Is it acceptable to make a neutral faction leader npc stronger than the party?

[Reprimand]

So I am currently planning my first ever sandbox dnd 3.5 game. A leader of one of the factions of my game is seasoned war veteran and the leader of a company of elven armored legion, While she is no spring chicken (about middle aged by elven standards), with a few hundred of years of military experience, tactics and negotiation I feel like she and her honor guard should be more than a deadly encounter for the party should the party choose to be foolhardy enough to attack so brazenly.

The idea of the sandbox is to gather favor with different political and military factions while minimizing the amount of factions they damage their reputation with. The party stands no chance along by design, and the players are going in with this knowledge that allies and negotiations are key to long term survival. Different factions remain frozen in time until the factions meet important characters, hear news of factions through dialogue or progress certain plot points which cause all factions to advance one "time step"

HOWEVER I do NOT usually use DMPCs to fill in party gaps and rarely make single strong npcs to oppose parties. While I don't plan to have this NPC fight the party or exist outside of important events in the story unless they seriously damage their reputation with her faction of veteran soldiers. I nearly always use monsters to reprisent enemies and do not usually stat humanoid opponents to be the superior in ability to my party and have nearly always used the standard / elite array.

tl;dr Is it ok to stat up mechanically powerful npcs with player classes as long as I don't plan to spring them on the party as a BS railroady plot device or they're generally so busy they have to act through agents except in the MOST dire of circumstances?

[Firechanter]

Yes, of course. You have identified the typical problems with such NPCs: don't use them to outshine the PCs or to bully them into whatever you want them to do.
If it's plausible in the game world that an NPS is badass, feel free to create her that way.

[Rynjin]

Typically it makes little sense for people in positions of power to NOT be more powerful than the PC party, especially if they're just starting out. The top of a powerful organization should be at least level 12, IMO. Coincidentally this is the level that a lot of organized play fro different systems (like Pathfinder Society) end, and characters are assumed to advance out of being field agents.

[Elder_Basilisk]

It's a sandbox. The pcs are generally not supposed to be the big movers and shakers at the start. That you have bigger fish and smaller fish is pretty much assumed in any sandbox worth its sand.

On the other hand, there's no particular need to get a detailed stat block beyond cavalier 10 or wizard 11 divination specialist, evocation banned if they are not going to be going into action with the PCs. That time would probably be better spent starting up some antagonists.

[Reprimand]

It's a sandbox. The pcs are generally not supposed to be the big movers and shakers at the start. That you have bigger fish and smaller fish is pretty much assumed in any sandbox worth its sand.

On the other hand, there's no particular need to get a detailed stat block beyond cavalier 10 or wizard 11 divination specialist, evocation banned if they are not going to be going into action with the PCs. That time would probably be better spent starting up some antagonists.

Well I do plan to actually simulate certain factions that come into conflict just with certain encounter modifiers depending on the players actions. And I do plan to eventually use them in actual conflict assuming players hit the "end game" of the sandbox.

But when I say how strong is too strong for example O-Chul supposedly has a strength or con score in the high 20s low 30s. Which seems practically beyond mortal power? Should something ever be THAT strong or tough?

[Rynjin]

Well I do plan to actually simulate certain factions that come into conflict just with certain encounter modifiers depending on the players actions. And I do plan to eventually use them in actual conflict assuming players hit the "end game" of the sandbox.

But when I say how strong is too strong for example O-Chul supposedly has a strength or con score in the high 20s low 30s. Which seems practically beyond mortal power? Should something ever be THAT strong or tough?

I mean, yeah? Most PCs are going to have stats like that deeper into the game as well. A PC should have a 22-24 in their primary attribute by 8th level or so on average (starting 18 at 1st level after racials, +2 from the level 4/8 inherent bonuxes, and a +2/+4 headband or belt of a stat), and even more given other factors that might raise the stats in different ways.

[Reprimand]

I mean, yeah? Most PCs are going to have stats like that deeper into the game as well. A PC should have a 22-24 in their primary attribute by 8th level or so on average (starting 18 at 1st level after racials, +2 from the level 4/8 inherent bonuxes, and a +2/+4 headband or belt of a stat), and even more given other factors that might raise the stats in different ways.

No I mean base values without items, inherent bonuses and wishes and such which isn't feasibly obtainable for player characters without magic items and such.

[Firechanter]

Oh, that. I'd just stick to the rules. One of the core features of 3E is virtually full PC/NPC transparency, i.e. the same rules apply to everyone. Such as, A base score can't be higher than 18 before racial, level and other bonuses. I'd just build her by the same rules as the PCs and give her full PC WBL.

[Reprimand]

Ok makes sense.

I've seen some mortal NPCS with some rather unfeasible stats in my time I always wondered what was up with that.

In that case I'll probably just use the same point buy as the players then with a bonus depending on how far up the 'power scale' I want them to be.

