Parsantium City Sourcebook - now on sale!
Ferghis
First Post
The problem with granting class and level to NPCs is that it will not be edition neutral, even for D&D. My suggestion is to give NPCs a general description as to capabilities, even going insofar as ranking them if the character has a real reputation. For example, a guard may be described simply as mildly competent with a spear and shield, but with little actual combat experience. Or a famous warrior might described as one of the best swordsmen in the land, likely able to best X and Y, but probably not Z in a straight sword fight.
Then, if you really want to do the work, you might note race, level and class for a few editions of D&D (probably Pathfinder and 4e), and perhaps describe the more noteworthy equipment and spells they would normally carry. I wouldn't waste time noting ability scores, hit points, or those kinds of things for each NPC. Maybe include a few tables in the appendix covering combat stats for each class & level used of the editions you want to cover, just so DMs aren't caught with their pants down if the players start a fight.
Then, if you really want to do the work, you might note race, level and class for a few editions of D&D (probably Pathfinder and 4e), and perhaps describe the more noteworthy equipment and spells they would normally carry. I wouldn't waste time noting ability scores, hit points, or those kinds of things for each NPC. Maybe include a few tables in the appendix covering combat stats for each class & level used of the editions you want to cover, just so DMs aren't caught with their pants down if the players start a fight.
RichGreen
Adventurer
Thanks Ferghis. I'm sticking with general descriptions for now - this has the benefit of allowing the DM to customize the NPC according to the PCs' level. The main reason for asking is to give an idea of which clerics/temples can offer high level healing, raise dead etc. For the moment I'm just including that info in the description too.
I did think about the appendix idea but it's hard to express 4e PCs with level + class. It would be more like level + brute/skirmisher/controller etc
Cheers
Rich
I did think about the appendix idea but it's hard to express 4e PCs with level + class. It would be more like level + brute/skirmisher/controller etc
Cheers
Rich
Ferghis
First Post
Correct.
Ferghis
First Post
Just to be clear, at the bottom of the NPC's description, I'd add something like:
In 4e, just give them the skills, rituals or powers you want. You can even say "Can cast up to level 13 Nature rituals." No need for combat stats if they're not combat-worthy, so to speak. At least that's my opinion.
And then, in an appendix, give defenses, HP, attack bonuses, and average damage for each of those. You can probably use the slyfluorish tables (with attribution) for the 4e stuff.
In 3.5, those would be experts - in theory. I do hate the notion of a librarian or a smith having a ton of HP, but that's how the game implements it, I think.
In 4e, just give them the skills, rituals or powers you want. You can even say "Can cast up to level 13 Nature rituals." No need for combat stats if they're not combat-worthy, so to speak. At least that's my opinion.
RichGreen
Adventurer
That makes sense.
