I'm writing a 4e DS adventure, and currently see no hickups.
I guess I just sort of like the class restrictions by race in 2e and it seemed to make sense. Having a Gnome paladin or a Thri-Kreen wizard/paladin is somewhat anathema to classic Fantasy and the tradition of D&D in general. In that light, I believe there are many 2e specific things in DS that make it hard to switch over with a straight face to 3e. Not really sure too much about how different 4e is from 3e.
Predicted profits is the decision's main point of contention, I suspect.
Class and level restrictions by race were colorful, sure, yet every efforts made since 2e was out have been to make these things obsolete. Even video games no longer do things like that.
Second, Dark Sun is a campaign with a lot of history involving the use of magic. The way it was created, who had access to it and could understand it, and how it was used are all very integral to the setting. If you go letting any race access to it and allow any race to attain unlimited advancement, eventually it would raise certain questions that would be antithetical to the DS tradition and the history of Athas. Players would begin to ask questions that don't have good answers.
Welcome to the scary world of DS online forums.
A question though Pennarin: would you allow a PC to be a thri'kreen wizard, or better yet, a half-giant wizard? Would anybody?
It sorta makes me queasy just to think about it.
Balatharus, humans get extra feats and such in 3rd edition, so that's what makes them worth playing, donchya know.
First of all, it was unofficially adapted to 3e. Athas.com did a lot of work to that effect.
Second of all NO 2e settings got translated into 3e except for Forgotten Realms. This does not mean that none of them could be adapted. WotC made a choice based on economics and not possibility. The 3e design philosophy was pick one setting and stick to it, and then they eventually chose a new second setting when (I assume) not enough people were purchasing the first setting. 4e design philosophy is only 3 books per settings, and one setting per year.
Third of all, aside from the fact that the reason why Dark Sun was not officially released for "any other edition except for 2e" has nothing to do with the possibility of adapting the edition for 4e, it should be noted that "every other edition except 2e" between 2e and 4e is one edition: 3e. One edition is not a good example of anything.
Fourth of all, the mechanics of racial stating is irrelevant. 4e manages to largely capture the same "feel" that any other race manages to keep. Moreover, whereas before humans didn't need level restriction (an awful mechanic by the way, because it did not do what it was designed to do) because they had no other benefits that benefited them, both 3e and 4e grant humans benefits. They don't need the benefits of other races, or the ability to again any level, because the race has enough of its own benefits to balance it against all other races. 4e does an especially good job of this. Humans are an awesome race. In my current group (3 players) 2 of them chose to play humans. Only one of them wanted to play a demi-human (eladrin).
Fifth of all, fluff behind which race created what type of magic when is just that, fluff. Just because one race invented a particular type of magic does not mean another race should not be able to learn it. There is nothing about the history of Dark Sun which is destroyed by opening up all classes to all races. And yes, I see no problem with a thri-kreen wizard or a half-giant wizard. Certainly I think these races should be stated in a way that martial classes would be their preference. After all, "historically" they are. Probably a +2 Dex/Wis for thri kreen and a +2 str/con for half-giants. But that does not mean that either of these races should be prohibited from departing from the norm. Racial stereotypes, or paragons (depending on how you look at it), should have minor mechanical rewards. They should not be enforced with an iron fist. In the history of everything, everything eventually breaks the mold.
Second of all NO 2e settings got translated into 3e except for Forgotten Realms. This does not mean that none of them could be adapted. WotC made a choice based on economics and not possibility. The 3e design philosophy was pick one setting and stick to it, and then they eventually chose a new second setting when (I assume) not enough people were purchasing the first setting. 4e design philosophy is only 3 books per settings, and one setting per year.
Well yes, but Dragonlance novels carried on and there were noticeable changes in the way they were written to make it seem more like 3e.
Third of all, aside from the fact that the reason why Dark Sun was not officially released for "any other edition except for 2e" has nothing to do with the possibility of adapting the edition for 4e, it should be noted that "every other edition except 2e" between 2e and 4e is one edition: 3e. One edition is not a good example of anything.
Editions beyond 2e: 3e, 3.5, 4e.
Fourth of all, the mechanics of racial stating is irrelevant. 4e manages to largely capture the same "feel" that any other race manages to keep. Moreover, whereas before humans didn't need level restriction (an awful mechanic by the way, because it did not do what it was designed to do) because they had no other benefits that benefited them, both 3e and 4e grant humans benefits. They don't need the benefits of other races, or the ability to again any level, because the race has enough of its own benefits to balance it against all other races. 4e does an especially good job of this. Humans are an awesome race. In my current group (3 players) 2 of them chose to play humans. Only one of them wanted to play a demi-human (eladrin).
Humans are the baseline race by which all other races abilities are considered benefits and detriments. Humans created the game so of course Humans don't see in the dark or get bonuses to hit with swords because talking about it doesn't make any sense. An Elfs +1 to hit with a long sword is a +1 beyond what one would expect a comparably rolled human might be able to do. Humans should NOT get benefits and bonuses in the classical sense, that's why allowing the short-lived humans unlimited class access and advancement was a good balance and it still made sense. 3e alternative was to open all classes to every race and make feats up, which are in my opinion retarded.
Fifth of all, fluff behind which race created what type of magic when is just that, fluff. Just because one race invented a particular type of magic does not mean another race should not be able to learn it. There is nothing about the history of Dark Sun which is destroyed by opening up all classes to all races. And yes, I see no problem with a thri-kreen wizard or a half-giant wizard. Certainly I think these races should be stated in a way that martial classes would be their preference. After all, "historically" they are. Probably a +2 Dex/Wis for thri kreen and a +2 str/con for half-giants. But that does not mean that either of these races should be prohibited from departing from the norm. Racial stereotypes, or paragons (depending on how you look at it), should have minor mechanical rewards. They should not be enforced with an iron fist. In the history of everything, everything eventually breaks the mold.
It is not fluff. Dwarves don't get to be wizards in 2e. This doesn't necessarily mean that Dwarves don't understand magic, but rather they CHOOSE not to use it. They abhor it's use as a race. This isn't nonsensical, it distinguishes the races and gives them depth and allows players playing them to get a feel for them. We see these types of conventions in real life. If you are born a Muslim in Turkey, chances are you aren't going to have some sort of epiphany and randomly become a Mormon. Just as a Dwarf born among his own kind would share the same prejudices of magic that all his kin have. I suppose there are always exceptions which I'm sure any good DM would consider, but blithely allowing ANY Dwarf anywhere, regardless of circumstance to become a wizard is just stupid.
It was a long time ago...but I recall there were no longer level restrictions for race in 2e by the time DS was out, or at least by the time the 2nd boxed set came out. That particular part was phased out pretty quickly.
