Pang of nostalgia for "light" stat blocks

The_Gneech said:

I seem to recall there are pages and pages of pre-statted NPCs for just such an emergency in the DMG.

Click to expand...

The 3.0 DMG had entire stats for single-classed characters of all classes from level 1 to level 20. The stats were pretty hard to mine though because magic items were written as 1-12: potion of cure light wounds, 2-5: mw longsword, 6-9 +1 longsword, etc.

The 3.5 DMG doesn't even have all the stats. They leave some gp unspent and have you select some feats and stuff. You get stats for some characters at select levels (5,10,etc.). I'm really not that familiar with it because it was an incredibly lame step backwards.

I've always wanted a product that listed one NPC per page, fully statted out. No personality, just stats. That would save me. If it had one character of each level 1..20, that would be 220 pages, so maybe PDF would be best.

With that product, you could have a stat block "Fighter 4" or "Fighter, but Str 18", or "Fighter 4, ranks in spot instead of intimidate".

Flexor the Mighty! said:

I prefer smaller stat block not for nostalga, but becuase it is easier for me to use in gameplay.

Click to expand...

Nail. Head. For me, it is a matter of practicality and convenience, not nostalgia. Even back when I was still playing 3.0, I used an abbreviated format. With C&C, a fully functional NPC doesn't even need that much.

One thing I do to speed up NPC generation (and shorten stat blocks) for 3.5 is to not worry about skill points 99% of the time. I recently statted up a 3rd-level wizard NPC for my game and for skills I noted: Wiz skills +7+ability mod, all others +ability mod. I just made the assumption that he maxed his Wizard skills and didn't worry about anything else. I find calculating skill ranks and placing them to biggest time drain for NPCs and since it rarely matters to a large degree, I don't worry about it.

I'm finishing off Khorforjan Gambit tonight, and I'll post an NPC short form from it. (It's not free, so I will limit what I post.)

Committed Guards, TgO2/FtO2/DeO2: hp 33; Mas 13; Init +2;
Defense 20 (20/18); Atk +5 ranged (2d8, AKS-74); SV Fort +5,
Ref +4, Will +4; Hide +5, Listen +8, Move Silently +5, Spot +13,
Combat Martial Arts, Quick Reload.

Click to expand...

The full stat block is elsewhere in the adventure. (I put them on 4 x 6" index cards ... the long form ... and pull them out of my card box when needed.)

philreed said:

Why can I not simply assume his saves are base, unmodified Fighter 4 (+4/+1/+1), I'll say he's wearing splint mail (which means his movement can be 20 ft.), and I give him a longsword so his damage is 1d8+3 (because the short description says he gets a +3 to damage)?

That's pretty simple and in no way ruins my enjoyment of the game.

I could even say he's in full plate and it wouldn't have a single change on the most important part of the game (for me): enjoyment.

Click to expand...

Because it's boring, that's why. Especially the saves, which are just begging for metagaming. This guy is too weak for his CR - which doesn't mean much if you don't use CR, of course. I would find this boring as a PC; I can easily gauge how tough an opponent is just by ... looking at him. And I know I'm tougher than him, because my stats are reasonable, and his are all 10s. I would be suprised (pleasantly) if he turned out to have Improved Disarm or some other feat that I wasn't expecting, but since that guy doesn't even have any feats...

Where is his +3 damage coming from? I'd like to know if he really knows his way around his weapon, or is he just strong? I kind of like to know if I'm facing the Hound, or the Mountain that Rides. (The latter is stronger, but less skilled overall.) Am I facing elite royal guards (but not their leader), or just thugs?

I'm a Modern player, but I have to point out there was something I liked about Spycraft 1.0 NPCs. (I didn't like their classes, point buy system, etc.) They were characters. They weren't individual characters, but it was kind of fun taking down the HALO racers or the "hanglider commando" team, instead of just ... fighter/rogues. They had the skills and feats necessary to pull off these things, too.

You can do the same thing for Modern, but I rarely see such wonderfully goofy Modern NPCs.

