God, I'm mad at Wizards.

[Moral Wiz]

Because that one wizard is a hero, and heroes don't follow the same rules that everyone else does. Achilles, for instance. Classical hero (well, antihero, depending on who you talk to). Did not follow the same rules that everyone else did, as he was nigh-invincible but for his fateful heel. See also: Jason, Odysseus, Paris, Hector, Gilgamesh, Conan, Loki...

But that was explained as a god's favor, magical item or something, right? Not him inherently greater being above others. You're examples seem mostly to me to be 3.5 PCs; the best of the best, but working on the same system.

Because he works harder? Because he's more dedicated? Because he was born with more natural talent? Because he had better teachers? Because his motivations were pure?

See, all these explanations work regardless of what system you play. They even work in a systemless game or even a novel.

Whereas if we go for a D&D exclusive explanation it becomes: because he was built using LogicNinja's guide to wizards. So in my view, justifying power levels based exclusively on the rules actually hurts empathy and immersion.

That seems to me to be saying "They are the best of the best; one day you may become like them" Not "They are beyond us puny mortals" They sound like they are better, but still use the same system.

[Rutee]

Personally, I have never followed that for either reason. None the less, with sentient races

By all means, finish your thought. I know what that's like.

I'm... not entirly sure what you're saying here.

You were saying that giving monsters class levels gives them more potential. That's flatly untrue though, compared to 4ed. The simple fact is, if Monsters in 3.5e have sets A and B to choose from, of book advancement, and 4e monsters have A and B, and on top oft hat, C, 4e monsters have more potential, because /they have lost nothing/ compared to their previous counter parts.

AFAIK, 4th ed uses a totally different system for NPCs.

That would be pretty stupid, really, but I'm pretty sure that they still use d20s for their skill checks, still follow, as a whole, the same basic rules the PCs follow, etc. Srsly, pics or it didn't happen, on this count. Different stat generation, yes, but what those stats mean 'should' be the same for PCs and NPCs.

But that applying to everyone in the world but the party? You are telling me that wouldn't be alienating?

That everyone has taken different routes to attain power? I can't speak for everyone, but that doesn't really alienate me one iota.

But that was explained as a god's favor, magical item or something, right? Not him inherently greater being above others. You're examples seem mostly to me to be 3.5 PCs; the best of the best, but working on the same system.

Well, Scion may have ruined my memory on this, but I'm pretty sure Achilles was a demigod to start with, and STARTED OFF Better then everyone, with being dipped in the river styx just adding to this. You're actually missing the point. Mechanically, this person is better then everyone. It is not difficult to come up with reasons for why this would be.

[Fax Celestis]

But that was explained as a god's favor, magical item or something, right? Not him inherently greater being above others. You're examples seem mostly to me to be 3.5 PCs; the best of the best, but working on the same system.

Not in all cases. It runs the whole spectrum: one one hand, Achilles got dipped in the river Styx and thereby gained invincibility; on the other, Odysseus was just remarkably clever, as was Loki (originally).

And in any case, tell me how a system like this makes NPCs any less interesting, dynamic, or valid.

[Moral Wiz]

Not in all cases. It runs the whole spectrum: one one hand, Achilles got dipped in the river Styx and thereby gained invincibility; on the other, Odysseus was just remarkably clever, as was Loki (originally).

Loki was a god, no?

Odysseus... well, the gods involved themselves there; and I don't reacll anything outright impossible for anyone else to do.

Achilles... well, that basicly gave him a very powerful artifact IMO.

[Fax Celestis]

Loki was a god, no?

Odysseus... well, the gods involved themselves there; and I don't reacll anything outright impossible for anyone else to do.

Achilles... well, that basicly gave him a very powerful artifact IMO.

Loki did not start out as a god, no. Loki became a god because he tricked a god into making him divine. Odysseus never actually had direct divine involvement. Achilles had no artifact: he got dipped in the River of Death. Also, you missed the other half of my statement.

[Daimbert]

Wow... talk about putting your conclusions in front of your data...

Actually, it's surprisingly strongly the other way around, or at least can be: what would be the prime candidate for something that could either perceive everything at once or start perceiving something the instant everyone else stops perceiving it? And would want to? Well, something with omniscience that created the world would be a good start. Hmmmm. What fit that criteria at the time? [grin].

The argument doesn't WORK, of course ... but it's a surprisingly good one that a lot of people miss when reading him.

