Rules don't apply to me. I'm an NPC.

[Mike_G]

I wanted to start a discussion about how many of us ignore the character building rules for NPC's, and to what extent.

For instance, does anyone actually make the village smith or senior librarian go out adventuring to gain more skill points? Can the king exceed Wealth by Level?


I personally think it's nuts to assume that the elderly chief librarian is a Expert 10+, with a better BAB and more HP that a sergeant of the guard, who is a Warrior 2 or 3. I do use the Warrior NPC class for guards, basic soldiers and such, but my noncombat NPC's have HP, skills and combat stats that make sense by concept, not RAW.

For instance, the head librarian in the capital of the most advanced city would routinely make DC 30 knowledge checks, but if you attacked him, he'd have like 2 HP and no attack bonus. A farmer should be harder to kill.

The King has Nifty Stuff that his ancestors handed down, regardless of his class level. He is the level that I need him to be, regardless of how many kobolds he's killed.

That goes for all NPC's, actually. Adventurers get better by adventuring. Bartenders get better by bartending.

My PCs run into appropriate challenges. For some reason, the 1st level party never gets ambushed by Mind Flayers, and the high level parties never run into three goblins in a 10 x 10 room guarding a chest of copper pieces. If they return to an old tunnel complex they visited 10 levels ago, the goblin tribe there has been displaced by Drow. I'm not saying they are contractually guaranteed four challenges per day of exactly their level, but they won't run into stuff they couldn't theoretically handle or stuff that they could beat in there sleep.

And so on.

I'm not interested in what the books say. I can read, so don't feel the need to cite examples. I'm interested in how others run their games.

[Morty]

That depends. I normally don't bother with changing HP and BAB for NPC noncombatants, because the chances of PCs fighting them are pretty slim. And even then, the problem isn't very big, since a 10th level Expert has no chance against a 5th level PC of any class. The only thing wrong here would be that he or she would be too tough - not very much though, given that you don't have to give an NPC max HP each level and his Con score doesn't have to be high.
As for WBL, I agree that it should only be used when the NPC is supposed to make for a balanced encounter - and even then, it might only represent what he or she uses, not owns. It's logical for a wealthy noble to have more money than a PC who's higher level than him.

[R. Shackleford]

NPCs not following the same character rules as PC is part of Rule 0, and shouldn't violate reasonable suspension of disbelief unless the player pointing it out is a jerk.

Though I think in my case, the NPCs sometimes manage to circumvent the puzzles/traps/monsters that the Party encounters, which causes annoyance to them. I just don't like to play DMPCs. So I might be on the opposite extreme.

Otherwise, they end up trying to kill an NPC which would bork the story too much.

[Crafty Cultist]

NPCs probably get roleplaying XP for their day to day activities. not much mind you, but it adds up over time

[oxybe]

my npcs have all the money, knowledge & power that plot dictates.

the scholar doesn't roll knowledges, he knows things. or he doesn't.

the king & merchants have all the gold, silver & copper they need to keep D&D's not existent economy working.

guards/enemies come in 3 levels:

one-hit wonders/mooks/minions.
just tough enough to pose a viable threat.
"heh. those "adventurers" think they're tough... "

etcetera. really, the only things i bother to stat are things i expect the PCs to kill.

[jmbrown]

The level 10 librarian expert may be more skilled than the level 3 warrior constable, but the librarian isn't going to be fighting anyone unless conscripted. If someone wants to be a rules lawyer about it then I'd say he'd have the "noncombatant" flaw in exchange for skill focus profession.

Regardless, statting NPCs is something you do when it's actually necessary. Nobody cares what level Farmer Joe is unless he gets into a fight and even then he'll fall in a few hits.

[Mike_G]

my npcs have all the money, knowledge & power that plot dictates.

the scholar doesn't roll knowledges, he knows things. or he doesn't.

the king & merchants have all the gold, silver & copper they need to keep D&D's not existent economy working.

guards/enemies come in 3 levels:

one-hit wonders/mooks/minions.
just tough enough to pose a viable threat.
"heh. those "adventurers" think they're tough... "

etcetera. really, the only things i bother to stat are things i expect the PCs to kill.

That's largely how I DM, but prevailing posts here seem to say that people do otherwise. I wanted a sampling.

[Surgo]

I follow all the rules for NPCs to the exact same extent I do to the PCs.

But WBL doesn't make any sense to begin with, so that's out the window. Of course, it's the same for the PCs so I guess that doesn't change anything.

That said, the only statted things are the things the PCs encounter.

[Zincorium]

Account for changes to how a character works with how you reward the PCs for succeeding at besting them. That should solve problems.

Having a level three character that can instantly kill members of your fifth level party, then upon it's (narrow) defeat only giving them experience and treasure for a CR 3 opponent? That's what can't be justified.

The most you should ever have to do is claim that an ability is a feat or prestige class that the characters can't meet the prerequisites for for fluff reasons. And if they seriously want to try and meet the fluff pre-reqs, homebrew something for them.

When it comes to using unofficial stats for things, or not obeying the exact rules for creating things, it's all good as long as it's all friendly.

[Foryn Gilnith]

For instance, the head librarian in the capital of the most advanced city would routinely make DC 30 knowledge checks, but if you attacked him, he'd have like 2 HP and no attack bonus.

Venerable Expert 5. Feats: Skill Focus (several times), Education, Master of Knowledge. Flaws: Frail, Noncombatant. Traits: Illiterate (bought off with skill points, obviously).
Regularly makes DC 30 Knowledge checks. Has a melee attack bonus of -1 and a ranged attack bonus of +1. Has an average of 2.5 hit points.

I play my NPCs by the rules, but that's only because I know the rules well enough to practically do whatever I want rules-legal. If I didn't know 3.5 well, I'd definitely give the NPCs whatever I wanted anyway.

My kings tend to have combat training, though, because most of the time I play in a more early feudal world. If the rulers don't have the muscle to protect their subjects from enemies, they never would have taken their position.

I will send my high-level adventurers absolutely trivial things like the goblin encounter. The goblins will probably run off and leave their chest full of copper pieces behind. If the PCs want to take it... sure, why not? It's not like it will break WBL.

[herrhauptmann]

I wanted to start a discussion about how many of us ignore the character building rules for NPC's, and to what extent.

For instance, does anyone actually make the village smith or senior librarian go out adventuring to gain more skill points? Can the king exceed Wealth by Level?


I personally think it's nuts to assume that the elderly chief librarian is a Expert 10+, with a better BAB and more HP that a sergeant of the guard, who is a Warrior 2 or 3. I do use the Warrior NPC class for guards, basic soldiers and such, but my noncombat NPC's have HP, skills and combat stats that make sense by concept, not RAW.

For instance, the head librarian in the capital of the most advanced city would routinely make DC 30 knowledge checks, but if you attacked him, he'd have like 2 HP and no attack bonus. A farmer should be harder to kill.

The King has Nifty Stuff that his ancestors handed down, regardless of his class level. He is the level that I need him to be, regardless of how many kobolds he's killed.

That goes for all NPC's, actually. Adventurers get better by adventuring. Bartenders get better by bartending.

