Fallacy: NPC are more realistic with PC creation rules

[horseboy]

So what was up with the coughing up the blood?


Ignoring the nasty statements for a moment, they are doing far more than encouraging. They have made it clear in the preview books that they don't care about world consistency. Well, if they're really trying for a generic system, then they won't worry about it, since world consistency will be squarely on the shoulders of the DM when he builds the world. So, no the only worlds they're going to be worried about the consistency is Eberron, FR, and whatever new world they come out with in 4th.


1. NPCs don't have XP i think. I"m not sure about that, in my games i just assign it normally. The idea is that they simple learn their skills as per normal
2. Why would commoners have so many daily encounters in their life?
But if NPCs don't get XP, then isn't that another difference between PC's and NPC's? Shouldn't NPC's, if they're the same as PC's, get XP?
Going out, surviving in the hot sun all day, stop by the inn and have a few, only to talk their way out of keeping "Big Bill" from stomping a mud hole in them, then come home to find out Georgie stuck a candle in his ear and you've got to rush him over to the healer before his head catches on fire and he dies. Yeah, life is full of encounters.


Wait, i don't DM 2E so can i just have this made clear, in 2E do monsters normally posses both Race and class traits as written? If the DM wants them too. (I just know you're going to hate that answer)
*Goes to go watch eclipse.*


Mechanics don't effect how good your poetry is, so that is totally up for you
2. As for a master blacksmith, make your own class. However, it should be possible for a PC to hypothetically become just as good as a blacksmith. Well, technically it can, if they have Poetry skill.



But that is inconsistent, why are these six dudes so unique? Why are their powers possessed by nobody else.

Because it's a game by, for, and about combat. For those people that aren't built for combat, a D&D class will not mesh with their abilities.

[EvilElitest]

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, the game rules for D20 are standardised and consistant with one another. That doesn't necessarily translate into describing a realistic world is all. In my opinion, it's because the rules are abstract that they need to be flexible, but that's just my experience.

Alright


In D20 terms, pretty much, but it's a flexible set of mechanics. In the Monster entry for Humanoids will also usually be some additional rules for Elites, Leaders, Shamans and Witch Doctors, as well as non combatants.

So like 3E or 4E?


Fighters are definitely better than Warriors, which leads to some confusion when advancing Warriors, as a Warrior 1 cannot become a Fighter 1 by training, he has to become a Warrior 1/Fighter 1, which is annoying. In AD&D, a 0 Level Man at Arms (basically a Warrior 1) could potentially become a Level 1 Fighter, which made more sense.

Let me explain, if a warrior is a militia troop, his first level of fighter is him getting proper training. Technically he is getting a new style of fighting taught to him


Not quite. I'm saying that the label 'Fighter' and method of advancement don't need to affect his interaction with the Player Characters. They are secondary to the actual mechanics that represent Boris, which are themselves abstractions and do not directly represent his capabilities. Boris the Mercenary is the primary designation. The mechanics only need to support that assertion. It may be the case that Warrior 2 is the best fit or it may be Fighter 1 or it may be a set of related mechanics that do not directly map onto any existing Class combination. None of that changes who Boris is in the Campaign World, it's just a matter of finding the best mechanical abstraction for interacting him with the Players.

Oh his mechanics aren't the most important thing with his interaction with the players, it is his personality but should they come up they should be consistent and following the same rules


Those are the rules of the game, but that doesn't mean that nobody in the campaign world ever gets concussed, only that there are no rules to explicitly represent it. If we only describe the campaign world in terms of the abstract rules of the game, then we miss the things that make the tabletop game different from a CRPG.


However the rules of the game are the laws that govern the D&D world (personally i make concussions a rule). However those are the laws that govern the world



These are game rules. They are abstractions of events in the campaign world. They aren't the established rules of magic, but they are the established rules that we use to abstractly represent magic in the campaign world. The difference is subtle, but important.
in 3E everything follows these rules, there are never cases of wizards not following the wizard rules without special circumstances


So what was up with the coughing up the blood?

I suffer from a nasty lung conviction, i regularly get sick and cough up blood, often causes some other nasty conditions. So currently i'm bedridden:smallannoyed:


Well, if they're really trying for a generic system, then they won't worry about it, since world consistency will be squarely on the shoulders of the DM when he builds the world. So, no the only worlds they're going to be worried about the consistency is Eberron, FR, and whatever new world they come out with in 4th.
They have already stated that PC will be unique and NPCs will pretty much be lesser. Also the Pins of light deal



But if NPCs don't get XP, then isn't that another difference between PC's and NPC's? Shouldn't NPC's, if they're the same as PC's, get XP?
Going out, surviving in the hot sun all day, stop by the inn and have a few, only to talk their way out of keeping "Big Bill" from stomping a mud hole in them, then come home to find out Georgie stuck a candle in his ear and you've got to rush him over to the healer before his head catches on fire and he dies. Yeah, life is full of encounters.
1. Except NPCs and PCs still follow the same general rules, they just don't have the same EXP process. Reason why? well EXP is just learning new things and experiencing something, they do that all the time (we presume that they are gaining levels, it just isn't the DM's bother)
2. I don't think that really counts as an encounter


If the DM wants them too. (I just know you're going to hate that answer)
*Goes to go watch eclipse.
I do hate taht answer but the eclipse is nice


Because it's a game by, for, and about combat. For those people that aren't built for combat, a D&D class will not mesh with their abilities.
except even NPC fighters will be lesser
from
EE

[horseboy]

I suffer from a nasty lung conviction, i regularly get sick and cough up blood, often causes some other nasty conditions. So currently i'm bedridden:smallannoyed: Eau, sorry to hear that. I was a little worried Rutee had hexed you or something. (Just kidding Rutee :smallwink: )


They have already stated that PC will be unique and NPCs will pretty much be lesser. Also the Pins of light dealPoints of Lights. They're using it as an example setting for the books.


1. Except NPCs and PCs still follow the same general rules, they just don't have the same EXP process. Reason why? well EXP is just learning new things and experiencing something, they do that all the time (we presume that they are gaining levels, it just isn't the DM's bother)
2. I don't think that really counts as an encounter 0. Only sometimes. After all, no mortal is over 5th level, since reality breaks down shortly thereafter. I really do hate that, talk about something that completely kills verisimilitude.
1. So in short, the DM hand waves it. Now the DM is going to hand wave their creation, their living, and only really have to worry, mechanically, about their death. At what level of hand waving are you uncomfortable with?
2 Sure it does. You survived a hostile environmental encounter, ala sandstorm. You diplomanced your way out of an equal CR fight. Then you, well, I'm not exactly sure what that last one would count as mechanically. :smallamused:


I do hate taht answer but the eclipse is nice If you can hand wave parts of an NPC's life, then why not more?



except even NPC fighters will be lesser

Well, that depends on where they put the "UB3R" for the players. If it's in the classes, you can give the NPC a class. If it's just something like PC's get fate points, you can easily apply that to an NPC. We just don't know yet.

[Matthew]

So like 3E or 4E?

Well, not like 3e/D20, maybe like 4e, depending on what actually appears.



Let me explain, if a warrior is a militia troop, his first level of fighter is him getting proper training. Technically he is getting a new style of fighting taught to him

That's one way to rationalise it. I don't find it agreeable myself, since it means a Militiaman can never be trained to be the equal of a Soldier, he'll always be slightly better or slightly worse.



Oh his mechanics aren't the most important thing with his interaction with the players, it is his personality but should they come up they should be consistent and following the same rules.

Not his personality, his 'being'. The mechanics should be similar to what one would expect of a man of his experience, but how they are assigned is secondary to whether they are. It would likely be senseless to give him ten ToB Manoeuvres, but it might be reasonable to give him access to one or its equivalent. It would no doubt be senseless to give him access to Wizard Spells, but it might be reasonable to increase his AB by one point. As long as the mechanics reflect the intended character, exactly how they are derived and how they relate to a level of Fighter doesn't matter much at all.

As has already been discussed, if the DM and Players expect or desire PCs and NPCs to follow the same rules for advancement this approach may pose a problem. In D20 this expectation is hard wired into the system, because the DMG states that all NPCs earn experience points exactly as PCs do. In AD&D this is not an issue because only PCs and their Henchmen actually earn and advance by means of experience points. That is to say that experience points are a game reward that result in character advancement, they are not a campaign world reality.



However the rules of the game are the laws that govern the D&D world (personally i make concussions a rule). However those are the laws that govern the world

This is a fundamental difference of viewpoint and it is unfortunate that you have not yet grasped it in the course of this thread. The game rules, to me and many others, are the rules of the game. They are not the literal truth of the campaign world, but an abstract and imperfect set of rules that allow us to play the game in a fun way. That's why NPCs may be encountered who have had limbs cut off, eyes put out, or otherwise been disfigured during combat, but PCs have no chance of this actually happening to them by the RAW of the game.

To put it another way, things may happen in the campaign world that are not legislated for by the game rules. How far you want that to be the case is up to you.



in 3E everything follows these rules, there are never cases of wizards not following the wizard rules without special circumstances.