[Moral Wiz]

By all means, finish your thought. I know what that's like.

Certainly. Sentient races have almost always advanced in class levels as that creates more interesting characters, both from mechanics, and a background perspective.

You were saying that giving monsters class levels gives them more potential. That's flatly untrue though, compared to 4ed. The simple fact is, if Monsters in 3.5e have sets A and B to choose from, of book advancement, and 4e monsters have A and B, and on top oft hat, C, 4e monsters have more potential, because /they have lost nothing/ compared to their previous counter parts.

We're not arguing this point (I think. Don't quote me. When this makes a conclusion that wrecks my argument, I'll come back to you. ).

That would be pretty stupid, really, but I'm pretty sure that they still use d20s for their skill checks, still follow, as a whole, the same basic rules the PCs follow, etc. Srsly, pics or it didn't happen, on this count. Different stat generation, yes, but what those stats mean 'should' be the same for PCs and NPCs.

And different modes of advancment. They have as much similarity to the PCs as the monsters do AFAIK.

That everyone has taken different routes to attain power? I can't speak for everyone, but that doesn't really alienate me one iota.

Alienation is more subtle. There is such a thing as the subconcious.

Besides we haven't seen the structure of 4th edition NPCs. We can't make definitive statments (Yes, I'm guilty of it too. So sue me. ;D) We're working on passing comments.

Well, Scion may have ruined my memory on this, but I'm pretty sure Achilles was a demigod to start with, and STARTED OFF Better then everyone, with being dipped in the river styx just adding to this. You're actually missing the point. Mechanically, this person is better then everyone. It is not difficult to come up with reasons for why this would be.

Err...

I think you're memory is messed up. Then again, my classics are rusty. Help?

And are you saying all PCs should be at Achilles' level?

[LibraryOgre]

Actually, it's surprisingly strongly the other way around, or at least can be: what would be the prime candidate for something that could either perceive everything at once or start perceiving something the instant everyone else stops perceiving it? And would want to? Well, something with omniscience that created the world would be a good start. Hmmmm. What fit that criteria at the time? [grin].

The problem with the argument is that it proceeds from an unsupported conclusion: that objects must be continually perceived in order to exist. It's so deeply rooted in that unsupported premise that if you remove it, you have nothing to support the idea, and your entire framework collapses.

[Fax Celestis]

And are you saying all PCs should be at Achilles' level?

I'm saying that the PCs are heroes/antiheroes. Maybe not to the level of Achilles, but, fundamentally as heroes, they're better than the rest of the populace. 3.5 did the same thing with NPCs: DMs were supposed to use the 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 (the Commoner) array for any and all NPCs except for extremely significant characters. It provided NPC classes that were basically trash when they came to mechanics because they had nothing that a PC class didn't also have. It even denigrated the income of an NPC to a die roll/fixed rate over a course of time instead of actually working out the math.

Despite their being more NPCs than PCs in any given world, the PCs have and need more attention on them. If the DM were to sit down and perform the day-to-day routine for an NPC, and if there were a metric ton of special PrCs for commoners-only that 99 times out of 100 would never see the light of actual play by a player, and if there were spells and feats and other options available to only NPCs, DMs wouldn't do it because it'd take too much time. The NPC system is a standby and a placeholder for what could be, so that a DM can get to doing something more important, like developing a plot.

[Moral Wiz]

Loki did not start out as a god, no. Loki became a god because he tricked a god into making him divine. Odysseus never actually had direct divine involvement. Achilles had no artifact: he got dipped in the River of Death. Also, you missed the other half of my statement.

Is there anything there that could not have been done by anyone, if possessing similar skills?

And commenting on the system that you designed is not something that I care to enter into. Besides, it is basically the same system. Many alternate rules, but the same system.

[Rutee]

Certainly. Sentient races have almost always advanced in class levels as that creates more interesting characters, both from mechanics, and a background perspective.

It only creates more interesting characters from a background perspective if you genuinely believe you need a class to have a character. Is the important part that the Wizard has the number on his character sheet denoting "Wizard levels" increase by one, or that the Wizard's study of the arcane has lead him to become even more competent with it? The former means yes, you NEED the class advancement. The latter means you just need, if anything, more potent arcane abilities.

We're not arguing this point (I think. Don't quote me. When this makes a conclusion that wrecks my argument, I'll come back to you. ).

I accept your apology

And different modes of advancment. They have as much similarity to the PCs as the monsters do AFAIK.

