How competent should NPCs be?

[nothingforyou]

If the PCs optimize, should NPCs also optimize? What if PCs scry-and-die? PCs sell walls of salt to break the economy? PCs cast shapechange? PCs play 1,000 damage a second barbarians?

Essentially, should every NPC encounter be fair but potentially highly lethal? Would this encourage the creation of disposable, uninteresting PCs? Should PvE play a lot more like PvP?

I understand a lot of this comes down to personal preference. So, what the playground think. What would you prefer? Do you think one style of play is more interesting than the other?

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm a little confused as to what the question is. Is it, do you prefer a highly optimized game, or do you prefer a game where the NPCs and PCs have a similar power level? I think those are two different questions, really.

[oudeis]

If the NPCs can't give the players a run for their money, why even bother creating them? My favorite RPG memories, both tabletop and electronic, come from the situations my character/party just barely survived. Cakewalks where you're never in danger are boring and cheap; limping from the dungeon, out of spells, out of potions, gear hacked up, you/your party down to a handful of hitpoints but staggering under the weight of your loot... Now that's FUN. The best victories come only from the best fights.

[nothingforyou]

I'm a little confused as to what the question is. Is it, do you prefer a highly optimized game, or do you prefer a game where the NPCs and PCs have a similar power level? I think those are two different questions, really.

I guess I'm asking about the specific case where PCs are highly optimized. Should NPCs be equally as optimized as the PCs?


If the NPCs can't give the players a run for their money, why even bother creating them? My favorite RPG memories, both tabletop and electronic, come from the situations my character/party just barely survived. Cakewalks where you're never in danger are boring and cheap; limping from the dungeon, out of spells, out of potions, gear hacked up, you/your party down to a handful of hitpoints but staggering under the weight of your loot... Now that's FUN. The best victories come only from the best fights.

This isn't about merely close calls. More like trying to avoid death. Imagine a scenario where the party puts a day into preparing to enter a door in some suburban house, because around every corner is the risk of running into someone as powerful as the PC, who might be able to one-shot said PC.

[Flickerdart]

I guess I'm asking about the specific case where PCs are highly optimized. Should NPCs be equally as optimized as the PCs?
The PCs are the baddest-assed of the badass. Not every adversary should be as twinked out as the heroes, and it would strain credibility if they were. But their primary opposition - the BBEG, his trusted lieutenant, and so forth - should be able to put up a hell of a fight.

The problem with the phrase "someone just as powerful being able to one-shot the PCs" isn't "just as powerful," it's "one-shot." Enemies should never be optimized offensively to the extent that PCs are, because their job in the metagame is to show up, fight, and then die or run away, while it's the PCs' job to survive. Give them just enough offensive power so the PCs don't get complacent, and then make sure they can take a few blows. The enemy crumpling in one round is exactly as unfun as the PCs being wiped out in one round.

These defenses need not be AC/saves/DR/whatever. In fact, those are kinda lame, because failure sucks. Stacks of HP are a classic - the PCs feel like they are actually accomplishing something when they land a 10HP blow on a 100HP guy, whereas they'll feel like their characters are weak and useless when they miss nine times against a 10HP guy. The result is the same (ten attacks, one dead enemy) but if you make the enemy capable of taking a few hits, it feels much better and lets everyone contribute. It doesn't have to be HP, though - any ablative-style defenses are good. Minions, layers of protection like Prismatic Walls or Globes of Invulnerability that can be torn down, anything the PCs can gradually hew to pieces is good times.

[LibraryOgre]

NPCs should be as competent as they need to be to do the job set out for them. If that job is fighting the party, then they should be as optimized as the party is, to provide them a good challenge. If that job is to sell beer, then they can get away with little more than a name and a description.

[Heartspan]

lol Npcs should be real people, monsters, etc, trying to live their lives. PCs are murderhobos, even the most complacent. Npcs should be able to hold their own against the pcs, not go all murderhobo against the Pcs. i agree very much with what flickerdart said about one-shoting.

[valadil]

There should be NPCs who are more competent than the PCs. There should also be NPCs who are less competent than the PCs. The town guard is not well optimized, but the royal bodyguard is.

[jaydubs]

If the NPCs can't give the players a run for their money, why even bother creating them? My favorite RPG memories, both tabletop and electronic, come from the situations my character/party just barely survived. Cakewalks where you're never in danger are boring and cheap; limping from the dungeon, out of spells, out of potions, gear hacked up, you/your party down to a handful of hitpoints but staggering under the weight of your loot... Now that's FUN. The best victories come only from the best fights.

Well, I agree and disagree. Close calls can be a lot of fun. But so can PCs occasionally utterly outwitting an encounter, and mopping the floor by use of some clever plan or trick. And I say that from both sides of the DM screen.

To be fair though, I quite enjoy it when either side pulls a fast one, so long as it was clear it was by cleverness rather than fiat. Some of my favorite defeats (as a player) involve a devastating ambush by NPCs, or the DM pulling something cunning. The main difference between "wow, that's total BS" and "why you deviously evil bastard" was that the DM left a bunch of clues all over the place that it really had been planned the whole time.

Example:

A standard "you're exploring the sewer" situation. The DM has been throwing rat swarms at us, which we keep countering with fire of one kind or another. We eventually get to a junction, where the rats are swarming by some kind of waste pit by a bunch of pipes. As we approach, the DM repeatedly tells us how it's starting to smell worse and worse. We even have to make fortitude saves against the smell.

