D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Ah, maybe "circle" isn't the right word. I mean levels of spells. Like wish was a level 8 spell...
Mostly the levels were used to denote how high in the hierarchy in a mages guild you needed to be in order to even have access to learning the spells. You didn't get "get them in your book" when you level up.
Right. You can certainly use the concept of spell level the same way you did in previous editions, but there are 2 things to note. There are no longer an arbitrary 9 levels of spells, instead there are 30 levels of powers and they correspond to the character level required to use them.
Secondly there is much less of a clear cut increment in power from level to level. A lot more of the usefulness of spells in 4e stems from the ability of the caster instead. For instance the level 1 daily wizard spell Sleep is widely considered one of (maybe THE) most effective spell in the game and its quite common for 30th level Epic wizards to keep this spell in their book and cast it regularly.
Overall spellcasting is a good bit different in 4e, though the basic concept is similar to older editions.
I really like the concept of levels just because how it can tie into climbing up the social ladder within a mages guild. I haven't even read anything of the concept of mages guild in 4e.
Cool clarification on sleep spell.. looking forward to seeing how it all works out.
I'm not sure what you're talking about re: guilds and spell levels. In earlier editions, spell levels indicated (roughly) the power of the spell, and hence what level you needed to be in order to cast the spell. In this regard, 4e is just like every other edition, except that the spell level numbering system is no longer separate from class levels, as others have noted. They didn't have anything to with guilds, social advancement, or anything like that. Perhaps in your campaigns, the level mechanic was tied into the story in this way, but it wasn't part of the rules (as far as I can recall).
No, the rules never assumed that spell levels had to do with anything else besides when you could acquire a spell, but a lot of campaigns did do the fairly obvious thing and tied levels into some sort of guild hierarchy or whatnot, which is cool. Actually I've always seen it more with clerics than with wizards. The old D&D rules did sort of imply that clerics were part of some hierarchy based on levels. Wizards it seems like were always thought of as more loners.
4e really tries hard to break the time honored tradition though of a society where everyone has levels in classes and important people are high level. The base assumption is more like society is organized pretty much like in the real world where people are good at their jobs but unless your job actually involves something like fighting you probably don't have much in the way of combat ability.
So the old fashioned idea of a kingdom is "the king is the 14th level fighter because he's important" and in 4e the king is just as likely to be a level X minion where X is whatever the DM decides makes sense. Maybe the king is a noble and trained with weapons and he's a level 14 minion. Maybe he's a warrior king and he's a level 8 NPC Soldier. He could be King Conan the superhero and be a level 14 fighter like in the old days.
The same would go for any other NPCs. The head of the wizard's guild could be a high level wizard. He could also be a guy that has a really high Arcana skill and is really good at politics and doesn't know squat about combat spell casting, though he might still know some high level rituals etc. Again he could be a minion, though probably a fairly high level one, as he really doesn't know anything about fighting. Of course the EVIL wizard's guild, where you get to be top dog by frying the competition may be a different story...
in 4e the king is just as likely to be a level X minion where X is whatever the DM decides makes sense. Maybe the king is a noble and trained with weapons and he's a level 14 minion.
...
The head of the wizard's guild could be a high level wizard. He could also be a guy that has a really high Arcana skill and is really good at politics and doesn't know squat about combat spell casting, though he might still know some high level rituals etc. Again he could be a minion, though probably a fairly high level one, as he really doesn't know anything about fighting.
Just as likely???
Minion is a game mechanic monster role for attacking PCs with large groups of opponents for them to mow through.
It isn't designed for high level quasi-important NPCs. That would be a rather unusual use of a minion.
I would question a DM having a King minion unless the plot of the story was for an Assassin (or the PCs) to definitively and easily kill the King. Otherwise, I'd question making the King a minion (who is he a minion of? why is he cannon fodder?).