Yes. Yes they do. That is in fact my entire point. You're claiming, or behaving in such a way as to indicate, that different advancement mechanics = COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM. No, it doesn't. It means your stats increase in a different method. THat's /all/ it means.

Alienation is more subtle. There is such a thing as the subconcious.

Different roads to power is almost a FEATURE of most of the fiction I /like/. I'm pretty sure this doesn't bother me, seriously.

[quote]Besides we haven't seen the structure of 4th edition NPCs. We can't make definitive statments (Yes, I'm guilty of it too. So sue me. ;D) We're working on passing comments.

Err...

I think you're memory is messed up. Then again, my classics are rusty. Help?

And are you saying all PCs should be at Achilles' level?

Why do people keep putting those words in my mouth? God almighty, some people's children. While I wouldn't mind that one bit, what I'm saying is that the end mechanical result (Person X is a better specimen of his species then 95% of all NPCs, at least) can be arrived at through multiple fluff routes.

Also, half wrong. He was the son of a mortal and a Nymph, not a God, and very mighty.

He was /better/ then a Demigod though (Hector)

[Daimbert]

The problem with the argument is that it proceeds from an unsupported conclusion: that objects must be continually perceived in order to exist. It's so deeply rooted in that unsupported premise that if you remove it, you have nothing to support the idea, and your entire framework collapses.

Well, I can't explain it all here (you'd have to read his work) but it was based on Berkeley accepting empiricism -- that all we know exists we know through the senses -- and the rejection of materialism because OF empiricism; we have no reason to think that matter exists because we can't perceive it. What we perceive we know and it needs nothing underneath it for us to have that knowledge, and he argued that "matter" was not perceivable. Add to that the rejection that ANY properties of an object are perceived the same regardless of perspective -- ie small things see size, for example, differently than big things do -- and you're pretty much there.

Again, it's WRONG, because that strong of an empiricism is wrong ... but it certainly wasn't an unsupported premise, at least at the time.

[Moral Wiz]

I'm saying that the PCs are heroes/antiheroes. Maybe not to the level of Achilles, but, fundamentally as heroes, they're better than the rest of the populace. 3.5 did the same thing with NPCs: DMs were supposed to use the 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 (the Commoner) array for any and all NPCs except for extremely significant characters. It provided NPC classes that were basically trash when they came to mechanics because they had nothing that a PC class didn't also have. It even denigrated the income of an NPC to a die roll/fixed rate over a course of time instead of actually working out the math.

Despite their being more NPCs than PCs in any given world, the PCs have and need more attention on them. If the DM were to sit down and perform the day-to-day routine for an NPC, and if there were a metric ton of special PrCs for commoners-only that 99 times out of 100 would never see the light of actual play by a player, and if there were spells and feats and other options available to only NPCs, DMs wouldn't do it because it'd take too much time. The NPC system is a standby and a placeholder for what could be, so that a DM can get to doing something more important, like developing a plot.

I agree with the basic point, in the fact that PCs are better than most NPCs. But are they different? Do they use an entirely alternate system? No.

I'm not arguing about the superiority of PC's (though I would argue it, but it's off topic) I'm arguing that they should work in fundamentally the same way, prehaps with less power, but also with potential for advancement, and the capacity to be the same as PCs.

AFAIK; NPCs now work on an entirly different system. Their power is not what concerns me, more the fact that they work entirely differently (apparently)

[Fax Celestis]

Is there anything there that could not have been done by anyone, if possessing similar skills?

And commenting on the system that you designed is not something that I care to enter into. Besides, it is basically the same system. Many alternate rules, but the same system.

And what makes you think that WotC will not be doing something similar for NPCs? Show me proof and I'll eat my words, but dollars to doughnuts says that they're doing something similar for NPCs in 4e to what they did in 3e.

[Moral Wiz]

And what makes you think that WotC will not be doing something similar for NPCs? Show me proof and I'll eat my words, but dollars to doughnuts says that they're doing something similar for NPCs in 4e to what they did in 3e.

I agree. If they do, I have no problem, and it is a possibility. But them not doing such a thing is also a possibly, from what we've been told. It's the second possibility I've been arguing against. If it is, basically, the NPC class system with a lick of paint, I'll be happy. But the system as it might be is enough of a concern that I am arguing at length.

[Fax Celestis]

I agree. If they do, I have no problem, and it is a possibility. But them not doing such a thing is also a possibly, from what we've been told. It's the second possibility I've been arguing against. If it is, basically, the NPC class system with a lick of paint, I'll be happy. But the system as it might be is enough of a concern that I am arguing at length.