Then when we attack the rats at the junction... we trigger a gas explosion, which hits the whole party. The DM had been baiting us with the rat swarms specifically to trick us into exploding ourselves. It didn't wipe us, but still an awesome moment from my point of view. Now, I probably would have been irked if it was just a forced "you guys take damage" situation. But he gave us every opportunity to avoid the situation. We could even have walked right past that encounter if we had wanted. But we bit hard on the bait, and it was glorious.

[Vitruviansquid]

There is a sweet spot in difficulty that you should usually be aiming for, and that is just difficult enough for your players to feel threatened but not so difficult that they have no chance to win. For maximum excitement, you actually want to spike and relax difficulty within that sweet spot with some regularity, to make rising and falling tension.

[Susano-wo]

NPCs should be as competent as they need to be to do the job set out for them. If that job is fighting the party, then they should be as optimized as the party is, to provide them a good challenge. If that job is to sell beer, then they can get away with little more than a name and a description.

QFT, and I'll also note that their level of optimization should match the tone of the world. If all the wizards are optimized to the hilt, the world and how it treats magic should match

[BWR]

NPCs need to be as competent as they need to be to do what you want them to do.
If you need them to be vastly inferior to the PCs, then that's what they should be.
If you need an NPC to overshadow the PCs and basically be untouchable, at least at this point in the game, then that's how competent the NPC should be.
If your players like challenging encounters that are basically pvp levels of optimization and games of rocket tag, then that's what they should be.
If your players like charging through encounters without being in too much danger, then that's what you should optimize for.
If your players like cunning, intelligent opponents who prepare the battlefield and use every dirty trick in the book, then go for that.
(Note on 'players like': Generally I'm very strongly on the side of "the GM is always right" and there's nothing wrong with throwing something unexpected at your players now and then, but at the end of the day the goal is to have fun, and if the GM always runs the game in a way the players dislike, something is wrong.)

This is how I handle things in my games.

[Svata]

Depends on the NPC.

Dirt Farmer? 5% as optimized as a PC.
Town Guard? 20-25%
Royal Guards? 30-35%
Badass captain of he Guard? 55-60%
Badass warrior, who is eiher friend or rival to one or more PCs? 75-90%
BBEG's first lieutenant? 85-95%
BBEG? >95%


EDIT: Note: this is a rough guideline.

[Mastikator]

NPCs should be as competent as they need to be to do the job set out for them. If that job is fighting the party, then they should be as optimized as the party is, to provide them a good challenge. If that job is to sell beer, then they can get away with little more than a name and a description.

This. Only give them the stats that they use. That way you can add stats as you evolve the NPC (if you choose to do that).

Though, to be honest if the players start exploiting the system I tend to go the other way, the NPCs suddenly become easier. Your barbarian deals 1000 damage? Oh good because everyone you meet has 4 hp. You want to sell a wall of salt? The richest NPC has 10 gold.

[goto124]

New Spell: Wall of Salt.

The salt is hard as stone, for some reason. Snails, slugs and related animal get an extra 10 damage from the wall. And useless when cast underwater.

[Jay R]

"as optimized" is not the crucial idea. If you have a moderately optimized 6th level party, it is fair for them to face a highly optimized 4th level party, or a moderately optimized 6th level party, or an unoptimized 8th level party.

Or they could face a horde of 2nd levels, 2-1 odds against them in 4th levels, even odds in 6th levels, or a half-party of 8th levels.

Or major traps set up by a few kobolds.

The issue isn't how "optimized" the enemy are, but how challenging they are.

What the players want today is a quick, easy way to beat the encounter safely. But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and bravely turned the tables to barely survive a deadly encounter where it looked like they were all about to die.

[Beta Centauri]

If the PCs optimize, should NPCs also optimize? What if PCs scry-and-die? PCs sell walls of salt to break the economy? PCs cast shapechange? PCs play 1,000 damage a second barbarians?

Essentially, should every NPC encounter be fair but potentially highly lethal? Would this encourage the creation of disposable, uninteresting PCs? Should PvE play a lot more like PvP?

I understand a lot of this comes down to personal preference. So, what the playground think. What would you prefer? Do you think one style of play is more interesting than the other? It's the very presence of lethality that drives optimization. The intent of the game is that the GM have all the control. The GM should follow the rules, but within those rules can still control exactly how tough a time the characters have. Players who don't like that one-sidedness work with the rules to get a share of the control, playing the game entirely on their terms by trivializing mysteries, challenges, and metered rewards. The GM can do whatever they want, sure, but those players will make sure that nothing the GM does really matters.

So, if you have such players, fighting fire with fire isn't going to work. Regaining control by using the players' tactics will just drive them to do other things to retain that control. Maybe they buy-off all the NPCs who could stand up to them, and wipe out anyone else before they can get powerful enough. Whatever, I don't know. But rest assured that they're not going to just say okay and let the GM take back control.

The only thing I've found to work is to share control from the get go. When the players have a hand in deciding the challenges their characters will face, they have much less incentive to short-circuit those challenges.

[Templarkommando]

I think it's fun in certain circumstances for this to run the gamut. Obviously, everything belongs in its place (By which I mean that you don't want completely incompetent badguys), but the occasional incompetent city guard is fun. The thing that I really want to get away from is the stereotype that all of my guards are incompetent. My home party gets angry sometimes when their plots are foiled by an average cop that's walking an average beat.

[nothingforyou]

The PCs are the baddest-assed of the badass. Not every adversary should be as twinked out as the heroes, and it would strain credibility if they were. But their primary opposition - the BBEG, his trusted lieutenant, and so forth - should be able to put up a hell of a fight.

The problem with the phrase "someone just as powerful being able to one-shot the PCs" isn't "just as powerful," it's "one-shot." Enemies should never be optimized offensively to the extent that PCs are, because their job in the metagame is to show up, fight, and then die or run away, while it's the PCs' job to survive. Give them just enough offensive power so the PCs don't get complacent, and then make sure they can take a few blows. The enemy crumpling in one round is exactly as unfun as the PCs being wiped out in one round.