My PCs run into appropriate challenges. For some reason, the 1st level party never gets ambushed by Mind Flayers, and the high level parties never run into three goblins in a 10 x 10 room guarding a chest of copper pieces. If they return to an old tunnel complex they visited 10 levels ago, the goblin tribe there has been displaced by Drow. I'm not saying they are contractually guaranteed four challenges per day of exactly their level, but they won't run into stuff they couldn't theoretically handle or stuff that they could beat in there sleep.

And so on.

I'm not interested in what the books say. I can read, so don't feel the need to cite examples. I'm interested in how others run their games.
There was a link somewhere, I think on "Bored of the Rings" webcomic, about how many of the most famous members of society were only 5th level. Like Einstein. 18 int base. +2 for age. So 20 int. 8 ranks in knowledge physics or math. So he's getting a +13 right there. Access to a huge library and other learned individuals so that's a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus. Total of a +15 or +17. Then he's got skill focuses feats. Makes it possible for him at 5th level to easily beat a DC 30 knowledge check.

A game of thrones rpg, also had rules about how social station partially negated levels. Stations consisted of Royalty, Great Nobles, Lesser nobles, Knights, Commoner. So if the crown prince was a 4th level warrior, he'd be equal in skill to a 5th level great noble, a 6th level lesser noble, a 7th level Knight, or an 8th level commoner man at arms. This would reflect the fact that he was better fed, better equiped, healthier. And also how good his training was. The king could afford the greatest of weaponsmasters to teach his sons, but some baseborn commoner would have had to learn to fight on the battlefield itself.



Edit: Anyway, for prestige classes and other combat related effects I make my NPCs fit the rules. If I bend the rule, and make a 4th level vampire(supposed to be 6th level) for the party to fight, I choose part of the loot that they'll recieve from an earlier fight, to ensure that they have what they need to fight the vampire.
As far as knowledge skills or something, I'll fudge those a little and not care. Partly because I'll do as stated above, and say that they're talking to the dedicated master of a subject, so he doesn't need to be especially high level to make a DC 30 skill check; because he's built for it.
Besides, when my players are asking an NPC for something, they're probably asking for plot related info having bit real hard on my plot hook. So which should i be a jerk and now avoid telling them what they need to know.

[Aron Times]

Noncombatant NPCs in 4e don't get stats, and are capable or incapable of anything that the DM wants. If you want a wise old man to do some plot exposition on the party's quest, you don't need to figure out his History modifier; he just knows what he is supposed to know.

Basically, there's no need to stat him out since he's not going to fight the party anyway, and even if he did, he would be no match for them.

[Ashiel]

I virtually always follow the rules when creating NPCs. For minor characters, I tend to leave out a lot of stuff from their entry. It's not that it isn't there, but merely that it isn't written down. If there's a minor character (say a farmer), he might have only the following stats listed: Hp, AC, Init, Attack, Fort, Ref, Will, with only 1 skill listed.

In many cases, for NPCs, I don't have to actually stat such characters out in advance (a side effect of DMing a while, and understanding the rules) due to their simplicity. For many low-level NPCs who lack magic items and a lot of special abilities, you can assume average scores, hp, etc for their level. Assume their best skill may have the Skill Focus feat for their feats.

I've always attempted to follow the wealth by level guidelines. For 1st level NPC classed characters (such as orcs and bandits), I had to invent a WBL of about 100gp, which was usually enough for some meager equipment and occasionally a potion or scroll (in the case of adepts), which was plenty of gear.

I never make NPCs with arbitrarily high anything. As noted, I follow WBL, standard ability scores, level limitations, and so forth. For reasons like this, my players always trust me while DMing because they know I will be following the same rules that they are.

I feel that's important in a good DM, because it fosters a sense of well being between the players and their DM, as well as trust. For this same reason, I never fudge dice - EVER. :smallamused:

[Harperfan7]

I do, but only if I'm really sure it will matter at all.

Your major-city librarian for instance, might really be a 10+ expert, but he started with below average str and con, plus he's old or venerable, doesn't carry weapons or wear armor, and has zero combat related feats or equipment. He probably has 10-15hp, but with an armor class of 8-9, he may as well have 2hp.

That 2-3rd level warrior almost surely has more hp and a higher attack bonus than the librarian, and feats/equipment/etc.

Stats work if you do decide to use them for everybody, but it's honestly not all that worth it (sometimes I stat people because I'm bored).

[potatocubed]

My NPCs can do anything I need them to do and have a reasonable chance of succeeding at anything they should have a reasonable chance of succeeding at. This includes unique combat abilities and/or spells that the PCs don't have, although I do try to design those so that they're fair.

This is in part because I'm too lazy to stat up proper NPCs (especially 3.5 ones) and in part because it dissuades metagame thinking. The characters don't know every detail of the world they live in (Knowledge checks aside) and so the players don't either.

[Samb]

I am the DM and NPCs are my creation. I have a vision about an NPC, I will make said vision rules be damned.

That being said I do try to adhere to the rules, but in the end, I'm the boss of this adventure, and if I feel the need to make a ninja/zombie/dinosaur/cyborg/saint, then by jove that's what I'll have.

[AslanCross]

I sometimes ignore weapon proficiency rules for NPCs. I've seen statblocks in adventures ignore them---one notable example would be Azarr Kul in the Red Hand of Doom adventure. He's using a heavy pick, which is a martial weapon.

I just took this to be an application of the vague Monster Manual rule that says "a creature is proficient with any weapon in its statblock," which is kind of a chicken-and-egg rule.

[Psychosis]

I stat out important (read: named and maybe reoccuring) NPCs, but otherwise they can do whatever I feel is reasonable. It just gets things done faster.

[Morty]

I remember a thread on another forum dedicated to creating minor NPCs for the heck of it as well as for potential use by GM. I made some myself and it was quite fun. It was also quite funny how I made a sergeant of the city watch a 2nd level fighter and someone else made his sergeant a 3rd level warrior.

[Tehnar]

For NPCs that are usually just for interaction, I denote them with something like Hum War 3, or Elf Exp 5.. etc. If a NPC is skilled at something that the PCs need, then I will also add that skill modifier (for example a blacksmith, or a sage).

It is actually pretty easy to get very high skill checks with low level NPCs, especially if they are human.

Where I do fudge things is in the minion monster department. Just give some monsters a general bonus of +1 hit and saves, +5 hp when I dont feel like advancing them or looking to add classes.

[Eldariel]

WBL isn't even a rule, it's a suggestion. I don't think NPC WBL is really good for anything except quickwriting hostile characters whose deaths won't overequip the party. As such, yeah, ignore that.

I also assume that adventuring isn't the only way to earn XP (and consequently, there are very few level 1 characters in any games I run; of course, PCs don't start on 1 either).


So in effect, those few points I solve completely within the rules.

Though my parties WILL run into challenges they can't handle (at least in straight combat; such challenges rarely really care about them so diplomacy or runomacy with maybe a bribe of appropriate size tends to allow them to...survive) AND walkovers.

Too big a part of the world to really do it in any other way, IMHO. Otherwise players will think they can fight and beat anything they face.



Also, I maintain the topic should be "Screw the rules, I'm an NPC!"

[Darrin]

This looks like a job for Assertion 12 (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/2/).

