Elite versus Average Ability Distribution [3.5]

[Duke of Urrel]

Is there any standard rule or guideline that determines or recommends what percentage of NPCs in a given population has or should have elite abilities, and what percentage has or should have average abilities?

[Flickerdart]

Elite Array is usually for people with class levels. People with NPC levels should use either the standard (10s and 11s) or Nonelite (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8) arrays.

The demographics of PC and NPC classes are given in the DMG.

[Duke of Urrel]

Should all NPCs, as well as all monsters without character levels, have average rather than elite abilities? Or might a minority have elite abilities?

The Dungeon Master's Guide presents "NPC Statistics" on pages 110 to 126, and all of these statistics have the elite array. Moreover, this passage appears on page 110:


The monsters described in the Monster Manual are average characters rather than elite ones (though elite monsters also exist). Likewise, some fighters, wizards, and so on are average people rather than elites; they have fewer hit points and lower ability scores than the NPCs described here.

It seems to me that at least a few NPCs should have elite abilities, especially if they belong to PC classes.

But how big should this minority be? I'm asking in regard to both plausibility and playability.

[Flickerdart]

Given that Elite Array by itself and Elite Array + 1 PC level are worth the same in terms of CR adjustment, the answer is "if you have elite array monsters without PC levels, you're probably doing it wrong."

Since the DMG also describes PC-classed NPCs with nonelite stats in the same way, it's probably fair to assume that the two roughly cancel each other out.

[Duke of Urrel]

Given that Elite Array by itself and Elite Array + 1 PC level are worth the same in terms of CR adjustment, the answer is "if you have elite array monsters without PC levels, you're probably doing it wrong."

Since the DMG also describes PC-classed NPCs with nonelite stats in the same way, it's probably fair to assume that the two roughly cancel each other out.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it's pointless for a monster with no character levels to have elite abilities. That makes sense, I suppose, and it makes a simple and usable rule. One could make the same argument for NPCs belonging to NPC classes.

Are you also saying that for the purpose of determining CR, it makes no difference whether a NPC with a PC class has elite or average abilities? If so, which makes better sense: giving all NPCs with a PC class elite abilites, giving them all average abilities, or giving them usually average, but occasionally elite abilities?

I am also considering the possibility of multiclass NPCs who have both a NPC class and a PC class. This possibility raises the same questions.

I believe the dungeon master has the power to give any NPC either elite or average abilities – at least, I don't see any rule that limits this power. (Inquiring after a possible rule was the reason why I labeled this a "Rules Q&A" thread.) However, how often may a dungeon master give Hostile NPCs elite abilities before players have the right to call this abusive?

[Flickerdart]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it's pointless for a monster with no character levels to have elite abilities. That makes sense, I suppose, and it makes a simple and usable rule. One could make the same argument for NPCs belonging to NPC classes.

Are you also saying that for the purpose of determining CR, it makes no difference whether a NPC with a PC class has elite or average abilities? If so, which makes better sense: giving all NPCs with a PC class elite abilites, giving them all average abilities, or giving them usually average, but occasionally elite abilities?

No, no. What I'm saying is that the costs of adding Elite Array (+1 CR) and the cost of adding a PC class (+1 CR) and then receiving the Elite Array for free are the same. So it makes no sense to just add Elite Array when you can add a PC class and gain Elite Array. So all NPCs with PCs class levels would be getting it for free.



I am also considering the possibility of multiclass NPCs who have both a NPC class and a PC class. This possibility raises the same questions.

I believe the dungeon master has the power to give any NPC either elite or average abilities – at least, I don't see any rule that limits this power. (Inquiring after a possible rule was the reason why I labeled this a "Rules Q&A" thread.) However, how often may a dungeon master give Hostile NPCs elite abilities before players have the right to call this abusive?
All NPCs with at least one level in a PC class are entitled to Elite Array. This is not abusive, it's how the rules work.

[Urpriest]

Keep in mind that most NPCs in the world use NPC classes, not PC classes, and characters who use NPC classes use the nonelite array. Pretty much nobody with class levels should use the 10's and 11's array, that's pretty much reserved for monsters that lack class levels. Look at the standard Warriors in the monster manual of each PC race: they all use the nonelite array.

But yeah, most NPCs that the players actually fight will have PC classes, and thus the elite array. Otherwise they're not exactly much of a challenge.

[SinsI]

Is there any standard rule or guideline that determines or recommends what percentage of NPCs in a given population has or should have elite abilities, and what percentage has or should have average abilities?
AFAIK basic stats for commoners used to be generated by the rule "3d6, no rearrangement", and it hasn't been changed in any way afterward so the basic premise is still in effect. You can thus find out the percentage of elites from that distribution.