Starman said:

One thing I do to speed up NPC generation (and shorten stat blocks) for 3.5 is to not worry about skill points 99% of the time. I recently statted up a 3rd-level wizard NPC for my game and for skills I noted: Wiz skills +7+ability mod, all others +ability mod. I just made the assumption that he maxed his Wizard skills and didn't worry about anything else. I find calculating skill ranks and placing them to biggest time drain for NPCs and since it rarely matters to a large degree, I don't worry about it.

Click to expand...

That doesn't work for me, alas. I'm running D20 Modern, where skills just seem much more important, even to mooks. It's the lack of roles, really. In DnD, you know fighters can't Snese Motive or Spot, so you don't bother giving them any Sense Motive or Spot. In Modern, how do you know the guy standing near the door with the lead pipe wrapped in newspaper doesn't have ranks in Sense Motive or Spot? He certainly could through Tough levels (Spot only) or Dedicated levels (didn't expect that one?) or his Occupation... Maybe he's a competent doorman instead of "Fighter Build CDE".

(Psi)SeveredHead said:

This guy is too weak for his CR - which doesn't mean much if you don't use CR, of course.

Click to expand...

actually, if the average stats by the MM are 13,12,11,10,9,8, then the guy in some ways is too STRONG for his stats, not too weak, especially saves. Plus, iron will or lightning reflexes as a feat would push his saves back up to merely 'normal' levels, anyway, so it balances out.

I would find this boring as a PC; I can easily gauge how tough an opponent is just by ... looking at him. And I know I'm tougher than him, because my stats are reasonable, and his are all 10s. I would be suprised (pleasantly) if he turned out to have Improved Disarm or some other feat that I wasn't expecting, but since that guy doesn't even have any feats...

Click to expand...

Of course, as a player you'd have no idea if you were facing this Joe Average, or a guy considerably tougher, until you saw him in action. And even then, unless the DM were feeding you the stats, it's not a certainty - you'd just know "pass/fail."

As for fighters possessing no spot or listen, it means a fighter/guard type would be PERFECT to have a feat or two invested in SPOT or listen, or even alertness. That's why said NPC block has no feats listed - he has his feats open for when the DM decides, "Yeah, he needs some Spot or Listen if he's a guard - i'll mark off alertness and give him a +2 each." From then on, if he's a recurring NPC, he has alertness. If you mow him down, it doesn't matter WHAT he had, and as DM I haven't wasted 20 minutes of my prep time statting a guard who'll never see the light of day again...

In DnD, you know fighters can't Snese Motive or Spot, so you don't bother giving them any Sense Motive or Spot. In Modern, how do you know the guy standing near the door with the lead pipe wrapped in newspaper doesn't have ranks in Sense Motive or Spot? He certainly could through Tough levels (Spot only) or Dedicated levels (didn't expect that one?) or his Occupation... Maybe he's a competent doorman instead of "Fighter Build CDE".

Click to expand...

Modern and Grim Tales make that even easier - the classes are built with NOTHING BUT feats and talents. Give them what they need, write it down as it's introduced in play, and as a DM you're set.

Having skimpier stat blocks are not as bad as it seems from a player's standpoint, because the player will not know, and will not NEED to know if the NPCs he faces are fully fleshed in mechanics, or just "barely there." Any player who can stat all his NPC's ahead of time, use them appropriately in-game, and STILL give me an entertaining session, more power to him/her, I'll let them DM and I can play, and they can be secure in the knowledge that they're playing with fully-statted NPC's. If they don't burn out, even better! But when I DM, I'll cut the occasional corner, as long as it's not too unbalancing, in order to keep my game running smoothly and give my players what they want (treasure, adventure, role play, cool fight scenes, etc.)

I can't believe I'm arguing with Henry...

Henry said:

actually, if the average stats by the MM are 13,12,11,10,9,8, then the guy in some ways is too STRONG for his stats, not too weak, especially saves. Plus, iron will or lightning reflexes as a feat would push his saves back up to merely 'normal' levels, anyway, so it balances out.

Click to expand...

No, this isn't something I agree with. What if he's a "light fighter"? Shouldn't the DM know his stats then? And I don't think it's fair to "force" him to buy save-boosting stats. Even with Iron Will, fighters are known for having lame Will saves. There's a reason fighters tend to boost their Wisdom.