Again, those are the rules of the game, but the rules of the game do not have to perfectly (and in all probability already do not) map onto the reality of the campaign world. I think it is of primary importance that you understand this idea, since it is what distinguishes D20 from a computer game that interprets the rules of the game literally instead of abstractly. There is no explicit game rule requiring a Wizard to eat or any prescribed consequences for him not doing so, but we assume that he must (and, indeed, food is mentioned often in the Core Books and assumed to be consumed; indeed, there is even a variant rule for abstracting it's consumption, but no basic rule that says PC A must consume X amount of water and Y amount of food or suffer consequence Z).
Magic is somewhat different because it does not exist in reality we only have fictional preconceptions about it and are therefore more reliant on the game rules for imagining it. However, the same things apply as above. If NPC Warriors may be disfigured by combat (and we see an illustration of a character having a limb regenerated in the PHB) then, by the same token, NPC Wizards may be affected by magic in ways that are not prescribed by the rules or do not apply to Player Characters.

Are these things inconsistant? Well, yes, they are, but the abstraction of the game rules is supposed to allow for such apparent inconsistancies and help reconcile them to our expectations of a fully realised campaign setting. To put it another way, the primary function of game rules is to allow people to play a game, if they describe the imagined reality of the campaign world accurately that is subordinate and incidental to their primary purpose.

[Poison_Fish]

Yet again, with the misunderstanding and misquoteing. I'm going to assume this is an honest mistake

You can have a consistent. logical world without having a surrealist world. Like Warcraft (somewhat) , or the world of Goblins Comic. They are consistent, logical, they make sense and aren't surrealist. Ebberon is a logical world that isn't surrealist. FR is mixed. So you misunderstand, a non surrealist world should still be consistent.


Do I need to re-quote you EE?

Sure, I'll do it again


Fine, but in the terms of surrealist fantasy, which i personally find more enjoyable, immersive and more dramatic.

So, your saying you find surrealist fantasy, which attempts to bring in themes that are anti-rational nor logically consistent, to be more enjoyable, yet you've been arguing for "a logically consistent" world all this time?

Hence, Irony. Unless you didn't type that statement correctly, in which case I suggest you look over what you say before you type.



stop the flaming, it is wasteful, immature and time wasting. you misunderstood and i this response isn't nessary. Now can we argue this out like reasonable people?

If you think i'm mistaken, please site why, don't resort to personal attacks on my logic

*points to the response above*. I basically just said the same thing twice now. If your not reading the point at why I'm flabbergasted, then the error is not on my end.


1. What points have i ignored. Don't make such a claim if your not willing to prove it. If i accidently missed a point, i'd be glad to adress it now if you provide it
2. You have accused me of not understanding as well, as well acusing me of being confused about my own points without backing that up
3. How have i not argued through intellect
4. Winning applies to vs. threads or threads that require proof, this thread hasn't been concluded as of yet. Matthew is proving to be a perfectly civil and logical person when it comes to arguing

Well, in the case of this thread, that your entire view of the problems is subjective and yet you continue to act like wizards is "ruining" a game. Actually, I think Matthew summed it up in much better/nicer terms then I have.


This is a fundamental difference of viewpoint and it is unfortunate that you have not yet grasped it in the course of this thread. The game rules, to me and many others, are the rules of the game. They are not the literal truth of the campaign world, but an abstract and imperfect set of rules that allow us to play the game in a fun way. That's why NPCs may be encountered who have had limbs cut off, eyes put out, or otherwise been disfigured during combat, but PCs have no chance of this actually happening to them by the RAW of the game.

2. I cite most of my discussion with you as a back up for not understanding what I am saying. A cheap way of doing it? Yes. A more specific example is at the top of this post however.
3. I do not believe you do so. I believe you have repeated similar arguments multiple times before and remain persistent in your repetition (Like in many threads) when you do not fully grasp what is being said. In the case of this thread, that the rules of the game are an abstraction. While you may understand this intrinsically, it is not reflected in your statements about how a "living world" should be. Rather, you seem to pick and choose how the mechanics really wavers into a campaign world(For instance, Class seems to = more then an abstraction to you, rather, they define a character. Yet, characters talking in terms of the world as a function of HP(And I am assuming on your part here) wouldn't make sense in your games?

An example: To you, fighter means formally trained military man. A warrior isn't, but rather a militia member. If a warrior picks up ranks in fighter, he is now being trained differently.


Let me explain, if a warrior is a militia troop, his first level of fighter is him getting proper training. Technically he is getting a new style of fighting taught to him

However, the abilities of one getting "formal" training is really just a collection of mechanics that abstractly represent what it is your trying to reflect. I could easily just as much use 3 levels of warrior and claim that the NPC is trained as an elite guard, or I could use 2 levels of fighter. It's a collection of statistics anyway.

However, you seem to be stating that the world is "more realistic" if everyone can use the PC classes. Which is to imply that "class" is a function within the world, and not an abstraction. But again, it's just a collection of statistics. In fact, I might not even need to assign levels per say. All I need to represent the elite guard could just be some HP, a BAB, and what gear he's carrying, along with a few other basic stats.

And yet at the same time, I imagine that HP is an abstraction in your world. Or can barbarians really take 200 foot drops and be ok in your game world, by the rules?

4. Mostly, I was deconstructing you on a whole, not just in terms of this thread. Me being civil has little to do with it. I actually think I've been more civil then some and that you mistake a lot of my comments as pure hostility rather then sarcasm. Comparing me to another also doesn't have a place in this, as I am generalizing to a lot of the discussions with you as a whole.


1. No more than an insulting condescending attitude. I for one am totally honest about my Narcism, but i'm willing to have a decent argument if you are willing to stop assuming i'm simple wrong from the get go
2. Not quite i can be persuaded by arguments, just not in the manner i've seen. Again, Matthew has gotten quite far

I've never assumed you were "wrong" from the get go. I have assumed, however, that your overreact and that the majority of your complaints to the case of 4E are largely subjective with a thin veil of attempting to make it sound like an objective complaint.


1. I've never resorted to outright flaming
2. I wasn't adressing you, you've been rude but not a flamer
3. Frustration isn't a justification for insults just for future notice. I've been frustrated myself. Be like Atticus and we might have a civil argument here. Personally i prefer talking for arguments, but i don't think we can pull that off

1. I'm willing to say that nor has the majority of people you've accused of flaming yourself either. If I were flaming you, rest assured, I'd be using a flamethrower. Despite what it may seem to you, those "flames" still held counter points. So, in essence, they are a continuing of the discussion with flame like elements.
2. No, your mistaken, I'm Fabulous (http://www.worth1000.com/entries/51500/51725UADy_w.jpg)
3. Frustration stems from somewhere and is often let off in steam. In the business of arguing on the internet, which is serious, it's a hazard anyone should get used to.


Ignoring the nasty statements for a moment, they are doing far more than encouraging. They have made it clear in the preview books that they don't care about world consistency.

1. Define "Far more".
2. Show so
3. What world consistency in a generic RPG system?


Because they do, that is the issue at hand.

Again, what special powers? We don't have all the info at hand, so I'm saying your jumping the gun.


1. NPCs don't have XP i think. I"m not sure about that, in my games i just assign it normally. The idea is that they simple learn their skills as per normal
2. Why would commoners have so many daily encounters in their life?

1. Their not supposed to. So, my question, since this is less of an argument about 4E at this point and more about how one runs their games, what is "learning skills per normal"? If it is a function of time, does that mean PC's can also 'level up' through time? If that is the case, what is the purpose of "XP". As it is largely a PC contrived mechanical tool.
2. How else would a commoner level up? Is this why the majority of the world is 5th level or below, as there aren't many 'encounters' of equal CR to a peasant? On that note, what is the CR of harvesting a field?



Fine, what evidence do you want specifically, i'll provide the quote

Ok, I want the evidence of what world we are talking about here that is being destroyed. Except, we can't have specifics for that, only generalities. Since this is just a system change, not a world change. I think the better statement here is less "The world is being destroyed" and more "How much does an abstraction change actually affect the consistency of the world".

But that all comes to a view point. I view mechanics and fluff separate for the most part. As one is simply an abstract way of explaining the other in order to have a method of moving a game along for those who are playing.
I imagine you do not share this view point. That's what this boils down to.

[Dan_Hemmens]

But if this is the COMMON way of doing things, PCs have no idea how NPCs normally get their abilities -- and they should.

Again this comes down to descriptive vs prescriptive game mechanics.

To me (and I suspect to Matthew) the question "where do NPCs get their abilities" is a meaningless one. Where did the Master Blacksmith learn to be a master blacksmith? Well presumably from another blacksmith, and from long years of practice.

In fact to me (and I suspect to Matthew) the question should be "where do PCs get their abilities" - sure, a Wizard learns two new spells every time he levels up, but where does he learn them *from*? Do they just zap into his head?

Basically it comes down to this: I can see the advantage in PCs having a broadly defined "power level" so that you know what kind of challenges you can send them up against. I can see the advantages, therefore, in having a system whereby a PC can't get *better* at anything without also just getting nebulously "more powerful".

I don't want the same rules to apply to NPCs. If the players go up against a shrewd, cunning political manipulator, he should have Diplomacy and Sense Motive out the wazoo, and it bugs me that the only way for him to *get* these kinds of abilities is to have a whole mess of Hit Dice.

[Rutee]

Except that the game rules DO impact the world. Sorry, but you can't escape that. The games rules are formalizations, abstractions, and representations of what happens in the world. The PCs are bound by THEIR rules and thus it impacts how they work in the world. The PCs also live in the world, have lots of knowledge checks, and generally know how the world works. If you randomly toss things into characters that PCs cannot themselves do, and that the PCs aren't aware of a mechanism TO do, then the PCs don't know things about the world that they really, really should know: what it would take to get those things.
The main trouble with this is comparing to the Mechanism with which PCs get better, whatever you have for the NPCs will be more 'realistic'. "I got better by smacking monsters around" works for the martialists, but it's a bit odder of an explanation from a Bard or Wizard, don't you think? Well, maybe not the new Wizards, depending on how their fluff goes. Yes, the rules impact the world, and no, nobody's trying to escape that; They're trying to de-emphasize it, seemingly. I can empathize, if that's the case. Basically, having a mechanism there isn't always necessary, but just because they got their stats in different ways, doesn't mean it's impossible.



