How do you stat out rulers such as kings and queens in your games?

Most feudal lords can be represented by the Knight, medieval kings were expected to lead from the front. Noble is suitable for less warlike lords.

Elderbrain said:

The only NPC stat block that is explicitly meant to represent an "upper-class" noble type is the Noble stat block, but it's pretty weak and probably represents a town mayor, at best. There are other stat blocks with higher HP, etc. that could work, though, depending on the concept for the ruler (i.e. is he/she skilled at arms, or perhaps a mage or cleric, etc.) Also, I know in 2e/3e some rulers got character classes and levels - anybody care to post or direct me to such stats (not the whole thing, just something like "King Blueface of Nothingham - 15th level fighter" is all I really need to gauge how tough rulers were in prior editions.) Any contribution would be nice.

Click to expand...

I have no real single standard, since it depends very much on the culture of the nation, the type of government, and how I envision this particular PC.

In general, they always have a class and levels. There is very little else that they necessarily have in common, but usually...

* It's assumed that rulers are reasonably capable, though not necessarily the most capable members of their culture (unless it's an entirely 'might makes right' sort of culture).
* It's assumed that at the least, they received the best possible educational opportunities and training, though they may not necessarily have any practical experience. This typically means that they are above average level for their age given my normal NPC demographics. So, for example, a middle aged ruler would tend to be at least 5th level, even if he's done basically nothing but sit on his butt.
* It's assumed hereditary rulers will come from good genetic stock, unless they come from a decadent and corrupt nation with a long inbred linage, but that their attribute scores by normal luck of the dice might be all over the place. They typically have an unusually large number of advantages and can have an unusually large number of disadvantages relative to a typical adventurer. In 5e terms, this might mean having unusually complex or numerous Background traits not available to normal PCs - ei "Hereditary Sovereign", "High Noble Birth", etc.
* If the ruler gained his throne by might or cunning, it's assumed that he is one of the most formidable persons in the nation, and likely as all the advantages of a PC and is of the highest level NPCs normally attain per my demographics and roughly equivalent in level to where I would expect a PC to reach the end of a typical adventure path and retire.

Some examples, which is 3.Xe based:

The Benevolent Despot of Amalteen is a 1st level Rogue/6th level Expert. His ability scores are on par with that of a PC, and he's played as a very intelligent, cunning and resourceful character. By no means though is he the sort that would best a group of thugs in single combat. He has bodygaurds, minions, and loyal servants for that sort of thing.

The Hurin of Talernga is a 2nd level Expert, 6th level Fighter. His ability scores are on par with that of a PC, and he's played as a capable and charismatic leader who is not afraid to join his men in battle. He's not however remotely the best knight in the Kingdom.

The Mayor of the Palace in Talernga is essentially the Prime Minister and in many ways the practical ruler of the nation. He is an elven 10th level Sage/4th level Wizard. His ability scores are on par with that of a PC. He's lived for centuries and is presented as having supernaturally high intelligence, discernment, and political acumen.

The King of Vestlond won his throne by strength of arms, but he's now over 80's with a long white beard and failing limbs. He's a 16th level fighter. His ability scores are well below PC norms and reflect his venerable age and failing health. He's presented as a once capable warrior, well beloved by his people, in the twilight of his life, who now leaves most daily affairs of the kingdom in the hands of his eldest son and heir, who is himself a 9th level fighter and well tested in battle.

The King of Hulshan won his throne by strength of arms. He's a 20th level Champion, effectively a paladin. He's presented as a demigod-like hero in the prime of his life with saintly wisdom and super-hero level power. His attributes are somewhat above PC norms, owing to magical enhancement.

The King of Prester is a literal demigod, the son of the Goddess of the Sun. He's a 20th level Champion (of his mother, naturally), has Divine Rank 1, and accordingly high attribute scores. He is presented as the immortal God-Emperor that he is.

In 4e and 5e NPCs and PCs don't have to obey the same rules. This raises all sorts of issues, but among other things endorses the DM creating characters with abilities and attributes the PCs could never hope to have, such as flatly multiplying the ruler's hit points by 4 or 5 if the ruler is intended to be a combat foe of the PCs.

ad_hoc said:

Who's that?

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arya_Stark

S'mon said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arya_Stark

Click to expand...

That link goes to no one.

A personality,
A background.
Then a CR appropriate. Mean anything between the noble stat and a 20 level npc,

Jester David said:

Noble statblock.
Why would the king be higher CR? It's not like they do any fighting. Or... engage in much activity of any kind.

Click to expand...

Historically, they certainly did. Most would've had training as knights, and they did appear on the battlefield and had to be able to defend themselves. See King Richard the LionHeart, for instance. Obviously, some rulers managed to avoid armed conflict, but they did need to be prepared. Now, this assumes a fantasy medieval world that mirrors some aspects of the real one, which may not be the case in all D&D campaigns.

Same as I've done in every other edition. I give them whatever stats I deem appropriate on a case by case basis.

Even 18th century monarchs still fought on the battlefield. Starts to become rare during the 19th century.

Elderbrain said:

Historically, they certainly did. Most would've had training as knights, and they did appear on the battlefield and had to be able to defend themselves. See King Richard the LionHeart, for instance. Obviously, some rulers managed to avoid armed conflict, but they did need to be prepared. Now, this assumes a fantasy medieval world that mirrors some aspects of the real one, which may not be the case in all D&D campaigns.

Click to expand...

Being trained to fight and being good at it are two very different things. Let alone having teachers willing to push you, and engaging in battle often enough to develop & maintain skill. (After all, I was trained in a bunch of sports during my youth... that doesn't mean I'm any good at them.)

Even then, most noblemen weren't in as much danger in the field and films represent. They tend to act as generals, not being at the front of an attack and instead being at the end (while also being surrounded by a king's guard). It was also considered sinful to kill a king rather than take them prisoner (which often applied to other nobles).

The list of UK monarchs killed in battle is pretty small:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_the_British_Isles_by_cause_of_death#In_battle
(More were killed though assassination.)

Okay, yeah, the warrior king who took the throne by battle or spent their entire life at war could be a noble+. Or even a knight or champion. But most kings and queens are well served by the noble statblock... if not a renamed commoner statblock.

Any NPC that may be more than an appearance in a single scene gets a micro-block from me;
Name, race, nationality
Highest attribute
Lowest attribute
1-3 skills that they are known for (usually 1 with expertise, though sometimes that's just a tool)
lifestyle
a weapon if they carry one
armor if they have it
motivation
a fear

I have a couple dozen of these made so even if a background NPC becomes major I already know what I need