATING THE PLAYER CHARACTER
GENERATION OF ABILITY SCORES

As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:

Method I: All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.
.....
Non-Player Characters

Non-Player Characters: You should, of course, set the ability scores of those NPCs you will use as parts of the milieu, particularly those of high level and power. Scores for high level NPC's must be high - how else could these figures have risen so high? Determine the ability scores of other non-player characters as follows:
General Characters: Roll 3d6 for each ability as usual, but use average scoring by considering any 1 as a 3 and any 6 as a 4.
Special Characters, Including Henchmen: Roll 3d6 as for general characters, but allow the full range (3-18) except in the ability or abilities which are germane to his or her profession, i.e. strength for fighters, etc. For all such abilities either use one of the determination methods used for player characters or add + 1 to each die of the 3 rolled which scores under 6.

-O

 

[Emerikol]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMG 2e
Nor are all the people in your campaign world fighters, mages, thieves, or whatever. The situation would be utterly ridiculous if every NPC had a character class. You would have fighter chambermaids, mage teamsters, thief merchants, and ranger children. The whole thing defies logic and boggles the mind. Most non-player characters are people, just people, and nothing more.

So far this is... so what. Of course no one has argued that chambermaids have levels. Or that the classes amongst the entire general populace aren't uncommon. Computer programmers are uncommon too but we aren't special. And if I need one I get one not an npc version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMG 2e
Only a few people actually attain any character level. Not every soldier who fights in a war becomes a fighter. Not every urchin who steals an apple from the marketplace becomes a thief. The characters with classes and levels have them because they are in some way special.

The interesting thing about this is every module the ever made went against this logic. It's kind of like them saying hit points weren't real damage. Yet they took days to heal without magic. There were some definite inconsistencies in those days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMG 2e
This specialness has nothing to do with ability scores, class abilities, or levels. Such characters are special by definition. The fact that player characters are controlled by players renders them special. Perhaps these special characters are more driven or have some unknown inner spark or just the right combination of talents and desires. That's up to the players. Similarly, non-player characters with classes are special because the DM says so. Plain and simple. There is no secret reason for this--it just is.

For me this view is really the most pernicious one. I thought 3e brought this view into the game but the seeds of it were obviously growing earlier. Fortunately the game didn't reflect this attitude as much until 3e. This DM doesn't say such things. The idea in my campaign is you start out normal and work your way up to greatness. In my world there are adventurers going out from every town all the time. Most don't return. The group hopefully sets itself apart.

Still is this not DM advice? Is there a rule in all of that? I thought the argument was about rules. There as been a great amount of D&D advice that I've dumped or ignored over the years. Some I've used as well. A DM picks and chooses what works for his campaign.

 

[Hussar]

I don't have the book handy. But what is your ultimate point? Maybe its gotten lost in the shuffle.

In my world 1st level fighters aren't that special however you want to define the term. 5th level are well trained veterans. 10th are lords and knights. Above that and your legend is growing. I believe I'm still playing RAW given that situation.

Out of curiosity since you are insisting that NPC's follow the same rules as PC's. How did your lord get to 10th level? What did he do that would gain him that much XP? What were his chances of dying during gaining that xp? Did you make a single die roll related to gaining xp when creating that NPC?

Because if you didn't then right off the bat you're admitting that NPC's and PC's use different rules.

 

[Emerikol]

My ultimate point (once again ) is that the PCs' mechanical "specialness" is hardcoded into the default 3.5 rules at character generation. My specific examples have been (1) free access to PC classes whereas the world as a whole is largely using NPC classes, and (2) "elite" status which includes better stats and max HPs at 1st level.

I'm not arguing 2. I am strongly disputing 1. I didn't break any rule as DM when I chose to not use NPC classes. (Save expert). No rule got broken. So my world is full of fighters. So RAW doesn't support any approach at all. It's up to the DM. The DMG gives some support for a simpler set of classes if you want to use them. But it's not a rule.

