I've never really noticed this problem, but then the games I play don't require characters to be "optimal builds" to be fun to play. And as a GM, I discourage optimal builds (in systems were such are possible) be requiring players to have an in-game reason for a character built like that that I can accept. Some players don't like that (especially ones who like to lord their character over other PCs whose players are more interested in playing interesting characters than optimal fighting machines), but they don't need to play in my games. The fact that combat is always handled in an abstract, narrative manner without counters/minis, battlemats or rules mastery based tactics tends to greatly reduce the need for optimal builds for PCs, NPCs, or monsters.

This tends to go two ways, IMO.

In some games, especially games based on established properties, some authors make NPCs that are far above the norm for characters, with much more experience and/or special benefits than a character in the game could hope to have without years or play (or Monty Haul play).

Quote from: Hubert Farnsworth;344379...by far the deadliest opponent was not the Beast of Nurgle... or the Chaos Magus, but the bloody Rat Swarms in the sewer tunnels which quickly would have managed a TPK without copious use of fortune and fate points and some serious fudging

Any game that has potential for TPK from swarms of sewer rats gets a Seal of Approval in my book.

Our games of Deadlands seem to feature a lot of overpowered NPCs... some based on historical characters, others who are plot devices and must not be terminated... kind of bugs the crap outta me. I had a bead on the back of Wyatt Earp's head at one point and was tempted... but knew the GM would never let it happen.

Quote from: RPGPundit;344269Why do they do this??? Ignorance? Laziness? Lust for gold?

1) I stated Badabaskor as a slice of life in the Wilderlands. Not everybody has a optimal build. I created a series of templates and varied them accordingly.

2) Players can focus a lot of time and energy on their individual character. An author has several dozen to worry about.

This issue occur in all the games derived from RPGs (MMORPGS, LARPS, etc). #2 is the main culprit.


The problem manifests as either PCs are more flexible and thus having some ability that exploits an NPC weakness. Or the PCs are exploiting a weakness in the rule system giving themselves an uber ability.

One of the most feared villain groups I made was from using PCs from a previous campaign as a template. I altered a few things to disguise their origin.

Quote from: RPGPundit;344269You know, I've seen this over and over again. Presumably, most RPG writers are also GMs/players, so you'd think they'd know this. But for some reason, virtually every NPCs who's ever mattered enough for me to look up his stats in an RPG book is very underpowered for his level (particularly in D&D products, though in other games I've seen it too).

Why do they do this??? Ignorance? Laziness? Lust for gold?

RPGPundit

I think, freed from the constraints of a PC "budget," they just don't know what to do with themselves and forget how to be clear about their design concept.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;344374Supposing we have a "Garage Game Guy". He sells a thousand copies of A RPG. Woot for him.
Let's say that, overall, he gets 1,000 at least semi-consistent players out of that.

That means that A RPG will then be scrutinized by 1000x more people than it was written by.

It doesn't take bad design to get broken combos.

Now, let's take D&D. Let's say, 20 designers and 3,000,000 players... 3,000,000 / 20 = 150,000...

... = Pun-Pun. Or worse.

That does seem like a pretty clear assessment of the situation. But its something that the blame seems to lie in a lack of testing out one's builds, too.

RPGPundit

It if it were just nit-picky players, all gaming products would suffer from this problem and that's simply not the case. I tend to believe it's because many writers don't understand that an NPC write-up is a form of language, and they don't understand that they lack mastery of that language. A "colorful" but sub-optimal NPC isn't bad... many people who sing karaoke in bars aren't bad. To be a really good game writer requires discipline. One expression of discipline is building an NPC with efficiency, who has little clutter, all necessary abilities, and succinctly fulfills their purpose in the game.

D&D books, and a lot of the d20 books that followed them, are littered with class X 4/class Y 4 rubbish builds, when most of the time, class X 1/class Y 7 would be more powerful while capturing the essence of the character. In point-based games, many secondary or background elements can be solved by throwing a few points at the problem. The problem here is focusing on the inessential.

On the other hand, other examples show a basic lack of system mastery. Example: Star Wars Saga Edition. Book suggests Scout as a base class for primitive force users. Well, if you choose Force Talents instead of class talents, that leaves you with d8 hit dice, medium BAB, and a pretty indifferent bonus skill list. Unless you want more than 1 Scout Talent, Scout 7/Force Adept 1 is *always* the wrong build and Scout 1/Solder 6/Force Adept 1 is almost always the correct build. You get a bonus feat, better hit dice, better bonus feat list, and until 8th level, better saves. You lose... nothing. Nothing except acess to Scout talents, since Saga doesn't use skill ranks. This should have been obvious to anyone who really understood the system. Yet the same wrong advice has appeared in multiple places.

Quote from: RPGPundit;344449That does seem like a pretty clear assessment of the situation. But its something that the blame seems to lie in a lack of testing out one's builds, too.

RPGPundit

True. It's also up to the game designer to sanity-check things. And when a game (D&D 3.5) is built deliberately unbalanced ("System Mastery"), that does not help at all.