Ultimately, the idea of NPC and PC classes inherently assumes that NPCs and PCs don't have to act the same, but in that mechanism while it is possible that PCs don't do what NPCs do they at least have an idea of what NPCs CAN do and how THEY exist in the world. Without that structure, how do you explain to PCs that SHOULD know what a basic farmer can do what your specialized NPC can do?
Forgive my squirrelly ignorance, but in what sense is the capabilities of a farmer peasant tied to a specialized NPC?


Are you saying that D&D should be a rules light game? Which is easier, to add rules when it matters or remove them when you don't want them?
For me, the latter is easier. Matthew has made it clear in the past that the former is easier for him.



So I'll answer you both, then: You can still do that with a default presumption that NPCs follow rules, including creating classes. You can always have exceptions. It's better if you make your exceptions fit the rules -- so that if you make someone a Master Blacksmith without the levels to be there, that it is reflected in their work, which is what you'd have to do to make it a plot point anyway -- but if your players don't mind you can always make exceptions and use the plot to make those cases clear it works WITHIN the existing model that most NPCs are at least loosely modelled by the consistent set of rules set out for NPCs, whether those are exactly the same for PCs or not.
You're presuming Classes are a fact o' life for the PCs again. Classes are just bundles of abilities that you can give people though, not The One Path.


See, here's my problem here: the main argument for why this new system is good is that a DM can throw together what abilities they want in their NPCs. But if this is the COMMON way of doing things, PCs have no idea how NPCs normally get their abilities -- and they should. But if these are exceptions, and most are reasonably standard and follow rules, then you can do it by suspending the rules in specific cases, so why not keep the rules?
Here's another trick: How are PCs gonna know the guy's life story and fighting style (AKA how he's gotten to where he is) in the first place, to know it isn't self-consistent?


Again, I'm not against different rules for PCs and NPCs, but just advocate that there should be default rules for NPC creation that the players can know about, so that their characters -- knowing how these things work in the world -- can act accordingly.

There are. The default rules just also have a system to allow for custom creations.

[EvilElitest]

Well, not like 3e/D20, maybe like 4e, depending on what actually appears.

From what we've seen of 4E, NPC and PCs are fundamentally different in design, 3E is that NPCs and PCs are almost the same, which is it closer to


That's one way to rationalise it. I don't find it agreeable myself, since it means a Militiaman can never be trained to be the equal of a Soldier, he'll always be slightly better or slightly worse.

well if you got militia training and military training wouldn't you be better than a guy with only military training. WOTC logic, makes sense if you don't think to hard. :smallwink:
Anyways, a think a level 3 warrior is equal to a level 1 fighter, but i'm not sure


Not his personality, his 'being'. The mechanics should be similar to what one would expect of a man of his experience, but how they are assigned is secondary to whether they are. It would likely be senseless to give him ten ToB Manoeuvres, but it might be reasonable to give him access to one or its equivalent. It would no doubt be senseless to give him access to Wizard Spells, but it might be reasonable to increase his AB by one point. As long as the mechanics reflect the intended character, exactly how they are derived and how they relate to a level of Fighter doesn't matter much at all.

Why wouldn't he be a multi class then? Or a special unique class.



As has already been discussed, if the DM and Players expect or desire PCs and NPCs to follow the same rules for advancement this approach may pose a problem. In D20 this expectation is hard wired into the system, because the DMG states that all NPCs earn experience points exactly as PCs do. In AD&D this is not an issue because only PCs and their Henchmen actually earn and advance by means of experience points. That is to say that experience points are a game reward that result in character advancement, they are not a campaign world reality.
But are the PCs super special awesome from the get-go with unique one of a kind powers?


This is a fundamental difference of viewpoint and it is unfortunate that you have not yet grasped it in the course of this thread. The game rules, to me and many others, are the rules of the game. They are not the literal truth of the campaign world, but an abstract and imperfect set of rules that allow us to play the game in a fun way. That's why NPCs may be encountered who have had limbs cut off, eyes put out, or otherwise been disfigured during combat, but PCs have no chance of this actually happening to them by the RAW of the game.
oh i see what your saying how, that makes sense (ironically in 3E NPCs can't lose limbs ether for some reason)
That is a good point yes.


To put it another way, things may happen in the campaign world that are not legislated for by the game rules. How far you want that to be the case is up to you.
Ok, but classes are something different. If PC can use abilities to effect the world, why can't anyone else?


Again, those are the rules of the game, but the rules of the game do not have to perfectly (and in all probability already do not) map onto the reality of the campaign world. I think it is of primary importance that you understand this idea, since it is what distinguishes D20 from a computer game that interprets the rules of the game literally instead of abstractly. There is no explicit game rule requiring a Wizard to eat or any prescribed consequences for him not doing so, but we assume that he must (and, indeed, food is mentioned often in the Core Books and assumed to be consumed; indeed, there is even a variant rule for abstracting it's consumption, but no basic rule that says PC A must consume X amount of water and Y amount of food or suffer consequence Z).
Fair enough


Magic is somewhat different because it does not exist in reality we only have fictional preconceptions about it and are therefore more reliant on the game rules for imagining it. However, the same things apply as above. If NPC Warriors may be disfigured by combat (and we see an illustration of a character having a limb regenerated in the PHB) then, by the same token, NPC Wizards may be affected by magic in ways that are not prescribed by the rules or do not apply to Player Characters.

Technically NPC and PC both have that absurd limb rule. However in terms of classes, it is silly to have no in game idea of what classes are


from
EE

[EvilElitest]

Do I need to re-quote you EE?

Sure, I'll do it again



So, your saying you find surrealist fantasy, which attempts to bring in themes that are anti-rational nor logically consistent, to be more enjoyable, yet you've been arguing for "a logically consistent" world all this time?

Hence, Irony. Unless you didn't type that statement correctly, in which case I suggest you look over what you say before you type.
[QUOTE]
Oh i get what our saying. No you can still have a surreal world that is logical. What is surreal in my option is the magic, the monsters, the races and gods. However that doesn't stop the world from working in a ocnsistent manner

[QUOTE]
*points to the response above*. I basically just said the same thing twice now. If your not reading the point at why I'm flabbergasted, then the error is not on my end.
You've only just explain what your statement meant, and even then i'm skeptical on your logic



Well, in the case of this thread, that your entire view of the problems is subjective and yet you continue to act like wizards is "ruining" a game. Actually, I think Matthew summed it up in much better/nicer terms then I have.
Mathew is doing a good job, as he is general logical and explain his points



2. I cite most of my discussion with you as a back up for not understanding what I am saying. A cheap way of doing it? Yes. A more specific example is at the top of this post however.
3. I do not believe you do so. I believe you have repeated similar arguments multiple times before and remain persistent in your repetition (Like in many threads) when you do not fully grasp what is being said. In the case of this thread, that the rules of the game are an abstraction. While you may understand this intrinsically, it is not reflected in your statements about how a "living world" should be. Rather, you seem to pick and choose how the mechanics really wavers into a campaign world(For instance, Class seems to = more then an abstraction to you, rather, they define a character. Yet, characters talking in terms of the world as a function of HP(And I am assuming on your part here) wouldn't make sense in your games?
2. Your explanation was very vauge.
3. Can somebody prove that classes are only abstractions? In every WOTC product i've seen they seem like real forces, i mean look at their description in most games. People might not be aware of every detail but they do exist as forces, wizards warlock clerics are all different


An example: To you, fighter means formally trained military man. A warrior isn't, but rather a militia member. If a warrior picks up ranks in fighter, he is now being trained differently.



However, the abilities of one getting "formal" training is really just a collection of mechanics that abstractly represent what it is your trying to reflect. I could easily just as much use 3 levels of warrior and claim that the NPC is trained as an elite guard, or I could use 2 levels of fighter. It's a collection of statistics anyway.
1. If a warrior takes levels in fighter, yes he is being trained differently. Same with a wizard taking a level in fighter.
2. Except a 2 level fighter is different from a 3rd level warrior, not much but different. Statistics determine what a character can do, and thus how they effect the world



However, you seem to be stating that the world is "more realistic" if everyone can use the PC classes. Which is to imply that "class" is a function within the world, and not an abstraction. But again, it's just a collection of statistics. In fact, I might not even need to assign levels per say. All I need to represent the elite guard could just be some HP, a BAB, and what gear he's carrying, along with a few other basic stats.