[Duke of Urrel]

I think I have been persuaded that every creature with one or more levels in a PC class should have elite abilities. If anybody knows a special reason why a creature with one or more levels in a PC class should have non-elite abilities, please let me know.

I also agree that generally, creatures with one or more levels in a NPC class should have non-elite abilities. However, I've done some looking around, and I have found at least one reason why some of these creatures should have elite abilities. The following passage is from page 154 of the Dungeon Master's Guide II.


Adventurers and specialists always use the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) to determine their ability scores.

The "adventurers" and "specialists" mentioned here are all NPCs, because this passage is quoted from "Chapter Five: Nonplayer Characters." Adventurers generally have one or more levels in a PC class, but I believe specialists may have one or more levels in a NPC class.

So some creatures with one or more levels in a NPC class may also have elite abilities. There are a few other in-game reasons why this may happen. Suppose an adventurer retires from dungeon-diving and takes a level or two in the expert class. This multiclasser would have some NPC class levels, but would still have elite abilities. Or suppose a NPC belonging to the expert class, a moneychanger, literally goes rogue and takes some levels in the rogue class. I would allow this to happen only if the NPC had elite abilities to begin with, because rogues, like all characters belonging to PC classes, must have exceptional abilities.

So this is how my thinking has developed so far. Thank you for your input!

[Psyren]

The "adventurers" and "specialists" mentioned here are all NPCs, because this passage is quoted from "Chapter Five: Nonplayer Characters." Adventurers generally have one or more levels in a PC class, but I believe specialists may have one or more levels in a NPC class.

I think what Urpriest et al. are saying is that an NPC can still have levels in a PC class (typically, the NPCs that the players end up fighting.) They are still NPCs but the elite array makes them more of a challenge.

Monsters though typically just tend to have whatever stats are in their statblock.

[Duke of Urrel]

I think what Urpriest et al. are saying is that an NPC can still have levels in a PC class (typically, the NPCs that the players end up fighting.) They are still NPCs but the elite array makes them more of a challenge.

Monsters though typically just tend to have whatever stats are in their statblock.

This all makes sense.

The reason I'm curious about this topic is that I'm now on a world-building kick. I'm wondering about the possibilities for player-characters to become heroes who save peaceful realms from invasion. So I'm thinking not only about the NPCs who will fight the players and how tough they should be, but also about the NPCs whom the players will save and how weak they should be.

I've been delving into the Dungeon Master's Guide II, which I find very useful. I've discovered how few NPCs belonging to NPC classes actually advance beyond the first level: only about 1%. In contrast, about 45% of NPCs belonging to PC classes advance beyond the first level. This means that the number of advanced PCs exceeds the number of advanced NPCs by a factor of about three to two, even though NPCs outnumber PCs by about thirty to one.

So it makes sense to assume that NPCs belonging to PC classes should generally have elite abilities. After all, people become PCs by self-selecting, and this is a selection that only people with elite abilities will make. In contrast, people belong to the main NPC classes (aristocrat, commoner, expert, or warrior) because they're born into them, with whatever abilities they happen to have. Therefore, I've made it a house rule to assume that only about one in twenty NPCs belonging to a NPC class has elite abilities, but that all advanced NPCs belonging to NPC classes have elite abilities. This is the group that includes those "specialists" that the DM's Guide II mentions.

[jiriku]

In general, because the ability-generation method on a monster is invisible to the players, I just use whatever works best for my task at hand. Typically, that means 10-11 on all stock monsters and a super-elite, 32-point-buy version of the elite array on enemies with class levels. However, a few years ago I ran RHoD for a group that started at 10th level, and I used a combination of the super-elite array and hit die advancement to create monsters that were 2-6 CR higher than their stock versions -- this allowed me to use classic monsters at a threat level appropriate to the players. 90% of the monsters the PCs encountered during that game used the super-elite array. But I never told them that.

[atemu1234]

Very few people would possess the absolute normal array. It's just the statistical average.

[Chronos]

Of course, none of this is set in stone, and you should feel free to tweak it as necessary. For instance, if there's an NPC in your game who's renowned as a great sage, but you don't want him to be a spellcaster, you could make him an Expert with a bunch of knowledge skills, and give him a starting Int of 18 (plus possibly bonuses from age and leveling). There's no rule against that.

The standard and nonelite arrays are basically just shorthand for quickly building NPCs that you don't care enough about to put in any more effort. Of course, for most NPCs, you don't even need to put in that much: When the PCs are buying a beer at the tavern, you probably don't need to know how dextrous or wise the bartender is.

[hamishspence]

Of course, none of this is set in stone, and you should feel free to tweak it as necessary. For instance, if there's an NPC in your game who's renowned as a great sage, but you don't want him to be a spellcaster, you could make him an Expert with a bunch of knowledge skills, and give him a starting Int of 18 (plus possibly bonuses from age and leveling). There's no rule against that.