These defenses need not be AC/saves/DR/whatever. In fact, those are kinda lame, because failure sucks. Stacks of HP are a classic - the PCs feel like they are actually accomplishing something when they land a 10HP blow on a 100HP guy, whereas they'll feel like their characters are weak and useless when they miss nine times against a 10HP guy. The result is the same (ten attacks, one dead enemy) but if you make the enemy capable of taking a few hits, it feels much better and lets everyone contribute. It doesn't have to be HP, though - any ablative-style defenses are good. Minions, layers of protection like Prismatic Walls or Globes of Invulnerability that can be torn down, anything the PCs can gradually hew to pieces is good times.

That's a good point, at a meta-level the idea of having NPCs be optimized the same way as PCs makes the game very radically different from what most people are looking for in an RPG.

How would you feel about a rocket tag game? Isn't this pretty much what D&D 3.5e/GURPS 4e PvP looks like?


NPCs should be as competent as they need to be to do the job set out for them. If that job is fighting the party, then they should be as optimized as the party is, to provide them a good challenge. If that job is to sell beer, then they can get away with little more than a name and a description.

Perhaps the beer merchant should be optimized for beer selling? I mean, pragmatically that's not realistic to do for most DMs, but in a hypothetical world should the merchant's Profession (merchant) ranks be optimized?


The only thing I've found to work is to share control from the get go. When the players have a hand in deciding the challenges their characters will face, they have much less incentive to short-circuit those challenges.

OK, so I always have played with mature people, and have tried to be mature myself. These kinds of social meta issues aren't a concern, I was wondering how people felt about games where PCs and NPCs are equally high-op.

[Knaight]

OK, so I always have played with mature people, and have tried to be mature myself. These kinds of social meta issues aren't a concern, I was wondering how people felt about games where PCs and NPCs are equally high-op.

I'd say go for it. With that said, it's often less about the optimization than the power of the character, whether that's personal power or the power of an institution they represent to some extent. If I wanted to make a very dangerous warrior in a 150 pt. GURPS game, I could use the 150 points that PCs had access to and optimize the heck out of the character, particularly as GURPS optimization is often a matter of getting the same stats a different way that costs less. It's an exercise in tedium, but it's doable. On the other hand, I could just set up the character to be more along the lines of 200 points, not tracking points at all.

The same applies to the other end of the scale. If the character in question is the prefect's drunkard nephew who's an embarrassment to the family, and that character's cousin who as assigned to keep an eye on them rather than do something more important because they aren't exactly hot stuff, I could take those 150 points and squander them. Or they could just be made weaker more directly.

[Jay R]

The PCs are the baddest-assed of the badass.

This is certainly one way to play, but it's not an automatic assumption of the game, or the way everybody plays.

In all the best games I've played, the characters started out at 1st level. It takes time to become the top.

[Beta Centauri]

OK, so I always have played with mature people, and have tried to be mature myself. These kinds of social meta issues aren't a concern, I was wondering how people felt about games where PCs and NPCs are equally high-op. Oh, I see. I thought you were specifically talking about the kinds of players who would sell walls of salt.

I play 4e D&D, so the NPCs that appreciable screen time is spent on are either as powerful as or much more powerful than the PCs. Key to this is that the kinds of NPCs they face change as the PCs level. At first level, its shopkeepers and town guards. At 5th level, it's bounty hunters and dukes. At 11th level it's shopkeepers and town guards - who are also undead, because the characters are tooling around the Shadowfell. If the PCs return to the town they were in at first level, any interactions with those old NPCs is handled with, at most, an easy dice roll.

[Knaight]

This is certainly one way to play, but it's not an automatic assumption of the game, or the way everybody plays.

I'm seconding this. There are games where the PCs are the amazingly badass people, but then there are games where they very much aren't. For instance, Grey Ranks is a game about child resistance fighters in Nazi occupied Poland. It's a bleak game, and the PCs aren't big badasses in it.

[jedipotter]

Al most all foes have to be competent. That is the nature of the game.


Having incompetent ''goofy'' foes or weak foes, just wastes time. If you have powerful PC that can lay waste to weak or goofy foes in less then a round, then your just wasting time even having that round.

You can't really have the PC's be ''too awesome'', otherwise the game becomes pointless.

[LibraryOgre]

Perhaps the beer merchant should be optimized for beer selling? I mean, pragmatically that's not realistic to do for most DMs, but in a hypothetical world should the merchant's Profession (merchant) ranks be optimized?

Sure, you can do that. But, unless it's going to come up, why bother? Chances are very good I'm not going to need to know that... and I'm only going to need to know his saving throw numbers most of the time if I've got a play who is charm-happy.

[Knaight]

Having incompetent ''goofy'' foes or weak foes, just wastes time. If you have powerful PC that can lay waste to weak or goofy foes in less then a round, then your just wasting time even having that round.

That round establishes things about the setting, the characters involved, etc. Say there's a fantasy game which is using the trope a generally low tech setting with the occasional really high tech element. The first time the PCs take a plasma gun to a sword fight, it's probably going to be over quickly, and over easily. Once the PCs have a reputation as people that you fight at long range while hidden if you know what's good for you, the fights are probably going to take longer again.

Still, that one fight? It really emphasizes the setting element, where the technological disparity is clear.

[Flickerdart]

This is certainly one way to play, but it's not an automatic assumption of the game, or the way everybody plays.

