The Gaming Den

darkmaster wrote:So spellcasters aren't gods anymore? Somehow that seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Well, it was the right way to go about it, but the 4e developers did it in such a halfass way that it guaranteed that the spergiest 3e fans would be dissatisfied. As I am a spergy 3e fan, I am dissatisfied, and thus I must make my opinions known about this VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.

Yeah, well I'm not saying don't power down spell caster, but not down all the way to fighter level, instead make spells more reasonable, and bring fighters up to that level.

darkmaster wrote:Yeah, well I'm not saying don't power down spell caster, but not down all the way to fighter level, instead make spells more reasonable, and bring fighters up to that level.

I couldn't have agreed with you more about this one.

darkmaster wrote:Yeah, well I'm not saying don't power down spell caster, but not down all the way to fighter level, instead make spells more reasonable, and bring fighters up to that level.

This is an attempt to harmonize what is essentially a completely false dichotomy. "Power" isn't a literal quantity, it is a relative quantity. You are strong or weak compared to something. For a new edition, you're making a new Wizard, you're making a new Fighter, and you're making a new Goblin. So there's nothing to power anything down or up to. No objective measures exist.

It's hopeful that in a new edition the new Wizard and the new Fighter would be roughly the same strength, but that does not and can not constitute powering up or down anything. It's just a new game system and hopefully those two things are balanced against each other. How powerful that balance point actually is would depend on how relatively powerful you chose to make the goblin. Which is as arbitrary choice as anything can be.

Now as it happens, those comparisons have been run, and the 4e characters are actually much more powerful than their 3rd edition selves. So in reality the Wizard has been powered up and the Fighter has been powered up, and the Fighter has been powered up a lot more to achieve a closer approximation of class balance between them. 4e still has chump classes in it of course, they just aren't as simple to describe as "casters rule, beatsticks drool". Nowadays an Avenger or an Invoker is a weakling, while a Ranger or a Wizard is over powered.

The issue is actually 0% whether Wizards were powered down or powered up or whatever. The issue is that Wizards don't really do that much outside of doing damage in combat. In 4th edition, when you aren't killing mobs the rules don't really help much. Shop keepers, dogs, princesses, and other "green dots" do not have stats. So you're basically playing Magical Teaparty the entire time you aren't in one of the rigidly defined "encounters".

So a lot of the time when people are complaining about their characters being "nerfed", they aren't literally talking about character power in terms of goblin stabbing or intra-party comparison. They are talking about the fact that there is no longer a DC for their Rogue to climb the tower wall to the princess' chambers, so they don't know if their character can do it.

-Username17

Well, there's still baseline DCs for shit like "climbing a wall" based on if it's rough or even, etc. It's when the DM tries to turn skill checks into skill challenge encounters that things start falling apart.

FrankTrollman wrote: Shop keepers, dogs, princesses, and other "green dots" do not have stats. So you're basically playing Magical Teaparty the entire time you aren't in one of the rigidly defined "encounters".

This is true of any edition. DMs don't go and stat out every peasant on the street. You stat them out when those stats become relevant.

If you in fact were going to stat out every possible thing the PCs may do, then you'll never actually play the game because you'll be too busy writing out stats for everyone. And you'd be wasting your time.

I was under the impression that there weren't even guidelines for statting out friendly NPCs in 4e; I certainly didn't see any in my DMG, although it's possible I missed them.

This is an attempt to harmonize what is essentially a completely false dichotomy. "Power" isn't a literal quantity, it is a relative quantity. You are strong or weak compared to something. For a new edition, you're making a new Wizard, you're making a new Fighter, and you're making a new Goblin. So there's nothing to power anything down or up to. No objective measures exist.

pretty sure he was just talking about power in the sense of making a 3e revision (vs. just throwing out 3e like 4e did).

god why couldn't pathfinder have been good

Swordslinger wrote:This is true of any edition. DMs don't go and stat out every peasant on the street. You stat them out when those stats become relevant.