As for letting a dwarf become a wizard, for example, even if it's allowed by one edition of the rules or another...rare will be the DMs who will allow it within their campaigns. You'd be hardpressed to find a athas.org-designed NPC that goes against the grain like that. It's an unspoken rule pretty much respected by everyone. That the edition allows for the possibility doesn't change that.
It was a long time ago...but I recall there were no longer level restrictions for race in 2e by the time DS was out, or at least by the time the 2nd boxed set came out. That particular part was phased out pretty quickly.
No, this never changed. 2e always had level restrictions by race.
As for letting a dwarf become a wizard, for example, even if it's allowed by one edition of the rules or another...rare will be the DMs who will allow it within their campaigns. You'd be hardpressed to find a athas.org-designed NPC that goes against the grain like that. It's an unspoken rule pretty much respected by everyone. That the edition allows for the possibility doesn't change that.
If the tradition is maintained regardless of the edition, then I certainly have no qualms with it, but I still would have a problem allowing demi-races unlimited advancement. It's A LOT easier for a Dwarf or an Elf to reach 20th level than for a human who only lives about 75 years. When you can adventure for 300+ years without the effects of aging, pretty soon you would have whole Dwarven and Elven communties full of 20+ level folks. Kind of unbalancing.
Humans should NOT get benefits and bonuses in the classical sense
Why shouldn't they?
Your statement makes no sense, and your argument seems to be based on biased reasoning.
Like Cyber Dave mentions, 3e and 4e races are balanced against each other, not against a baseline we call human.
3e alternative was to open all classes to every race and make feats up, which are in my opinion retarded.
Your opinion, as you say. The majority's opinion is opposite and happens to synch with that of WotC, who made lots of cash with it, by the way. Wonder why.
It is not fluff. [snip] This doesn't necessarily mean that Dwarves don't understand magic, but rather they CHOOSE not to use it.
That's the definition of fluff.
This isn't nonsensical, it distinguishes the races and gives them depth and allows players playing them to get a feel for them.
If this were true then it's no more DS than anything else since the exact same dislike of arcane magic is found in dwarves of other worlds. Curiouser and curiouser.
I suppose there are always exceptions which I'm sure any good DM would consider, but blithely allowing ANY Dwarf anywhere, regardless of circumstance to become a wizard is just stupid.
Here you're casting you own thoughts to the wind, mate. Since when can players do what they want? Since when do they have control over anyhting the DM doesn't relinquish? Character backgrounds and such are within the purview of the DM. A sensible DM won't allow a dwarf to become a wizard unless there's a terrific plausible background story for it, and will never allow the various party characters to be called Megadeath, Surlong, Rene, Jimmy, and PlushPuppy, no matter the players' ages at the table. Control control.
No, this never changed. 2e always had level restrictions by race.
Check Dragon Kings and the boxed sets, pretty sure they mention there are no level restrictions.
It's A LOT easier for a Dwarf or an Elf to reach 20th level than for a human who only lives about 75 years. When you can adventure for 300+ years without the effects of aging, pretty soon you would have whole Dwarven and Elven communties full of 20+ level folks. Kind of unbalancing.
That's antiquated reasoning. It's reasoning I had when i first started playing years ago. No nice way to put it. The elf in the party, which might...say...live for a 1,000 years, still reaches level 20 within only a few game years because that particular elf is not an NPC but a PC, and the DM is throwing XP at them. Simple. So the elf is 50 years old and has the same level as a venerable 500 year old elf back in his homeland. So what? You want that particular party member to advance more slowly than the others because of his race's longer lifespan? Now that would be conductive to good gaming, for sure.
Well yes, but Dragonlance novels carried on and there were noticeable changes in the way they were written to make it seem more like 3e.
And Dark Sun books are now being re-released, perhaps with the intent of releasing 4e style Dark Sun books in the future. And DDi has already released Dark Sun content for 4e. And Dark Sun was unofficially converted to 3e by Athas.org. What is your point? My first point still stands. There is a reason there was no 3e Dark Sun setting, and that reason had nothing to do with the possibility of adapting the setting. My second point still stands.
Editions beyond 2e: 3e, 3.5, 4e.
Re-check my quote. I specifically said in between 2e or 4e. That means that 4e does not count, because it is not in between. 3e and 3.5 are not two separate editions. Both are 3e products. 3.5 is little more then a re-release of the 3e books with some errata to fix the problems of the first publication. That leaves one edition, 3rd edition. One edition is not a good example of anything. Moreover, it should be noted, 4e has already released some Dark Sun material, the developers have already said that Dark Sun will eventually be released for 4e, and 3e did have an unofficial conversion of dark sun. My third point still stands.
Humans are the baseline race by which all other races abilities are considered benefits and detriments. Humans created the game so of course Humans don't see in the dark or get bonuses to hit with swords because talking about it doesn't make any sense. An Elfs +1 to hit with a long sword is a +1 beyond what one would expect a comparably rolled human might be able to do. Humans should NOT get benefits and bonuses in the classical sense, that's why allowing the short-lived humans unlimited class access and advancement was a good balance and it still made sense. 3e alternative was to open all classes to every race and make feats up, which are in my opinion retarded.
And I thought the use of free feats in 3e was awesome, and that the use of a free feat and extra at-will power in 4e works even better. Your opinion of the mechanic is irrelevant. The mechanic works well, and if you can not learn to accept it that indicates that you have a conceptual block, not that there is a problem with the mechanic. Moreover, the 2e mechanic did not work well mechanically. I understand what it was supposed to represent, but the result was only that humans were weaker then all the other races for most of their game life, and then stronger at higher end gameplay. That is a terrible mechanic. Its also not a mechanic that is required to run a Dark Sun game. And there is still plenty of reason to play a human in both 3rd and 4rth edition. My fourth point still stands.
It is not fluff. Dwarves don't get to be wizards in 2e. This doesn't necessarily mean that Dwarves don't understand magic, but rather they CHOOSE not to use it. They abhor it's use as a race. This isn't nonsensical, it distinguishes the races and gives them depth and allows players playing them to get a feel for them. We see these types of conventions in real life. If you are born a Muslim in Turkey, chances are you aren't going to have some sort of epiphany and randomly become a Mormon. Just as a Dwarf born among his own kind would share the same prejudices of magic that all his kin have. I suppose there are always exceptions which I'm sure any good DM would consider, but blithely allowing ANY Dwarf anywhere, regardless of circumstance to become a wizard is just stupid.