In all the best games I've played, the characters started out at 1st level. It takes time to become the top.
Even 1st level characters stand head and shoulders above the rabble. Look at your typical human commoner - 2 HP and +0 to hit with one simple weapon. A level 1 fighter could cleave through half a dozen of these guys and then go back to his beer.

[LibraryOgre]

Even 1st level characters stand head and shoulders above the rabble. Look at your typical human commoner - 2 HP and +0 to hit with one simple weapon. A level 1 fighter could cleave through half a dozen of these guys and then go back to his beer.

Assumption of system not in evidence.

A 1st level fighter in AD&D? Aside from stats (which might be generated with an advantageous system), he hits about as well, has maybe one or two HP. Put them both in armor and you don't have much difference. A 1st level thief is about the same as all those 0th level commoners when it comes to combat.

In Hackmaster, your 1st level human fighter isn't much above a 0th level human... BPs spent more advantageously, giving maybe a +1 or +2 over them (and on opposed rolls, those matter a bit less).

[Flickerdart]

Assumption of system not in evidence.
Every country system in the world belongs to America 3.5.

[Knaight]

Even 1st level characters stand head and shoulders above the rabble. Look at your typical human commoner - 2 HP and +0 to hit with one simple weapon. A level 1 fighter could cleave through half a dozen of these guys and then go back to his beer.
If we're assuming that the PCs are all professional combatants, they're going to be better than noncombatants at combat. That doesn't mean they are necessarily more competent overall.


Every country system in the world belongs to America 3.5.
While this is an entirely too true assessment of these boards, this particular non-sub-forum actually does have the occasional person who isn't too hot on 3.5 and isn't assuming it. At least some of us have gotten to the point where the 3.x assumption is downright irritating.

[Jay R]

Even 1st level characters stand head and shoulders above the rabble. Look at your typical human commoner - 2 HP and +0 to hit with one simple weapon. A level 1 fighter could cleave through half a dozen of these guys and then go back to his beer.

There is a huge difference between "head and shoulders above the rabble" and "the baddest-assed of the badass." If you are revising your statement to "the PCs stand head and shoulders above the rabble," then we are in agreement. If not then you aren't defending your actual position.


Having incompetent ''goofy'' foes or weak foes, just wastes time. If you have powerful PC that can lay waste to weak or goofy foes in less then a round, then your just wasting time even having that round.

I agree with what I think you meant, but not with what you said. Numbers matter as well as level. 100 weak, goofy kobolds can be a serious problem for a party.

I certainly agree that the sum total of the bad guys must be able to threaten the sum total of the party, but that can be done with enough incompetent foes all firing together.


You can't really have the PC's be ''too awesome'', otherwise the game becomes pointless.

Agreed completely.

[jedipotter]

I agree with what I think you meant, but not with what you said. Numbers matter as well as level. 100 weak, goofy kobolds can be a serious problem for a party.


D&D gets really tricky with the power levels, and that is even if your not optimizing, power gaming or anything else.

Weak, goofy kobolds can still be a threat....but they will need a power boost to do so.

[hamishspence]

Depends on the NPC.

Dirt Farmer? 5% as optimized as a PC.
Town Guard? 20-25%
Royal Guards? 30-35%
Badass captain of he Guard? 55-60%
Badass warrior, who is eiher friend or rival to one or more PCs? 75-90%
BBEG's first lieutenant? 85-95%
BBEG? >95%


EDIT: Note: this is a rough guideline.
Yup - a low-level BBEG could get away with being more optimized than the PCs. They might feel a bit cheated though when, say, at 8th level, the CR4 heavily optimized BBEG is a very tough fight, yet gives them minimal XP afterward.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

There should be NPCs who are more competent than the PCs. There should also be NPCs who are less competent than the PCs.

Agree there - but there should always be something even the most competent and thorough thinking NPC won't think of. An underling with something the PCs can exploit, despite their bosses best efforts to make sure that doesn't happen, an access method to their lair that they don't know about, an unlikely circumstance (say they've sent a group into the nearest town for supplies, but they got caught up in a bar fight and arrested), or someone just bulldozing through their front door, even though it's as well defended as they could make it.

However, the PCs won't be able to use it against them twice. :smallwink:

Or circumstances can conspire against them - even the best NPCs won't have infinite money or resources, or they might have planned for a defence but not had the time to put it in place when the PCs come calling.

Then, of course, there's the NPC's own psychology - take the Riddler in Batman. He doesn't just want to commit his crimes, he wants to beat Batman intellectually, and prove it to the world. Some people just can't help themselves.

Effectively, you need to build their defences and escape routes first, then let the PCs take a run at them. If circumstances would allow them to add something in depending on what the players do, then you can react to that, but otherwise, you can't just throw something in place because the players have thought of something you didn't and you don't think it's time for the bad guy to be brought down yet - that's why you've put their escape routes in place.

If they've blocked them all off, let them arrest the bad guy, congratulate them, and either spring him later on or let him carry on from inside his prison cell. :smallamused:



The town guard is not well optimized, but the royal bodyguard is.
Or in some cases, the town guard is incredibly competent, because they're out on the streets day after day, and the royal guard's a bunch of political appointees, lickspittles and first sons who've inherited the position from their fathers, who barely know the sharp end of a sword from their backsides and their main job in life is to wear an ornate uniform and look good at state occasions, while the real job of protecting the monarch and his family's done by someone else.

[Frozen_Feet]

NPCs should be as competent as their role in the setting requires. Scaling them against the PCs, specifically, only makes sense if PCs are the main competition or threat to the NPCs. In most cases, you should think larger: who are all the other people the NPC has to work with or against? What would they actually need to know and be able to accomplish to be in the position they are in?

