Monsters, NPCS, and PCs shouldn't operate by the same rules. The classes and their abilities are developed based on the abilities that adventurers would accrue in the course of adventuring.
There is no reason that an NPC should have to belong to only classes that PCs can belong to, nor have the same level-appropriate modifiers as PCs. An NPC could very well be an extremely sneaky breadmaker with a small bonus to arcana checks from what his magical aunt taught him as a baby, diplomacy through the roof, and weapon proficiency with a rolling pin just in case. He'd get squashed right quick as an adventurer, but he does a fine job of keeping his bakery safe from shoplifters. What level is he? He's a level 57 baker, which means he can maintain his own yeast cultures but hasn't started selectively breeding it yet.
The same goes for monsters. Why would a bugbear have to be a fighter? He knows how to strangle, and that's worked well enough so far. He has no heavy armor, so why would he be proficient with it?
The problem here is A) giving examples that are flat out wrong. and B) complaining about "immersion" on purely mechanical grounds.
Your character doesn't know the game mechanics. You do not look and say "Ooh, a D12 in action, why can't I get one of those?"
I agree with StormKnight. Not that Rake isn't also right (in that, there is an issue he and other players have with accepting 4E), because the issue isn't one of "this is more immersive" or "this or that edition doesn't use the same rules for everyone". Rake simply used poor examples.
The issue is a matter of preference. Rake likes his games to have static, referenced rules for everything, and dislikes games that change based on DM whims. He places the rules above story in importance. That makes the game more immersive for him, when he "knows how the world works". Nothing wrong with that, and please don't go into talk about Gamism, Narritivism, or Simulationism when the audience doesn't understand what those terms mean (like me; I don't understand them).
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
To add to Stormknight's points, there's another tihng at work here: Assuming the fact that there aren't rules for something means it doesn't exist in the world.
There's no reason we can't have human stranglers, or those kidnapper dudes from Scales of War that can drag stunned people around that are different races. Nothing is keeping the DM form giving these powers or similar to them to any other character in the world, or making a power like that for a character.
So saying that these things don't exist is entirely unjustified. The reson you don't see a human strnagler and a halfling strangler is so we're not glutting the MM with flavor transfered copies of the exact same monster.
Further, it needs to be noted that many of these things are mentioned in the books. Many rituals for creating undead for example are mentioned in the MM. Hell, the Lich ritual is actually fully stated. But here is where the game takes and narrative stand and says 'I am assuming that PCs will be a) good guys, and b) career adventurers, and therefore, I do not need to make them accessable to the players. I only have to give out the story info so the DM can use it.' It's even justified by there being honest to god wars over rituals like the Boneclaw creaiton ritual (in the MM), so what are the chances that you'll just fall bassackwards into it?
Once again, this is a situation where a lot of the complaint comes with unfamiliarity with the material. anyone that's read the MM can tell you that there's a pile of implied undead creaiton rituals in the world, just not for sale to PCs.
Sig to be rebuilt soon The Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
Nothing wrong with that, and please don't go into talk about Gamism, Narritivism, or Simulationism when the audience doesn't understand what those terms mean (like me; I don't understand them).
A tangent, but just because a few people aren't aware of what a word means should not preclude others from using it. If you don't know what a word means, the correct response is to look it up, not to rail on the other person for using it.
It would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the concepts of narrativism, gamism and simulationism. They are very helpful terms to have handy when discussing role-playing games. You can read up on them and how they relate to one another at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrativis … ulationist and I'm sure there are plenty here (myself included) who would be willing to help you understand them better if you remain confused.
Tales from the Rusty Dragon (http://rustydragon.blogspot.com) - A 4th Edition Conversion Project Covering Paizo's Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path
while 4th doesn't have rules for animating a horde of undead, it's hardly something i've ever seen as needed. i can see why some people would want that, but myself i've never seen the need for it.
i also understand the complications those spells bring to the table. i've seen how summon & animate type spells slow the game down in 3rd and having to wait until it works right instead of throwing it into the game and hoping for the best is perfectly valid reason to take such an ability out of the initial release in my opinion. i would rather pay for someone else (who's probably better suited then i am) to work out a problem, then have them hand me a hammer and nails and told "get to it!" and hope i fix it myself.
in 3rd ed core i'm unable to play an arcane spell-slinging, plate wearing, axe swinging warrior right from the level 1 get-go. yet i'm able to do so in 4th ed core without a problem.
is that strike against 3rd? no! why? i'm not actively trying to grind against the system then complaining when something goes wrong... that's being obtuse, IMO.
as for the Bugbear Strangler thing... it might be a technique only Bugbears can learn due to their unique physiology. or it might be something they're waiting to work the kinks out before unleashing on the pc creation rules.