[Tyndmyr]

The level 10 librarian expert may be more skilled than the level 3 warrior constable, but the librarian isn't going to be fighting anyone unless conscripted. If someone wants to be a rules lawyer about it then I'd say he'd have the "noncombatant" flaw in exchange for skill focus profession.

Regardless, statting NPCs is something you do when it's actually necessary. Nobody cares what level Farmer Joe is unless he gets into a fight and even then he'll fall in a few hits.

This. I don't really care if farmer Joe is a commoner or an expert. He could be either, but frankly, it's not going to make a difference 99.x% of the time. I don't stat out every single person the players could *possibly* fight...just notable characters.

WBL for them is fine, but keep in mind that their WBL is typically tied up in tools of trade, etc, not in easily portable gold. Sure, the expert may have masterwork tools and a nice cottage, but he's not likely to have around more gold than that used in his daily trade.

[R. Shackleford]

Noncombatant NPCs in 4e don't get stats, and are capable or incapable of anything that the DM wants. If you want a wise old man to do some plot exposition on the party's quest, you don't need to figure out his History modifier; he just knows what he is supposed to know.

Basically, there's no need to stat him out since he's not going to fight the party anyway, and even if he did, he would be no match for them.

I was wondering that. I've only ever played 4e, so I went into this topic thinking, "Why do I need to stat them? My players aren't that bloodthirsty."

I didn't realize you had to stat out NPCs in other editions. That seems really cumbersome.

[Tyndmyr]

You don't *have* to. It's not as if WOTC sends thugs to your door if you dont.

Really? What? I'm sorry sir, I'll never speak of that again. Ouch! Why won't you stop hitting me?

[Kylarra]

I don't recall this being an issue in 2e, so I guess it's mostly in 3.X where people cared about NPCs being statted out like PCs.

[Mike_G]

I was wondering that. I've only ever played 4e, so I went into this topic thinking, "Why do I need to stat them? My players aren't that bloodthirsty."

I didn't realize you had to stat out NPCs in other editions. That seems really cumbersome.


Well, you don't have to do anything. There are rules for it in 3.5, so you could, in theory, stat out everyone in the city using the same character generation system as the PC's.

My point was that that system makes assumptions I don't care for, (like everything increases together: more ranks in knowledge = more BAB and HP) and it's more work than it's worth.

I just wondered who else wings it and who else actually follows the rules.

[Tyndmyr]

It's pretty easy for even a rather low level character to have a pretty high skill modifier if he specializes in it at all. Hell, you only need to be level two to start picking up synergy bonuses. Yes, a higher level can have a higher overall modifier, but if a smith has a +10 to his weaponsmithing, and takes ten making items, he can be a quite effective smith. This is easily achievable at level two.

Hp and BaB tend to go together, yes, but even that's a bit rough, and is heavily con/class dependant.

[Oslecamo]

I didn't realize you had to stat out NPCs in other editions. That seems really cumbersome.

You don't need, but it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

For example, the OP claims the head librarian of the village should be able to routinely make DC30 Knowledge checks. That means he thinks every village should totaly have an Einstein level dude in charge of the library. I doubt anyone else agrees with him on that point, but hey, it's his campaign.

So if the rules allowed for a lv1 expert to routinely make DC 30 knowledge checks, then we would have people complaining that lv1 experts are super genius and blah blah-locate city bombo-blah blah-tome of weaboo fighting magic-blah blah exalted-blah blah monks vs wizards-blah blah thread locked.

The rules are guidelines, and the DM isn't called MASTER for nothing.

[Saph]

I didn't realize you had to stat out NPCs in other editions.

You don't. Nobody does. (At least, I've never met anybody who does, but I'm sure that now I've posted it someone is going to pop up and prove me wrong.)

Typically when I'm DMing 3.5, I write out character sheets for:

1. Major NPC antagonists that the PCs are going to face, eg enemy generals and recurring villains;
2. NPCs that are going to be travelling with the party for whatever reason (this is the least common category);
3. and dragons. I always feel dragons are important enough that they should be personalised.

In my Red Hand of Doom campaign I think I gave the character sheet treatment to a total of six or seven NPCs over thirteen or fourteen sessions. So I only wrote up a sheet every two sessions or so.

That said, I'm with Foryn in that I do think the rules should apply to NPCs as well as to PCs, so I try to make sure that NPCs still work on basically the same rules system that the PCs do, even if the numbers aren't specified.

So the king's court wizard may not have a character sheet, and I may not have written anything in particular down for him beyond a name and a one-line description. And he may have a bunch of weird spells in his spellbook and several odd special abilities. However, he doesn't get to break the rules just because he's an NPC; any spell he can learn the PCs can learn too, and everything he can use is theoretically within their reach as well, even if they're probably never going to encounter it or care enough to research it if they do.

[Tehnar]

I'm generally against the concept that rulers need to be high level NPCs.

The appearance of might is almost as good as might. I don't have a problem with personal power =/= political power.

Suprized the PCs last time when a city governer they were trying to kill ran away screaming from the fight, where they were fighting his minions.



Now if I could only find a elegant way of removing resurrection spells.

[Psychosis]

I'm generally against the concept that rulers need to be high level NPCs.

The appearance of might is almost as good as might. I don't have a problem with personal power =/= political power.
This. Aristocrats are busy being aristocrats, and if something needs to be hurt they usually employ people in that line of work.

[Darrin]

I was wondering that. I've only ever played 4e, so I went into this topic thinking, "Why do I need to stat them? My players aren't that bloodthirsty."


Whenever players get frustrated or bored, they kill NPCs. It just happens. And it's not something most DMs can predict. This is where invulnerable shopkeepers and "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" comes from.

[Mike_G]

For example, the OP claims the head librarian of the village should be able to routinely make DC30 Knowledge checks. That means he thinks every village should totaly have an Einstein level dude in charge of the library. I doubt anyone else agrees with him on that point, but hey, it's his campaign.


No.

I don't.

The head librarian at the Capital of the most advanced nation is exactly what I said.

I would expect London, New York, etc to have an Einstein level intellect in charge of major libraries.

That said, the curator of the Smithsonian should not survive a fall that would kill Lance Corporal Redshirt, the Warrior 1 who just graduated from Marine Boot Camp.

[Knaight]

I usually stat out NPCs. Kind of. Of course, I play skill based games, usually rules light enough that I can stat them out piece by piece, and if I want to give the head librarian some serious research skills, then I can. Of course, most won't, it will probably be better than average, below many scholars, with some variance.

I don't stat them up all in one piece, if the skill comes up I assign it, and they don't have a defined point value or similar before hand. I have the concept in my head, and will turn things mechanical if necessary. Rulers don't necessarily have combat skills (although they probably will have higher combat skills than the average peasant in fantasy campaigns, just because they might have had some basic training in weapons. They might even be better than a town guard. Veteran soldier? Probably not. Gladiator? Probably not.).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

So long as the players know what they're getting into, you award challenges appropriately, and you're not rubbing banned or inaccessible abilities in their faces, I don't see the problem.