Mind showing me where you got this idea from? I might be better able to quell your fears if so.

[thevorpalbunny]

The part that really annoys me is that your best friend who studied along with you under your master/fought alongside you with the mercenary company/ grew up on the streets with you
and who learned all the same lessons and is supposed to do the same thing is fundamentally different because you are a PC and he isn't. No mater how much characterization he gets, he doesn't have the same powers as you at the same level. He can be at the same level (probably) or have the same powers (possibly) but not both (almost certainly). He can be a myrmidon, but only you can be Ajax, Odysseus, or Hector.

Also, Odysseus never did anything special other than be on Athena's good side and violently piss off Poseidon. His great deeds were all done with divine help. (This includes the horse, which only worked with Poseidon's help.)

[Fax Celestis]

Also, Odysseus never did anything special other than be on Athena's good side and violently piss off Poseidon. His great deeds were all done with divine help. (This includes the horse, which only worked with Poseidon's help.)

I'll be forced to disagree, but that's really an argument for another thread.

[Neon Knight]

Going back a page or two to respond to Mr. Daimbert.

Spoiler

Show

This only works for NPCs that the party will never see again, or for NPCs that, after they leave, will never have an impact on any part of the world that the PCs might encounter. If that isn't the case, then it isn't a waste of thought, since knowing what they would do and how they would do it allows the DM to build up consistency in the story. Inconsistencies break suspension of disbelief, to varying degrees for different people. For example, I could never really get into the movie "Memento". Why? Because I didn't believe that someone with the obvious problems of the main character would be allowed to walk around alone in society. I had the same problem with "Star Trek: Enterprise"; I couldn't see how they could get from there to the Original Series.

I'm probably an extreme case, but it does matter to most people that the world be consistent.

Consistency is a subjective perception. The nature of reality itself, let alone how it functions, is massively debated, and not just in a metaphysical sense. Pop culture has so colored what people think is real and what isn't that consciously attempting to create perfect or even high level consistency or verisimilitude is a forlorn hope at best, in my experience. You can hope for, at best, a moderate level, with many abstractions.

Also, I agree that most people enjoy some verisimilitude or consistency. Just not total. They make allowances.

Spoiler

Show

And the author does that by, in fact, generating back story, and a personality, and running the character forward through events if they think it might matter to the plot. In a book, it's easy for them to do since they control if it matters to the plot or not. In an RPG, it isn't so easy, since the DM has to answer questions from the players as to why it would be the case that someone who was sent to go off and warn the main fortress about an attack -- for example -- never did, or why the fortress doesn't act alarmed, or why the person is there but the fortress isn't on a war footing, etc, etc. The DM ALSO has to deal with players ASSUMING that the NPC would act a certain way, and acting accordingly. If the DM doesn't have a logical and detectable explanation for why that character would do something else, the players will grumble.

If the players want a game where they psychoanalyze the motives of all the major PCs, then by all means oblige them. There are plenty of ways to explain it, however.

And if my players got upset at me because they assumed, then I'd tell them the old adage assume makes an Ass out of u and me. Never assume, for too often do your assumptions prove false, constructed from your limited perspective and biases.

Spoiler

Show

So that the players can figure out how to deal with them without having to have the DM explain PRECISELY how their characters work outside of the game world.

Think about it this way. You could have this conversation in-game:

Player: "How did you do that?"
Villain: "I'm a cleric of [fill in god here]."

At that point, the players pretty much know what they're dealing with. On the other hand:

Player: "How did you do that?"
Villain: "I'm a, uh, uh ..."
DM: "He's a goblin that I gave the ability to cast Cure spells to and turn undead and wildshape, but that's all I gave him. I think. Well, until I decide that he needs something else."

Why didn't the DM just have the villain say "Die, human!" and keep attacking? Why would the villain give information to his enemies?

Besides, the player's don't have to know what they're dealing with. A bit of mystery adds suspense and a bit of tension. You fear must what you don't know or understand.

You seem to act like the PCs have access to a bunch of information or the right to know information that is really more the purview of the DM, like the build of the villian. The PCs deserve to know two things: The information I provide in game, and their character. Everything else is mine, to keep as solid or flexible as I, the DM, desire.