Doing it this way, you'll find out that being optimized to theoretical optimums would rarely make sense. Think of it in the terms of evolution, non-random survival of random traits. The process doesn't aim for the "best", it aims for "least worst" or "good enough". To become a level 5 barbarian, you only need to survive the preceding levels, you don't need to be able to kill every foe with a single blow without taking any damage.

[Flickerdart]

Weak, goofy kobolds can still be a threat....but they will need a power boost to do so.
If you give weak kobolds a power boost, they are no longer weak.

[LibraryOgre]

Weak, goofy kobolds can still be a threat....but they will need a power boost to do so.

Not really; that was the entire point of Tucker's Kobolds, after all. Sure, they're "only kobolds", but if you have them take their money and such an invest it in traps and such, it can turn a speedbump into a serious threat... not because they have great individual power, but because they've leveraged time and location into a force multiplier.

[Mr.Moron]

Roughly as component as they need to be to provide the kind of engagement you intended for the players to experience.

[janusmaxwell]

Related question, possibly.

What would be the equivalent skill level for DnD ranks?

For example, playing WOD games and in those, having 1 dot in something means poor and 2 is average, with the maximum in the realm of human ability capping at 5.

What's the equivalent in skill ranks for ability in D20 skill rank system? would it be 10 considered average with 20 being the best possible without magic?

The reason I ask is that I don't want to have a noble who has spent the entirety of his life in and around the upper-crust of society and his ranks in Knowledge Nobility amounts to "average/below average".

[Flickerdart]

Related question, possibly.

What would be the equivalent skill level for DnD ranks?

For example, playing WOD games and in those, having 1 dot in something means poor and 2 is average, with the maximum in the realm of human ability capping at 5.

What's the equivalent in skill ranks for ability in D20 skill rank system? would it be 10 considered average with 20 being the best possible without magic?

The reason I ask is that I don't want to have a noble who has spent the entirety of his life in and around the upper-crust of society and his ranks in Knowledge Nobility amounts to "average/below average".
Skill ranks don't really affect anything, what you're after is the total modifier. In such a case, +0 represents your random guy off the street, average for a practitioner of the skill is about +5 (DC15 Knowledge checks are "basic questions," DC15 is required to craft martial weapons, a DC15 performance is "enjoyable"). +10 is considered good (DC20 to craft a masterwork or "superior" item, a "great performance" that gives you regional prominence, or answer a tough question). Most tables for checks that non-adventurers would perform generally cap out at around DC30, requiring a +20 modifier for hardcore expertise.

[Beta Centauri]

I despise skill ranks for NPCs - if I want my NPC to be able to do something, then it's able to do that thing - but one thing I always wondered about was how the "Profession" skill figured in. A blacksmith wouldn't need to have Craft: Weaponsmithing, Craft: Armorsmithing and whatever else in order to make a living as a blacksmith; they'd just need Profession: Blacksmith. Even a 1st level blacksmith, with minimal training, would make an average of about 10 gold a week, which seems pretty good.

What does that 10 gold represent? Seems like it could represent anything. That blacksmith could be churning out high-quality masterwork weapons and armor, with a razor thin profit margin. That would make that NPC far more competent at blacksmithing than a PC with a massive modifier in Craft: Weaponsmithing.

For that matter, I don't see why you couldn't have NPCs with Profession: Adventurer. They're quite as competent as the PCs and make a living, but it's nothing grand.

[Flickerdart]

For that matter, I don't see why you couldn't have NPCs with Profession: Adventurer. They're quite as competent as the PCs and make a living, but it's nothing grand.
The kind of pocket change you make with Profession would mean that these guys "quest" in shuttered stores and morgues - they're basically scavengers and looters.

[Beta Centauri]

The kind of pocket change you make with Profession would mean that these guys "quest" in shuttered stores and morgues - they're basically scavengers and looters. Not at all. They're simply not as successful as the PCs. Adventuring in the real world is financially risky, even for the very competent, so it's plausible that most fictional adventurers wouldn't hit it big. Furthermore, the Profession roll just tells us how much they make. It could be that once costs for equipment, traveling, and healing are covered that they are making merely a comfortable living. Or maybe they're highly altruistic and adventure not for gold but for artifacts that they give to museums, which fund their expenses plus a modest stipend.

[jedipotter]

Not really; that was the entire point of Tucker's Kobolds, after all. Sure, they're "only kobolds", but if you have them take their money and such an invest it in traps and such, it can turn a speedbump into a serious threat... not because they have great individual power, but because they've leveraged time and location into a force multiplier.

Tuckers Kobolds was a couple of Editions ago. And it does not account for optimization.

Once the PC's are 10th level or so in Editions like 3.5E, anything mundane is a bit pointless. Burning oil? Oh, like 1d4 damage? Smoke: ok make a save vs DC 15 with your plus 15. And teleporting past/away from things.

Not to mention that the under 1 CR foes have no chance of hitting a 10th level character unless they roll a 20.

To do Tuckers Kobolds in 3.5E, you need to up the power level of the kobolds.

[Flickerdart]

Not at all. They're simply not as successful as the PCs. Adventuring in the real world is financially risky, even for the very competent, so it's plausible that most fictional adventurers wouldn't hit it big. Furthermore, the Profession roll just tells us how much they make. It could be that once costs for equipment, traveling, and healing are covered that they are making merely a comfortable living. Or maybe they're highly altruistic and adventure not for gold but for artifacts that they give to museums, which fund their expenses plus a modest stipend.
Yeah, but they're not actually good at fighting or anything (as evidenced by their lack of fighting skill) which makes these alternate explanations really hard to swallow. Kind of like a guy with ranks in Profession (Locksmith) but absolutely no Open Lock ranks is still bad at picking locks despite making money doing it.