[Ormur]

Meh, if I'd be forced to stat the head librarian I'd make him an Archivist with a no combat spells selected. He'd be harder to kill than a first level commoner but in D&D being good at stuff obviously makes you more badass, or you'll have to kill things to get good at stuff, I'm not quite sure which. Anyway it wouldn't matter too much because I wouldn't expect to have to stat him and it wouldn't break verisimilitude because he wouldn't be that hard to kill anyway and that's just how the game works.

Actually I kind of like the idea of the head librarian being badass, screw not having him hard to kill, I'll make him a challenge since you decided to kill him. My DM even did exactly that once. Good thing we defeated him, loosing to a librarian would have been a bit embarrassing.

[Tyndmyr]

No.

I don't.

The head librarian at the Capital of the most advanced nation is exactly what I said.

I would expect London, New York, etc to have an Einstein level intellect in charge of major libraries.

That said, the curator of the Smithsonian should not survive a fall that would kill Lance Corporal Redshirt, the Warrior 1 who just graduated from Marine Boot Camp.

So, make him venerable. The head librarian of the worlds top library is probably not a young, athletic type. Look, he now has an absolutely terrible con score. He's also an NPC class that isn't melee focused, so he has weak BaB.

Put his feats into appropriate skill focuses.

So, you now have a legal character that doesn't have much in the way of hit points or melee ability, yet has great skills.

[Oslecamo]

I would expect London, New York, etc to have an Einstein level intellect in charge of major libraries.

Most people would say that super intelects should be doing research or teaching stuff, not taking care of old books, but again, your campaign.



That said, the curator of the Smithsonian should not survive a fall that would kill Lance Corporal Redshirt, the Warrior 1 who just graduated from Marine Boot Camp.

Like other people already have pointed out, he'll only survive a fall better if Corporal Redshirt was idiotic enough to have bad Con and the curator somehow had a good con himself.

How many HP does a 5th level expert with 6 con due to age has again? 10? And his 6 str will give him a wooping bonus of +1 to hit. Add flaws and he'll drop if someone looks at him too harshly.

Corporal redshirt with 14 con will have 12 HP (or 15 with toughness) at 1st level.

[Mike_G]

Venerable Expert 5. Feats: Skill Focus (several times), Education, Master of Knowledge. Flaws: Frail, Noncombatant. Traits: Illiterate (bought off with skill points, obviously).
Regularly makes DC 30 Knowledge checks. Has a melee attack bonus of -1 and a ranged attack bonus of +1. Has an average of 2.5 hit points.




So, make him venerable. The head librarian of the worlds top library is probably not a young, athletic type. Look, he now has an absolutely terrible con score. He's also an NPC class that isn't melee focused, so he has weak BaB.

Put his feats into appropriate skill focuses.

So, you now have a legal character that doesn't have much in the way of hit points or melee ability, yet has great skills.

Sure, you can, with Feats, Traits, Flaws, Age categories, etc, make a guy with enough levels to justify his skill ranks, but few enough HP to not shrug off the hail of arrows.

But forcing the NPC's to use the same rules is work to get what you want.

I can achieve the same or better end result with simple application of weapons grade handwavium, statting him with 25 ranks in Knowledge: History, 2 HP and no attack bonus.

Plus, I don't have to commit the heresy of writing "illiterate" on the stat block for the head librarian.

That's how I build NPC's. I give them stats that make sense for their job in the world, whether or not they would be a legal build.

Now, with most NPC villain types, they will have class levels if that seems appropriate. The Warrior class actually works nicely to give a range of mooks, veterans, elite guards, etc, without a lot of customization needed. These guys are in a similar job to the PC's, they're just a less specialized individual. They're typical grunts where the PC's are an elite special forces strike team.

For Experts or Commoners or Aristocrats, I don't think class level progression fits my worldview. Being a better researcher give you ranks in Knowledge. It doesn't give you better attacks.

[Foryn Gilnith]

But forcing the NPC's to use the same rules is work to get what you want.

It's vaguely amusing. Helps me decide where to cap my NPCs' uber-skills.

[Roderick_BR]

Hmm. I usually follow the rules, even if to gauge a NPC's power.
For example, that 1st level commoner won't have over 30 HP without a good reason.
WBL may be a basic rule, but there's no real rule to limit how much money/itens a character can have.
For skills, I usually have an esperienced npc, usually up to 6th level of expert or something, plus some skill bosting feats. More than that, you need someone with more life experience than spending his day making horse shoes or knifes.
Yes, it's possible for that huge 8th level commoner to beat the crap out of a bunch of weakling 1st level adventurers. I think it's fair.

For CR, I base it both in plot, and location. The PCs *CAN* run into dangerous things. They need to learn when something is not worth doing it. And dude, did I bait my group so many times. They grew wiser in no time.

[Tyndmyr]

Sure, you can, with Feats, Traits, Flaws, Age categories, etc, make a guy with enough levels to justify his skill ranks, but few enough HP to not shrug off the hail of arrows.

But forcing the NPC's to use the same rules is work to get what you want.

It also forces you to flesh him out better.

Oh look, you had to make the master librarian old to get the numbers you wanted. Isn't that fitting? Likewise, isn't it fitting that his feats are in skill focuses for various knowledge skills?

This doesn't take up much time. I can slap together an npc with a quick set of skill focus feats and knowledge skills in less time that it took to write this post. If the character isn't worth doing this for, he isn't worth writing up, because frankly...doing this doesnt require pouring over books. It merely requires writing down the valid stats.

And no....no flaws are required. Those are strictly optional if you want a specific feel.


I can achieve the same or better end result with simple application of weapons grade handwavium, statting him with 25 ranks in Knowledge: History, 2 HP and no attack bonus.

Well, ANYTHING can be achieved by complete handwaving. But it defeats the point of statting him out. You would have been better off not bothering, and if the players said "I attack the librarian" saying "he dies".

Cause that's exactly whats going to happen, and you haven't bothered to make the librarian an actual character with any other dimension to him than his knowledge. Now, not every NPC needs to be a fully fleshed out character, but if you need to do it, do it right.


Plus, I don't have to commit the heresy of writing "illiterate" on the stat block for the head librarian.

What? Why would you do that? Are you statting him out as a barbarian?


Now, with most NPC villain types, they will have class levels if that seems appropriate. The Warrior class actually works nicely to give a range of mooks, veterans, elite guards, etc, without a lot of customization needed. These guys are in a similar job to the PC's, they're just a less specialized individual. They're typical grunts where the PC's are an elite special forces strike team.

Im not adverse to others having PC classes where appropriate. I think it'd be silly to assume that you have the only Mystic Theurge, the only Incantatrix, the only Barbarian, and the only Cleric in the entire game world in this party. Well, for the vast majority of campaigns anyhow.

Where appropriate, NPCs can make use of PC classes. You do need to be aware of the added power and complexity this brings, though.


For Experts or Commoners or Aristocrats, I don't think class level progression fits my worldview. Being a better researcher give you ranks in Knowledge. It doesn't give you better attacks.

For any purpose relevant to the party, the expert, commoner, or aristocrat will not have better attacks. They will still fail horribly in melee.

That said, if the NPC classes don't fit your world view because of this, what about the PC classes? They are, after all, built on the same basic idea. It seems like you're looking for a much more modular system, based around skills, instead of classes. There's nothing wrong with those sorts of systems, but D&D is not one of them, and trying to make it act like one works poorly.