I do not and have never played that PCs are special in the world. They may be amongst "the most likely to succeed" in their high school class but that doesn't mean they will. Death or TPK has always been possible in my campaigns. I'm not breaking any rules playing that way. And I'm not saying someone playing totally the opposite is breaking a rule either. There just isn't a rule.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Out of curiosity since you are insisting that NPC's follow the same rules as PC's. How did your lord get to 10th level? What did he do that would gain him that much XP? What were his chances of dying during gaining that xp? Did you make a single die roll related to gaining xp when creating that NPC?

Because if you didn't then right off the bat you're admitting that NPC's and PC's use different rules.

Really? I make 10th level (or, at least, > 1st level) PCs without making those rolls or explaining where they got the XP pretty regularly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 4e, while there is not a perfect balance, the stats are much closer. You could dump Con, instead of Cha, because Con is balanced with Cha: none of them is incredibly superior to the other, as in 3e. Both will give you benefits if you have them high, but the benefit of a high CON isn't as overpowered as in 3e, and the benefit of a high CHA is much better than in 3e (you get everything 3e gives you, plus Will defense).

The benefits of CON are actually still pretty substantial. CON doesn't just give you a few more hps at 1st level, it also gives you more healing surges. That's comparable in scale to the bonus to each HD that CON gave you in prior editions - that is, the bonus is proportionate to your hps as you level. Most other stat bonuses are more static.

CHA is improved by adding to WILL, and Skill Challenges make interaction skills more mechanically useful. But it's still a prime candidate for dump stat to those who don't need it - particularly those with high WIS.

On the other hand, even the best optimizers of D&D, can`t build a fighter that plays on the same league than a optimized full spellcaster. So its imbalance is not a matter of one player being worse than the other at it, but one class being superior to others. It's like playing chess without rooks.

It's like white playing chess and black playing checkers.

If you happen to play fewer encoutners per day, classes with dailies will outshine those without them, going nova.

Nod. L&L acknowledge that. Their solution is giving clear guidance on the one right way to play - in a game supposedly aiming to support as many play styles as possible that seem inadequate. But, with a fan base that demands vancian casters and daily-less fighters... it's a 'rock and a hard place,' for the designers, all right.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is 5e unbalanced right now?

The current playtest has many of the attributes that has made D&D poorly or 'delicately' balanced in the past. It's clearly poorly balanced in that relative class effectiveness can't help but swing significantly between single-encounter and multiple-encounter days, for instance. Just look at the numbers. A playtest party likely has 6 dailies - in the hands of only two of the characters. In a single-encounter day, a character using a daily spell in each of three rounds is going to wildly out-perform compared to using one daily per encounter in a 3-encounter day, or having to get by with at-wills for at least one encounter of a 4-encounter day.

My standard is not perfect balance. That would almost guarantee a boring and unfun game with all the stuff you'd have to do to guarantee that.

A game with perfect balance would have an unlimited number of choices all of which would be both meaningful and balanced. Impossible? Yes. Boring? No way.

You've presented this theory a few times. I'm not saying this had nothing to do with it. But I think you over state it's importance.

I'm just looking at what happened and analyzing it from the perspective of what was /different/ from prior rev-rolls. 4e made radical mechanical changes - but so did 3e, so that's unlikely to be the true culprit. The GSL is the glaring difference. I think it's only one of a number of factors - but, I think it's the key one, because it and the others fed on eachother, snowballing, or, as you put it, creating a 'firestorm' (surprisingly apt definition: "a large usually stationary fire characterized by very high temperatures in which the central column of rising heated air induces strong inward winds which supply oxygen to the fire.")

People really are willing to play an out of date game.

Sure. I play 1st-ed Gamma World, even though it's a terribly primitive and broken little game, because I do have a certain nostalgia for it (driven, mainly, I think, by not getting to play it as much as I'd've liked to when I was a kid). But, I don't campaign to bring it back, nor do I dis every other version of Gamma World (though, for the record: the 3rd, 5th, and 6th editions were /aweful/). Now, if there were someone who had somehow gotten the rights to re-create Gamma World, and was churning out new material for it to a roar of approval from other Gamma World fans, I just might get a lot more active in expressing my feelings about that game...