Of course, as a player you'd have no idea if you were facing this Joe Average, or a guy considerably tougher, until you saw him in action. And even then, unless the DM were feeding you the stats, it's not a certainty - you'd just know "pass/fail."

Click to expand...

As in "wow, that guy was a total pushover; I didn't feel challenged at all?" I felt like that so often in 2e. The tiny NPC stat block doesn't lead to a memorable character type or a challenge.

As for fighters possessing no spot or listen, it means a fighter/guard type would be PERFECT to have a feat or two invested in SPOT or listen, or even alertness. That's why said NPC block has no feats listed - he has his feats open for when the DM decides, "Yeah, he needs some Spot or Listen if he's a guard - i'll mark off alertness and give him a +2 each." From then on, if he's a recurring NPC, he has alertness. If you mow him down, it doesn't matter WHAT he had, and as DM I haven't wasted 20 minutes of my prep time statting a guard who'll never see the light of day again...

Click to expand...

Well, there's stuff I agree with here and stuff I don't.

I've found working up generic NPC types ahead of time solves that problem. (So they killed him. I can use a similar NPC next time, with some minor changes.)

But I'm not seeing a fighter with Alertness making the rogue at all worried. He's still going to fail his check the vast majority of the time, unless the place has nightingale floors...

Modern and Grim Tales make that even easier - the classes are built with NOTHING BUT feats and talents. Give them what they need, write it down as it's introduced in play, and as a DM you're set.

Having skimpier stat blocks are not as bad as it seems from a player's standpoint, because the player will not know, and will not NEED to know if the NPCs he faces are fully fleshed in mechanics, or just "barely there." Any player who can stat all his NPC's ahead of time, use them appropriately in-game, and STILL give me an entertaining session, more power to him/her, I'll let them DM and I can play, and they can be secure in the knowledge that they're playing with fully-statted NPC's. If they don't burn out, even better! But when I DM, I'll cut the occasional corner, as long as it's not too unbalancing, in order to keep my game running smoothly and give my players what they want (treasure, adventure, role play, cool fight scenes, etc.)

Click to expand...

Well, maybe it's just me, but I think the NPC should require at least a little more flesh than that. Enough to be a reasonable challenge, and not just in the arena of kicking butt, but in skills as well.

You'll notice that stat block I pointed to earlier - you could use something like that, without even doing a "complete NPC". Those guys aren't just bare-bones fighter builds, and they've got enough detail to have the skills and combat ability they need.

(To relieve any possible confusion, Fraser Ronald drew up a complete NPC and then created that abbreviated stat block. It isn't necessary to do the complete NPC first, of course, if you want to save time - and a lot of GMs want to do just that. I personally always draw up the complete NPC first because I find I "metagame" if I don't do all the skills. If I had drawn up a security, I would have forgotten to give them ranks in things like Computer Use, Forgery and Search and just maxed out their Listen, Sense Motive and Spot.)

Bullgrit said:

Why would anyone have a "pang of nostalgia" for such a short (insufficient?) stat block?

Click to expand...

I prefer such stat blocks, but it has nothing to do with nostalgia. Such stat blocks suit my style of play better and are more than sufficient in many, if not all, cases of actual play that I have encountered. Of course, my style of play doesn't emphasize metagame tactics, so I don't need stat blocks that focus on them.

(Psi)SeveredHead said:

I can't believe I'm arguing with Henry...

Click to expand...

's O.K. It's bound to happen sometime.

What if he's a "light fighter"? Shouldn't the DM know his stats then?

There's a reason fighters tend to boost their Wisdom.

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your first statement. As for the second, I've NEVER seen a fighter boost his wisdom - that's more folly in my opinion than taking a single feat to get the equivalent to a +4 WIS bonus. Same with spot and listen - I'd rather have a fighter with a feat or two spent and 4 points higher strength (or +4 STR from items) instead of wasting the money and attributes in higher WIS. He has no other use for it than saves and spot/listen.

The tiny NPC stat block doesn't lead to a memorable character type or a challenge.

Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree; that fighter WILL have improved trip, or disarm, or improved toughness, or whatever he needs to make the fight interesting. Or, if he some crap-guard, he's going to go down in 2 rounds instead of the 3 had I wasted 20 minutes statting out every single feat. The higher the level, the higher those 'arbitrary' bonuses are going to be, because the fully statted NPC is going to have higher bonuses too, commensurate with the half-statted NPC.