[Ernir]

I stat out more things when dealing with low level characters or inexperienced players. Because, when three drunken level 1 commoners with improvised weapons actually have a chance to deal damage to you, they need stats.

When things move on, NPCs tend to split into the flavours of worthless mook, quick-built, and important/dangerous/expected to be fought.
Mook: Dies when hit, doesn't himself hit except on high numbers or even nat-20s (or his spells are very easy to resist).
Quick-built: "Oh****, they decided to attack the guard! I did not see that coming!" results in... a level 5 Warblade with the elite array. 16 strength, 14 con, +1 longsword and +1 breastplate. 48 HP, +9 to hit, has... Mountain Hammer, Iron Heart Surge, Wall of Blades and Steel Wind prepared. Is in Punishing Stance. Knows Power Attack, Improved Disarm and Improved Initiative. Done while the players find their d20s and roll for initiative. :smalltongue:
Important: Has complete stats.


Actually I kind of like the idea of the head librarian being badass
Hahaha, you would. xD

[AslanCross]

I was wondering that. I've only ever played 4e, so I went into this topic thinking, "Why do I need to stat them? My players aren't that bloodthirsty."

I didn't realize you had to stat out NPCs in other editions. That seems really cumbersome.

I only stat out NPCs I intend to see combat on either the PCs' side as villains. If I intend to have them help out the PCs somehow (A cleric providing healing, for example), I at least note down their level and how many spells they can cast per day.

I never really had problems with statting out NPCs, frankly---but I do skip it if it's unnecessary.

[Myrmex]

Most people would say that super intelects should be doing research or teaching stuff, not taking care of old books, but again, your campaign.

Ah yes, because every campaign should operate like a communist dystopia....

[Foryn Gilnith]

What? Why would you do that? Are you statting him out as a barbarian?

He was addressing me. The Illiterate trait, from Unearthed Arcana, basically works like this: Spend 2 skill points to get a +1 bonus to a skill. If you don't spend the 2 points, you're instead illiterate. I treat it, in-play, as a catch-all for learning impediments (which have been overcome in backstory by the 2 skill points).

[Morty]

For Experts or Commoners or Aristocrats, I don't think class level progression fits my worldview. Being a better researcher give you ranks in Knowledge. It doesn't give you better attacks.

Really though, what difference does it make? A 10th level Expert will have as much BaB as a 10th level Rogue. But he won't stand a chance against any 10th level PC that's not purposefully made weak. Because he'll have the stats of an NPC, Str and Con as his dump stats, no Weapon Finesse and you can give him 1 HP for each dice without breaking the rules. Yes, he does fight better than a 1st level aristocrat, but it doesn't matter anyway.
Now, I agree that it'd be more logical for NPC classes to only advance skills and feats. But it doesn't make that much of a difference in the long run.

[Mike_G]

Really though, what difference does it make? A 10th level Expert will have as much BaB as a 10th level Rogue. But he won't stand a chance against any 10th level PC that's not purposefully made weak. Because he'll have the stats of an NPC, Str and Con as his dump stats, no Weapon Finesse and you can give him 1 HP for each dice without breaking the rules. Yes, he does fight better than a 1st level aristocrat, but it doesn't matter anyway.
Now, I agree that it'd be more logical for NPC classes to only advance skills and feats. But it doesn't make that much of a difference in the long run.


A low level party might consult a high level expert for things. They may well go pay a sage or loremaster (by job title, not class) for information to solve a quest. If negotiations go badly they might rough him up. Or they might have to save a plot hook NPC from some thugs, and that plot hook NPC might have important skills or knowledge, but believably need rescuing from a handful of 2HD thugs.

The only edition of D&D to actually suggest leveled NPC classes is 3rd. In AD&D, if you weren't a PC class, you were a "0 level human" with 2-5 HP and a THACO of 20. You could still be the Royal Smart Person, and know more about ancient laguages or history than any PC, but a single orc would kick your butt.

I think this is an issue of perspective. Many people who cut their teeth on 3e think the world should all revolve by RAW, those who started earlier feel rules are for PC's and stuff PC's need to hit, the rest of society works via logic and DM fiat. 4e seems to have returned to this philosophy.

[Matthew]

When I first started with D20/3e I got quite wrapped up in the idea of creating all the NPCs according the rules in various ways. Eventually it occurred to me that I was wasting vast amounts of time on something that had taken a lot less effort in previous editions for the exact same effect, so I stopped. Now, if I run D20/3e, I create NPCs in the same manner as in AD&D.

[bosssmiley]

I play an edition of D&D where PC and NPC don't even have the same type of stat blocks (PCs have full-fledged charsheets, NPCs have one line 'monster' statblocks). That makes look-up during play much quicker and simpler. I like quick and simple.

[Tehnar]

Thats the point of 3.x rules. They are there if you need them, but you don't have to use them. I would much rather have rules for something, and not use them, then not having rules and needing to make something up.

So if I write Hum Exp 3 Know (History) +12; and that NPC gets targeted by a will save or something like that, I can look up his save bonus if needed.

[Foryn Gilnith]

I think this is an issue of perspective. Many people who cut their teeth on 3e think the world should all revolve by RAW

I question your chain of causality here. The people who cut their teeth on 3e don't think like that because they started on 3e. The people who started with 3e think like that because they play 3e. If I'm playing 4e, or 2e, I won't stat everything. But since I'm playing 3e, I do. Rules-centeredness isn't part of me, it's part of the game I most frequently play.

[RandomNPC]

I was thinking about a game system to fix this, basicly where experience only applies to what you use. (think final fantasy 2)

you make ten or twenty knowledge checks a day, spend all your time studying, but have never fought a day in your life? you've probably got about twenty or thirty skill points scattered through your knowledge and the hitpoints to deal with a papercut.

You swing swords and chop down goblins all day long, but you arent sure what side of a book you start from? base attack and HP through the roof, low int, and probably no skill points in anything related to knowledge.

For those who don't get the FF2 refrence, in the origonal release you gained attack power and lost mental focus for using weapons, gained hp everytime you lost a % of your total HP, and your spells leveled up by use. Later re-releases took out the stat loss for using other abilities more, and these re-releases were dubbed the first playable versions. Also in the first release you could hit the BBEG with a phoenix down and wipe him out first turn, that was fixed too. (showing the first release was playable, just lots more difficult)

[Mike_G]

I question your chain of causality here. The people who cut their teeth on 3e don't think like that because they started on 3e. The people who started with 3e think like that because they play 3e. If I'm playing 4e, or 2e, I won't stat everything. But since I'm playing 3e, I do. Rules-centeredness isn't part of me, it's part of the game I most frequently play.


We'll just have to disagree.

Most of my group are old AD&D 1e veterans. They still use that mindset, that approach, when playing or DMing 3e. We don't optimize (to the extenent that anyone on thsi board would consider it optimization), don't even bat an eye at whether the NPC are "playing by the rules," and so on.

Many of the posters here who started with 3e seem to feel the rules mean much more than those who began with the admittedly poorly organized and incomplete patchwork that was 1e.