1. Class is a profession. It might be called something else (wizards could be called priests) but it is still a profession of some sort that allows you to do certain abilties
2. What makes the guard different from the commoners? he is a trained in fighting. Thus you could make him a commoner with a weapon or you could
make him a warrior. Hence his class is a justification for his abilities. now he is an elite guard, so you make him a fighter or higher level warrior. What he can do is justified by his class you see



And yet at the same time, I imagine that HP is an abstraction in your world. Or can barbarians really take 200 foot drops and be ok in your game world, by the rules?
1. not in my world
2. Well by WOTC, yes they can




I've never assumed you were "wrong" from the get go. I have assumed, however, that your overreact and that the majority of your complaints to the case of 4E are largely subjective with a thin veil of attempting to make it sound like an objective complaint.
how so? Please provide me a source from WOTC proving me wrong (really please do, it will make me a lot happier)



1. I'm willing to say that nor has the majority of people you've accused of flaming yourself either. If I were flaming you, rest assured, I'd be using a flamethrower. Despite what it may seem to you, those "flames" still held counter points. So, in essence, they are a continuing of the discussion with flame like elements.
2. No, your mistaken, I'm Fabulous (http://www.worth1000.com/entries/51500/51725UADy_w.jpg)
3. Frustration stems from somewhere and is often let off in steam. In the business of arguing on the internet, which is serious, it's a hazard anyone should get used to.

1. I've considered some words real flames
2. Touche
3. But still worth trying to control


1. Define "Far more".
2. Show so
3. What world consistency in a generic RPG system?

1. They have not only made inconsistency part of their game, they've blatently said they want to move away from that
2. What? You want a source? Show so isn't a phrase
3. Well everyone functions under the same rules


Again, what special powers? We don't have all the info at hand, so I'm saying your jumping the gun.


1. Well they get PC classes and NPCs don't get the same ones
2. The PCs get special customizable abilities that from all appearances are PC only, and the monsters and NPCs aren't following the same rules. Want quotes



1. Their not supposed to. So, my question, since this is less of an argument about 4E at this point and more about how one runs their games, what is "learning skills per normal"? If it is a function of time, does that mean PC's can also 'level up' through time? If that is the case, what is the purpose of "XP". As it is largely a PC contrived mechanical tool.
2. How else would a commoner level up? Is this why the majority of the world is 5th level or below, as there aren't many 'encounters' of equal CR to a peasant? On that note, what is the CR of harvesting a field?

1. no, they level up by completing tasks. it i like quest exp basically
2. I would presume they would get exp for being good at what they do, a good farmer would get more exp



Ok, I want the evidence of what world we are talking about here that is being destroyed. Except, we can't have specifics for that, only generalities. Since this is just a system change, not a world change. I think the better statement here is less "The world is being destroyed" and more "How much does an abstraction change actually affect the consistency of the world".

World and monsters p. 13-24.

"The Burden of History

The D&D game has always been influenced by European history and culture. If you look back at the game's roots, you can see why. Gary Gygax's Chainmail game, D&D's precursor added fantastic elements to a medieval battle game that he had already developed.
the various editions of D&D continued this trend by drawing source material form the real world. Supplements and magazine articles delved into minutiae-everything from the myriad blades used on pole arms by various cultures to how monstrous inhabitants of dungeons get clean air and remove waste. Through interesting from a historical and scientific, such details have very little effect on how the game is played. They add verisimilitude but rarely increase the fun of playing.
The 3rd Edition of the game took a first step away from reliances on real world by designing new and unique appearances for armor and weapons, but the urge to make fantasy reflect reality remained. The setting was still a historic, medieval world onto which fantasy elements were grafted......."



But that all comes to a view point. I view mechanics and fluff separate for the most part. As one is simply an abstract way of explaining the other in order to have a method of moving a game along for those who are playing.
I imagine you do not share this view point. That's what this boils down to.

Fair enough
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

Do I need to re-quote you EE?

Sure, I'll do it again



So, your saying you find surrealist fantasy, which attempts to bring in themes that are anti-rational nor logically consistent, to be more enjoyable, yet you've been arguing for "a logically consistent" world all this time?

Hence, Irony. Unless you didn't type that statement correctly, in which case I suggest you look over what you say before you type.
[QUOTE]
Oh i get what our saying. No you can still have a surreal world that is logical. What is surreal in my option is the magic, the monsters, the races and gods. However that doesn't stop the world from working in a ocnsistent manner

[QUOTE]
*points to the response above*. I basically just said the same thing twice now. If your not reading the point at why I'm flabbergasted, then the error is not on my end.
You've only just explain what your statement meant, and even then i'm skeptical on your logic



Well, in the case of this thread, that your entire view of the problems is subjective and yet you continue to act like wizards is "ruining" a game. Actually, I think Matthew summed it up in much better/nicer terms then I have.
Mathew is doing a good job, as he is general logical and explain his points



2. I cite most of my discussion with you as a back up for not understanding what I am saying. A cheap way of doing it? Yes. A more specific example is at the top of this post however.
3. I do not believe you do so. I believe you have repeated similar arguments multiple times before and remain persistent in your repetition (Like in many threads) when you do not fully grasp what is being said. In the case of this thread, that the rules of the game are an abstraction. While you may understand this intrinsically, it is not reflected in your statements about how a "living world" should be. Rather, you seem to pick and choose how the mechanics really wavers into a campaign world(For instance, Class seems to = more then an abstraction to you, rather, they define a character. Yet, characters talking in terms of the world as a function of HP(And I am assuming on your part here) wouldn't make sense in your games?
2. Your explanation was very vauge.
3. Can somebody prove that classes are only abstractions? In every WOTC product i've seen they seem like real forces, i mean look at their description in most games. People might not be aware of every detail but they do exist as forces, wizards warlock clerics are all different


An example: To you, fighter means formally trained military man. A warrior isn't, but rather a militia member. If a warrior picks up ranks in fighter, he is now being trained differently.



However, the abilities of one getting "formal" training is really just a collection of mechanics that abstractly represent what it is your trying to reflect. I could easily just as much use 3 levels of warrior and claim that the NPC is trained as an elite guard, or I could use 2 levels of fighter. It's a collection of statistics anyway.
1. If a warrior takes levels in fighter, yes he is being trained differently. Same with a wizard taking a level in fighter.
2. Except a 2 level fighter is different from a 3rd level warrior, not much but different. Statistics determine what a character can do, and thus how they effect the world



However, you seem to be stating that the world is "more realistic" if everyone can use the PC classes. Which is to imply that "class" is a function within the world, and not an abstraction. But again, it's just a collection of statistics. In fact, I might not even need to assign levels per say. All I need to represent the elite guard could just be some HP, a BAB, and what gear he's carrying, along with a few other basic stats.

1. Class is a profession. It might be called something else (wizards could be called priests) but it is still a profession of some sort that allows you to do certain abilties
2. What makes the guard different from the commoners? he is a trained in fighting. Thus you could make him a commoner with a weapon or you could
make him a warrior. Hence his class is a justification for his abilities. now he is an elite guard, so you make him a fighter or higher level warrior. What he can do is justified by his class you see



And yet at the same time, I imagine that HP is an abstraction in your world. Or can barbarians really take 200 foot drops and be ok in your game world, by the rules?
1. not in my world
2. Well by WOTC, yes they can




I've never assumed you were "wrong" from the get go. I have assumed, however, that your overreact and that the majority of your complaints to the case of 4E are largely subjective with a thin veil of attempting to make it sound like an objective complaint.
how so? Please provide me a source from WOTC proving me wrong (really please do, it will make me a lot happier)



1. I'm willing to say that nor has the majority of people you've accused of flaming yourself either. If I were flaming you, rest assured, I'd be using a flamethrower. Despite what it may seem to you, those "flames" still held counter points. So, in essence, they are a continuing of the discussion with flame like elements.
2. No, your mistaken, I'm Fabulous (http://www.worth1000.com/entries/51500/51725UADy_w.jpg)
3. Frustration stems from somewhere and is often let off in steam. In the business of arguing on the internet, which is serious, it's a hazard anyone should get used to.

1. I've considered some words real flames
2. Touche
3. But still worth trying to control


1. Define "Far more".
2. Show so
3. What world consistency in a generic RPG system?

1. They have not only made inconsistency part of their game, they've blatently said they want to move away from that
2. What? You want a source? Show so isn't a phrase
3. Well everyone functions under the same rules


Again, what special powers? We don't have all the info at hand, so I'm saying your jumping the gun.


1. Well they get PC classes and NPCs don't get the same ones
2. The PCs get special customizable abilities that from all appearances are PC only, and the monsters and NPCs aren't following the same rules. Want quotes



1. Their not supposed to. So, my question, since this is less of an argument about 4E at this point and more about how one runs their games, what is "learning skills per normal"? If it is a function of time, does that mean PC's can also 'level up' through time? If that is the case, what is the purpose of "XP". As it is largely a PC contrived mechanical tool.
2. How else would a commoner level up? Is this why the majority of the world is 5th level or below, as there aren't many 'encounters' of equal CR to a peasant? On that note, what is the CR of harvesting a field?

1. no, they level up by completing tasks. it i like quest exp basically
2. I would presume they would get exp for being good at what they do, a good farmer would get more exp



Ok, I want the evidence of what world we are talking about here that is being destroyed. Except, we can't have specifics for that, only generalities. Since this is just a system change, not a world change. I think the better statement here is less "The world is being destroyed" and more "How much does an abstraction change actually affect the consistency of the world".

World and monsters p. 13-24.

"The Burden of History

The D&D game has always been influenced by European history and culture. If you look back at the game's roots, you can see why. Gary Gygax's Chainmail game, D&D's precursor added fantastic elements to a medieval battle game that he had already developed.
the various editions of D&D continued this trend by drawing source material form the real world. Supplements and magazine articles delved into minutiae-everything from the myriad blades used on pole arms by various cultures to how monstrous inhabitants of dungeons get clean air and remove waste. Through interesting from a historical and scientific, such details have very little effect on how the game is played. They add verisimilitude but rarely increase the fun of playing.
The 3rd Edition of the game took a first step away from reliances on real world by designing new and unique appearances for armor and weapons, but the urge to make fantasy reflect reality remained. The setting was still a historic, medieval world onto which fantasy elements were grafted......."