[Beta Centauri]

Yeah, but they're not actually good at fighting or anything (as evidenced by their lack of fighting skill) which makes these alternate explanations really hard to swallow. Kind of like a guy with ranks in Profession (Locksmith) but absolutely no Open Lock ranks is still bad at picking locks despite making money doing it. Profession says "You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems."

An NPC with Profession: Blacksmith knows how to use a forge, anvil, hammer, tongs, etc., can complete everyday tasks associated with blacksmithing (forging items, making repairs, toting coal, etc.), can supervise his apprentices and can deal with problems like tricky suppliers and customers, thieves, and injuries.

However, even though this blacksmith can forge items, and even items of masterwork quality and of special materials if that is an "everyday" task, this blacksmith can't succeed on a Craft: Weaponsmithing roll to save their life. But that doesn't mean they can't weaponsmith. They're a blacksmith. Of course they can weaponsmith. It's preposterous to claim otherwise.

An NPC with Profession: Adventurer knows how to use weapons, spells, thieves tools, rope, lanterns, etc., can complete everyday tasks associated with adventuring (exploring, traveling, fighting off monsters, etc.), can order henchmen around, and can deal with problems like injuries, getting lost, bad weather, etc.

However, even though this adventurer can fight monsters, and even tough monsters if that is an "everyday" task, this adventurer can't succeed on an actual attack roll to save their life. But that doesn't mean they can't fight. They're an adventurer. Of course they can fight. It's preposterous to claim otherwise.

The thing is that neither of these NPCs do any specific thing. Everything they do is in the abstract. It's never actually "on screen." If the PCs challenge the NPC adventurer directly, of course they'll lose. Then again, the NPC adventurer is not at risk of dying on an adventure the same way the PCs are, and can't expect to make the same money the PCs can. Similarly, the NPC blacksmith can't craft a specific sword for his personal use, but also never has to worry about failing to make a profit in a given week.

I'm not saying this, the game is. Zoom in, play everything out, get into specifics, and the PCs are going to vastly outclass the NPCs. Put things in the abstract though, as one usually will for NPCs, and they're perfectly competent and capable.

The bottom line of course, and why I hate skill ranks for NPCs, is that the rules are not sufficient to create or even usefully simulate the game world. If a GM wants a blacksmith, they don't have to stat the blacksmith out, they just say there's a blacksmith, who can or can't sell what the PCs want for a given price.


Kind of like a guy with ranks in Profession (Locksmith) but absolutely no Open Lock ranks is still bad at picking locks despite making money doing it. I missed this before.

Yes, that's right! That guy picks locks in a professional context. PCs pick locks in a game context. The professional locksmith picks locks with a speed and success rate adequate to make 1d20/2 gold per week. He's not doing it in a dungeon or with monsters breathing down his neck, and if you pit him against a PC with ranks in Open Locks, and the PC simply wins. No point in even rolling, really. That doesn't mean the locksmith is incompetent.

[Jay R]

Weak, goofy kobolds can still be a threat....but they will need a power boost to do so.

Only if you expand the meaning of "power boost" to include being on top of the mountain ready to start an avalanche, or having the only boat that still floats, or knowing where the safe path through the Death Swamp is, or even just having a few hundred archers and being out of reach of the melee fighters.

[Susano-wo]

However, even though this blacksmith can forge items, and even items of masterwork quality and of special materials if that is an "everyday" task, this blacksmith can't succeed on a Craft: Weaponsmithing roll to save their life. But that doesn't mean they can't weaponsmith. They're a blacksmith. Of course they can weaponsmith. It's preposterous to claim otherwise.

Um, no. horseshoes and nails (and other basic blacksmithing tasks) require no where near the expertise it takes to craft anything other than crude weapons. normal quality weapons, much less masterwork ones require special training. maybe another skill might be more apropriate? :smallwink:

Profession is a way to abstract making money from a certain type of job. crafting is meant to be a concrete way to produce certain types of items. To examine it too closely shows the cracks in the system. (that you should be able to craft basic items with profession blacksmith, but by RAW you cannot) Though this can be mitigated by allowing profession trained characters to produce the basics as though crafting, but anything aside from that (like useful weapons or quality clothing, etc,) require craft training.

[Beta Centauri]

Um, no. Ah, the classic sound of condescension. Hopefully you didn't mean it that way.


horseshoes and nails (and other basic blacksmithing tasks) require no where near the expertise it takes to craft anything other than crude weapons. normal quality weapons, much less masterwork ones require special training. maybe another skill might be more apropriate? :smallwink: Oh, okay. Profession: Specially Trained Blacksmith.


Profession is a way to abstract making money from a certain type of job. crafting is meant to be a concrete way to produce certain types of items. To examine it too closely shows the cracks in the system. (that you should be able to craft basic items with profession blacksmith, but by RAW you cannot) Though this can be mitigated by allowing profession trained characters to produce the basics as though crafting, but anything aside from that (like useful weapons or quality clothing, etc,) require craft training. Useful weapons, quality clothing, or anything else in a D&D game comes from somewhere. Normally where it comes from doesn't matter, but it's plausible to imagine such an NPC having ranks in a Profession skill. The Profession skill contains everything necessary to work in that profession. It doesn't address actual output or services rendered, but of course the NPC does have output or did perform a service. So would a PC engaged in the same profession.

The abstraction is that the output and service doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to the character, nor to the location where the profession was practiced. Because it doesn't matter, we're free to imagine that the output or service was anything we want. The blacksmith spent the week crafting a masterwork item for a noble. The noble paid up front, but there were cost overruns, and the blacksmith even had to pay a local with Profession: Alchemist to give him a potion that would keep him awake. At the end of the week, the blacksmith had a total profit of 1d20/2 + half his skill modifier in gp, and he had a masterwork sword, which was handed over to the noble. Or stolen. Or lost. Or whatever.

