I just feel that there should have been more 'something different' in how they played, which seems missing here.I'm not sure 4e classes can be played differently.
You step into combat -- at range, you pick your best ranged power, which does the same damage as everyone else's best ranged power. When you close, you then switch to your best melee power, which still does the same damage as everyone else's -- sooner or later I'm going to stop caring whether or not it's done with an arrow or a spell.
Occasionally, an area-effect power is more appropriate -- it doesn't matter which character chooses to use one, they all have the same end result.
As they said in The Incredibles -- "when everybody is special, nobody is."
Zzzzzzz...
The classes do play differently. They are not all effective at range, or in melee, or with area attacks, or with healing, etc. etc. etc.
The classes are qualitatively different. The roles - leader, stiker, defender, and controller - are actually different.
Just because any given PC can be effective in any given encounter does not mean they are the same. Each PC class has its own unique abilities and qualities.
I've played all three existing leader classes: they do not act or function in the same way. The only similar mechanic is that all three have an ability to trigger a healing surge with an extra 1d6 hit points rolled on top of that. However, the artificer can also dish out a blanket area of temporary hit points to the team.
For example, the cleric attacks can bolster other party members, while the paladin buffs himself. The artificer, on the other hand, has an attack that can buff a party member or trigger extra damage if someone attacks the same monster.
Nope, still makes no sense whatsoever.Does 4E allow you to make, even as an DM, according to the RAW, someone who is NOT a super-powered hero?
Like a minion?
Like a minion?A minion is an ALMOST hero.. a henchmen. So, we have a world populated by super-heros, super-villains, and super-henchmen.
Not an improvement.
So vance, you're argument amounts to "4E doesn't have any non-powered guys, except for all those non-super powered guys, but they all wish they COULD have powers, so they work for people who do, ergo, 4E has no non-powered guys"
I could make the same argument for 3E, and it'd make just as little sense.
I could make the same argument for 3E, and it'd make just as little sense.Let's see.. i think the word I'm looking for is b#&*&&&#? What IS it with you guys and the need to lie constantly to 'prove your point' about 4E's greatness all the time? Don't you realize that it just makes 4E look worse overall?
Minions remain 'super-powerful' in 4E. They're not as powerful as regular heros, no, but they're still super-powerful compared to a normal guy.
And, face it, a normal guy (or even a skilled regular) is impossible to model in 4E.
vance, what is it that makes minions super-powerful in your view? Why can't you have a regular guy in 4E? The Human Guard from the MM sure looks like just a regular guard to me.
And all your cries of bullshit and accusations of lying really don't help your case. I don't know about anyone else here, but it makes me very reluctant to even try and engage with you, much less read your posts. Tone it down man and have a conversation instead of constantly trying to start an argument.
And all your cries of b%*%&@~@ and accusations of lying really don't help your case.Well, you can start by being honest. Let's look over a majority of the 'support posts' in a lot of these threads. Constant goal-post moving at best, deliberate misconstruing of statements are coming, and outright lies are COMMON.
I said, jokingly, that there were no 'non-supers' in 4E. This is true. It's impossible to make them because even a 1st level minion has powers beyond the human norm. That's not even debatable.
And, rather chuckle at that point, or run with the joke, you lied (as in, you willfully spoke a mistruth) about it, and went around to make me look stupid in an extremely condescending manner in order to 'win'.
You want me to be polite? You try doing it, and at least assume that people who may not like something about 4E aren't idiots.
I ask you again what a 1st level minion can do that is so far beyond human norm? Or even what a 3rd level Human Guard from the MM can do?
I answered what I presumed to be an honest question from you, and certainly in no way intended to imply you were an idiot. You are reading WAY more hostility into my posts than is there, and responding in an overblown way.
Obviously I feel your point IS debatable, and trying to shut down the conversation by calling me a liar leads me to suspect you don't really have much in the way of proof supporting your argument ...
To quote you,And that's just it...
I made a light joke about the nature of the system.
You're still trying to win.