Its fluff. That Dwarves as a race don't like magic and distrust it is fluff. There is no reason why Dwarves should have a mechanic that stops them from playing any race they want to play, including a Wizard. If a character want's to play a member of the race who does not follow the edicts of the races general culture, there is no reason why he should not. The Jewish religion says Jews should not eat non-kosher food, but many do. The catholic religion says catholic priests are not supposed to have sex, and yet we all know how that often turns out. And you know what, no matter what the chances, a Muslim born in Turkey CAN decide to up and become a Mormon. Players are not the average. There is no reason why there should be mechanical rules that dictate what they can and can not play. It is also important to note that with each new edition some fluff undergoes a slight change, and some aspects of the setting get retconed. That is the nature of a setting in a new edition. Whatever the 4e Dark Sun might be, it will not be the 2e Dark Sun (by virtue of being released for the 4th edition and not the 2nd edition of the game). This does not mean that a 4e Dark Sun can not capture the feel and tone of the setting. My fifth point still stands.
If the tradition is maintained regardless of the edition, then I certainly have no qualms with it, but I still would have a problem allowing demi-races unlimited advancement. It's A LOT easier for a Dwarf or an Elf to reach 20th level than for a human who only lives about 75 years. When you can adventure for 300+ years without the effects of aging, pretty soon you would have whole Dwarven and Elven communties full of 20+ level folks. Kind of unbalancing.
...no, what is unbalancing is that a plot reason, a fairly antiquated plot reason at that, is used to ensure that at higher levels of play a human is superior to all other races, and at lower levels of play the human is inferior to all other choices. Regardless of how long races can live in terms of fluff, the players live roughly the same amount of time, play their characters for the same duration of time, and gain experience at a roughly equal rate. It is unbalancing to one day, during a game session, tell player A that he can no longer gain any more levels while player C is still free to gain more levels at his whim. It is not unbalancing to allow all races to be able to advance at an equal rate.
...no, what is unbalancing is that a plot reason, a fairly antiquated plot reason at that, is used to ensure that at higher levels of play a human is superior to all other races, and at lower levels of play the human is inferior to all other choices. Regardless of how long races can live in terms of fluff, the players live roughly the same amount of time, play their characters for the same duration of time, and gain experience at a roughly equal rate. It is unbalancing to one day, during a game session, tell player A that he can no longer gain any more levels while player C is still free to gain more levels at his whim. It is not unbalancing to allow all races to be able to advance at an equal rate.
What 'plot reason' are you talking about? What is done for the NPCs must be done for PCs as well. I don't know how you can say demi-races being allowed to advance at the same rate as Humans is not unbalancing. Demi-races get special abilities that make them better than humans, both at low level and high level. A 90% resistance against charm and sleep spells is useful at any level. Bonuses to hit with certain weapons is useful at any level. A bonus is still a bonus and on any given die roll on a d20 to hit even a bonus of +1 still increases your chances to succeed by 5%.
Lets follow your line of reasoning. Every race is allowed unlimited advancement in level in any class. A nation of Humans goes to war with a nation of Elves. The Elves, being long lived, have an army of warriors and mages mostly comprised of 40th+ level people.(this is no joke, just what would stop this from happening?) The Humans, who die or are unable to adventure after 50-60 years of life are VASTLY underpowered and unable to compete with the Elves in any way. Not to mention the Elves all have TONS of feats that enhance their abilites to fight and makes them essentially unstoppable except by people of equal power who, coincidentally, the Humans have none because they simply can't live long enough to attain such power. The Humans are utterly annihilated. In fact, if the Humans were smart they would NEVER make war with ANY demi-race ever. Humans would be relegated to servanthood in the kingdoms of the demi-races. How could humans possibly be anything but in such a world?
Racial limits can be made to make sense. Why would it not be natural for humans, who live such comparably short lives, to be able to excel at the higher levels simply through their inherent natures? It can make sense for the elder races to simply not be able to achieve the same sort of mastery of certain classes as can the humans who, because of their short lifespans, are just more adept at such things. However you want to explain it, it is a logical necessity in any fantasy world where there are races who live exponentially longer than Humans.
You didn't touch my first point. It still stands.
Dave, shouldn't you be coloring or something? Petty aren't we?
And Dark Sun books are now being re-released, perhaps with the intent of releasing 4e style Dark Sun books in the future. And DDi has already released Dark Sun content for 4e. And Dark Sun was unofficially converted to 3e by Athas.org. What is your point? My first point still stands. There is a reason there was no 3e Dark Sun setting, and that reason had nothing to do with the possibility of adapting the setting. My second point still stands.
Ok, Dave...first of all I never said that was definitely the reason. It was just speculative so chill out. Second of all, when a Dark Sun setting comes out officially from WoTC, then call me and your 'point will stand'. I was just throwing it out there as a question to get feedback. I'm sure that at least is PART of the reason why it hasn't been converted over since it was an immensely popular campaign setting. (Since this forum exists it's obvious.)
Re-check my quote. I specifically said in between 2e or 4e. That means that 4e does not count, because it is not in between. 3e and 3.5 are not two separate editions. Both are 3e products. 3.5 is little more then a re-release of the 3e books with some errata to fix the problems of the first publication. That leaves one edition, 3rd edition. One edition is not a good example of anything. Moreover, it should be noted, 4e has already released some Dark Sun material, the developers have already said that Dark Sun will eventually be released for 4e, and 3e did have an unofficial conversion of dark sun. My third point still stands.
That's great Dave. Yes you did say that. I just thought it was clear I was saying that no edition since 2e has had a DS setting.
And I thought the use of free feats in 3e was awesome, and that the use of a free feat and extra at-will power in 4e works even better. Your opinion of the mechanic is irrelevant. The mechanic works well, and if you can not learn to accept it that indicates that you have a conceptual block, not that there is a problem with the mechanic. Moreover, the 2e mechanic did not work well mechanically. I understand what it was supposed to represent, but the result was only that humans were weaker then all the other races for most of their game life, and then stronger at higher end gameplay. That is a terrible mechanic. Its also not a mechanic that is required to run a Dark Sun game. And there is still plenty of reason to play a human in both 3rd and 4rth edition. My fourth point still stands.
That's great that you and all the other kids who play 3e think it was awesome but your opinion, by your logic, is just as irrelevant as mine. We can agree to disagree. Just tell me how it works out for you when your Human comes up against a of a much higher level because he/she lives about 500 YEARS longer than you and hence has about 4-5 times the feats as you and decimates you and your whole party. Cuz....the game is so balanced. And don't give me some crap about how a good DM wouldn't allow that kind of mismatch because in THAT world, there are bound to be tons and TONS of high high high level demi-race NPCs everywhere because they live forever!
Its fluff. That Dwarves as a race don't like magic and distrust it is fluff. There is no reason why Dwarves should have a mechanic that stops them from playing any race they want to play, including a Wizard.