Maybe something like this

Rivals same or slight bonus +0/+1/+2. Leveled to be roughly CR appropriate or CR+1

Important non-leader npc moderate bonus +3 / +4. Either Fixed level or Party CR + or - 0 to 2 depending on relative faction power

Major Faction Leader significant bonus +5 or more. 12th or higher depending faction and world events timeline

[Batcathat]

You've probably already got all the answers you need but since I can rarely resist stating my opinion...

Personally, I think NPCs should be as strong or as weak as they should logically be, based on their role and backstory, independent of how much stronger or weaker than the PCs it makes them. In this case it makes sense for the NPC to be pretty strong, it'd be odd if she was like level two after hundreds of years. Similarly, I don't like it when the city guard is somehow composed of high level superhumans just because they're interacting with a high level party.

[Biggus]

+2 from the level 4/8 inherent bonuxes

The increases you get every 4 levels aren't inherent bonuses; they aren't considered bonuses at all in fact.


No I mean base values without items, inherent bonuses and wishes and such which isn't feasibly obtainable for player characters without magic items and such.

A Dwarf can start with Con 20 at level 1, add on 5 for increases every 4 levels, and be a 3rd-level Dwarf Paragon, for a total of 27 without any kind of magic.

According to the OOTS Wiki (https://oots.fandom.com/wiki/O-Chul) O-Chul's Con is thought to be about 25, his level is given as 12+ and his ages as 50+. Assuming his level is between 12 and 15, the highest his base Con could normally be is 22. AFAIK we don't know his heritage, so it's possible he has eg some divine ancestry which could explain his exceptional Con though or he might have got an inherent bonus from somewhere.


Oh, that. I'd just stick to the rules. One of the core features of 3E is virtually full PC/NPC transparency, i.e. the same rules apply to everyone. Such as, A base score can't be higher than 18 before racial, level and other bonuses. I'd just build her by the same rules as the PCs and give her full PC WBL.

I was going to say this, just use the normal rules unless you specifically want her to be an exception (part-divine or whatever).

[aglondier]

It is acceptable, but, remember this: If it has stats, we can kill it.

Your neutral faction leader is a potential source of xp...

...and even the most moral of parties can slip into murder-hoboism at the drop of a hat...

[Reprimand]

It is acceptable, but, remember this: If it has stats, we can kill it.

Your neutral faction leader is a potential source of xp...

...and even the most moral of parties can slip into murder-hoboism at the drop of a hat...

Oh believe me I'm aware. Which is why I've moved to running sandbox games with factions that can function independently of each other while keep a more general overarcing plot that either faction can advance. Even if one of these leaders dies either another faction will step up. Or in the case of an assassination were they single target a leader and get out, there is a succession planned. As to whether or not her subordinate will be as effect of a leader is another matter though.

Another incentive I do for faction alliances are certain perks, such as training that can potentially result in free skill ranks, attribute increases, or even bonus feats. PCs usually have an idea of the legends and exploits of these different groups over time so they learn fairly quickly who they might be most compatible with.

But I have plenty of other factions planned that may be more or less compatible with the party. I was using the elven legion as an example for the stating question.

[Psyren]

Yes, NPCs stronger than the party are fine.

The main questions you will want to consider are narrative:

1) "If the NPC is stronger, why haven't they X" - where X is either solving whatever problem they want the PCs to solve, or stopping the PCs from doing so, depending on whether they are antagonistic to them or not. One common answer to this one is political - tying up the NPC in so much red tape or other obligations that they can't deal with the problem directly, even if they would otherwise have the power to do so.

2) "How will their relationship to the party change as the party grows stronger?" - In general, the NPC will pay closer attention to what the party is doing - either relying on their help with more difficult problems, or realizing that they will need more direct opposition to stymie or stop. Will the NPC also grow in power along with the PCs at the same rate, slower, or faster? Is it possible for the PCs to catch up? What happens if they do, or start getting close?

[Rynjin]

An easy incentive not to murder hobo is just to do away with XP entirely, and level via milestones. Less bookkeeping that way too.

[NigelWalmsley]

One thing to keep in mind is why the NPC is stronger than the PCs. If there's a good in-world justification for why they are, that's fine. But if your reasoning boils down to "to stop the PCs from getting off the rails", you've got a problem. It's also good to think about the potential conflict points between the NPC and the PCs, and ensure that the PCs have ways to get things they want, rather than just knuckling under every time.


An easy incentive not to murder hobo is just to do away with XP entirely, and level via milestones. Less bookkeeping that way too.

Milestone leveling is definitely the way to go. Not only does it remove a lot of the incentive to murder hobo (there can still be problems WRT wealth, but at least people aren't encouraged to be pointlessly bloodthirsty), but it also makes it a lot easier to model different rates of progression. In some stories, the PCs should expect to advance rapidly, while in others their power level can be expected to be basically constant. Milestone leveling does a much better job of both of those than XP does.