I said, jokingly, that there were no 'non-supers' in 4E. This is true. It's impossible to make them because even a 1st level minion has powers beyond the human norm. That's not even debatable.
You claim it is a joke, but also that it is true. Which it is not, from my point of view.
Either way, I guess you don't really want to backup what you posted, so I'll retire from this debate.
Hope to see you around in more amicable form later. ;)
Hope to see you around in more amicable form later. ;)FINE.
According to page 54 of the DMG, the only difference between a monster and the minion version of such monster is that a minion has effectively no hit points. That's IT.
A 'minion level 1 human' still has all the heroic and super-heroic powers associated with one.
Done now?
:P I'm torn between actually responding and just letting it go.
Here are the stats for a level 3 Human Guard:
Human Guard
Level 3 Soldier
Init +5, Perception +6
HP 47, Bloodied 23
AC 18, Fort 16, Ref 15, Will 14
Speed 4
Basic Melee Halberd +10 vs AC, 1d10+3 and marks until end of next turn
Powerful Strike, recharge 5 6, +10 vs AC, 1d10+3, knocks target prone
Crossbow, Range 15/30, +9 vs AC, 1d8+2
This is almost identical to a level 3 Human Guard in older editions. How is this guy a superhero? He's just an in-shape Ralph Wiggum.
He's got two exceptional powers in the write-up? It may be 'normal' in the 4E sense of the term, but it's not normal as either a fantasy-trope or in a realistic sense of the word.
Exceptional powers? He has two basic attacks, and the ability to trip an opponent once every 3 rounds or so. I could make a 3E Guard and I wouldn't even have to give him Improved Trip to replicate this guy. With Improved Trip, he'd be arguably stronger than this one.
But he's still a third level trained warrior in either game. He's still not a normal. Why don't you get that?
And you say the 4E guys move goalposts. :P
I'm not saying he is normal, I'm saying he isn't super-powered, or even exceptionally powered. He's just a fairly competent guard.
If you want a really average Joe commoner, someone who isn't an actual combatant and who approximates something like a Farmer, I'd look on the same page to the Human Rabble.
Human Rabble
Level 2 Minion
Init +0, Perception +0
HP 1
AC 15, Fort 13, Ref 11, Will 11
Club +6 vs AC, 4 damage
Mob Rule +2 defense if two other rabble are within 5 square
Really nothing exemplary about this guy. A large pack of them can be dangerous (just like in real life) but just a few of them are going to get beat down by anyone who knows what they're doing.
|
Exceptional powers? He has two basic attacks, and the ability to trip an opponent once every 3 rounds or so. I could make a 3E Guard and I wouldn't even have to give him Improved Trip to replicate this guy. With Improved Trip, he'd be arguably stronger than this one.But he's still a third level trained warrior in either game. He's still not a normal. Why don't you get that?
Why does every man woman and child need a stat block?
|
Why does every man woman and child need a stat block?Exceptional powers? He has two basic attacks, and the ability to trip an opponent once every 3 rounds or so. I could make a 3E Guard and I wouldn't even have to give him Improved Trip to replicate this guy. With Improved Trip, he'd be arguably stronger than this one.But he's still a third level trained warrior in either game. He's still not a normal. Why don't you get that?
Because some people actually enjoy doing things like that? I know I do
|
|
Because some people actually enjoy doing things like that? I know I doWhy does every man woman and child need a stat block?Exceptional powers? He has two basic attacks, and the ability to trip an opponent once every 3 rounds or so. I could make a 3E Guard and I wouldn't even have to give him Improved Trip to replicate this guy. With Improved Trip, he'd be arguably stronger than this one.But he's still a third level trained warrior in either game. He's still not a normal. Why don't you get that?
I understand that some folks like you enjoy it but stating out kids and the like but that has never been a part of the rules. The claim vance is making is that "normal" people do not exist in 4e because we have no stats for them. Stats can be created for all kinds of people in 3e or 4e and in both cases you need to go outside the bounds of the rules as written.