Dave has spoken! Dwarves should NOT have a dislike of magic. Forgive me for questioning your divine wisdom on the nature and history of the Dwarven race as it pertains to D&D! Give me a break....
And you know what, no matter what the chances, a Muslim born in Turkey CAN decide to up and become a Mormon. Players are not the average.
Yes, Dave but there is something to be said of the norm. You know, how the vast majority of people in a given situation are likely to be? Of course 'anything can happen' free will and all that, but usually its going to be that a Dwarf isn't a wizard and a Muslim in Turkey is a Muslim not a Mormon. The reason for it to be different should have to make sense and add to the campaign, but it gets ridiculous and cumbersome in a campaign if everyone wants to disobey conventions and be different all the time.
My fifth point still stands.
*Yawn*
Why shouldn't they?
Your statement makes no sense, and your argument seems to be based on biased reasoning.
Yes, I am biased but i can defend my bias. What doesn't make sense about my argument?
Your opinion, as you say. The majority's opinion is opposite and happens to synch with that of WotC, who made lots of cash with it, by the way. Wonder why.
Ok they made money and lots of people like it. That makes it automatically good? Do I really have to explain the fallacy of that 'logic'?
If this were true then it's no more DS than anything else since the exact same dislike of arcane magic is found in dwarves of other worlds. Curiouser and curiouser.
I never said it was different for DS. It's Dwarves across the board. A Dwarf is a Dwarf for most considerations, regardless of what world they are on. I will definitely grant that a DS Dwarf would be much more likely to be flexible as far as some things go.
Here you're casting you own thoughts to the wind, mate. Since when can players do what they want? Since when do they have control over anyhting the DM doesn't relinquish? Character backgrounds and such are within the purview of the DM. A sensible DM won't allow a dwarf to become a wizard unless there's a terrific plausible background story for it, and will never allow the various party characters to be called Megadeath, Surlong, Rene, Jimmy, and PlushPuppy, no matter the players' ages at the table. Control control.
Well, if you are going to use that reasoning why talk about the rules at all? Yes, all DMs have final say. What's YOUR point? The point was that the rules say anyone can be anything and that is ridiculous (see my replies to Dave) in my opinion.
Check Dragon Kings and the boxed sets, pretty sure they mention there are no level restrictions.
Pretty sure it doesn't. If you can find it I will acquiesce, but I would bet your life on it.
That's antiquated reasoning. It's reasoning I had when i first started playing years ago. No nice way to put it. The elf in the party, which might...say...live for a 1,000 years, still reaches level 20 within only a few game years because that particular elf is not an NPC but a PC, and the DM is throwing XP at them. Simple. So the elf is 50 years old and has the same level as a venerable 500 year old elf back in his homeland. So what? You want that particular party member to advance more slowly than the others because of his race's longer lifespan? Now that would be conductive to good gaming, for sure.
Yeah, unlimited advancement makes sense for the PCs except for the little problem of the whole rest of the world following the same rules. What you do for the PCs you have to do for the NPCs and that means tons and tons and tons of Godly high level demi-race NPCs. If you are ok with that, well enjoy a campaign that is either impossible or doesn't make any sense. You are under the impression that people besides the PCs don't go adventuring?
On the level caps:
Dark Sun Rules Book, 1st boxed set: page 4
The Age of Heroes: Rules for Conquering the Savage Land, 2nd box set rules book: page 8
Most worrisome is your admission that you are aware of no level cap discussions in Dragon Kings. The book discusses them passim. If you want citations, I shall oblige.
Let the arena game go on. I feel like I am in Kalak's stadium right now. I just need some kank honey beer and I'm good to go.
Just tell me how it works out for you when your Human comes up against a of a much higher level because he/she lives about 500 YEARS longer than you and [snip]
No no no. He's of a much higher level because he's been designed as a high-level encounter, not because he's 500 years old. What is your problem with this? It's baffling. A thri-kreen with a 20 years life expectancy can reach and exceed level 20...same as a longer lived race.
A 500 year old elf can be level 1, and a 20 year old human can be level 10, and a 10 years old thri-kreen can be level 15. See a pattern? There's no pattern.
A 2,000 year old immortal Champion can have a grand total of 25 levels....so can a young up and comer mortal man in his 40s. That's D&D. No matter the edition.
Yes, I am biased but i can defend my bias. What doesn't make sense about my argument?
When you say Humans should NOT get benefits and bonuses in the classical sense, that is a statement, not an explanation. Please explain how you support this argument.
Ok they made money and lots of people like it. That makes it automatically good? Do I really have to explain the fallacy of that 'logic'?
Please, go ahead and state that the majority of people are....yes, go ahead. That should be a fallacy of some sort as well, if I kept track of these things.
I never said it was different for DS. It's Dwarves across the board. A Dwarf is a Dwarf for most considerations, regardless of what world they are on. I will definitely grant that a DS Dwarf would be much more likely to be flexible as far as some things go.
Then if I consider this - It is not fluff. Dwarves don't get to be wizards in 2e. This doesn't necessarily mean that Dwarves don't understand magic, but rather they CHOOSE not to use it. They abhor it's use as a race. This isn't nonsensical, it distinguishes the races and gives them depth and allows players playing them to get a feel for them. - why not have Athasian dwarves be not just hairless but also into the arcane? They would have even more depth than dwarves of other settings.
What's YOUR point? The point was that the rules say anyone can be anything and that is ridiculous (see my replies to Dave) in my opinion.
The point is that that way lies balance. Balance is what differentiates older editions of any game - D&D, Warhammer - and the current trend of editions for such games. People want to have equal opportunities playing anything they like, and not be constrained in their choices because it would cost them in some way. That this very concept of freedom in one's choices be considered a bad idea and 2e's constraints on one's choice be considered a good one, is alien to me.
If you can find it I will acquiesce, but I would bet your life on it.
There is etiquette on these boards, remember that. Please bet your own life in the future.
Yeah, unlimited advancement makes sense for the PCs except for the little problem of the whole rest of the world following the same rules.
There is no unlimited advancement. The DM controls everything. NPCs and monsters do not have lives of their own they happen to live through while the DM is busy DMing the adventure. A monster or NPC is only as powerful as the DM wants it/him to be, no matter the age or any immortality.
I dislike 2e's rules all over again now, thank you phaaf_glien :D
I will say this: Yes a DM has complete control of his world but it still has to make sense. A DM in a world of unlimited level advancement for demi-races COULD have the PCs never encounter someone of super high level but at some point this is just going to be ridiculous. In this world, logic would dictate that eventually there are going to be some super old elves who have attained godly level status. It's going to happen, no two ways around it. That's all I'm saying.