The blacksmith could even work directly with the PCs. He might sell them a masterwork sword for however much it would go for. But, insofar as it matters to the game, at the end of the week that blacksmith's profit would be 1d20/2 + half his skill modifier in gp.

Why doesn't a PC just take ranks in blacksmith, make a bunch of swords in a week and supplement his Profession: Blacksmith income with the sale of all those swords? Well, mainly because he already had to sell those swords as part of the Profession roll, but also because what that plan calls for is a Profession: Salesman roll, with the paltry number of GP that entails for another week's work.

[LibraryOgre]

Tuckers Kobolds was a couple of Editions ago. And it does not account for optimization.

Once the PC's are 10th level or so in Editions like 3.5E, anything mundane is a bit pointless. Burning oil? Oh, like 1d4 damage? Smoke: ok make a save vs DC 15 with your plus 15. And teleporting past/away from things.

Not to mention that the under 1 CR foes have no chance of hitting a 10th level character unless they roll a 20.

To do Tuckers Kobolds in 3.5E, you need to up the power level of the kobolds.

a) I seldom talk about 3.x. 3.x is irrelevant to 90% of the conversation of "how competent should NPCs be", because not every game is 3.x.

b) At this point, 3.x *is* "a couple of editions ago." Tucker's Kobolds remains remarkably relevant for the current edition of Hackmaster, the current printing of Castles and Crusades, and pretty damn scary in Palladium Fantasy.

How would Tucker's Kobolds be relevant in 3.x? Pretty simple... by making them 10th level kobolds, which isn't a power boost... it's an assumed part of the world that there are leveled kobolds. Otherwise, all your dwarf and gnome PCs are getting a massive power boost over their MM stats, which is for a mere 1st level warrior.

If I didn't want to level my kobolds extensively? Give them NPC wealth by level... in wands. A bunch of 1st level kobold sorcerers with 3rd level spells in 1 charge wands. Take a tribe of 400 1st level kobold sorcerers, with 20 3rd level sergeants, 2 5th level lieutenants, and 1 8th level leader. Now, as 1st level sorcerers, they can all have a wand with a single 3rd level spell (cast at 5th level) and a single 1st level potion, and a single 1st level scroll... along with a club and a sling, which are free simple weapons. If you insist on making them warriors, we give them all the arcane schooling feat, and give each group of 4 one wand and three 1st level scrolls.

SCORES of kobolds attacking from concealment, ripping you apart with magic. Over the course of the day, you're faced with a scores of fireballs and lightning bolts. Flights of magic missiles. Showers of sling stones, thrown from behind Wind Walls or even silent images of walls (thrown either by every kobold sorcerer, or by those few sergeants, who have even better magic items). At this point, you're not dealing with their to-hit rolls... they're simply functioning as a matter of statistics. This says nothing of mundane traps, rock falls, tiny scamper holes... leveraging the 1 EL budget for all its worth.

THAT's Tucker's Kobolds in 3.x. Sure, you'll kill a lot. You might even win the day, because, after all, they have crap saves and almost no HP. But every time you waste a spell on a group of 4 kobolds with a wand, that 8th level leader makes a mark on the wall. And once he has enough marks, he sends six groups, instead of one. They eat you with numbers and spending their money well.

[Susano-wo]

Ah, the classic sound of condescension. Hopefully you didn't mean it that way.

No, it wasnt meant to be condescending; I should have used different wording. My apologies


Oh, okay. Profession: Specially Trained Blacksmith.

Blacksmith the is the profession, specially trained is just a description. Just like its unreasonable to assume profession: any, or profession: miracle worker, its unreasonable to try to take profession to duplicate crafting when they are explicitly different. from the SRD: "Craft skill represents ability in creating or making an item, a Profession skill represents an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge." Which might mean, now that I think about it, that by RAW anything you can take crafting for you cannot take as a profession, which solves the discrepancy right there, though economically it is silly, but it was already silly to assume every profession makes the same amount of money :smallbiggrin:


Useful weapons, quality clothing, or anything else in a D&D game comes from somewhere. Normally where it comes from doesn't matter, but it's plausible to imagine such an NPC having ranks in a Profession skill. The Profession skill contains everything necessary to work in that profession. It doesn't address actual output or services rendered, but of course the NPC does have output or did perform a service. So would a PC engaged in the same profession.

The abstraction is that the output and service doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to the character, nor to the location where the profession was practiced. Because it doesn't matter, we're free to imagine that the output or service was anything we want. The blacksmith spent the week crafting a masterwork item for a noble. The noble paid up front, but there were cost overruns, and the blacksmith even had to pay a local with Profession: Alchemist to give him a potion that would keep him awake. At the end of the week, the blacksmith had a total profit of 1d20/2 + half his skill modifier in gp, and he had a masterwork sword, which was handed over to the noble. Or stolen. Or lost. Or whatever.

The blacksmith could even work directly with the PCs. He might sell them a masterwork sword for however much it would go for. But, insofar as it matters to the game, at the end of the week that blacksmith's profit would be 1d20/2 + half his skill modifier in gp.

Why doesn't a PC just take ranks in blacksmith, make a bunch of swords in a week and supplement his Profession: Blacksmith income with the sale of all those swords? Well, mainly because he already had to sell those swords as part of the Profession roll, but also because what that plan calls for is a Profession: Salesman roll, with the paltry number of GP that entails for another week's work.