I'm curious as to vance's definition of "super-powered", and what exactly makes 4th Edition characters so super-powered. I could not, at 1st-level, make an "average joe" with ANY of the PC classes. If I went over to the DMG and used the classes there, things might work out a bit better. Not that I could stat out kids, but I guess it was still possible to make an average guy since that set the baseline for whats considered the average person in 3rd Edition.
|
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
NPCs and creatures are no one real at the game table. The DM in that regard isn't anyone to contend with by virtue of also being the referee.
The only people there are in the entire world is the PCs. If everyone's special around the game table, no one is.
This is basically saying that when you have a system that focuses solely on game balance, you end up with no meaningful differences between characters (plus, this is ignoring the DM as agent of actual game balance, but that's for another topic, I guess). That's a sin I think 4E commits twice rather than not.
I understand that some folks like you enjoy it but stating out kids and the like but that has never been a part of the rules. The claim vance is making is that "normal" people do not exist in 4e because we have no stats for them. Stats can be created for all kinds of people in 3e or 4e and in both cases you need to go outside the bounds of the rules as written.
This is not true -- 3.5 has NPC classes, well within the bounds of the RAW.
WotC evidently determined many such elements to be superfluous, and left them out of 4e. I really wonder what percentage of players would have left them out, given a choice.
|
|
This is not true -- 3.5 has NPC classes, well within the bounds of the RAW.WotC evidently determined many such elements to be superfluous, and left them out of 4e. I really wonder what percentage of players would have left them out, given a choice.
I think there's a difference between rarely used and useless, and (one of the) the problem(s) with 4e is that WotC seems to have forgotten the difference. NPC stats, for example, are rarely used but not useless.
I understand that some folks like you enjoy it but stating out kids and the like but that has never been a part of the rules. The claim vance is making is that "normal" people do not exist in 4e because we have no stats for them. Stats can be created for all kinds of people in 3e or 4e and in both cases you need to go outside the bounds of the rules as written.This is not true -- 3.5 has NPC classes, well within the bounds of the RAW.
WotC evidently determined many such elements to be superfluous, and left them out of 4e. I really wonder what percentage of players would have left them out, given a choice.
Very rarely I could see an adventure have a NPC that had both NPC class levels and be a challenge to the party. In most cases, I would think that a DM might briefly think about what class the NPC might have, or a primary skill necessary to justify the NPC's in-game job (if a DM even felt the need to justify it).
Frankly, if I make a NPC farmer now, I feel more comfortable leaving him or her "stat-less". I dont need to determine a level, ability scores, feats, gear, etc in order to make it somehow feel more "real". If the players decide to pick a fight with the character, I'd probably just make him a minion and give him a +4 to hit (2 damage).The more important a NPC is to the adventure, the more time I'm going to put into it. It doesnt make it feel any more legit just because I gave the innkeep a full blown stat block that will probably NEVER see the light of day.
one of the things I'm seeing, let's call it a trend, in 4E is the leaving off of things you may not need rules for, or pairing down. Granted while making combat 'simpler and more streamlined' they have also managed to make it seem more complicated and give you more things to keep track of, at least IMHO. I have said on many occasions though I haven't yet gotten a good reign on the rules and assume it's just because I haven't gotten them in here the right way yet. *taps head*
Okay I rambled, sorry.
what I was trying to say is, the game was revamped to mostly just handle combat and things you need checks for. It reminds me of a complaint one of my friends in my group has about some games, how the way the rules are set up you can do weird things but if you rolled to tie your shoes you would fail alot of the time. I looked at him, paused then said "why the hell are you having to roll to tie your shoes, is there a question about that ability? Are you being shot at while you do it? have your hands been removed?" I think atleast for most non combat things games are trying to follow the K.I.S.S. strategy (Keep It Simple, Stupid) I think the rules for npcs are just for exceptional npcs that are needed for a specific reason. That doesn't meant there aren't others who are just normal, who can't do "powers". One can argue about the things in the monster manual, but I would just have to point at the name of the book. It's the 'monster manual', not the 'average schlub manual'.