But that all comes to a view point. I view mechanics and fluff separate for the most part. As one is simply an abstract way of explaining the other in order to have a method of moving a game along for those who are playing.
I imagine you do not share this view point. That's what this boils down to.

Fair enough
from
EE

[Matthew]

From what we've seen of 4E, NPC and PCs are fundamentally different in design, 3E is that NPCs and PCs are almost the same, which is it closer to

At this stage, I couldn't say for sure. Various things about 4e sound like they will be closer to AD&D than D20, but then other things sound like they will be *very* different.



well if you got militia training and military training wouldn't you be better than a guy with only military training. WOTC logic, makes sense if you don't think to hard. :smallwink:
Anyways, a think a level 3 warrior is equal to a level 1 fighter, but i'm not sure

Heh, I think in this case that uncertainty is good.



Why wouldn't he be a multi class then? Or a special unique class.

As long as the mechanics fit the character, he could be. The process by which you achieve the desired effect is not important. In fact, when you create a set of mechanics to describe a Character you could in turn describe them as a 'special unique class', such as 'Boris the Mercenary Class'. All that is being said here is that you don't have to go to the trouble of doing so if you don't want to.



But are the PCs super special awesome from the get-go with unique one of a kind powers?

No, and that is one of the things that troubles me about 4e (and to a lesser extent D20). To be fair, I suspect Wizards claims that PCs will have powers not replicable by Monsters does not apply to NPC Adventurers and that most Monsters will eventually have Player Character entries, which will eventually mean that there will be Monsters able to replicate these PC only powers. I think Wizards are using the word 'Monster' in a very specific sense.



oh i see what your saying how, that makes sense (ironically in 3E NPCs can't lose limbs ether for some reason)
That is a good point yes.

Great. :smallbiggrin:



Ok, but classes are something different. If PC can use abilities to effect the world, why can't anyone else?

Well, that's a good question. The answer will be dependent on the game world and what it means to be an 'Adventurer'. To be fair, the 3.5 PHB describes Player Characters as 'heroes' on page 4 and that does already separate them from the common masses. If you look at the demography of Adventurer Classes to NPC Classes as outlined in the DMG, it is apparent that Adventurer Classed Characters make up only a tiny percentage of the population. In a city of 25,000, for instance, you might have the following break down of Fighters:

one Fighter 20, two Fighter 10, four Fighter 5, eight Figher 3 and sixteen Fighter 1
one Fighter 18, two Fighter 9, four Fighter 5, eight Fighter 3 and sixteen Fighter 1
one Fighter 16, two Fighter 8, four Fighter 4, eight Fighter 2 and sixteen Fighter 1
one Fighter 14, two Fighter 7, four Fighter 4, eight Fighter 2 and sixteen Fighter 1

That's 124 Fighters in a population 25,000, which is 0.5% of the population. Even if we multiply up fairly generously we're talking a ratio of 1,250 Adventurer Classed Characters to 23,750 NPC Classed Characters, which is a ratio of 19:1 or roughly 5% of the total population.

What that suggests is that Adventurer Classed Characters are already 'special little butterflies' that can do stuff that 95% of the population cannot.

The real question then becomes 'are heroes born or are they made?' or 'where do Adventurers acquire their powers?' and that's a question for an individual campaign setting. It looks like 4e is dispensing with the idea of the 'not very heroic' Level 1 Character and that's partly because of the power creep evident in D20 and partly because it's dumping it's historically based/sword and sorcery roots. D20 already did that to some degree, this is just continuing the trend.

It's certainly something worth complaining about if you don't like it (I don't), but it shouldn't be confused with the idea that NPCs/PCs/Monsters are going to be constructed differently, as it's the outcome that matters, not the methodology. This isn't much different from starting all PCs off at Level 4 or whatever.



Technically NPC and PC both have that absurd limb rule. However in terms of classes, it is silly to have no in game idea of what classes are

You could have some fun with this concept. Next time your character meets an NPC, start questioning him about his perception of your character. "What do you think I am capable of? Do you think you could stab me with this dagger and there would be no perceiveable repercussions? Do you think I could get up and walk away unharmed after jumping off a 100 foot cliff in nothing but my underwear? How long do you think I could survive without eating? What do you think my chances are of climbing that tree? How long do you think I could hold my head under water without dying? How long do you think it would take me to chop through that stone wall with my sword?" etc...

Broadly speaking, an NPC may perceive a Character to have a profession, such as Mercenary, and he may have expectations of people in that profession that match the game rules for Fighters, but his knowledge is primarily derived from what he perceives happening in the campaign setting. If his expectations happen to match the game rules, it means the game rules are supporting that concept well, not the other way round.

[Rutee]

No, and that is one of the things that troubles me about 4e (and to a lesser extent D20). To be fair, I suspect Wizards claims that PCs will have powers not replicable by Monsters does not apply to NPC Adventurers and that most Monsters will eventually have Player Character entries, which will eventually mean that there will be Monsters able to replicate these PC only powers. I think Wizards are using the word 'Monster' in a very specific sense
Did you mean that the other way around? We've got nothing to indicate that monsters can't mimic players, merely that they don't, out the box.

[Yahzi]

the system doesn't support drama
Given how strenuously you argued against our claim that unrealistic rules made it difficult to inject realism, you'd think you'd be more forgiving about claiming a rules system doesn't support drama.

Any game system can create drama, if the players and the DM want it to. Even Toon.

That said, "Star Wars" was ruined for me when I found out that Luke, Leia, and Darth were family. A galaxy of trillions, and only one family matters to the fate of the universe.


What you discard is realism taken to the hilt.
Asserting that realism inhibits drama seems... strange.


I'm not responding to any more statements on the subject;
Or you could respond to WotC's quotes about "foes to kill."



Somebody who is actually good at something independently of having Class Levels.
Then you don't want to play D&D.

No biggie, really. You can play any game you want. But it seems odd to argue for the D&D rules while you are explicitly arguing against them.

[Rutee]

Given how strenuously you argued against our claim that unrealistic rules made it difficult to inject realism, you'd think you'd be more forgiving about claiming a rules system doesn't support drama.

Any game system can create drama, if the players and the DM want it to. Even Toon.
Yes, it's /possible/, and it /can/ be done, but the rules can certainly go out of their way to make it difficult. This is something 3e certainly seems to do; Look at the default assumptions, and how easy it is to die. Following RAW, it can be very easy to keep death strictly for dramatic moments.

And no, I haven't argued that unrealistic rules made it difficult to inject realism; I argued that these rules aren't that unrealistic.



Asserting that realism inhibits drama seems... strange.
Sure, if you go for broke on it. Real Life is simply too boring as a rule. A lot of stories can be ruined if you were to be ruthlessly realistic.



Or you could respond to WotC's quotes about "foes to kill."
If they need stats, they probably are obstacles to overcome, in at least a temporary sense. I've already said that a few times.

[Matthew]

Did you mean that the other way around? We've got nothing to indicate that monsters can't mimic players, merely that they don't, out the box.

I thought that was what this was saying:



One of 3rd Edition's advances was to model monsters using the same tools used to model player characters. 3rd Edition player characters and monsters calculate ability scores, hit points, saves, attack bonuses, and skill ranks using the same mechanical structure. 4th Edition recognizes the value of using the same tools for PCs and monsters, but opts to turn the tools to a new purpose.

The parameters and basic game mechanics for 4th Edition player characters are not identical to the rules and powers used by the world's monsters and nonplayer characters. The PCs are going to be on center stage for the life of the campaign and deserve all the power options and customization features that the system can bear. Monsters and most NPCs are lucky to appear more than once, particularly if they're encountered in combat situations.

So we've made 4th Edition simpler to run and play by simplifying monsters and NPCs. The new system is not overly concerned with simulating interactions between monsters and nonplayer characters when the PCs are not on stage. 4th Edition orients monster design (and, to some extent, NPC design) around what's fun for player characters to encounter as challenges. Intricate lists of abilities and multiple significant exceptions-based powers are reserved for the PCs rather than handed out to every monster.

I dunno, maybe it isn't. Let's just say if it is, then what I said above applies, if not, then it doesn't. :smallbiggrin:

[Rutee]

Given that they can use PC classes, I find it suspect to say that they /can't/ use PC mechanics, was my point. Like I said, I don't think they necessarily will, out of the box, but saying they /can't/ is almost certainly impossible.

Mind, I've seen systems where that was true; What makes it possible is generally for PCs and NPCs to be built on ENTIRELY SEPERATE axes. In this case, NPCs had about 10 to 100x the HP. If monsters dealt as much damage as players (Using their abilities, naturally), they'd OHKO players. But I don't the rules will be THAT different.

[Yahzi]

Yes, it's /possible/, and it /can/ be done, but the rules can certainly go out of their way to make it difficult.
One way to make things dramatic is to make combat actually scary.

When your players know that they can die, and die easily, and stay dead, they tend to pick less fights.

Of course, this runs counter to the D&D assumption that every encounter is a fight. Because every NPC is a foe to kill.

Really, D&D 4e isn't an RPG anymore. It's a connected series of combats. Nobody cares why you're killing a lammasu, or what the lammasu is doing there, or whether or not the lammasu has friends, goals, hopes, aspirations... it's just a lammasu. X number of hit points and a chance to make a saving throw. Kill it, move on to the next room, where another monster is patiently waiting for the players to murder it. And if the players retreat for the night or the week and come back later, the same monster is in the same place, waiting.