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
I would question a DM having a King minion unless the plot of the story was for an Assassin (or the PCs) to definitively and easily kill the King. Otherwise, I'd question making the King a minion (who is he a minion of? why is he cannon fodder?).
I wouldn't. Skill in combat does not per se make a king. Also, history is replete with examples of sickly kings, child kings, and kings who were assassinated with one stab or hit, all of which would be modeled by a minion. It's perhaps best not to get too hung up on the terminology - all it means is for whatever dramatic or narrative reasons, this guy could die easily barring external protection, which is a trait I would ascribe to the majority of rulers in history.
Last edited by aurance; 1st November 2009 at 05:55 PM..
Minion is a game mechanic monster role for attacking PCs with large groups of opponents for them to mow through.
It isn't designed for high level quasi-important NPCs. That would be a rather unusual use of a minion.
I would question a DM having a King minion unless the plot of the story was for an Assassin (or the PCs) to definitively and easily kill the King. Otherwise, I'd question making the King a minion (who is he a minion of? why is he cannon fodder?).
NPCs that PCs aren't meant to combat actually don't have combat statistics at all. I'd question the DM who made a king anything outside of a social encounter unless it was actually -really- relevant to the game.
And no 'He's a warrior king and so is a fighter' is -not- that relevant unless the party and said king actually involve themselves in combat with each other. If not, the king's combat is off camera, and therefore stats are unnecessary.
4e really tries hard to break the time honored tradition though of a society where everyone has levels in classes and important people are high level. The base assumption is more like society is organized pretty much like in the real world where people are good at their jobs but unless your job actually involves something like fighting you probably don't have much in the way of combat ability.
... unless you lose your mind. Those insane nobles are scary!
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
Otherwise, I'd question making the King a minion (who is he a minion of? why is he cannon fodder?).
(Ummm minion the mechanic does not necessarily mean you are somebodies servant... but all "good" kings ought to be servants of the people ... just ask them).
Abdul is right... How important a character is to the story or fate... is not the same as how important in the society of the game ... which is not the same as how skilled that character is.
There are organizations which require proofs of skill for advancement however and a wizards guild seems likely to be one of them. Rituals seem more likely use as proof.. unless they have some sort of dueling thing going on... and that could be fun too.
In a guild were defeating the leader is required to take over... or a country were becoming the high king is battle earned ... well fated characters ... have serious advantages. So I wouldnt expect a king who earned his place through battle to very likely NOT be a minion... or atleast he wasnt likely one when he earned it.... That is a weird thought ... just because they weren't a minion back then doesn't mean fate still shines blessing on them.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
- Lazarus Long via Robert Heinlein.
Last edited by Garthanos; 1st November 2009 at 07:05 PM..
And no 'He's a warrior king and so is a fighter' is -not- that relevant unless the party and said king actually involve themselves in combat with each other. If not, the king's combat is off camera, and therefore stats are unnecessary.
Well there is that too....
The original poster was perhaps thinking about how the "name ranking" which conceptually corresponded to organizational ranks was associated with character levels in some earlier versions of the game. It really did imply a connection in that regard.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
Well.... 4e doesn't really have Name Level like 1e and BECMI did...
...you have Paragon and Epic Tier, which is -way- better because Name Level isn't the same for everyone. It's assumed that in Paragon and in Epic you have greater social standing reflecting from the sheer fact of your awesomeness and the increasing scope of your adventures within the world -and beyond.-
NPCs that PCs aren't meant to combat actually don't have combat statistics at all. I'd question the DM who made a king anything outside of a social encounter unless it was actually -really- relevant to the game.
Precisely. So if a DM was going to go out of his way to create combat statistics for an important NPC, he would typically do it for real.
A minion would be for a sickly King or a King destined by the DM for death.
A non-minion, possibly lower level (maybe even much lower level) than the PCs, would be for a King that has the possibility of getting into combat and who is expected to survive for some period of time.
The third more likely option is, as you state, not combat stating out the King.