The standard and nonelite arrays are basically just shorthand for quickly building NPCs that you don't care enough about to put in any more effort. Of course, for most NPCs, you don't even need to put in that much: When the PCs are buying a beer at the tavern, you probably don't need to know how dextrous or wise the bartender is.

Monsters which don't really fit with class levels (animals especially) might deserve the Elite Array on its own - possibly in addition to advancing the monster in Hit Dice.

The alpha of a wolf pack could have it, for example.

[Psyren]

I still don't understand all this talk about giving monsters an array. Their stat block already tells you what they get, doesn't it?

It's especially weird for animals, which can't go above 2 Int, so how does any array account for that? Do you apply a variable penalty to their Int score depending on which score they assign there? How about incorporeal undead, they have two null scores, so can they stick their lowest numbers there and make the others artificially higher? Yet Shadows for instance have low Int, so what score did they put there?

You would represent the alpha of a wolf pack by advancing it, or applying a template to it, not by saying it started with slightly better numbers. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Flickerdart]

I still don't understand all this talk about giving monsters an array. Their stat block already tells you what they get, doesn't it?
"Monsters are assumed to have completely average (or standard) ability scores—a 10 or an 11 in each ability, as modified by their racial bonuses. However, improved monsters are individuals and often have better than normal ability scores, and usually make use of either the elite array or the nonelite array of ability scores." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm)


It's especially weird for animals, which can't go above 2 Int, so how does any array account for that? Do you apply a variable penalty to their Int score depending on which score they assign there? How about incorporeal undead, they have two null scores, so can they stick their lowest numbers there and make the others artificially higher? Yet Shadows for instance have low Int, so what score did they put there?
When you put a score into a nonability, the nonability stays a nonability. That part's pretty simple. If animals going above Int 2 are too immersion-breaking for you, don't put a score above 10 in it. The elite array has 2 such scores, and the nonelite array has 3. It's not hard.


You would represent the alpha of a wolf pack by advancing it, or applying a template to it, not by saying it started with slightly better numbers. It doesn't make sense to me.
The great thing about 3E is that you can represent a more powerful version of a monster in a whole bunch of different ways without the rules slapping you on the wrist with the One True Way Of Some Guy On A Forum.

[Urpriest]

Of course, none of this is set in stone, and you should feel free to tweak it as necessary. For instance, if there's an NPC in your game who's renowned as a great sage, but you don't want him to be a spellcaster, you could make him an Expert with a bunch of knowledge skills, and give him a starting Int of 18 (plus possibly bonuses from age and leveling). There's no rule against that.


This is true, but there are other ways to do that, like the Prodigy NPC trait from the DMGII.

[Psyren]

The great thing about 3E is that you can represent a more powerful version of a monster in a whole bunch of different ways without the rules slapping you on the wrist with the One True Way Of Some Guy On A Forum.

Um, you seem to be taking my statements personally for some reason that I really can't fathom. :smallconfused:


"Monsters are assumed to have completely average (or standard) ability scores—a 10 or an 11 in each ability, as modified by their racial bonuses. However, improved monsters are individuals and often have better than normal ability scores, and usually make use of either the elite array or the nonelite array of ability scores." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm)

From the same page you linked: "Each of the monster entries describes a typical creature of its kind." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm) So fine, they have the standard array, but you're still starting from what is in the statblock.



When you put a score into a nonability, the nonability stays a nonability. That part's pretty simple. If animals going above Int 2 are too immersion-breaking for you, don't put a score above 10 in it. The elite array has 2 such scores, and the nonelite array has 3. It's not hard.

It is hard. There's a pretty big difference between "Above 10" and "Above 2," especially when the same point spread in the other direction can make you a literal genius, which suggests to me that the numbers have meaning.

[Flickerdart]

It is hard. There's a pretty big difference between "Above 10" and "Above 2," especially when the same point spread in the other direction can make you a literal genius, which suggests to me that the numbers have meaning.
An animal (as any monster) has 10 or 11 in Int, modified by its racial mods (as stated explicitly in the text I quote). This means that each animal has an Int racial mod of -8 or -10, depending on whether it has 1 or 2 Int. As long as you don't put a score above 10 in Int, you're not raising Int above 2, and thus not violating the rules of the animal type.

[Psyren]

An animal (as any monster) has 10 or 11 in Int, modified by its racial mods (as stated explicitly in the text I quote). This means that each animal has an Int racial mod of -8 or -10, depending on whether it has 1 or 2 Int. As long as you don't put a score above 10 in Int, you're not raising Int above 2, and thus not violating the rules of the animal type.

As you yourself noted, the mod still has to be variable, which is odd. That's all I was saying. (I may be Some Guy On A Forum, but I can still have an opinion.)