And I wasn't threatening you about your life. I was just being humorous by not betting my life as would be expected, that is all. :P
What 'plot reason' are you talking about? What is done for the NPCs must be done for PCs as well.
Actually, no, PC's and NPC's are not necessarily equivalent. 4e is rather explicit about this is not the case in 4e. Moreover, its not even fully logical. There is a reason that the PC's are the heroes of the story and the NPC's are not. It is not because they are equivalent.
I don't know how you can say demi-races being allowed to advance at the same rate as Humans is not unbalancing. Demi-races get special abilities that make them better than humans, both at low level and high level. A 90% resistance against charm and sleep spells is useful at any level. Bonuses to hit with certain weapons is useful at any level. A bonus is still a bonus and on any given die roll on a d20 to hit even a bonus of +1 still increases your chances to succeed by 5%.
Yes, this was the mechanical reasoning of 2e. It is a mechanical reasoning that did not work well. The end result was that demi-humans were more powerful at low level and humans were more powerful at high level. Two imbalances do not a balanced system make. They just make an even more horribly imbalanced system. It didn't work in 2e. There was no reason to incorporate it in either 3e or 4e. Instead 3e and 4e went the rout of ensuring that the benefits of choosing a human were equal to the benefits of choosing any other race, and allowing all races to advance equally.
Lets follow your line of reasoning. Every race is allowed unlimited advancement in level in any class.
Actually, they are allowed equal advancement. This does not mean unlimited. All player characters in 3e have a 30 level limit.
A nation of Humans goes to war with a nation of Elves.
Are both nations played by players? Because, if not, its irrelevant. NPC's are not stated like PC's.
The Elves, being long lived, have an army of warriors and mages mostly comprised of 40th+ level people.(this is no joke, just what would stop this from happening?) The Humans, who die or are unable to adventure after 50-60 years of life are VASTLY underpowered and unable to compete with the Elves in any way. Not to mention the Elves all have TONS of feats that enhance their abilites to fight and makes them essentially unstoppable except by people of equal power who, coincidentally, the Humans have none because they simply can't live long enough to attain such power.
Actually, nobody would really be more then level 30+. Only demi-gods would be level 20+. Paragon examples of the race would be level 10+. Heroic examples of the race would be between 1-10. What level a character would be would have nothing to do with how long it was adventuring. It would be a combination of both how long it would adventuring, and what "heroic potential" the character has according to the narrative of the story. A character that does not have the heroic potential to become a paragon example of its path of life would never exceed 10th level. A character without the heroic potential to become an epic example of a hero would never exceed 20th level. Only player characters have an "unlimited potential," and the truth is that even their potential has a limit... level 30.
Racial limits can be made to make sense.
It might be able to be made to make sense, but it can not be made into a mechanic which works well. It is no longer a feature of 3e, or 4e, and does not need to be a feature of the 4e Dark Sun setting.
It might be able to be made to make sense, but it can not be made into a mechanic which works well. It is no longer a feature of 3e, or 4e, and does not need to be a feature of the 4e Dark Sun setting.
Voila.
So, Dave, you are advocating level caps but not level limits by race? That is a sound principle, and honestly I don't know a lot about 4e I was talking more about 3e. What you say makes sense if that is the case as far as PCs and NPCs go.
There are three tiers of gaming for PCs in 4e - heroic, paragon, epic - each with 10 levels. There are no higher tiers. Monsters (including NPCs like long-lived elves, Champions, etc) can exceed level 30. The 4e Monster Manual has one such example, the demon prince Orcus, level 33. Gods will have higher levels even.
There are no level caps in that you are prevented from getting higher along an infinite progression bar, intead it's that the bar doesn't get any higher than that for PCs. Monsters, on the other hand, are free to be of any level the DM wishes them to be. The DM is not obliged to increase a monster's level as time passes, nor obliged to tell the players what level it had when they encountered it 10 game years before and what level it has now, or what level it was at 1,000 years before when it conquered half the continent.
Dave, shouldn't you be coloring or something? Petty aren't we?
I was not petty, just thorough. I was defending the rhetorical pillars of my argument in order to come to the conclusion that as my 5 points still stand, I see no reason why 4e would not work well with the Dark Sun setting. I don't like making blanket statements, so I make sure I explain my logic before I state something. If I was not clear about why I was doing what I was doing, I am sorry. But, do me a favor, and try to be civil. I could very easily make grandpa Simpson jokes about you, tell you to stop waving your cane, or ask something absurd like "are you sure its not time for you to go eat your pudding" (and old folks home joke, and in rather poor taste I might add). I didn't. So, please, refrain from making "kid" jokes because I happen to prefer a newer edition then the one you prefer. Its not like I have never played 2e, or don't have a book shelf (well, a bunch of boxes since I put them in storage) full of 2e books.
Ok, Dave...first of all I never said that was definitely the reason. It was just speculative so chill out. Second of all, when a Dark Sun setting comes out officially from WoTC, then call me and your 'point will stand'. I was just throwing it out there as a question to get feedback. I'm sure that at least is PART of the reason why it hasn't been converted over since it was an immensely popular campaign setting. (Since this forum exists it's obvious.)
I am "chilled out." It should be noted though that WotC employs have essentially stated that Dark Sun will eventually be released (there is a lot of speculation on the boards that it might be the setting of 2010), and that an article for some 4e Dark Sun rules has already been released over DDi by WotC.
That's great Dave. Yes you did say that. I just thought it was clear I was saying that no edition since 2e has had a DS setting.
I know what you said. I'm just saying its not that big a deal. 3e was one edition. 4e will (it seems) have a Dark Sun setting released for it. And even 3e had an unofficial Dark Sun conversion (with a lot of fans I might add).
That's great that you and all the other kids who play 3e think it was awesome but your opinion, by your logic, is just as irrelevant as mine.
1) Please remember what I said about that "kids" bit. I could just as easily call you grandpa. And, it should probably be noted, this kid (me) is old enough to have a kid of his own. My daughter just turned 3 months old.
2) My opinion is as irrelevant as yours. The difference is that my opinion is that the current edition works and works well, and thus my opinion is supported by newly released products. If your opinion is that nothing but a 2e Dark Sun can work, then you will never have product support. That being said, that does not mean that people like me should not get 4e Dark Sun product support just because you don't like the modern edition's mechanics.
We can agree to disagree. Just tell me how it works out for you when your Human comes up against a of a much higher level because he/she lives about 500 YEARS longer than you and hence has about 4-5 times the feats as you and decimates you and your whole party. Cuz....the game is so balanced. And don't give me some crap about how a good DM wouldn't allow that kind of mismatch because in THAT world, there are bound to be tons and TONS of high high high level demi-race NPCs everywhere because they live forever!