To use a 3.5 example, imagine if a PC wanted the monster ability-only "Improved Grab", well though cookies... until the Sandstorm supplement book came out with "Scorpion's Grasp" which, surprise surprise, gave us an ability that is eerily similar to improved grab.
some things will take time before it comes into books, and sometimes you'll have to work things out yourself. that's the way D&D has ALWAYS rolled.
"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
I agree with Rake. I enjoy 4e a lot, but it's not my preferred D&D game. The transparency issue is differently one of my main gripes about 4e. But as Cyber-Dave said, different strokes for different folks.
-I got ran over my a squirrel the other day. -I'm going to steal my own idea. -My fruits of labor are not fruits... *sniff* they're vegetables. *sobs*
Unfortunately, Rake, none of your arguments have any relevance at all with immersion because immersion is a personal matter. It's obvious that while something may be more immersive to you, it's not the case for me and viceversa. If you enjoy a more empirically codified roleplaying game, hwere part of your pleasure is analyzing and understanding the math behind it and how it applies to the game world, then more power to you. Keep in mind that this is not essential to a roleplaying game, from a universal point of view. In many cases, this can make a roleplaying game less accessible, especially to DMs, who then need to put in extra work in adventure design to make sure that some gameplay element remains mechanically consistent with the rest of the game. Do we need to bother with the full write-up of a sage NPC when all you're going to need from it is a modifier on specific knowledge checks? By the same token, does that sage need to be seasoned combatant in order to have the check modifiers you need?
In any case, immersion has nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with your capacity to believe the game world. And, as with all beliefs, your mileage may vary.
I agree with Rake. I enjoy 4e a lot, but it's not my preferred D&D game. The transparency issue is differently one of my main gripes about 4e. But as Cyber-Dave said, different strokes for different folks.
A tangent, but just because a few people aren't aware of what a word means should not preclude others from using it. If you don't know what a word means, the correct response is to look it up, not to rail on the other person for using it.
It would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the concepts of narrativism, gamism and simulationism. They are very helpful terms to have handy when discussing role-playing games. You can read up on them and how they relate to one another at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrativis … ulationist and I'm sure there are plenty here (myself included) who would be willing to help you understand them better if you remain confused.
When a person introduces an unfamiliar term/idea, it is the responsibility of that person to explain the meaning, not the responsibility of the audience to learn this information for themselves. There are several reasons for this.
First, to make sure the Audience knows the material. Some audience members may already be familiar with the terms, but it is unlikely that unfamiliar terms getting explained would cause familiar audiences to complain. The reverse is not true.
Second, to make sure the Educator understands the material. An audience member may correct or clarify some bit of information, which changes the meaning.
Third, to clarify what meaning the term is being used for. If I were to talk about Shag, some people may construe my meaning to be sex, others to a carpet fashion in South-East USA, and still others may simply be confused, not having any knowledge of the term.
Lastly, the wiki of GNS theory is not sufficient to explain the "opposition" posters use them for. "If it's Simulationist, it isn't Gamist". The external links do not alleviate the issue, either. To clarify for the boards (because I'm not alone in the misunderstanding), you need to write a new thread to explain the purpose of GNS theory for discussion. A poster who is using the terms needs only to explain the long-version of the meaning behind the term, as they use it.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
I've noticed that the majority of people who don't like 4e dislike some mechanical change that the majority of people who like 4e will state is one of the main reasons they like 4e. Generally, it is a simulationist vs. narrative debate or a similar distinction.
That said, I have to ask the OP, why bother starting a thread like this? You don't like that NPCs follow different rules than PCs. I do like it. No argument you make is going to change my mind. No argument I make is going to change your mind. More importantly, you don't want to have your mind changed. So, why start the discussion? What purpose does it serve?
This is a 4e board. How is it constructive to come onto a 4e board and criticize the system? I could understand if it was a rule that had a chance of being changed and you were trying to express your opinion for it to change. But, this rule is so core to 4e that it is clear it will never be changed (within this edition). So, I ask again, besides the potential to create strife, what purpose does a discussion like this have?
-SYB
Please note, I am trying to be civil and while tone does not show well online, there is no enmity in my post.