[Yahzi]

I wanted to start a discussion about how many of us ignore the character building rules for NPC's, and to what extent.
I changed one little rule, and now I don't have to ignore any other rules.

In my world 5 gold = XP, and XP = 5 gold. So rich people can buy levels. The Baron is high level because he has lots of taxes.

(it's not quite that simple, but close).


My PCs run into appropriate challenges. For some reason, the 1st level party never gets ambushed by Mind Flayers,
In my world the reason is because the PCs are fighting the Mind Flayer's minions. As they get closer to the MF's center of power, they are going to find tougher and tougher minions. If the PCs are stupid enough to charge into the center of an enemy city, then they are going to die - if they're lucky (there are worse things in my world than death).

The reason high-levels don't go out and gank low-levels is because in D&D, initiative wins. How do you know those goblins aren't advance scouts for a Mind Flayer ambush party? So the local Baron sends low-levels (like the adventurers) out to fight low-level threats. He only gets involved when his border patrols start encountering stuff they can't handle. And the monsters do the same, for the same reason. They don't want to cede initiative to an invisible 9th level party by spending their first combat round killing a few 1st level knights.

Also, it's a good way to separate the posers from the real heroes. Those that survive this low-level conflict are good choices for promoting to high level. Assuming they don't promote themselves with all the loot they gain.

But I think you need to have those off-limit areas for the PCs. It gives them a goal to strive for - "someday we'll be tough enough to challenge the Ogre Mage in his own castle!". If every encounter auto-levels, then what's the point of leveling?

[Yahzi]

PCs have full-fledged charsheets, NPCs have one line 'monster' statblocks
One thing I think is really, really bad about 3.0 vs all the previous editions are feats.

Used to be an NPC was defined by a single line - class, level, and hps. Maybe a bonus stat if you cared. You could whip up a dozen NPCs in two minutes and have them ready to go.

Now if you want your NPCs to last more than 6 seconds you have to spend hours selecting feat chains, picking appropriate magic items, and calculating stat bonuses. It's so difficult it makes GMing almost impossible at high levels.

The whole point of the class system, after all, was that a character was described by their class and level. In an attempt to appease players they introduced "customization" of classes, which resulted in PCs having abilities NPCs didn't, which destroyed versimilitude. So then they made monster rules as complex as PC rules, and now we have the mess we have today.

[grautry]

I think the more fundamental question here is: "Is it possible to stat out scholar-type characters(or merchants or blacksmiths or non-adventuring aristocracy) by the rules?".

And yes, when you combine appropriate attributes, skill focuses, synergies, circumstance bonuses, aid another bonuses and so on and so forth you can rather easily make even 1st level blacksmiths or scholars who can reach very high skill checks(4 ranks, 2 attribute bonus, 3 skill focus, maybe MW tools, an aid-another monkey and some random +2 circumstance bonus = that's already +15!).

If you take all of those things and apply them to a level 5 or 6 character then you'll find that you have a character who can make DC 30 checks easy-peasy if he simply takes 10 in his skill of expertise.

So, as you see, there's absolutely no need whatsoever to break the rules for NPC's. You can fairly easily make characters who have very high skill checks without needing to be high-level. They usually won't be anywhere near a combat-monster too.

As for aristocracy? In my games, they're usually former adventurers or they'd have been deposed already.

As for whether I stat out NPCs in my games like that? There's no real need to. I know what kinds of bonuses can you usually get to a skill if you go entirely by the rules so I just make up a rough idea of a character.

For example, if I need an exceptional blacksmith, I'll make him a level 5 expert. I know that this means he'll have about 20(or higher) bonus to his skill in his workshop. I know that he'll have low hp for his level - let's say 10. So those are his stats, he's a 5th level blacksmith who has about +20 bonus to his skill and 10 hp.

Anything else is really irrelevant and he's a character that's entirely supported by the rules even if I don't have a printed out sheet for him with every single little ability he possesses on it.

[Draz74]

My PCs run into appropriate challenges. For some reason, the 1st level party never gets ambushed by Mind Flayers, and the high level parties never run into three goblins in a 10 x 10 room guarding a chest of copper pieces. If they return to an old tunnel complex they visited 10 levels ago, the goblin tribe there has been displaced by Drow. I'm not saying they are contractually guaranteed four challenges per day of exactly their level, but they won't run into stuff they couldn't theoretically handle or stuff that they could beat in there sleep.

This part I specifically disagree with. Having parties sometimes meet things that are much stronger or weaker than them not only adds verisimilitude, it's healthy in other ways too.

Meeting super-weak encounters helps them feel like they've really progressed from earlier levels where those encounters would have been nasty. This comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html) really evokes one of the best feelings in roleplaying.

Meeting encounters that are much too strong, on the other hand, gives the players that healthy sense of danger and being on-the-edge-of-disaster that keeps some suspense in the game. Not to mention cultivating a healthy respect for monsters in general.

[AB]

Historically spoken, a medieval king (and leading aristocrats in general) should be quite high level, since he has a unique education, is trained in military arts from his childhood on an spends nearly every year in the field, and, of course, has his diplomacy/bluff/rule-my-country-skillchallenges every day. A medieval king ages 30-40 would probably be a multiclassed aristocrat/fighter of at least mid level.

Skillchallenges are a good mechanical way to explain many a NPCs high level, anyway.

[Morty]

I too subscribe to the notion that because the rules for NPCs are there it doesn't mean you have to use them. I find having rules I might handwave away better than not having those rules.
I agree that NPC classes could be a bit better thought-out, though.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

We'll just have to disagree.

Most of my group are old AD&D 1e veterans. They still use that mindset, that approach, when playing or DMing 3e. We don't optimize (to the extenent that anyone on thsi board would consider it optimization), don't even bat an eye at whether the NPC are "playing by the rules," and so on.

Many of the posters here who started with 3e seem to feel the rules mean much more than those who began with the admittedly poorly organized and incomplete patchwork that was 1e.

I'm going to have to agree with Foryn on this one. I started with 1e and moved through 2e up to 3e, and today I mostly play 3e with the occasional 2e game when I can find people who want to play. When I'm DMing 3e, every NPC is statted by the rules, I go almost exclusively by RAW, and the games are high-power and -optimization. When I run 2e, NPCs up to and including BBEGs I'll stat on the fly (sometimes even creating new monsters at a moment's notice), rules are loose guidelines at best, and numbers on a character sheet take a back seat to challenging the players. Just like you wouldn't play White Wolf games like you would D&D (at least I hope not!) you don't have to run all D&D editions the same way.

[Mike_G]

This part I specifically disagree with. Having parties sometimes meet things that are much stronger or weaker than them not only adds verisimilitude, it's healthy in other ways too.

Meeting super-weak encounters helps them feel like they've really progressed from earlier levels where those encounters would have been nasty. This comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html) really evokes one of the best feelings in roleplaying.

Meeting encounters that are much too strong, on the other hand, gives the players that healthy sense of danger and being on-the-edge-of-disaster that keeps some suspense in the game. Not to mention cultivating a healthy respect for monsters in general.


I have a hard time believing you don't change the encounters when DMing a first level party versus DMing a 10th level party.

