Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6006890" data-attributes="member: 42582">Your sense of 4e is, on the basis of my own experience, mistaken.Because 4e has robust mechanics for framing and resolving non-combat challenges, it makes non-combat skills and stats more important to a range of PCs than they otherwise might tend to be.D&Dnext is trying to replicate this feature of 4e, but by focusing on threat-avoidance (ie saving throws) rather than activity and taking charge of the story (ie skill checks in a skill challenge). I personally feel this to be a retrograde step, but it is fitting with the move away from indie-style design in 4e to traditional design in Next.In 1st ed AD&D there is also the concept of "0-level humans" (and halflings), as well as of fighters (like sergeants, lieutenants and captains) who have fighter levels but are incapalbe of earning XP or gaining levels. And in B/X there are "normal men" (sic), who are the functional equivalent of AD&D's 0-levels.No witches in 1st ed AD&D, or any NPC classes (apologies for calling you out on your own acknowledged weakness). But there are rules for NPCs occupying PC classes which set different (less onerous) stat requirements.There is also the sage, which is not a class, but is an 8HD NPC who has a mix of spell and other abilities that no PC can attain.But now all you have done is itemise that suite of mechanical features which are definitive of a character in one edition of D&D. Of course two entities who are mechanically identical will be mechanically identical. But that is not an especially interesting conclusion.In B/X, for example, race and class are not distinct for all PCs (or NPCs). In 1st ed AD&D, there is the concept of the 0-level human (or halfling) which has no applicability to PCs. There is also the difference in stat prerequisites for PCs to be of a particular class (compared to NPCs).I mean, in 4e it is true that a PC with a particular race, class, level, ability array, equipment set, power set and the like is identical to an NPC with the same stats. It's just that the game discourages the GM from designing such NPCs. Just as earlier editions discourage the GM from building most NPCs using the same resources and generation technique as for PCs.4e has almost no daily abilities for monster or NPCs (I can't think of any other than those that result from building an NPC by drawing on the PC build rules, as described in DMG and DMG2). Monsters and NPCs do have healing surges, but (typically) no way of unlocking them other than a short rest.So this concern is not really apposite for 4e.The issue about balance is not "balance between story elements". It's about "balance between participants". It's the player, not the PC, who suffers when the PC build rules and action resolution rules produce imbalance. That is true for PCs expected to be played in an essentially open-ended campaign. It is not true of a tournament or one-shot scenario, though, where (everything else being equal) the PCs should be balanced for that scenario.And it is certainly not true for monsters and NPCs, which are (typically) not vehicles for anyone's protagonism.Those metagame roles are not arbitrary. And yes, it matters. If the GM has control of a character it's OK - even desirable - that it be simple to play, and therefore perhaps a little boring considered on its own. Whereas that it is a potentially serious objection to a character who is being controlled by a player.Hence the possibility, and even desirability - as came up in another thread - of changing the stats of a creature if it moves from being a PC to an NPC or vice versa.This characterisation doesn't capture very well the sort of play that 4e rewards, nor the way it is being played by many of those on these forums who are running it and post about their games. It seems most apposite to characterise Gygaxian AD&D play (look at the classic Dragon magazine descriptions of "Monty Haul", for example, when Gygax and co's PCs ended up on the Starship Warden).Apart from many other features of the game, 4e lacks the high powered magic that supports gameworld domination in earlier editions of the game.Given your apparent preferences, it surprises me that you never seem to have tried a game that plays in the way you describe here. There are many of them, some of the best having roots in the late-70/early-80s simulationist reaction against D&D: Rolemaster, RuneQuest, HERO, GURPS.Iron Crown Enterprises has just re-released HARP (High Adventure Role Playing), a light version of Rolemaster, which I think would suit your preferences. Or, for a somewhat different take on "realistic" gritty fantasy, you might look at Burning Wheel, which has just recently released a new edition (BW Gold).But in fact I don't think there's a lot of evidence that most D&D players want what you say they do. Hit points are plot protection in a fighting-oriented game, and I think most D&D players enjoy its focus on combat as the principal site of conflict resolution, and - given that - enjoy the (non-simulationist, unrealistic) plot protection that hit points provide.</blockquote>

Verification