Very rarely I could see an adventure have a NPC that had both NPC class levels and be a challenge to the party.Who said anything about making them opponents? Can you not envision a scenario where NPCs may be in a 'do or die' situation during the course of a normal campaign, yet they're NOT the opponents?
I think they were referring to your comparison of npcs to the party. Saying someone is or is not a challenge does not have to mean they have to be an opponent, it's just an ability comparison.
I'm just saying that there are occaisions that some DMs would want, even need, statistics on NPCs that aren't just combat-monsters. 4E doesn't currently allow this in the RAW.
Nor will it ever, I think. 4e, for all its strong points, more narrowly defines style of play than any version before -- and deliberately, I suspect.
That play might be quicker, more streamlined, and more play-balanced -- but it will also be less varied in style and tone.
one of the things I'm seeing, let's call it a trend, in 4E is the leaving off of things you may not need rules for, or pairing down.
The question isn't of need, but of want. WotC didn't eliminate what was unnecessary -- they eliminated what was unnecessary to the designers.
Too bad for those of us that actually wanted any of the things that were axed :/
I'm just saying that there are occaisions that some DMs would want, even need, statistics on NPCs that aren't just combat-monsters. 4E doesn't currently allow this in the RAW.Nor will it ever, I think. 4e, for all its strong points, more narrowly defines style of play than any version before -- and deliberately, I suspect.
That play might be quicker, more streamlined, and more play-balanced -- but it will also be less varied in style and tone.
Couldn't you simply use the NPC creation guidelines (DMG pg. 187-188) and simply skip step 6 (Powers)?
As for 4e not allowing it, I am not sure how you arrived at that?
Remember that many NpCs simply need a name, a couple of
sentences of background (as described on the previous
page), a key skill or two, and maybe a ritual. Most don’t
have classes or even roles (in the monster sense). Only
go to the trouble of adding game statistics if the NpC is
going to serve as an opponent or an adventuring ally for
the pCs. Otherwise, you’re doing too much work.
Seems like it is allowed and is covered. Sure, it may not be in depth, but it is there.
I think they were referring to your comparison of npcs to the party. Saying someone is or is not a challenge does not have to mean they have to be an opponent, it's just an ability comparison.I never MADE a comparison to the party.. nor am I thinking of such a thing. I'm just saying that there are occaisions that some DMs would want, even need, statistics on NPCs that aren't just combat-monsters. 4E doesn't currently allow this in the RAW.
i had thought it was referring tot he overall "noone is special" argument.
Side note, two people I know who loved tome of battle because it "made them awesome" hate 4e
I'm just saying that there are occaisions that some DMs would want, even need, statistics on NPCs that aren't just combat-monsters. 4E doesn't currently allow this in the RAW.Nor will it ever, I think. 4e, for all its strong points, more narrowly defines style of play than any version before -- and deliberately, I suspect.
That play might be quicker, more streamlined, and more play-balanced -- but it will also be less varied in style and tone.
I disagree. Tell me, why would you need to actually stat out a NPC that is neither part of a combat or skill challenge?
|
Since 'skill challenge' is so vauge these days - including entire quests as a single dice roll event
Blatant overstatement. You have accused people of lying over and over again. Please refrain from that activity as well. You know full well that a skill challenge does not:
1) involve one roll -or-
2) substitute for an entire quest. Encounter? Yes. Full quest. No.
Let's discuss this without exaggerating things too much, okay? You might have been trying to be funny. I can accept that. But it doesn't come across that way.
Still, sometimes it's good just to see where one NPC stands with his abilities as a narrative aid.
I agree with this up until....
See, a Craft (Whistle) of 10 means something. And with that meaning, I can work the narrative around it. The guy's really good at making whistles. It may never be rolled against, but, as a DM, I can more easily wing what he can and cannot do - and, more importantly, keep it consistant.