Encounters that are relatively eqsy, or that are very very difficult is not what I'm arguing against. I'm pointing out that most, if not all, DM's tailor encounters to be challenging but possible for their parties to overcome.

In a game where power level changes so dramatically, I don't see how you couldn't.

[oxybe]

I'm going to have to agree with Foryn on this one. I started with 1e and moved through 2e up to 3e, and today I mostly play 3e with the occasional 2e game when I can find people who want to play. When I'm DMing 3e, every NPC is statted by the rules, I go almost exclusively by RAW, and the games are high-power and -optimization. When I run 2e, NPCs up to and including BBEGs I'll stat on the fly (sometimes even creating new monsters at a moment's notice), rules are loose guidelines at best, and numbers on a character sheet take a back seat to challenging the players. Just like you wouldn't play White Wolf games like you would D&D (at least I hope not!) you don't have to run all D&D editions the same way.

wait, you mean you HAVE to be a bunch of emo whiny-pants when playing Vampire and not a group of superpowered undead out to right wrongs, beat up criminals, be detectives and generally rock out?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

wait, you mean you HAVE to be a bunch of emo whiny-pants when playing Vampire and not a group of superpowered undead out to right wrongs, beat up criminals, be detectives and generally rock out?

I didn't say play to the stereotype, I said play differently. Unless of course you like emo whiny-pants vampires. :smallwink: The point is that different systems play differently--create a vampire in Vampire, then try to roll up a vampire in D&D that's essentially the same conceptually, then make the GURPS equivalent of that vampire, and chances are you'd be playing that vampire differently due to the base system, the abilities available, and so forth.

In the same way, just because you have a party of a fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard going through a dungeon in 3e and 2e doesn't mean that you're going to run them the same. Different systems, even if they're only different editions of the same game, come with different expectations.

[TheCountAlucard]

For instance, the head librarian in the capital of the most advanced city would routinely make DC 30 knowledge checks, but if you attacked him, he'd have like 2 HP and no attack bonus. A farmer should be harder to kill.My excuse for stuff like that is that the presence of the library gives him a +x bonus to his Knowledge checks.


...but they won't run into stuff they couldn't theoretically handle or stuff that they could beat in there sleep.Many of the encounters I run feature things the PCs can overpower with no effort, but those tend to stay off to the side while the "real fight" happens - i.e., the PCs leave the goblin army to the warrior-priests while they assault the goblin general atop his black dragon and maybe a couple of the ones mounted on spider-eaters.

[Tyndmyr]

My excuse for stuff like that is that the presence of the library gives him a +x bonus to his Knowledge checks.


You'll be happy to know that Stronghold Builders Guide uses this exact formula.

Makes sense, too...he's gonna do better on knowledge checks in the library, where his knowledge of the books enables him to look up whatever he needs.

[Matthew]

I'm going to have to agree with Foryn on this one. I started with 1e and moved through 2e up to 3e, and today I mostly play 3e with the occasional 2e game when I can find people who want to play. When I'm DMing 3e, every NPC is statted by the rules, I go almost exclusively by RAW, and the games are high-power and -optimization. When I run 2e, NPCs up to and including BBEGs I'll stat on the fly (sometimes even creating new monsters at a moment's notice), rules are loose guidelines at best, and numbers on a character sheet take a back seat to challenging the players. Just like you wouldn't play White Wolf games like you would D&D (at least I hope not!) you don't have to run all D&D editions the same way.

That is an interesting point, for sure. Thinking about it, one of the reasons I never really got into D20/3e was because I found myself house ruling it to be more like our house ruled AD&D game, abandoning the NPC building process was just the first step on that road. It is also the case that when I now consider running a game of D20/3e, I am usually tempted to do so "by the book" because it provides a different experience. The same is true of other adventure games, of course. Maybe it has more to do with a distinction between your "primary" system and the secondary ones you maybe play more casually.

Yeah, I think that might be it. The more "into" a system I get, the more I want to alter it into a "perfect" version of that game.

[Natael]

While yes, in 2E (and I guess in some way, 4E) you had that nice 4 HP 20 THAC0 NPC stat block, it lacked a lot when you needed to know how much strength X creature has in the monster manual when trying to deal with grappling or strength checks, as the only stat listed was Int (most specifically speaking of 2E on this part), sure, some monsters (Giants and Vampires in particular) had their strength listed in the stat block, but it did not list others ever (cha, wis etc...).

While not specifically required in 3.5, it is nice to be able to see and make an NPC's full stat block "by the rules" if needed or wanted. I see absolutely no issue with having more options for that sort of thing, in fact, I love it, and like to keep everything (PCs, NPCs, Monsters, and major villains using the same basic system). As clunky as LA/CR/ECL was, it was nice having at least a basis to know what I needed to do to slap some fighter levels onto the giant, racial hit die the dire bear, or let a PC play a pixie (that still had everything a real pixie has).

Not meaning to divert the topic into other systems entirely, but something like GURPS is nice for this because I can stat out relevant information about an NPC very quickly with it. Give him high knowledge skills and low strength, stating out his basic 4 stats and maybe a few skills he'll actually use (with high points in his research and a couple knowledges he'll have), keeping it as quick and concise as the old 2E stat list, without worrying about NPC levels of 3.5.

[Mike_G]

While yes, in 2E (and I guess in some way, 4E) you had that nice 4 HP 20 THAC0 NPC stat block, it lacked a lot when you needed to know how much strength X creature has in the monster manual when trying to deal with grappling or strength checks, as the only stat listed was Int (most specifically speaking of 2E on this part), sure, some monsters (Giants and Vampires in particular) had their strength listed in the stat block, but it did not list others ever (cha, wis etc...).

While not specifically required in 3.5, it is nice to be able to see and make an NPC's full stat block "by the rules" if needed or wanted. I see absolutely no issue with having more options for that sort of thing, in fact, I love it, and like to keep everything (PCs, NPCs, Monsters, and major villains using the same basic system). As clunky as LA/CR/ECL was, it was nice having at least a basis to know what I needed to do to slap some fighter levels onto the giant, racial hit die the dire bear, or let a PC play a pixie (that still had everything a real pixie has).


One of the things I like about 3e is the full stat block for monsters. Sometimes it's nice to know the Str or dex of that Hobgoblin, if, for example you're trying to hold a door closed and he's trying to force it open.

My issue is the whole "everything improves with level" idea. That works fine for adventurers, since most of the stuff that improves is combat related, and they all see enough combat that they should get better at fighting, at saves, and get tougher, even if their main specialty is spells or skills.

Professor Rosetta Stone at the University Department of Ancient Languages never gets stabbed, or fireballed, or has to climb a wall. She never has to shoot a crossbow of defend herself with a staff. She never even sits in the back and watches Hacky McSlash do any fighting, thus picking up some inking of what works and what doesn't.

She learns a metric crapload of info, though.

Leveling doesn't work for her. Well, not without pulling a bunch of tricks to make it work. Two seconds of scribbling high numbers in her Knowledge skills, and really low numbers in her HP, saves, and BAB give me exactly what I want, without needing to twist rules and seek out Flaws, Traits, LA, and so on.

So, two minutes to get exactly what I want, or half and hour to get kinda-sorta what I want. Sure the second way is "legal" by RAW, but who gives a rat's?