It seems we are in agreement on this based on a post you made after this one, so I don't really have anything to say to this segment of text.
Dave has spoken! Dwarves should NOT have a dislike of magic. Forgive me for questioning your divine wisdom on the nature and history of the Dwarven race as it pertains to D&D! Give me a break....
If we are going to go by what I am saying, I didn't say Dwarves should not have a dislike of magic. I said that it is irrelevant if Dwarves do or do not have a dislike of magic. That is just fluff. They should still have the ability to play a magic user if they want to. And it should be noted, the Dwarves current mechanics do favor martial defender style characters and divine style characters, not arcane spellcasters.
Yes, Dave but there is something to be said of the norm. You know, how the vast majority of people in a given situation are likely to be? Of course 'anything can happen' free will and all that, but usually its going to be that a Dwarf isn't a wizard and a Muslim in Turkey is a Muslim not a Mormon. The reason for it to be different should have to make sense and add to the campaign, but it gets ridiculous and cumbersome in a campaign if everyone wants to disobey conventions and be different all the time.
The norm is the fluff. Its how the DM stats out the NPCs. There is no reason why the rules should enforce it upon the PCs. And if the DM really doesn't like a concept he can still disallow it. The DM, as always, has the final say.
*Yawn*
...
So, Dave, you are advocating level caps but not level limits by race? That is a sound principle, and honestly I don't know a lot about 4e I was talking more about 3e. What you say makes sense if that is the case as far as PCs and NPCs go.
3e had some nice concepts... but a lot of what it did was broken. In this particular instance, the level issue is not one of the places where it was broken (in my opinion). I always saw it working in that area much the way 4e now works in that area... the edition just did not spell it out for the DM and players quite as clearly. What I said is explicitly the way 4e works. There are three tiers of advancement. These three tiers are heroic, paragon, and epic. 1-10 is heroic. Its the caravan guard, the stout defender, the hero. 10-20 is paragon. Its the point in a characters career where they are the epitome of what they stand for. They are not just the knight, they are the icon of what it means to be a knight. 20-30 is epic levels. This tier of play indicates that a character has achieved the power of a demi-god. A DM stats NPCs at a level as indicated by what he feels their power aught to be, not based on how long the NPC has adventured. If an elf adventured for 300 years, but is little more then a glorified and heavily experienced guard, it will only be between level 1-10 (though probably at the higher end of that spectrum based on how long it has been around doing what it has been doing). If a dwarven defender has become the paragon of what it means to be a dwarven defender that dwarf will be between level 10-20, even if that dwarf has only been around for 30 years. If a human, through luck, trials, and perseverance, has managed to become a demi-god, that human will be between level 20-30, even if that human is only 21 years old. A NPCs level is based on what the narrative require that it be, nothing else. And old man who has spent his time staying home and farming is likely to still be level 1, even though that old man has lived 80+ years. Players are the center of the story. As a result, players have the (virtual) maximum level cap, level 30. If a DM does not want to run a epic level setting he can stop the game at 20. If he doesn't want to run a paragon level setting he can stop the game at 10. However, as all races and classes are granted abilities that are pretty much balanced against each other, all races and classes are granted the ability to gain levels at an equal speed and rate, and are granted an equal level cap. What that level cap is falls anywhere between level 2 and 30 as decided by the DM. The base game assumes that the cap will be 30. Finally, it should be noted that there are a few level 30+ NPCs (this is a level not attainable by players). These NPC's represent demon lords and gods. I hope this was of some help.
In terms of Dark Sun, 99% of the NPCs would probably be stated between level 1-20. I am sure there would be a few epic level characters, but off hand I cant think of one that would not be a sorcerer king. 30+ would probably be saved for the rare Sorcerer King, or something like The Dragon (first Dark Sun boxed set). At least, that is how I see it.
this opens up sorcerer kings of diffrent races...
Wow, did you actually read my last post Dave? If not, please do. Freaky convergence...
I read it... but not until after what I posted what I had posted. Indeed, it seems we were thinking along similar lines.
It would take a bit of effort but yeah DS would work in 4th ed.
DS didn't work that well mechanically in 2nd ed:D
It would take a bit of effort but yeah DS would work in 4th ed.
I would still like to see a proper 3.5 conversion of Dark Sun. The athas.org people, for all their hard work on our behalf, have not yet completed that task and their attention will be divided by a new, and as yet much unknown systems (no psionics!).
That paizo is continuing with 3E with their pathfinder rules gives me some hope. They might even come up with a more workable epic spellcasting system. I don't think I could be bothered learning yet another set of rules.
I think that the new 4E mechanics can do very well for Dark Sun. I just hope they leave out the metaplot. Give us the world and let us decide its direction.
No metaplot. Yay no more TSR/WoTC crisis of the week.
As to mouthymerc's comments, and those who have similar leanings.
There are reasons why there were level limits and class restrictions for something like a half-giant. Whether PC or NPC, the half giant was originally designed as having double hit dice. This is a major advantage. They are also monsters in combat. In 2nd edition terms, their minimum strength scores were 21, and could cause 1d6 real damage with their fists.
The wizard class starts out weak, but can become very powerful. If you let someone play a half giant wizard, he is likely to have hit points similar to that of the middling fighters in the group, or at least he may compete with them. This is not fair. One of the great trade offs you make for being a wizard is the very low hit points. You are physically weak and vulnerable in comparison to other classes. This must be so, for game balance, for otherwise, players will realize there is a distinct advantage to playing a half giant wizard, for his chances of surviving battles and the like is high. A good DM will also feel the temptation to make more half giant NPCs, as they will be a greater challenge to his PC part. The number of hit points and attack capabilities they have will make them quite formidable, regardless of class. Half giants are already offered the opportunity to become psionicists. Giving them wizard is, I do believe, too much.
I appreciate your desire for freedom and such mouthymerc. Being able to choose any combination of race and class with no level restrictions is certainly very freeing to many players. Allowing such in DS however would quickly demonstrate the abuses if such a free system were allowed in a campaign. Simply put, half giant and thri'kreen wizards would be far better combat wise than human and elf and other more, shall we say, normally associated wizardly races.
Yes I am aware that half giants and kreen have their roleplaying and other drawbacks. This is not enough to create balance though. Yes thri'kreen live shorter, more difficult to become archmages... but this and other such drawbacks don't go far enough in balancing a kreen or half giant wizard.
Kreen have natural armor, and in 2nd edition terms, depending on how you figure it, a kreen natural AC combined with minimum dex requirements would give the kreen an automatic bare minimum AC of 3, which is quite low for DS. Warriors would find it difficult to achieve such ACs in DS, so you want to award such an AC to a wizard. I could go on.