I understand the story element of making a King a minion if the DM wants the King to die. I don't understand the concept that any old King would be "Just as likely" to be a minion (i.e. a cardboard cutout). I would think that most Kings would a) not be combat stated, b) normally combat stated, c) a minion, in most games in that order.
And if the DM wants the PCs to accidently kill the King or some such, making him a minion won't necessarily do it if the first PC hitting the King decides to knock him out instead.
I'm not saying that a DM cannot make an important NPC a minion, I just find it a bit unusual.
How many socially important NPCs have you created as minions in your game?
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Relax guys, let's not lose sight of the goal, i.e. the story.
As such, the 4E ruleset allows for three different kinds of Kings
Does the story require the King to be assassinated in the middle of the feast, with the PCs as impotent witnesses? Then you don't need to make stats for him, just declare that he's dead Jim. Also, if the King is just there to look noble and assign quests and reward players, you don't need to stat him either.
Now, does the story require the King to fight alongside the party in a great battle? Sure, make him a level-appropriate monster* with the fighter or paladin template (or whatever else fits). After all, if you are just using these combat stats for a one-time encounter, then you don't need to flesh him out completely.
Oh, but if the King is going to be joining the party, under control of a player (maybe he's exiled, in disguise, or means to defeat his evil uncle), THEN you stat him up as a complete PC
* Monster here means "NPC created with the rules in the DMG or the monster builder"
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
If you like the concept of classifying spells in terms of power and complexity for "in-game" reasons, you could just decide on a classification system in general terms.
For example:
- At-wills (1st level) are basic spells that any novice would be able to use, same goes for things like Cantrips (predestigation etc).
- Encounter spells could be classified as advanced magic, with associated power levels (for example a level 1 encounter spell might be a "circle I spell" and then a third level encounter spell would be "circle II spell" since it is the next time you get encounter spells.
- Daily spells would be complex spells that have their own rating, since they are so difficult to use that you can manage to cast about 1 of each per day. You could call them something like "tiers" or "traditions" or whatever. If it feels good to call a 1st level daily a "An arcane incantation of the 1st tradition" then do it that way. Space them out so that 1st, 5th and 9th level dailies correspond to 1st, 2nd and 3rd "traditions" or whatever classification you wish to use.
- Make some similar arrangement for utility spells. Call them "knacks" or something and give them levels.
- Rituals deserve a similar treatment, perhaps they are called "weaves" or something like that.
It should be fairly simple to come up with a system where you have spell levels in "in-game" terms and then you can refer to those when you play to keep in character.
You could call spells of the different classes with different types of names, so that bard spells are instead songs or poems etc.
Relax guys, let's not lose sight of the goal, i.e. the story.
As such, the 4E ruleset allows for three different kinds of Kings
Does the story require the King to be assassinated in the middle of the feast, with the PCs as impotent witnesses? Then you don't need to make stats for him, just declare that he's dead Jim. Also, if the King is just there to look noble and assign quests and reward players, you don't need to stat him either.
Now, does the story require the King to fight alongside the party in a great battle? Sure, make him a level-appropriate monster* with the fighter or paladin template (or whatever else fits). After all, if you are just using these combat stats for a one-time encounter, then you don't need to flesh him out completely.
Oh, but if the King is going to be joining the party, under control of a player (maybe he's exiled, in disguise, or means to defeat his evil uncle), THEN you stat him up as a complete PC
* Monster here means "NPC created with the rules in the DMG or the monster builder"
Yeah, I think that about sums it up in terms of what the probable options are. My main point originally was just that 4e long since left in the dust the concept that there is some sort of pyramid of leveled class NPCs in the world where the important guys are all high level characters. If truth be told I never ran my campaign world that way to start with, but it was a pretty ingrained assumption that the system made. Especially in OD&D/1e/2e, though maybe not so much in 3.x (at least by then named levels were gone).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