I don't need a number to tell me how good an NPC is at a certain task if that NPC is never going to utilize those skills in an adventure setting. A rating in Craft (whistle) really doesn't mean anything more than the following few lines:
Joe Bob is a well skilled whistle maker. He is known throughout Fallcrest for his ability to craft whistles with clear sounds and pleasant tonal qualities. Because of this reputation he holds an ongoing commission to craft whistles for the Lord Warden's guard.
I would rather have that nice piece of fluff text over Craft (whistle): 10 any day.
You see, at the end of the day, that's what the rules are for, keeping consistancy in the gaming narrative. That's all. That's the whole point of them, and that's what the point of them has always been. The more you do 'out of the ether', the less consistant you're likely to be, and the more pointless your rules then are.
See, I always thought rules were there to help me adjudicate situations that might involve some sense of risk or chance. I can be quite consistent in subjective environments without fully statting out each NPC. Consistency is a major DM skill, especially in games with a strong narrative feel.
What is a subjective environment? For me it's any time the characters are not involved in an encounter that has a risk of failure and an opportunity for success. I can't imagine how Craft (whistle) would be a skill regularly used for encounter situations but I am sure you could think of something off the wall. But the vast majority of the games out there really don't need much more than a few lines of fluff text for NPCs that will never likely see combat.
There is not a single argument you can provide that will convince me, and I would imagine many others, that NPCs need to follow the exact rules the characters do. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. One of the major complaints about 3.x was the length it time took to stat up characters and monsters when half of the abilities you had to fiddle with never even saw use at the table.
3.x was generally out of step with previous editions when it came to how the rules applied towards NPCs, monsters, and characters. As well you know, that was one of the design precepts. 4e is more like those previous editions in how it treats each group.
But, once again, this is a subjective argument. I am sure there are plenty of DMs just like you who enjoy having the numbers to back up the fluff. Great. There are just as many, some of whom who are probably not even converting to 4e, who disagree. That's fine too. You simply don't have any incontrovertible evidence because your points are based on opinion. And that opinion favors a style of design some of us simply don't like. It is simply a facet of the simulationism vs narrative/gamist argument and I think we all know that discussion never has a clear winner.
|
|
That makes absolutely no sense at all.NPCs and creatures are no one real at the game table. The DM in that regard isn't anyone to contend with by virtue of also being the referee.
The only people there are in the entire world is the PCs. If everyone's special around the game table, no one is.
This is basically saying that when you have a system that focuses solely on game balance, you end up with no meaningful differences between characters (plus, this is ignoring the DM as agent of actual game balance, but that's for another topic, I guess). That's a sin I think 4E commits twice rather than not.
The "world" is populated with PCs, NPCs, critters etc. So, no the PCs are not the only people in the "world".
Just because the classes are balanced does not mean that the PCs are the same and that each can tackle any situation with the same level of effectiveness. Think of it like a professional sports team - top teams are made up of the best players in their positions. Sometimes it is hard to say who the star of the team happens to be. Each player fills a different role. They are not the same even though they can contribute in a balanced manner.
Balance does not mean homogeneity its more like the PC compliment each other and they work as a unit.
|
|
Stats can be created for all kinds of people in 3e or 4e and in both cases you need to go outside the bounds of the rules as written.Which was the whole point... so you were arguing what, exactly?
The point is that you can create stats (should you choose to) for many non-heroic NPCs. Not "everyone" in 4e needs to have powers of any kind. Your point is that 4e has no "ordinary" people. So what? They can be created simply by acting out their roles. You do not need a stat block for every person the PCs pass on the street.
Problem is, now you've gone the opposite direction, having someone who is arguably LESS capable than a normal person would be. (Again, this is a criticism that also applies, though to a slightly lesser extent, to 3E and 3.5E).
This is a bit of a D&Dism all around, though. 2nd edition even parodied this (everyone MUST be an adventure) subtly in various sourcebooks, the most obvious example of which was the City of Waterdeep.
I don't know about you vance, but I think the Human Rabble more or less sums up MY combat ability. I'd say, anyone hits me with a baseball bat, or stabs me with a knife, I'm out the fight.
As Cartman says, screw you guys, I'm going home. :P