If that isn't a computer game, I don't know what is.

[Matthew]

Given that they can use PC classes, I find it suspect to say that they /can't/ use PC mechanics, was my point. Like I said, I don't think they necessarily will, out of the box, but saying they /can't/ is almost certainly impossible.

Right, I see what you're saying. No, what I meant was that they won't be providing rules for Monsters as playable races straight away, which will make it hard for them to actually have 'Adventurer' Classes. Every time they release rules for playing a Monster, that will be one more Monster capable of using an Adventurer Class.

Of course, they may provide all the details with each Monster entry up front, but it seems like an exceedingly tempting [sacred :smallbiggrin: ] cow not to milk. [i.e. "Here's the book with the stats in for Orcs as Monsters. Oh, you want to play an Orc? Well, you need to buy this other book... $$$].

[Rutee]

One way to make things dramatic is to make combat actually scary.

When your players know that they can die, and die easily, and stay dead, they tend to pick less fights.
How scary can you make a fight? "Oh no! Your persona will die before you got a chance to be emotionally invested in it! HOW HORRIBLE!"

If death is easy from the start, it's not scary. It's business as usual, up until level 9 when you can resurrect. A meaningless death isn't dramatic. It might be suspenseful, but if you die for no meaningful purpose, which is something of a default DnD assumption, it's not going to be dramatic. Meaningless deaths, or deaths to show the villain's power, are the province of the extra, or the NPC, respectively.

And as to /my/ players? They don't usually go out of their way to look for a fight, unless they've just spent exp on something major for a fight. I'm not worried about them picking too many fights


f course, this runs counter to the D&D assumption that every encounter is a fight. Because every NPC is a foe to kill.

Really, D&D 4e isn't an RPG anymore. It's a connected series of combats. Nobody cares why you're killing a lammasu, or what the lammasu is doing there, or whether or not the lammasu has friends, goals, hopes, aspirations... it's just a lammasu. X number of hit points and a chance to make a saving throw. Kill it, move on to the next room, where another monster is patiently waiting for the players to murder it. And if the players retreat for the night or the week and come back later, the same monster is in the same place, waiting.

If that isn't a computer game, I don't know what is.

This strikes me as unlikely, believing they're going to remove all concept of non-combat encounters when they're introducing rules for social encounters, and have always had at least a few words to be had on non-combat (usually dungeon crawling, sometimes environmental factors) can be an encounter?

Also, I must question whether you're a troll who thinks they're good at their job; If you ever actually saw the 3rd ed MM, they pretty much use that assumption the /entire time/. We'd have more explanations on society and culture, as well as a stereotypical belief (To help accomodate the roleplay I'm so /very/ sure was meant to be the intent behind the monster's design) or two. But.. nope, mostly just stat blocks. 4e is, quite frankly, continuing the DnD tradition of being combat-wombat based. What with 80% or more of the character sheet being about your combat skills.


Of course, they may provide all the details with each Monster entry up front, but it seems like an exceedingly tempting [sacred ] cow not to milk. [i.e. "Here's the book with the stats in for Orcs as Monsters. Oh, you want to play an Orc? Well, you need to buy this other book... $$$].
A distinct possibility.

[horseboy]

One way to make things dramatic is to make combat actually scary.

When your players know that they can die, and die easily, and stay dead, they tend to pick less fights.Then why are you playing D&D??!?!?! :smallconfused: Combat in D&D is nothing more than having more d8's hit points than your enemy can do d6's in damage.


Of course, this runs counter to the D&D assumption that every encounter is a fight. Because every NPC is a foe to kill.No, the argument is that that is the D&D assumption.

If that isn't a computer game, I don't know what is.Odd, it sounds to me like an average D&D dungeon crawl.

[EvilElitest]

At this stage, I couldn't say for sure. Various things about 4e sound like they will be closer to AD&D than D20, but then other things sound like they will be *very* different.

But in 2E can NPCs look and act just like PCs without DM interference and visa versa?


Heh, I think in this case that uncertainty is good.

ignorance is bliss:smallwink:, your brain suffers yes



As long as the mechanics fit the character, he could be. The process by which you achieve the desired effect is not important. In fact, when you create a set of mechanics to describe a Character you could in turn describe them as a 'special unique class', such as 'Boris the Mercenary Class'. All that is being said here is that you don't have to go to the trouble of doing so if you don't want to.

But then that leads to the problems of inconsistency, for example, lets say borris is a level 12 fighter, level 2 rouge, and can use on sword sage power once per day because he is "Special". Now we know he gets his fighting powers from his profession, fighter, his sneaky skills from being a rouge, but how does he get his single ToB power? There should be a reason, for example he took a feat, or he was blessed by a special being, or got special training, or has a magical item ect, it builds world consistency. Also the PCs should be able to, in theory to imitate him.


No, and that is one of the things that troubles me about 4e (and to a lesser extent D20). To be fair, I suspect Wizards claims that PCs will have powers not replicable by Monsters does not apply to NPC Adventurers and that most Monsters will eventually have Player Character entries, which will eventually mean that there will be Monsters able to replicate these PC only powers. I think Wizards are using the word 'Monster' in a very specific sense.

1. They said monsters and most NPCs
2. I doubt it but we can only hope, my main beef comes from the PCs getting super special powers



Great. :smallbiggrin:

I wonder if people could lose limbs in 4E?


Well, that's a good question. The answer will be dependent on the game world and what it means to be an 'Adventurer'. To be fair, the 3.5 PHB describes Player Characters as 'heroes' on page 4 and that does already separate them from the common masses. If you look at the demography of Adventurer Classes to NPC Classes as outlined in the DMG, it is apparent that Adventurer Classed Characters make up only a tiny percentage of the population. In a city of 25,000, for instance, you might have the following break down of Fighters:

one Fighter 20, two Fighter 10, four Fighter 5, eight Figher 3 and sixteen Fighter 1
one Fighter 18, two Fighter 9, four Fighter 5, eight Fighter 3 and sixteen Fighter 1
one Fighter 16, two Fighter 8, four Fighter 4, eight Fighter 2 and sixteen Fighter 1
one Fighter 14, two Fighter 7, four Fighter 4, eight Fighter 2 and sixteen Fighter 1

That's 124 Fighters in a population 25,000, which is 0.5% of the population. Even if we multiply up fairly generously we're talking a ratio of 1,250 Adventurer Classed Characters to 23,750 NPC Classed Characters, which is a ratio of 19:1 or roughly 5% of the total population.
That means that PC classes are talented and powerful, but not unique. They are powerful yes, but they aren't unique on of the kind, the talented people in the world would be PC classes the rest NPC classes.
And of that population, that is only fighters, do that for every single PC class and you have a slightly larger population. This also varies on the race/culture, but they are talented, just not unique


What that suggests is that Adventurer Classed Characters are already 'special little butterflies' that can do stuff that 95% of the population cannot.

The real question then becomes 'are heroes born or are they made?' or 'where do Adventurers acquire their powers?' and that's a question for an individual campaign setting. It looks like 4e is dispensing with the idea of the 'not very heroic' Level 1 Character and that's partly because of the power creep evident in D20 and partly because it's dumping it's historically based/sword and sorcery roots. D20 already did that to some degree, this is just continuing the trend.

It's certainly something worth complaining about if you don't like it (I don't), but it shouldn't be confused with the idea that NPCs/PCs/Monsters are going to be constructed differently, as it's the outcome that matters, not the methodology. This isn't much different from starting all PCs off at Level 4 or whatever.
1. Except that from all the things we've seen it seems like PCs will be the only dudes with PC classes
2. In 3E both NPCs and PCs were constructed in the same way. NPCs were more likely to be NPC classes, but they still working under teh same system
3. For the record, i don't really like this


You could have some fun with this concept. Next time your character meets an NPC, start questioning him about his perception of your character. "What do you think I am capable of? Do you think you could stab me with this dagger and there would be no perceiveable repercussions? Do you think I could get up and walk away unharmed after jumping off a 100 foot cliff in nothing but my underwear? How long do you think I could survive without eating? What do you think my chances are of climbing that tree? How long do you think I could hold my head under water without dying? How long do you think it would take me to chop through that stone wall with my sword?" etc...

I'm the DM, it would be even worst


That said, "Star Wars" was ruined for me when I found out that Luke, Leia, and Darth were family. A galaxy of trillions, and only one family matters to the fate of the universe.


Um, good point



Yes, it's /possible/, and it /can/ be done, but the rules can certainly go out of their way to make it difficult. This is something 3e certainly seems to do; Look at the default assumptions, and how easy it is to die. Following RAW, it can be very easy to keep death strictly for dramatic moments.

As i said before, easy deaths is a good thing for drama, it makes the players/characters more afraid and thus makes their dramatic actions more amazing

Sure, if you go for broke on it. Real Life is simply too boring as a rule. A lot of stories can be ruined if you were to be ruthlessly realistic.
That is pretty narrow minded, real life is extremely exiting. You want adventure? Look at the Civil War, the hundred year war, the World Wars, the Napoleon age, the old kingdoms. Give me any time period and i can make an adventure for it. The real world is far from boring. As for stories, well 1) D&D is a game, not a story 2) Song of Fire and Ice


If they need stats, they probably are obstacles to overcome, in at least a temporary sense. I've already said that a few times.

