I was really thinking about NPCs, and how they might be run differently than PCs. As a PC, there is a tendency to be conservative about powers, like spells and special abilities. We try to hang on to them, waiting for an optimum time to use them, or the right level of fear or desperation to strike. But if you run an NPC that way, with the quickness of most battles, you're likely to leave powers out there unused. It seems more likely that they'll blast you right off with a fireball, then run down their list doing as much damage as they can. It might be more logical for them to play like a PC, make defensive moves, wait for the right opportunity to exploit, but what fun is a Wizard NPC that dies without blasting off its carefully prepared spell list.
I guess there would be reason to be selective if you intended to use the character as a recurring NPC, but even then, unless you wanted to use it over and again during the course of one day, you could reload it however you wanted anyway between uses. It's hard to envision a situation where you wouldn't just let the party have everything you had from round one.
One balancing factor should be that a party of NPCs should match pretty evenly with a party of PCs, making them more difficult to overcome than an ordinary "monster" and allowing the fight to draw out, but they don't seem to play out that way often. I don't know if it is a question of mismatched party strength, say four 3rd level characters against three 2nd level NPCs, or underdeveloped NPCs, but my sense is that they resolve about as quickly as any fight. I think we have a tendency to fear harming our characters, and so underplay encounters to protect them from death or severe damage. I noticed myself being tempted to do this with Thomas' character, and had to remind myself that going to zero HP isn't fatal, it is unconsciousness.
Perhaps pulling the stops would open up the need for PCs to pull the stops on themselves as well, gobbling up resources to survive the fight and come out on top. That poses an interesting question: what if we ran a party of PCs against their own doppelgängers to see just how explosive a battle could be had? Prep potions, scrolls, etc., go in full on, and do everything to survive while destroying the opponent. We note how brief fights tend to be, but what if you had a balanced set of opponents, using every available resource to fight as long a battle as possible? How long could it go? How would it look after the typical two or three rounds?
This raising a couple points. First - that with PCs (or NPCs), there are considerations that don't always apply with monsters. The role-playing comes in - the world building. What are the consequences for fighting other men (in the broad sense or any humanoid race)? Just the fact that monsters are outside the law in some ways - at least we assume they are. Orcs are raiders, not subject to whatever law the characters might be subject to. That always changes how PCs and NPCs interact.
ReplyDeleteAnd secondly - one thing that's interesting about humans (and elves, dwarves, etc) is that it is harder to know what you are facing. Not just in the sense of the law, or the possible ties they might have - but just the ability to recognize a 7th level fighter from a 3rd level fighter. That makes another place you can create plots and stories, too - and force role playing and broader thinking about situations...
Finally, dropping all those considerations and just bringing out the swords - I don't know how it would go. I've played some tests, but usually deliberately mismatching levels - running 2 fifth levels against 4 3rd, or running a 9th against 5 thugs or guards. I'm not sure what would happen with two evenly matched parties against once another. In theory, I would think it would force characters to try to think more - turn it into a match of tactics and strategy. I don't knw if that works, though. At lower levels, I think combat is too lethal - it comes down to dice rolling - who hits first. But once they get to 4th, 5th level, have the hit points to take a couple shots, and so on - it might turn into more of a tactical battle. In 4E, evenly matched groups tended to turn to tactics - and if tactics matched, to dice. 5E might go the same - of course, to find out you have to play different tactics... But it makes an interesting question.