Not meaning to divert the topic into other systems entirely, but something like GURPS is nice for this because I can stat out relevant information about an NPC very quickly with it. Give him high knowledge skills and low strength, stating out his basic 4 stats and maybe a few skills he'll actually use (with high points in his research and a couple knowledges he'll have), keeping it as quick and concise as the old 2E stat list, without worrying about NPC levels of 3.5.

I've played a lot of skill based systems, and I like them, but they are generally less well known and well supported, and I want a game I don't need to spend a ton of time on or seek out new groups.

3.5 works fine for me, so long as I don't try to apply RAW to everything in the 'verse, just to adventurers, as Gygax intended.

[Oslecamo]

Professor Rosetta Stone at the University Department of Ancient Languages never gets stabbed, or fireballed, or has to climb a wall. She never has to shoot a crossbow of defend herself with a staff. She never even sits in the back and watches Hacky McSlash do any fighting, thus picking up some inking of what works and what doesn't.

She learns a metric crapload of info, though.

And since when do you even need skill ranks for pure knowledge? Does the 6 int fighter needs to make a roll to memorize what he learned in a book?

How good is Professor Rosetta if you put her in a dungeon whitout any books or notes and start asking her complicated questions? Can she answer?

And when Gandalf the Grey wants to get something better, does he just sits on a bench reading books? No since the last time I checked. He picks up staff and sword and goes adventuring, slaying goblins and trolls and balors untill he levels up!

[dsmiles]

Meh. Rules. *shudder*

Rules are just guidelines anyways. My NPCs have all the skill ranks, feats, and abilities they need, with the hit points their position needs. Chief librarian probably only has enough hit points that a single non-critical damage trip down the stairs won't kill him, it'll just lay him up with a broken leg or sprained ankle. My guards typically follow the rules for warriors, with higher level guards being sergeants, and captains and generals and such being higher level multiclass warrior/experts for their knowledge of military history and tactics and such.

[Mike_G]

And since when do you even need skill ranks for pure knowledge? Does the 6 int fighter needs to make a roll to memorize what he learned in a book?


By the rules, if he wants to know what metal Devils are vulnerable to, he needs to make a Knowledge roll. If he read that book between adventures, that means he put skill ranks in Knowledge: Whatever.


If the party goes to find a sage, and asks a question about the history of an artifact they are seeking, there will typically be a DC roll to know about it, be it a Bardic Lore check, a Knowledge History check or whatever.



How good is Professor Rosetta if you put her in a dungeon whitout any books or notes and start asking her complicated questions? Can she answer?


Professor Rosetta doesn't go in dungeons, any more than a Harvard PhD in History goes on HALO jumps with SEAL team six.

Away from her books, she would lose any circumstance bonus from them. In a dangerous situation, I'd give any non-combat type a -4 to checks.

If an evil group wants to whack the sage before the PC's can ask her questions, it's useful to have an AC and HP written down.



And when Gandalf the Grey wants to get something better, does he just sits on a bench reading books? No since the last time I checked. He picks up staff and sword and goes adventuring, slaying goblins and trolls and balors untill he levels up!

Gandalf is an adventurer. He's been in more battles than you've had hot dinners.

[dsmiles]

If an evil group wants to whack the sage before the PC's can ask her questions, it's useful to have an AC and HP written down.

At this point, I usually say, "You hit him, he dies. Now you'll never find out what you wanted to know. MWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!"

[Mike_G]

At this point, I usually say, "You hit him, he dies. Now you'll never find out what you wanted to know. MWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!"

What if the PC's try to Charm Person the sage? Or they aren't the evil group, they're trying to rescue her from the evil group? Saves, AC and HP might be nice to know.

I like stat blocks with all the stuff I might need. I just want those blocks to make sense, whether or not the follow RAW.

[dsmiles]

All of my NPCs are pretty much one-hit wonders...one hit, and they go down. Thus, I'll never saddle the PCs with an NPC (or DMPC depending on the definition you use). Charm Person? The PC's win, unless there is a story reason as to why they can't do that.

[Thurbane]

I always do my best to have my NPCs completely rules legal (barring oversights). Where's the fun in crushing the party with an NPC you've cheated on? :smallbiggrin:

[dsmiles]

Bad guys, IMO, are not the same as NPCs. Bad guys have to have rules-legal stats in order to be fair, where the local librarian...not so much.

[Thurbane]

Bad guys, IMO, are not the same as NPCs. Bad guys have to have rules-legal stats in order to be fair, where the local librarian...not so much.
OH, OK. Well, for the record, I take the same tack with non-combatant/allied NPCs. I like any character I create to be rules legal. Note that I consider wealth by level and similar things to be guidelines, rather than hard and fast rules. :smallwink:

[Lysander]

What might help is not thinking of level as "power of the character" but "value of the character to the plot." So while it might not make sense for an elderly librarian to have a lot of hp, don't think of it as hp, think of it as "plot armor that makes stab wounds just nicks instead of deep cuts"

[Nero24200]

I tend to stat up most NPC's the PC's will encounter, putting more thought and effort into the NPC's that the PC's are likely to interact with more. I do this because I think that if the PC's want to try something, they should be able to.

If the PC's want to pick a fight with the guards on the street, they should. It's not a good idea, but then again, if we didn't do things that weren't good ideas then the world would be alot more different.

In my opinion, the most chaotic element of any game is the PC's. Even predictable PC's can do something you don't expert. Having NPC's already stated up means that, should the unpredictable action involve them, you don't need to guestimate the NPC's stats. Though I do this mostly for NPC's who are likely to have stats where it matters (like if an NPC is a 5th level wizard). More "common" NPC's, like low level commoners or aristocrats I just use the pre-made stats in the DM guide.

[Mike_G]

OH, OK. Well, for the record, I take the same tack with non-combatant/allied NPCs. I like any character I create to be rules legal. Note that I consider wealth by level and similar things to be guidelines, rather than hard and fast rules. :smallwink:

For Bad Guys, I generally stat them as per class and level, like the Bandit King will be a Rogue, the common bandits will be Warriors, the BBEG will be a Wizard, and so on.

For NPCs that are likely to be near combat, such as the party with no Ranger or Druid hires a guide to take them to the scene of the ambushed caravan, I'll make him an appropriate level NPC class, like Expert. He won't be as good as the Pc's in combat, and will try to avoid it, but won't die from being in the same Zip code as the 8th level party when AoE's go off. It's not unreasonable that a guy who leads groups of heavily armed men into a dangerous wilderness is tougher than average.

For NPCs who are unlikely to fight, or who don't plan to fight as part of their job, I fudge it. The Sage, the Smith, the Rescued Princess, etc. They may have skills the party needs, and thus may have a bunch of ranks, or else there's no point in the party consulting them, but they don't train to fight. However, they will all be around the party, and Adventurers are usually either dangerous sociopaths or have dangerous sociopaths for enemies, so these NPCs may get caught up in combat. Having stats, saves, AC, HP etc makes sense, but the virgin princess that the party saves from the dragon should not, by any stretch of the imagination, have more HP than the Sergeant of the Guard, even if her ranks in Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc would indicate a high level Aristocrat.