Stats determine their abilities and what they can do, even if they aren't fighting hte PCs they should have them



How scary can you make a fight? "Oh no! Your persona will die before you got a chance to be emotionally invested in it! HOW HORRIBLE!"
Or they live and you get emotionally invested in them, and then they die. That is far less worst than "Hey a fight, don't worry, you won't die from it'
That ruins emotional investment and consistency



If death is easy from the start, it's not scary. It's business as usual, up until level 9 when you can resurrect. A meaningless death isn't dramatic. It might be suspenseful, but if you die for no meaningful purpose, which is something of a default DnD assumption, it's not going to be dramatic. Meaningless deaths, or deaths to show the villain's power, are the province of the extra, or the NPC, respectively.
You have a very very narrow view on drama
1. If death is realistic and common, then the characters/and the players will be far more afraid of dying, and thus not dying is more dramatic
2. Define meaningless death. If the PCs fail, or do something stupid, they die. If they fight something nasty and it kills them, well that is the way the cookie crumbles, life isn't fair, move one


Also, I must question whether you're a troll who thinks they're good at their job
Dear gods rutee, you've gotten so systematic in your insults that it isn't even funny anymore, i mean come on, if anyone argues with you, you will 'always' call them a troll/illiterate/confused/blatantly wrong/flamer and uses your option as the definition of right and wrong. Next you'll ignore him, this is getting old, at least try to be civil, he has some good points


From
EE

[EvilElitest]

At this stage, I couldn't say for sure. Various things about 4e sound like they will be closer to AD&D than D20, but then other things sound like they will be *very* different.

But in 2E can NPCs look and act just like PCs without DM interference and visa versa?


Heh, I think in this case that uncertainty is good.

ignorance is bliss:smallwink:, your brain suffers yes



As long as the mechanics fit the character, he could be. The process by which you achieve the desired effect is not important. In fact, when you create a set of mechanics to describe a Character you could in turn describe them as a 'special unique class', such as 'Boris the Mercenary Class'. All that is being said here is that you don't have to go to the trouble of doing so if you don't want to.

But then that leads to the problems of inconsistency, for example, lets say borris is a level 12 fighter, level 2 rouge, and can use on sword sage power once per day because he is "Special". Now we know he gets his fighting powers from his profession, fighter, his sneaky skills from being a rouge, but how does he get his single ToB power? There should be a reason, for example he took a feat, or he was blessed by a special being, or got special training, or has a magical item ect, it builds world consistency. Also the PCs should be able to, in theory to imitate him.


No, and that is one of the things that troubles me about 4e (and to a lesser extent D20). To be fair, I suspect Wizards claims that PCs will have powers not replicable by Monsters does not apply to NPC Adventurers and that most Monsters will eventually have Player Character entries, which will eventually mean that there will be Monsters able to replicate these PC only powers. I think Wizards are using the word 'Monster' in a very specific sense.

1. They said monsters and most NPCs
2. I doubt it but we can only hope, my main beef comes from the PCs getting super special powers



Great. :smallbiggrin:

I wonder if people could lose limbs in 4E?


Well, that's a good question. The answer will be dependent on the game world and what it means to be an 'Adventurer'. To be fair, the 3.5 PHB describes Player Characters as 'heroes' on page 4 and that does already separate them from the common masses. If you look at the demography of Adventurer Classes to NPC Classes as outlined in the DMG, it is apparent that Adventurer Classed Characters make up only a tiny percentage of the population. In a city of 25,000, for instance, you might have the following break down of Fighters:

one Fighter 20, two Fighter 10, four Fighter 5, eight Figher 3 and sixteen Fighter 1
one Fighter 18, two Fighter 9, four Fighter 5, eight Fighter 3 and sixteen Fighter 1
one Fighter 16, two Fighter 8, four Fighter 4, eight Fighter 2 and sixteen Fighter 1
one Fighter 14, two Fighter 7, four Fighter 4, eight Fighter 2 and sixteen Fighter 1

That's 124 Fighters in a population 25,000, which is 0.5% of the population. Even if we multiply up fairly generously we're talking a ratio of 1,250 Adventurer Classed Characters to 23,750 NPC Classed Characters, which is a ratio of 19:1 or roughly 5% of the total population.
That means that PC classes are talented and powerful, but not unique. They are powerful yes, but they aren't unique on of the kind, the talented people in the world would be PC classes the rest NPC classes.
And of that population, that is only fighters, do that for every single PC class and you have a slightly larger population. This also varies on the race/culture, but they are talented, just not unique


What that suggests is that Adventurer Classed Characters are already 'special little butterflies' that can do stuff that 95% of the population cannot.

The real question then becomes 'are heroes born or are they made?' or 'where do Adventurers acquire their powers?' and that's a question for an individual campaign setting. It looks like 4e is dispensing with the idea of the 'not very heroic' Level 1 Character and that's partly because of the power creep evident in D20 and partly because it's dumping it's historically based/sword and sorcery roots. D20 already did that to some degree, this is just continuing the trend.

It's certainly something worth complaining about if you don't like it (I don't), but it shouldn't be confused with the idea that NPCs/PCs/Monsters are going to be constructed differently, as it's the outcome that matters, not the methodology. This isn't much different from starting all PCs off at Level 4 or whatever.
1. Except that from all the things we've seen it seems like PCs will be the only dudes with PC classes
2. In 3E both NPCs and PCs were constructed in the same way. NPCs were more likely to be NPC classes, but they still working under teh same system
3. For the record, i don't really like this


You could have some fun with this concept. Next time your character meets an NPC, start questioning him about his perception of your character. "What do you think I am capable of? Do you think you could stab me with this dagger and there would be no perceiveable repercussions? Do you think I could get up and walk away unharmed after jumping off a 100 foot cliff in nothing but my underwear? How long do you think I could survive without eating? What do you think my chances are of climbing that tree? How long do you think I could hold my head under water without dying? How long do you think it would take me to chop through that stone wall with my sword?" etc...

I'm the DM, it would be even worst


That said, "Star Wars" was ruined for me when I found out that Luke, Leia, and Darth were family. A galaxy of trillions, and only one family matters to the fate of the universe.


Um, good point



Yes, it's /possible/, and it /can/ be done, but the rules can certainly go out of their way to make it difficult. This is something 3e certainly seems to do; Look at the default assumptions, and how easy it is to die. Following RAW, it can be very easy to keep death strictly for dramatic moments.

As i said before, easy deaths is a good thing for drama, it makes the players/characters more afraid and thus makes their dramatic actions more amazing

Sure, if you go for broke on it. Real Life is simply too boring as a rule. A lot of stories can be ruined if you were to be ruthlessly realistic.
That is pretty narrow minded, real life is extremely exiting. You want adventure? Look at the Civil War, the hundred year war, the World Wars, the Napoleon age, the old kingdoms. Give me any time period and i can make an adventure for it. The real world is far from boring. As for stories, well 1) D&D is a game, not a story 2) Song of Fire and Ice


If they need stats, they probably are obstacles to overcome, in at least a temporary sense. I've already said that a few times.

Stats determine their abilities and what they can do, even if they aren't fighting hte PCs they should have them



How scary can you make a fight? "Oh no! Your persona will die before you got a chance to be emotionally invested in it! HOW HORRIBLE!"
Or they live and you get emotionally invested in them, and then they die. That is far less worst than "Hey a fight, don't worry, you won't die from it'
That ruins emotional investment and consistency



If death is easy from the start, it's not scary. It's business as usual, up until level 9 when you can resurrect. A meaningless death isn't dramatic. It might be suspenseful, but if you die for no meaningful purpose, which is something of a default DnD assumption, it's not going to be dramatic. Meaningless deaths, or deaths to show the villain's power, are the province of the extra, or the NPC, respectively.
You have a very very narrow view on drama
1. If death is realistic and common, then the characters/and the players will be far more afraid of dying, and thus not dying is more dramatic
2. Define meaningless death. If the PCs fail, or do something stupid, they die. If they fight something nasty and it kills them, well that is the way the cookie crumbles, life isn't fair, move one


Also, I must question whether you're a troll who thinks they're good at their job
Dear gods rutee, you've gotten so systematic in your insults that it isn't even funny anymore, i mean come on, if anyone argues with you, you will 'always' call them a troll/illiterate/confused/blatantly wrong/flamer and uses your option as the definition of right and wrong. Next you'll ignore him, this is getting old, at least try to be civil, he has some good points


From
EE

[Dan_Hemmens]

Then you don't want to play D&D.

No biggie, really. You can play any game you want. But it seems odd to argue for the D&D rules while you are explicitly arguing against them.

Umm ... it was totally possible to create characters whose abilities weren't described by class levels in 1st edition and 2nd edition D&D, it seems likely that it will be possible again in 4th edition. It it really such a horrible idea that somebody can be good at something without also being hard to kill?

[Matthew]

But in 2E can NPCs look and act just like PCs without DM interference and visa versa?

Short answer, yes. Long answer, this also looks as though it is going to be the case in 4e. The question is really what proportion of the population will it apply to?



But then that leads to the problems of inconsistency, for example, lets say borris is a level 12 fighter, level 2 rouge, and can use on sword sage power once per day because he is "Special". Now we know he gets his fighting powers from his profession, fighter, his sneaky skills from being a rouge, but how does he get his single ToB power? There should be a reason, for example he took a feat, or he was blessed by a special being, or got special training, or has a magical item ect, it builds world consistency. Also the PCs should be able to, in theory to imitate him.