Quote from: pawsplay;344452On the other hand, other examples show a basic lack of system mastery. Example: Star Wars Saga Edition. Book suggests Scout as a base class for primitive force users. Well, if you choose Force Talents instead of class talents, that leaves you with d8 hit dice, medium BAB, and a pretty indifferent bonus skill list. Unless you want more than 1 Scout Talent, Scout 7/Force Adept 1 is *always* the wrong build and Scout 1/Solder 6/Force Adept 1 is almost always the correct build. You get a bonus feat, better hit dice, better bonus feat list, and until 8th level, better saves. You lose... nothing. Nothing except acess to Scout talents, since Saga doesn't use skill ranks. This should have been obvious to anyone who really understood the system. Yet the same wrong advice has appeared in multiple places.

And this is the disconnect.

You're looking at the end result (an optimized set of stats) rather than the character itself.

In many cases, the designer is given a character background and a mandate of "figure out how this character leveled up" - and that's not always following the shortest path to an end goal.

If I'm statting up someone like Philipe the Mouse from Ladyhawke in d20, he's gonna be a Rogue through and through, even though he might be more effective in combat if I multi-classed him in Fighter.

In real life, I spent six years as a university teacher and five as a web developer... probably not the best background for my current job as a game designer, but an excellent example of how you sometimes don't always make choices based on the end result, and sometimes you suffer for it.

Quote from: jdurall;344492And this is the disconnect.

You're looking at the end result (an optimized set of stats) rather than the character itself.

In many cases, the designer is given a character background and a mandate of "figure out how this character leveled up" - and that's not always following the shortest path to an end goal.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. After 1st level, there is never a reason to choose Scout levels over Soldier except Scout talents. It doesn't matter if you are talking about a 2nd level character or an 11th level one, Soldier is always correct and Scout is always incorrect, except for a corner case where a second Scout talent (that was considered inessential for portraying the character at 1st level) is desired before taking a level in Force Adept. There are very few cases where a Talent is needed in Star Wars after about third level or so to cover any given package of abilities.

The only reason to use Scout is so you can write Scout 7/Force Adept at the top of the character sheet. Further levels of scout do not add any more scoutiness. Unless your intention is simply to further perpetuate the myth that a Force user should be something other than a Jedi or Soldier for more than one or two levels, you are just doing it wrong.

If you are designing a Rogue and you want them to be a pickpocket, you put some points in pickpocketing, period. If you want to make a Force Acept in Star Wars Saga Edition, you take Force talents, period. Taking Scout levels would be a deliberate nerf.

The fact that you would argue otherwise suggests either 1) you don't play Saga very much, 2) you have but you really haven't thought that hard about what more than one level of Scout gets someone who doesn't take Scout talents, or 3) you feel NPCs should be deliberately weakened for no in-game or out-of-game rationale. Taking levels of Scout "because he's a Scout" in this case would be equivalent to making a D&D 3.5 fighter who takes Weapon Focus for every single one of his feats because "he's an expert in all weapons."

Also, just as a side note, designing an NPC level by level, as if they leveled, only makes sense if you have a reason to suspect you would need to reverse engineer them at some point. The makes sense for a Star Wars writeup, that makes almost no sense for a fiddly 3.5 writeup where it's easier to adjust their allies or plan on adding levels rather than substracting them.

I think, basically, you misunderstand my objection. The disconnect is that, if you were a SWSE designer and you wrote up a Scout 7/Force Adept 1, then you also would be pointlessly nerfing the NPC while adding nothing of any game or roleplaying utility, and not realizing it. If more levels of scout got you even the ability to identify rare treess or +1 to Stealth while it's raining, you could argue it, but there really is nothing there in this case.

Quote from: pawsplay;344497I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. After 1st level, there is never a reason to choose Scout levels over Soldier except Scout talents. It doesn't matter if you are talking about a 2nd level character or an 11th level one, Soldier is always correct and Scout is always incorrect, except for a corner case where a second Scout talent (that was considered inessential for portraying the character at 1st level) is desired before taking a level in Force Adept. There are very few cases where a Talent is needed in Star Wars after about third level or so to cover any given package of abilities.

The only reason to use Scout is so you can write Scout 7/Force Adept at the top of the character sheet. Further levels of scout do not add any more scoutiness. Unless your intention is simply to further perpetuate the myth that a Force user should be something other than a Jedi or Soldier for more than one or two levels, you are just doing it wrong.

If you are designing a Rogue and you want them to be a pickpocket, you put some points in pickpocketing, period. If you want to make a Force Acept in Star Wars Saga Edition, you take Force talents, period. Taking Scout levels would be a deliberate nerf.

The fact that you would argue otherwise suggests either 1) you don't play Saga very much, 2) you have but you really haven't thought that hard about what more than one level of Scout gets someone who doesn't take Scout talents, or 3) you feel NPCs should be deliberately weakened for no in-game or out-of-game rationale. Taking levels of Scout "because he's a Scout" in this case would be equivalent to making a D&D 3.5 fighter who takes Weapon Focus for every single one of his feats because "he's an expert in all weapons."