Sure, if you make a profession roll, it is certainly fair to say that you used your product to make your money. I guess that's a way to solve the discrepancy as well. Well, no that doesn't work, because as a character who can create a masterwork sword, it doesn't make sense that you can make it and sell it, but not just make it. Which makes craft useless, which is why I think they intended for profession to be a catchall for things that are not performances or crafts, but that people would be trained in.

[neonchameleon]

What's the setting, what's the tone of the game? What are the NPCs there for?

[Frozen_Feet]

Related question, possibly.

What would be the equivalent skill level for DnD ranks?

For example, playing WOD games and in those, having 1 dot in something means poor and 2 is average, with the maximum in the realm of human ability capping at 5.

What's the equivalent in skill ranks for ability in D20 skill rank system? would it be 10 considered average with 20 being the best possible without magic?

The reason I ask is that I don't want to have a noble who has spent the entirety of his life in and around the upper-crust of society and his ranks in Knowledge Nobility amounts to "average/below average".

As FlickerDart noted, skill ranks are not the be-all-end-all of character ability in D&D 3.x. You also want to take a long look at character abilities, race, class, feats and flaws, representing various other facets of the character than just their vocational training.

Anyone looking to make an actual living out of a skill would place minimum of 4 ranks in one, as that's the maximum amount you can allocate to a class skill at 1st level. 1st level, as demonstrated by starting age tables, represents a young adult fresh out of training. A specialist would want to keep a skill maxed at every level, and other skills at maybe half the maximum ranks; this is the default assumption of the d20 system, and enforced by the rules for non-class skills.

Now, as for the total modifier: d20 system works in increments of five. The basic difficulty classes can be found here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass) As Flickerdart suggested, a modifier of +5 is bare minimum for anyone to be considered "expert" in a skill, as it allows for automatic passing of Easy checks in all cases, and automatic passing for Average and Tough check when taking 10, and even in a hurried or risky situation a character will succeed 75% and 50% of time. It should be noted that specific rules for skills are pretty extensive, so often, knowing just the modifier will not be enough to tell you what it would translate to in a real situation. For example, the Jump skill has a table telling you how much height and distance you can reach by passing various checks. So instead of saying "+5 modifier is pretty good", you'd first look at the modifier, then at the table telling you how far the character can jump, and then cross-reference the results with real-life statistics on jumping.

[LibraryOgre]

My rule of thumb for level is Age/10 is your level (for humans). As such, I'd say that, training-wise, 4 represents an apprentice (competent, but not really able to function on their own), 5 a journeyman (able to function on your own, start to be able to apply your knowledge to other areas [synergies]), and 6 or higher goes into the Master level.... fully competent, and getting better.

As mentioned, these are just the ranks. You're still going to have to deal with the modifiers. I'd say that, at first level, you're likely looking at average people having +8 in their main profession... 4 ranks, 1 stat, 3 from a skill focus. By 4th level (a human in their 40s), those who are pretty good are likely to be looking at +14-+15... 7 ranks, 3 from a skill focus, 2 or 3 from attribute increases (+1 at 4th level, +1 to Int and Wisdom from Middle Age, maybe kicking you up to a 16), and 2 from a masterwork tool.

I think, when you expand into the broader world described by 3.x mechanics, there's a lot that wasn't covered (because it's not relevant to most D&D games, much like I tend to assume there's spells for fertility and childbirth and the like that aren't covered by the books). If I wanted to write Shopkeepers and Surplus Inventory on a d20 based system, I'd include synergies. Your "Blacksmith" gets a synergy bonus to his income check if he also has 5 ranks in Weaponsmithing and/or Armorsmithing, because, while he mostly deals in horseshoes, nails, and pots, he can turn a bit of money fixing armor or touching up blades. He also gets a synergy bonus from Appraise and Profession: Shopkeeper (or Profession: Blacksmith), not because they help him make better pots, but because they help him run his business better... Appraise means he makes shrewder deals for things he buys, and Profession means he wastes less money.

So, while this 40 year old, 4th level blacksmith may make items with a +14, he rolls for his income with something like a +20... that +14 for his craft skill, and various synergies that make him a better merchant. That means that unwise craftsman, with points spread all over the place and poorly optimized (for his purposes) feat selections might be making about 12gp per week, the one who is well-optimized is making 15gp per week. And while adventurers may scoff and fart out 15gp tips, to a merchant that means an additional 156gp a year. It's a 25% raise over his less-optimized peer, at doing the thing he actually is trying to do with his skill check... make money.

[Citrakayah]

A sufficiently ingenious bunch of kobolds could do a TPK of high-level characters. Yes, even if they aren't high levels. Because they don't need high-powered scrolls, spells, or wands. In fact, they don't need magic at all. No, what they need is:

* a really big network of tunnels to call home
* basic engineering skills

Sure, you can wipe out some of them. Maybe even a bunch of them. But when every few minutes you end up running into a pressure-triggered plate that sends thousands of tiny darts at you (and yes, you have to make saving throws for the poison coating each individually), when trip wires set off a chain reaction igniting alchemist's fire traps that send the entire ceiling collapsing in on you, when you have to swim through banana oil (yes, banana oil) and are attacked by thousands of bees, when you have to walk across entire floors made of carefully arranged mica plates that break if a fighter in heavy metal armor goes stomping across them?

At that point it becomes a question of how long you can keep going. And the answer is: "Not as long as the kobolds. Give up and go home."

These are incredibly fast-breeding, small creatures with metabolisms that are very slow (reptilian, you know). They are extremely social, gather in ridiculously large groups, and prefer to hollow out large rock formations... most of the tunnels aren't large enough to let you pass, I might add.

If you are fighting kobolds on their home turf once they're entrenched, you have already lost.