As we above discussed, that is a rules inconsistancy problem, not an actual world inconsistancy problem (remember, a desire for absolutely consistant rules is preferential not absolute - and also bear in mind that D20 Attributes, Races, Classes, Skills and Feats are subjectively balanced, so that their value is not absolutely equal, meaning that the rules actually frame and endorse inconsistancy). The assumption is that Player Characters *could* learn that ToB power in the same way Boris did in the campaign setting reality, but they won't because the rules of the game apply differently to them while the game is being played .
Of course, if we're talking pure AD&D logic, then DM fiat will allow a PC to learn that skill if he wants to devote the time to doing so. The only effect will be to raise his 'power level' slightly, which would mean he gets less experience for overcoming challenges than if he didn't have that power.



1. They said monsters and most NPCs
2. I doubt it but we can only hope, my main beef comes from the PCs getting super special powers

All relative to the word 'most' and depending on how they are defining 'Monster' and 'NPC' for 4e. As we can see below, most 3e NPCs (about 90%+) don't have the powers available to PCs for no other reason than arbitrary demographic guidelines. I should say that I think Wizards may be using the term 'Monsters' differently than we're used to in previous editions, since all Monsters are NPCs by default.



I wonder if people could lose limbs in 4E?

We shall see; I wouldn't bet on it.



That means that PC classes are talented and powerful, but not unique. They are powerful yes, but they aren't unique on of the kind, the talented people in the world would be PC classes the rest NPC classes.

Presumably, which does mark them out as special to begin with [i.e in the top 10% of the population in terms of natural talent]. Exactly how mechanically unique they turn out to be in 4e remains to be seen. If it does turn out that only PCs have access to certain powers then it will be up to the fluff to explain why (perhaps, like virtually all Ancient Greek Heroes, they are descended from divine beings) and it will mean that 4e RAW only supports the 'heroes are born' reality.



And of that population, that is only fighters, do that for every single PC class and you have a slightly larger population. This also varies on the race/culture, but they are talented, just not unique

Nah, when I multiplied up, I went by a factor of ten, roughly taking account of the fact that there are more Classes. I also thought I was pretty generous, as Fighters have the highest level probability. That said, the number of Adventurer Classed to Non Adventurer Classed Characters fluctuates with the population distribution and settlement sizes. In Thorpes, you get an average of about 12%, but in really huge cities (like 100,000) the number drops to about 1%. Non core Classes aren't taken into account, as adding a new Class shouldn't change the demographic [i.e. War Blades should be thought to replace a proportion of Fighters, not supplement them].

For instance:

In 24 villages with an average population 240 (80-400) you'll find the following:

{table=head] Village | Fighter | Rogue | Cleric | Bard | Barbarian | Druid | Wizard | Sorcerer | Monk | Paladin | Ranger | Total
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0
2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11
3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 33
4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 27
5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 30
6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 39
7 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 32
8 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 49
9 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 12
10 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13
11 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 37
12 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 43
13 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14
14 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23
15 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 41
16 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 51
17 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 16
18 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 27
19 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 21
20 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 25
21 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 26
22 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 25
23 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 45
24 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 65
[/table]

Total: 705/5760 = about 12%

Of course, that assumes that 240 is indeed the average population of a village, which is by no means certain. It could be as low as 80 (37%) or as high as 400 (7%).

In 24 Small Towns with average populations of 1,450 (900-2,000) you'll find:

{table=head] Small Town | Fighter | Rogue | Cleric | Bard | Barbarian | Druid | Wizard | Sorcerer | Monk | Paladin | Ranger | Total
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11
2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 33
3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 33
4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 65
5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 39
6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 49
7 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 49
8 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 77
9 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 19
10 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 37
11 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 41
12 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 69
13 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23
14 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 41
15 | 15 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 57
16 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 81
17 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 28
18 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 41
19 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 25
20 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 61
21 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 31
22 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 45
23 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 65
24 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 85
[/table]

Total 1105/34,800 = 3.17%

Assuming my math is correct, of course.



1. Except that from all the things we've seen it seems like PCs will be the only dudes with PC classes
2. In 3E both NPCs and PCs were constructed in the same way. NPCs were more likely to be NPC classes, but they still working under teh same system
3. For the record, i don't really like this

Even if it's true that PCs are the only ones with PC Classes (and I don't think [I]most NPCs translates into all NPCs), all it means is that they are narrowing the demographics. Exactly how PCs and NPCs interact in 4e remains to be seen. Some things clearly apply to PCs only (like the, in my opinion, awful new 'Death's Door' rules). If it comes to pass that only PCs have access to X and no NPCs can ever have access to X, then I will be surprised to say the least.

[horseboy]

I wonder if people could lose limbs in 4E?
Depends on if they change the swords of sharpness back.

[EvilElitest]

Short answer, yes. Long answer, this also looks as though it is going to be the case in 4e. The question is really what proportion of the population will it apply to?

From Worlds and Monsters it seems like only the PC and a rare NPC


As we above discussed, that is a rules inconsistancy problem, not an actual world inconsistancy problem (remember, a desire for absolutely consistant rules is preferential not absolute - and also bear in mind that D20 Attributes, Races, Classes, Skills and Feats are subjectively balanced, so that their value is not absolutely equal, meaning that the rules actually frame and endorse inconsistancy). The assumption is that Player Characters *could* learn that ToB power in the same way Boris did in the campaign setting reality, but they won't because the rules of the game apply differently to them while the game is being played .
Of course, if we're talking pure AD&D logic, then DM fiat will allow a PC to learn that skill if he wants to devote the time to doing so. The only effect will be to raise his 'power level' slightly, which would mean he gets less experience for overcoming challenges than if he didn't have that power.
The rules should generally be consistent and follow a logical pattern yes. Through them being balanced would help


All relative to the word 'most' and depending on how they are defining 'Monster' and 'NPC' for 4e. As we can see below, most 3e NPCs (about 90%+) don't have the powers available to PCs for no other reason than arbitrary demographic guidelines. I should say that I think Wizards may be using the term 'Monsters' differently than we're used to in previous editions, since all Monsters are NPCs by default.
Well they have said that both Monsters and NPCs are going to have this effect so.....


We shall see; I wouldn't bet on it.
yeah 4e is going away from the "based slightly on reality" direction


Presumably, which does mark them out as special to begin with [i.e in the top 10% of the population in terms of natural talent]. Exactly how mechanically unique they turn out to be in 4e remains to be seen. If it does turn out that only PCs have access to certain powers then it will be up to the fluff to explain why (perhaps, like virtually all Ancient Greek Heroes, they are descended from divine beings) and it will mean that 4e RAW only supports the 'heroes are born' reality.
I think your being a little optimistic on WOTC's talents of making consistent worlds, particularly from their approach thus far.


Nah, when I multiplied up, I went by a factor of ten, roughly taking account of the fact that there are more Classes. I also thought I was pretty generous, as Fighters have the highest level probability. That said, the number of Adventurer Classed to Non Adventurer Classed Characters fluctuates with the population distribution and settlement sizes. In Thorpes, you get an average of about 12%, but in really huge cities (like 100,000) the number drops to about 1%. Non core Classes aren't taken into account, as adding a new Class shouldn't change the demographic [i.e. War Blades should be thought to replace a proportion of Fighters, not supplement them].

wait,
1. Where do you get these figures?
2. Why would non core classes replace fighters instead of being seperate?



Even if it's true that PCs are the only ones with PC Classes (and I don't think [I]most NPCs translates into all NPCs), all it means is that they are narrowing the demographics. Exactly how PCs and NPCs interact in 4e remains to be seen. Some things clearly apply to PCs only (like the, in my opinion, awful new 'Death's Door' rules). If it comes to pass that only PCs have access to X and no NPCs can ever have access to X, then I will be surprised to say the least.

Well most NPCs do die at 0 HP apparently, while PC die at -9. No given reason of course

from
EE

[Matthew]

From Worlds and Monsters it seems like only the PC and a rare NPC

Well, as I understand it they said 'most' NPCs. That could mean as few as 1% or as large as 25%. It's something we'll have to wait on.



The rules should generally be consistent and follow a logical pattern yes. Through them being balanced would help

This is one of the reasons I think AD&D is better able to support a consistant world. I don't think a game with as many factors involved as D&D can ever really have a perfectly balanced or consistant rule set. Maintaining balance is one of the primary roles of the DM and the best tool he can be armed with is a flexible and unrestrictive rule set. Just my opinion, though.



wait,
1. Where do you get these figures?
2. Why would non core classes replace fighters instead of being seperate?

1) From the demographic guidelines in the DMG. Hamlets roll 1d8-3 to determine the highest level Fighter, then you divide by two to find the next highest level, of which there are twice as many, repeat. In eight villages, you'll get Levels 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 [Which translates to 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 3, 7 and 7 total Fighters in each respective Hamlet] Since they use a d3, d4 and d6 to represent the other Classes, I had to go with a mutually dividable number (24) to determine the average number of Adventurer Classes overall. [You'll note the cycle occurs three times for Fighters and Rogues, four times for Clerics and Bards, eight times for Paladins and Rangers, and six times for everybody else]. There are easier ways to calculate the average, but this one shows the majority of the working.

2) Because that's what Wizards suggest when they discuss the introduction of a new Adventurer Class into an already existing world, such as the Forgotten Realms.



Well most NPCs do die at 0 HP apparently, while PC die at -9. No given reason of course

Yeah, I'm not happy about that. They basically made the death and dying rules more complicated, then decided it wouldn't be fun to apply them equally to all NPCs and PCs (they're right of course, it wouldn't be fun).