Also, just as a side note, designing an NPC level by level, as if they leveled, only makes sense if you have a reason to suspect you would need to reverse engineer them at some point. The makes sense for a Star Wars writeup, that makes almost no sense for a fiddly 3.5 writeup where it's easier to adjust their allies or plan on adding levels rather than substracting them.

I think, basically, you misunderstand my objection. The disconnect is that, if you were a SWSE designer and you wrote up a Scout 7/Force Adept 1, then you also would be pointlessly nerfing the NPC while adding nothing of any game or roleplaying utility, and not realizing it. If more levels of scout got you even the ability to identify rare treess or +1 to Stealth while it's raining, you could argue it, but there really is nothing there in this case.

You do realize, don't you, that you're just supporting my position?

Every point you make in your post is from a viewpoint of min/max "effectiveness". By making a statement that "X is always correct, Y is always incorrect" you're thinking solely in terms of builds and stats... the end result.

From p35 the SWSE rulebook:

QuoteDon't think of a class as restrictive; instead, a class is defining. When you choose a class for your character, you're laying the foundation of a concept that will grow and expand as you play.

That certainly sounds like it's more than a simple decision based on access to skills and talents. Or at least, the designers thought so.

And since I have no idea if you've written material for games professionally, I will point out that sometimes editors/developers require you submit level-by-level writeups of NPCs so that they can be double-checked for accuracy.

I have noticed this in other games/systems, but I really wish Exalted had this problem.  Even a twinked-out party of Solars with a fang or two of Dragon-Blooded soldiers and maybe some mortal troops can't beat a Deathlord head-on.  The current designers are trying to fix this, along with the myriad of other "lolwut?" design decisions the earlier design teams made.

Quote from: jdurall;344512You do realize, don't you, that you're just supporting my position?

Inconceivable!

QuoteEvery point you make in your post is from a viewpoint of min/max "effectiveness". By making a statement that "X is always correct, Y is always incorrect" you're thinking solely in terms of builds and stats... the end result.

Is there some other way to judge a stat block other than how the goal and the end result?

QuoteFrom p35 the SWSE rulebook:

Don't think of a class as restrictive; instead, a class is defining. When you choose a class for your character, you're laying the foundation of a concept that will grow and expand as you play.

That certainly sounds like it's more than a simple decision based on access to skills and talents. Or at least, the designers thought so.

The concept of a Force Adept is a primitive user of the Force. Additional Scout levels add zero to that concept. Scout levels do not increase scout skills or any other kind of scoutliness.

You have been deceived by the name "Scout" into thinking the Scout is superior to other choices for creating a nature-based character. However, that is basically incorrect. The only thing a Scout supplies in that regard is access to the Survival skill. Thus, one level will suffice to make any character nature-oriented.

After that, if you are talking about concept... well, Soldier talents are superior for strong melee fighters or very tough barbarian types, Scoundrel talents are superior for sneaky archers, Noble talents are better for leading your tribe into battle, and Force talents are, naturally, the ideal choice for a student of the Force. The Scout talents involves mainly perception, information, stealth, and skill expertise. Since a Force Adept does not necessarily use any of those abilities to a great extent, Scout is conceptually incorrect, unless your Force adept is weaker at the force and stronger at tracking, sneaking, and so forth.

Given the choice between two equally valid options, I see no reason not to choose the simpler choice. The simpler choice is higher BAB and more hit points. I can think of no justification for extra Scout levels.

QuoteAnd since I have no idea if you've written material for games professionally, I will point out that sometimes editors/developers require you submit level-by-level writeups of NPCs so that they can be double-checked for accuracy.

I do have a handful of writing credits, but I have no idea what such editorial policies have to do with this discussion, except to underscore how inexplicable it is that so many stat blocks are terrible.

Bottom line: Force Adept is the character's true archetype. The best, simplest, and most effective way to get there is via multiclassing. Taking one level of Scout provides Survival. Having more than one base class means more Talents. Since this build reflects a simple, elegant, and effective build for such a character, I can't imagine why you would do it otherwise.

Unless, of course, you just want to deliberately nerf an NPC. There are many ways to do that, of course. Illogical class choices that confuse metagame concepts like class names with actual core classes would be one method. Why not just cut to the chase and make the NPC lower level instead of deliberately complicating the character in order to make them weaker? You can say, "Oh, but they're a Scout!" But, in fact, they are not. They are not a Scout to any extent beyond wanting Survival as a skill. If you want both Survival and social skills, like a shaman or something, you'll probably want Scout 1/Noble 1, which makes it even more pointless and self-defeating to take non-Jedi, non-Soldier levels.

You do realize that, other than the quote from the rulebook, I haven't written a single word about SWSE?

...I don't own the game nor have I ever played the game. However, any game that has a Scout class that is not essential in being a Scout has failed in that matter.