Like I've said, 3rd edition has done a good job in rolling over something like class and level restrictions... indeed it was a popular move (Gygax and the like were eternally grumbling to grumbling players that the class and level restrictions were absolutely necessary... we have finally broken free of him and his wisdom). Although popular and politically correct, I have concerns with allowing such things though.
Even dwarves in standard D&D settings get considerable bonuses to saves against magic, and this is because the race is inherently unmagical, whether physiologically or otherwise. They get very considerable bonuses that give them distinct advantages to resist magic and the like, but they also have trouble using a whole assortment of magical items, even potions, since they are so unmagical, and indeed using such things back then had a considerable chance for absolute failure...
You can't give dwarves such advantages and subtract one of the magic advantages... they can't be wizards.
Sure, feel free to do what you like. I understand the desire for freedom and originality.
I just fear it would not work in an organic campaign world. If you played things out enough, the DM would bring in more kreen and half giant wizards to fight a PC party with such a wizard, because they would measure up where an equal level human or elf one would not. Then you would have the little bastards running around everywhere... and I for one wouldn't want DS infested with a great number of half giant and kreen wizards... it takes away from my vision of DS. Maybe that's just me.
Food for thought.
It's amusing to think of thri'kreen avangions, but I would be curious to learn how many of you really would support allowing such a thing amongst your players or NPCs.
In your fellows' defense, I do not think (never had the opportunity to integrate though) that barring dwarves and elves and such necessarily from advanced being status, like Dragon Kings says, is totally cool. The Sage in the Sorak series is an elf who is an avangion. This doesn't destroy my taste buds to imagine, despite the fact that Dragon Kings says no. Dwarves, if they can manage the level, making it to the character elemental stages (if only the early ones), also doesn't make me cringe as far as roleplaying goes... and neither would a kreen spirit of the land, for that matter. I'm willing to consider modifying the rules, but a half-giant avangion? Is that really what you guys want? Maybe...
Thoughts?
As to mouthymerc's comments, and those who have similar leanings.
Thoughts?
I did not like the restrictions in the past. 4E does a good job of addressing this. One race is generally not more or less powerful than any other, therefore absolving the perceived need for level restrictions. I understand why the mechanic was used in the past even if I did not like or agree with it. In 4E you can have dwarf wizards or half-giant wizards without there being concern that they are better than other races. This is an aspect that I enjoy.
Generally, in the past I mostly ignored level restrictions. There was never a concern about power disparities as I was lucky enough to play in games where we did not optimize. It was more about the coolness factor. Not everyone is this lucky, though. I'm quite happy to see the back end of it. Besides, half-giants made for poor wizards in comparison to other races due to their negative modifiers and the fact that they were built more for combat.
Now, you can use the fluff to determine which races work for which classes. If you don't want dwarves and half-giants as wizards, then you decide that they don't have the option in your game. This works much better than hamstringing them with negative modifiers and level limits.
I'd be curious to see how 4th might deal with this in game. Have you gotten a chance yet?
If the races are more balanced in 4th, then I might lean more your way merc.
HubrisBalatharus is discussing the age factor however. It is understood that, especially as far as PCs in the game, that age probably won't factor in too much, and that the party elf will probably have roughly the same level as everyone else.
If 4th edition has made PCs distinctly different than NPCs, which is to say, they are true exceptions rules wise, I worry for the new edition. In either case, I believe Balathar's point is that, given the very lengthy timeline of an elf or say dwarf's life, both dwarves and elves, as races, are likely to accumulate a distinct and perhaps considerable advantage in levels as compared to, let us say, humans. In an organic campaign world that leans more towards realism, this difference in levels between the races might very well lead to a considerable socio-economic and political advantage over the humans for the dwarves and elves. The humans, unable to live long enough to accumulate more levels, would likely routinely feel this effect in their dealings and competitions with the dwarves and elves, and their culture and civilization would suffer. Indeed, it might become difficult to convincingly tell your players that the world is human centered (as all D&D campaign worlds are, to my knowledge). I mean, perhaps that it what you want, but I think that was part of the thinking as to why level caps were included by Gygax, even for dwarven fighters, and other archetypes.
4th edition might attempt to level the powers of the races, but I am rather certain they kept the life durations, didn't they? If they did, the argument I just presented would likely be at play, I would think.
Perhaps it is something to consider.
If the elves of earlier editions are so long-lived, why aren't all their warriors 50th level? A game mechanic like level restriction is just that, a game mechanic. It has nothing to do with the fluff unless you make it so. With fluff you can attach a reason to anything. An early description of the average elf's life could be that they look at the world differently. Because they are so long lived, they take their time with everything. So while a human may reach 20th level as a warrior at the age of 40, the elf may not reach it until he is 400 (this is harkening back to elves of previous editions). The only advantages they gain are the ones we give them.
The new 4E takes away mechanics of age or alignment or other arbitrary mechanics. This way you can start the game as a 40 yr old farmer who becomes a warrior or an 18 year old apprentice going out into the world as a wizard. Your 100 year old 1st level eladrin warrior is no different than the 18 year old 1st level human warrior beyond their race abilities and power choices. This is a good feature for me.
There is a difference between player characters and NPCs in 4E. They are designed differently. Again, this is one of the highlights for me. They are two different species. Player characters are much more comprehensive and should be designed so. NPCs only need minimal information so they can be run. They really do not need to be built as player characters to be effective. Again, though, age is meaningless as far as NPCs are concerned. Just because a race is long-lived doesn't mean you have to make them uber to show it.
Some points however.
"If the elves of earlier editions are so long-lived, why aren't all their warriors 50th level?"
The reason why is because of the level caps placed over non-human characters. I am pleased to see that at least the age limits and elves and dwarves is reduced... at least for as far as your gaming predilections go. This makes what I said earlier have less of an edge. In 2nd edition, elves stay "on the world" so to speak for upward of 600 years or more, and can live twice that long in certain circumstances. And I may agree with you merc on the fluff issue, that elves or dwarves for instance might, as a race, have a slower temper, and not even want to level up as fast as humans... they could spend much more time smelling the flowers so to speak. But, should they want to level up as do humans, they would hit those level caps, and face their limits. Again, this would help ensure the logical consistency of a gaming world.