[Flickerdart]

As you yourself noted, the mod still has to be variable, which is odd. That's all I was saying. (I may be Some Guy On A Forum, but I can still have an opinion.)
An elf has a -2 to Constitution, while a dwarf has +2. Both are of the humanoid type. Is this also strange to you?

[Psyren]

An elf has a -2 to Constitution, while a dwarf has +2. Both are of the humanoid type. Is this also strange to you?

That's a constant modifier, so no. All elves have that -2 no matter what score you put into Con.

An animal has to end at 1 or 2, so the racial modifier changes based on how you assign the array, even if you examine two of the same animal.

[Flickerdart]

That's a constant modifier, so no. All elves have that -2 no matter what score you put into Con.

An animal has to end at 1 or 2, so the racial modifier changes based on how you assign the array, even if you examine two of the same animal.
No matter what score you put into CON, an undead will always have --.
No matter what score you put into INT, a PC will always have 3+.
No matter what score you put into any ability score, a petitioner will always have 18 or lower.
Why is "no matter what score you put into INT, an animal will always have 2 or lower" a problem?

[Psyren]

No matter what score you put into CON, an undead will always have --.
No matter what score you put into INT, a PC will always have 3+.
No matter what score you put into any ability score, a petitioner will always have 18 or lower.
Why is "no matter what score you put into INT, an animal will always have 2 or lower" a problem?

None of those others proscribe what you'll end with.

And it's not a "problem." It's an observation.

[Flickerdart]

None of those others proscribe what you'll end with.

And it's not a "problem." It's an observation.
Yes, they do.

All undead: "As an undead creature, a _______ has no Constitution score."
Petitioners: "Some cosmologies or deities may set a maximum of 18 for petitioner ability scores. Abilities higher than that are reduced to the maximum."
I'm AFB so I can't look up the language for PC intelligence, but surely two other explicit instances are sufficient to put whatever doubts you have about animals with arrays to rest.

[Psyren]

Yes, they do.

All undead: "As an undead creature, a _______ has no Constitution score."
Petitioners: "Some cosmologies or deities may set a maximum of 18 for petitioner ability scores. Abilities higher than that are reduced to the maximum."
I'm AFB so I can't look up the language for PC intelligence, but surely two other explicit instances are sufficient to put whatever doubts you have about animals with arrays to rest.

It's not "doubts" either. It's an observation. :smalltongue:

And yes, my wording was inelegant as undead are proscribed with a null score. But what I mean is that there, it's not a modifier, so it doesn't matter what score you put into Con - it just gets set to null. With animals, the number you choose actually changes the modifier, whereas most other racial modifiers are fixed.

[Flickerdart]

It's not "doubts" either. It's an observation. :smalltongue:

And yes, my wording was inelegant as undead are proscribed with a null score. But what I mean is that there, it's not a modifier, so it doesn't matter what score you put into Con - it just gets set to null. With animals, the number you choose actually changes the modifier, whereas most other racial modifiers are fixed.
It doesn't change the modifier, just like a petitioner's modifier isn't changed, or an undead's modifier isn't changed. It just goes "it's a number/over 18/over 2? Not anymore, it isn't."

[Psyren]

It doesn't change the modifier, just like a petitioner's modifier isn't changed, or an undead's modifier isn't changed. It just goes "it's a number/over 18/over 2? Not anymore, it isn't."

If I assign the 15 to Con and that creature becomes Undead, the 15 simply disappeared. Same with the 10.

If I do the same for Int on an animal, that animal's modifier is either -13 or -8 to Int, depending on the number I chose to assign there. Other races aren't like that.

We may have to just feel differently about this and call it a day.

[Flickerdart]

If I assign the 15 to Con and that creature becomes Undead, the 15 simply disappeared. Same with the 10.

If I do the same for Int on an animal, that animal's modifier is either -13 or -8 to Int, depending on the number I chose to assign there. Other races aren't like that.

We may have to just feel differently about this and call it a day.
"A zombie’s Strength increases by +2, its Dexterity decreases by 2, it has no Constitution or Intelligence score, its Wisdom changes to 10, and its Charisma changes to 1." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm)

The zombie also doesn't change the Wisdom or Charisma modifiers of its template. It just goes "whatever you had before, it's 10 now."

[Psyren]

"A zombie’s Strength increases by +2, its Dexterity decreases by 2, it has no Constitution or Intelligence score, its Wisdom changes to 10, and its Charisma changes to 1." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm)

The zombie also doesn't change the Wisdom or Charisma modifiers of its template. It just goes "whatever you had before, it's 10 now."

That's a template though - setting stats is expected there, no reverse-engineering is needed or assumed. Non-templated undead have null Con too.