They're level 1 commoners with straight 10's and peasant skills. I can tell you any individual stat in a few seconds of thinking. I'm pretty sure you can also find samples in the book of human NPC's, but probably not flat-out commoners, more like warriors and tradesmen and clergymen.

The rules model level 1 commoners, even if you don't have the exact stat block of a level 1 commoner in front of you. 4e does not even attempt to model a level 1 commoner. This information may be out of date, and level 1 commoner stats may actually totally exist somewhere... But tell me, how many hitpoints does a 4e blacksmith apprentice have? Could you even begin to stat one up?

Psychic Robot wrote:god why couldn't pathfinder have been good

Hey, you could always be playing fantasycraft.

DSMatticus wrote:

Swordslinger wrote:This is true of any edition. DMs don't go and stat out every peasant on the street. You stat them out when those stats become relevant.

They're level 1 commoners with straight 10's and peasant skills. I can tell you any individual stat in a few seconds of thinking. I'm pretty sure you can also find samples in the book of human NPC's, but probably not flat-out commoners, more like warriors and tradesmen and clergymen.

The rules model level 1 commoners, even if you don't have the exact stat block of a level 1 commoner in front of you. 4e does not even attempt to model a level 1 commoner. This information may be out of date, and level 1 commoner stats may actually totally exist somewhere... But tell me, how many hitpoints does a 4e blacksmith apprentice have? Could you even begin to stat one up?

Hell, as long as you know their profession, you don't really even need to think, commoners get a single weapon proficiency, and will have roughly 8 skill points at first level.

fectin wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:god why couldn't pathfinder have been good

Hey, you could always be playing fantasycraft.

If FantasyCraft is anything like its retarded cousin, frankly, no, I think I'll stick to 3.5.

Prak wrote:Hell, as long as you know their profession, you don't really even need to think, commoners get a single weapon proficiency, and will have roughly 8 skill points at first level.

I was being generous. The only numbers you need to know are 2.5 (hitpoints), 0 (attacks and saves) 10 (ac), and 4 (skill checks). They also have one feat, which probably bumps one skill from a 4 -> 7 or something dumb. Did I miss anything?

Well, weapon damage, probably for a scythe or axe, so something that's used on the farm, but usable in combat, too. Tonfas and three section staves in an asian setting.

I kind of figure the average commoner doesn't have much in the way of actual weapons on him most of the time. Generally, when a commoner's attack line is relevant it's because you're picking on some poor soul who has no means to defend himself. I can't imagine they go looking for fights very often.

Edit: Or a militia/pitchfork mob. Can't forget them. Torches and scythes and... what's a good pitchfork? Trident? Ranseur?

Mobs with torches and pitchforks.

DSMatticus wrote:I kind of figure the average commoner doesn't have much in the way of actual weapons on him most of the time. Generally, when a commoner's attack line is relevant it's because you're picking on some poor soul who has no means to defend himself. I can't imagine they go looking for fights very often.

Edit: Or a militia/pitchfork mob. Can't forget them. Torches and scythes and... what's a good pitchfork? Trident? Ranseur?

Either is probably fine. I'd say with a penalty because it's actually an improvised weapon, but, it's a commoner with no attack bonus to begin with, so who cares.

Prak_Anima wrote:Hell, as long as you know their profession, you don't really even need to think, commoners get a single weapon proficiency, and will have roughly 8 skill points at first level.

Alternatively, you could just assume that the Commoner class is a typographical error and give them a Humanoid Hit Die instead.

LR wrote:Alternatively, you could just assume that the Commoner class is a typographical error and give them a Humanoid Hit Die instead.

Uhh, why? Are you concerned about balance? They're commoners, they're meant to suck. The fact that the humanoid hitdie is better just means they're too shitty to even have that hitdie. The commoner class is meant to model the absolute lowest of the low. NPC's don't optimize, they just are what life (i.e. the story and setting) has made of them.

Edit: oops, quote tags.

I personally use humanoid hit dice as opposed to commoner levels. And I max them out at 3. You might find some pretty beastly experts or warriors or magewrights or whatnot in my world, but if you're a commoner the most powerful commoner has 3 hit dice.