In reality, for players, the level caps rarely come into play. If you are running anything resembling a proper game, your players should very very rarely run into them. And even then, if you play race stereotypes, like dwarven fighters or halfling thieves, the level cap is 15, and with the "exceeding level limits" rules, you can add a +4 to this in the right circumstance, meaning the cap is effectively 19. That's really high level, and shouldn't end up as a factor most of the time, if not all of the time. Even then, the DMG of 2nd edition offers the optional rule that you can still allow level progression even after such caps, but only after earning x3 experience points required to progress. This is fair and good, and hardly limits anyone. Non humans, in 2nd edition, get special bonuses and abilities which are fairly considerable in conservative 2nd edition terms... such abilities will be muted in effectiveness as the PC part accrues levels, power and magic, but their use in early levels is often quite considerable, and gives unique advantages to those players who play elves, dwarves, etc. There needs to be a price for such advantages. The designers chose a level cap.
In 4th edition, of which I am obviously not familiar, I would be concerned with this distinct mechanic difference between PC and NPC you keep bringing up. For reasons we need not get into here, this is fairly alarming to me... and, well. Honestly it seems video gamish; but alas I have not seen the particulars. I am concerned for it though. I would worry it takes away from a sense of realism, which, although granted this is a fantasy game, helps for building believable, and I would argue, entertaining world. I could see why WotC would do it though... they are indulging another player desire, to see the PCs now, officially, truly mechanically different than the NPCs, who are now, it seems, inherently lesser characters, unless they are beknighted with the DMs whim to make them something else.
Well enough of that.
An enlightening debate.
In 4th edition, of which I am obviously not familiar, I would be concerned with this distinct mechanic difference between PC and NPC you keep bringing up. For reasons we need not get into here, this is fairly alarming to me... and, well. Honestly it seems video gamish; but alas I have not seen the particulars.
Please, pickup the three books and read them for yourselves. Even 5 hours will give you 75% of what you need to know. Then make up an informed opinion.
Yes, NPCs are mechanically different from PCs. Why? NPCs are monsters. Everything not a PC is a monster. PCs have the exclusivity on the use of classes, paragon paths, more magic items then the baddies, etc. This means shorter times to create an NPC because its creation process doesn't follow much rules compared to a PC. Same for actual monsters who now are easy to create. You just need to balance them with others of their level...and for that you have the Monster Manual to look through.
The designers chose a level cap.
It was nothing more than an arbitray mechanic which didn't really do its job anyways.
In reality, for players, the level caps rarely come into play.
By your own admission it was a mechanic which was pretty much useless. If there was such an imbalance in the races, then this mechanic was a poor choice to impose balance if it rarely came into play. This is why such mechanics were removed. They didn't do the job they were supposed to.
In 3E races and classes were opened up allowing for many different combinations. Instead of just running that dwarf wizard even though it was against RAW in 1E or 2E, 3E allowed for it. Some races were "balanced" by level adjustment in 3E, but, really, there were few restrictions on race and class. This has carried over to 4E without the level adjustment. Each time the game progresses and new ideas are incorporated. Races are much more equalized now, there fore making any kind of level caps all but a footnote in history now.
In 4th edition, of which I am obviously not familiar, I would be concerned with this distinct mechanic difference between PC and NPC you keep bringing up. For reasons we need not get into here, this is fairly alarming to me... and, well. Honestly it seems video gamish; but alas I have not seen the particulars. I am concerned for it though. I would worry it takes away from a sense of realism, which, although granted this is a fantasy game, helps for building believable, and I would argue, entertaining world. I could see why WotC would do it though... they are indulging another player desire, to see the PCs now, officially, truly mechanically different than the NPCs, who are now, it seems, inherently lesser characters, unless they are beknighted with the DMs whim to make them something else.
They are not lesser, just different. As I said, the two are different species with different goals. Why the need to have them follow the same rules? At the end of the day, the only thing important is whether everyone has fun. Although, if your idea of fun is coveting some ability or power that an NPC has, maybe not so much fun for you.
My players always enjoy defeating NPCs and monsters that play by the same rules and are on the same footing as themselves. It makes their victories sweeter and greater accomplishments. Etc.
I agree, if it's fun it's fine... it just seems to me that such a thing might take away from some of the enjoyment, among other things...
Well, we've co-opted this thread enough.
Again, I appreciate your thoughtful remarks though.
Hopefully you enjoy it your way, and I enjoy it mine.
If you get your hands on the last 2 books printed by WotC before 4e was out - i think they were called Worlds and Monsters, and such - they are nothing more than a huge 4e design blog. It explains the creative team's thought processes from start to finish. It would help you figure out why things now are the way they are.
As to the NPC/PC split, it just seems to me to ring with a separate but equal emphasis, which I'm not so sure about. Could have a lot of ramifications in my view. I would be suspicious of adopting such a stance, for a great many reasons.
My players always enjoy defeating NPCs and monsters that play by the same rules and are on the same footing as themselves. It makes their victories sweeter and greater accomplishments. Etc.
Players don't get a chance to look at an NPC's stat page. They never know what states an NPC has. Moreover, there is no need for NPC's to be built using player levels. This makes NPC's a time consuming process of creation, and for what? Unlike PC's, the NPC's don't get to stick around for quest after quest. Most show up once and then die. A couple get lucky enough to be returning figures, but these are not the norm. Putting the time and effort into stating each NPC out as a PC is a waste.
This doesn't mean that NPC's don't use the same essential rules. They roll d20's like everyone else. They add 1/2 their level modifier like everyone else. They have powers under their stat descriptions just like players. These powers work in similar manners. And they have hit points that are roughly equivalent to what a player would have at their level... if they are an average monster. A minion has 1 hit point (because it is designed to die after one hit), and brutes/solo's have more HP or more HP and higher defenses respectively (as these NPC's are meant to be a tougher challenge).
The point? If an NPC is supposed to be tough it will be a tough challenge for players to fight. If it is supposed to be weak, it will be an easy challenge for the players to fight. They feel like they can roughly do what players can. But as they are built using a more free-form and modular system then PC's. They do not have rules for "leveling up" and are rather just built at the particular level they need to be (though there are rules in the MM for how to make a stat block weaker/stronger so that it can be used against a lower/higher level PC). They are quicker to stat out or design for DM's. And there is no reason this should not be the case. Players never look at an NPCs character sheet. All an NPC has to succeed at doing is being able to do what the narrative require that it can do.
Finally, while I can understand a 3e supporter being rather surprised at this (in 3e everything was designed with the same class levels as the characters) its really not that big of a change from 2e (from what I remember). Certainly some PCs had character levels. But, I remember a stat entry from the Monster Manual for each of the player races that had no levels in anything. I remember entries for a larger variety of monsters that had no PC levels. I remember Death Knights, who had magical class like powers, but no levels in any PC class. The concept is really not all that different.
I remember Death Knights, who had magical class like powers, but no levels in any PC class. The concept is really not all that different.
Yes, it's a throwback to earlier editions, but a good throwback. Previous edition enthousiasts should like this one.