Spoiler

Show

This is all true, but it doesn't impact your argument the way you think it does. They exist to be perceived by players, but players demand consistency in their world. And players can control what they perceive and what they ask about. So creating a living world MEANS keeping the world living and going even when the players aren't directly watching it, or else the players will notice that the world is flat, dull and unchanging ... like the worlds players COMPLAIN about in CRPGs.

Firstly, not all players demand consistency in their world. I have run a psychedelic type game that the players seemed to find very enjoyable.

Secondly, as a DM, I control what they perceive. I tell them what they see, what they find, where they are. And I can construct whatever barriers I see fit to restrain them, and I can do it in a way that can protect your precious consistency/verisimilitude.

Thirdly, I find this obsession with verisimilitude/consistency to be odd. You have no guarantee that the real world will remain consistent. Tomorrow the sun could be purple and I could be a woman. Odds are extremely low, but there is no guarantee.

Spoiler

Show

But the DM had better have a VERY good reason for that personality change, because the players are going to ask and try to find out why ... and if the answer is "Just because" they are going to get very upset. When these sorts of inconsistencies happen in novels we get mad, toss the book against the wall, and stop reading it. Players in RPGs aren't likely to be as happy.

You don't answer "Just because." You answer, "Why did he do it? Why did Tend Bundy and Charles Manson kill their victims? Can anyone really say? Ultimately, a man's mind is his greatest secret." Some things are unknowable. Many mysteries and motives remain unsolved in real life; why not in fantasy? Your characters aren't here to therapeutically counsel the villain, they're here to stop him. Unless all they want to do is psychoanalyze. Then they can play a free form game as psychiatrists.

Spoiler

Show

Yes, but that makes sense; they chose a different profession that better suited their needs, which happens in the real world as well. A far cry from "make up the rules as you go along" and "they should always start and be less powerful than the PC, even if they're supposed to be stronger" types of things.

No it doesn't. Why is a Fighter better than a Warrior? There isn't anything better in the Fighter's training; The background indicates that Fighters come from the same places Warriors do. They're just better because they are PCs.

It only makes sense to you because you have accepted it.

Spoiler

Show

I have to disagree that the system does not affect RP. The only way you can say that is to say that the system does not impact the world at all. Sure, you're right in the sense that the underlying base level mechanics -- how damage is determined, what dice and how many you roll, etc, etc -- don't really impact the world. But how things generally work DOES. If you have a supervillain attacking you -- using M&M as an example -- that is considered to be at a certain power level (or should be, based on back story) and they have higher levels of skills or powers than should be allowed at that level, players will generally cry foul; the enemy is stronger than they are or would be and is better at doing things that they'd do at that level. But the converse is WORSE, and really heavily affects RP: if the character does NOT have abilities that they should have at that power level, the players will think that they're stupid, even if you are trying to portray them as cold, calculating and ruthless. A DM or GM can fix that by giving them a back story where the difference makes sense and works.

Basically, how the world works has to be consistent so that players won't lose their suspension of disbelief, and role playing only occurs where players suspend disbelief, at least for a moment, and act as their CHARACTERS would act. To any extent where the system impacts the world, it adds or subtracts from consistency, and adds or subtracts from immersion, and thus impacts role playing.

(BTW, does this count as proving that RP is affected [grin]?)

So your verisimilitude/consistency is assured by metagaming knowledge? I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, for I find that line of thinking paradoxical in the extreme.

Personally, I believe that the player's attitude towards the game is more important than the game itself. The effort they put into believing or not believing your world is more important than the world itself.

Spoiler

Show

It's really a shame that Berkeley didn't actually argue for that, but instead argued against it since it was ridiculous.

It was a joke, man. I know what George Berkley believed. It's funnier this way, trust me. Even you have to admit humor is allowed to break consistency. Heck, breaking the fourth wall is one of the oldest gags in the book.

Mr. Daimbert, I respect your opinion, and for the most part understand where you come from. Not long ago, I was not so dissimilar from you. I no longer feel the way you do, however.

I am not against verisimilitude when it supports the goal of the game and pleases the players, and I will not sacrifice the player's enjoyment and the goal of the game for the sake of verisimilitude.

Consider it fudging reality instead of a dice roll, if you have to justify it metagamingly.

How should I sum up my feelings? With a song, perhaps!

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
(La La La!)
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax

Yup. That'll do.

[Mewtarthio]

The part that really annoys me is that your best friend who studied along with you under your master/fought alongside you with the mercenary company/ grew up on the streets with you
and who learned all the same lessons and is supposed to do the same thing is fundamentally different because you are a PC and he isn't. No mater how much characterization he gets, he doesn't have the same powers as you at the same level. He can be at the same level (probably) or have the same powers (possibly) but not both (almost certainly). He can be a myrmidon, but only you can be Ajax, Odysseus, or Hector.

Alright, then stat him up as a PC. Is there anything inherently wrong with using whatever streamlined Kwik-NPC system that comes with 4e to quickly generate miscellaneous NPCs, saving the trouble of statting out ten class levels for characters who'll actually use those skills? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're making the Bandit King so that the PCs can fight him for a few rounds before killing him, never to see him again, then there's not much of a point in giving his character sheet the same amount of attention you'd give a new PC. Conversely, if someone's intended to be a major recurring character, you might want to prepare all his powers in advance.

[Farmer42]

Edit: See above post for a better example that beat me to the punch.

[Collin152]

Well, the same description could be applied to Tieflings, too... At least, the old tieflings, not this mumbo jumbo... Sure, some devils/demons could just lure the human into mating, or maybe some zealots willingly did it, but it doesn't mean the rapes weren't involved... The only difference is, as I see it, that people usually hate orcs/half orcs and fear Tieflings (who would want to mess with an offspring of a devil?), and for the same reason hate them too, but this is just more cooler :D

Tieflings at least get cool powres from being bastards. Half Orcs get nada, bupkis.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Look at the illustration for Bloodhound from the Complete Adventurer and try and play anything, anything, but a Half Orc for weeks. You can't do it without feeling lame. If you say you can, I will simply believe you are lying.

[Collin152]

That's how I always try to picture my Half-Orcs. All the other pictures make them look unintelligent and uncharismatic, but really strong, and nothing else.

Waiiiiiiiiit a second...

[Cybren]

There are multiple stories about how Achilles became invincible, but it's important to remember that in his most famous appearance, the Illiad, he was not invincible at all. A good portion of the poem concerns itself with the fact that Achilles did not have his armor so he could not fight.

Also: was Loki not a giant? Anyway, Norse gods are decidedly less 'divine' than those of other cultures. They were not only capable of dying, but quite aware of the fact.

Regardless, having some level of stats for NPCs I think is important because I don't like to foster the "we're better than everyone else" mentality that most players get, and most people call shenanigans if they run into a shop keeper who happens to be a sorcerer.

[Siberys]

And who says gnomes areN'T cool have never seen Zilargo.

Fixed it for ya.

[Fax Celestis]

There are multiple stories about how Achilles became invincible, but it's important to remember that in his most famous appearance, the Illiad, he was not invincible at all. A good portion of the poem concerns itself with the fact that Achilles did not have his armor so he could not fight.

Also: was Loki not a giant? Anyway, Norse gods are decidedly less 'divine' than those of other cultures. They were not only capable of dying, but quite aware of the fact.

I do believe you missed my point.

Regardless, having some level of stats for NPCs I think is important because I don't like to foster the "we're better than everyone else" mentality that most players get, and most people call shenanigans if they run into a shop keeper who happens to be a sorcerer.

If your players call shenanigans on that, hit them with a book. There's no reason one can't be a merchant and a spellcaster.

[Cybren]

I do believe you missed my point.


If your players call shenanigans on that, hit them with a book. There's no reason one can't be a merchant and a spellcaster.

It somewhat disputed your point that Achilles didn't follow the same rules as everyone else when the most well known and one of the only surviving works about him, he did. (Besides, being a badass didn't require super powers or divine lineages in Greek myth, look at Diomedes. now HE was jawsome)

[Fax Celestis]

It somewhat disputed your point that Achilles didn't follow the same rules as everyone else when the most well known and one of the only surviving works about him, he did. (Besides, being a badass didn't require super powers or divine lineages in Greek myth, look at Diomedes. now HE was jawsome)

No, no, my point was not about Achilles or any other mythical legend in particular, but more that despite being people like those around them they still didn't play by the same rules--even if it's something so simple as Ajax's size, he's still different in some manner.

[Farmer42]

They call shenanigans when they enter shop, in theory to buy some weird, mystical, arcane doodad, and when the person selling it to them is an arcanist? Where do they think these things come from? A ring of wishes? Oh, wait... Even your average weapons shop could have a sorcerer there, if for no other reason to call shenanigans on customers who feel the need to buy their goods with a Charm Monster spell, instead of paying.