I've found working up generic NPC types ahead of time solves that problem. (So they killed him. I can use a similar NPC next time, with some minor changes.)

Click to expand...

..assuming the DM can find the stats again amidst the piles of paperwork, and assuming the PCs don't cop wise to the fact that the NPC guard is the exact same as the previous five guards they met. Fully statting has it's drawbacks, and increased paperwork is one of them.

But I'm not seeing a fighter with Alertness making the rogue at all worried. He's still going to fail his check the vast majority of the time, unless the place has nightingale floors...

Click to expand...

That's why you don't hire fighters, you hire fighter/rogues, or fighters (with the educated feat) who were training in Delhall's security school of Waterdeep. (took me 5 sec. to write (educ. & list/spot +7 on his sheet) - he just can't climb or jump worth a darn, and his other skill is whatever I need next.)

Well, maybe it's just me, but I think the NPC should require at least a little more flesh than that. Enough to be a reasonable challenge, and not just in the arena of kicking butt, but in skills as well.

Click to expand...

If he's there to be bluffed, or fought, or sneaked past, his other skills are meaningless. If he's there to befriend the PC's, and repeatedly show up in their lives, then he needs more stats. I can't see spending half an hour to stat up a generic NPC only to have him destroyed, nor to spend a long time statting up reams of NPC's just so I can be prepared for every eventuality, and get lost in the paperwork. (Believe me, I've tried both and they suck.) The danger of a DM to get lost in his bookeeping and being distracted from keeping the story running smoothly is too great a risk for me.

You'll notice that stat block I pointed to earlier - you could use something like that, without even doing a "complete NPC". Those guys aren't just bare-bones fighter builds, and they've got enough detail to have the skills and combat ability they need.

(To relieve any possible confusion, Fraser Ronald drew up a complete NPC and then created that abbreviated stat block. It isn't necessary to do the complete NPC first, of course, if you want to save time - and a lot of GMs want to do just that. I personally always draw up the complete NPC first because I find I "metagame" if I don't do all the skills. If I had drawn up a security, I would have forgotten to give them ranks in things like Computer Use, Forgery and Search and just maxed out their Listen, Sense Motive and Spot.)

Click to expand...

For NPCs are are likely to be around a while, I'll stat 'em up in full. If they're a mook, and meant to be overcome or interacted with for a short while only, that's when I won't bother.

Here's an example of an MSWord page that I created from a campaign about two years ago - a bunch of drow, a gibbering mouther, and a chuul are visible. I only listed the most relevant stats, such that in a single glance I can tell the most important info about the creatures, and don't have to scan a whole page to get the info I need. They may not be 100% accurate, and I don't know what every feat is, but I've got everything I needed to run the game. I figured since we were showing off stat blocks, I might as well (after years of debating the issue) show the kind of stats help me prep. I sometimes use statblocks even more pithy than this, but most of my "stock NPC" prep work looks a lot like this.

I understand a lot of the current animosity against designing NPCs and using statblocks for NPCs in D&D/d20. However, a lot has to do with choices that had to be made. (BTW, I do recommend Monte Cook's article for fudging NPCs).

Many options vs. few options: One of the biggest things some people had against D&D in previous editions was the straigtjacket of class. In the early days one 4th level fighter was the same as another 4th level fighter in game terms.

Sure, PCs might have different personalities, but the game effects were the same. Also the backgrounds also wouldn't always hold up.

"Bob spent many years mastering the long sword, while working as a blacksmith in the village smithy." - Of course, when "Bob" picks up a mace, he's just as good with the long sword. When blacksmithing comes up, it's all up to the whim of the DM (even if you used the 1E rules that allowed you to specify you were a blacksmith).

PCs vs. NPCs: There is one school where NPCs should be the same as PCs. Every game advantage PCs have, NPCs have, too. That has a strong following in D&D, and D&D supports this, usually.

Unfortunately, this works against abbreviated NPCs. Sure, for a pure combat encounter you can ignore such things as non-combat feats and skills (who cares that Ernie the guard has skill focus in a knowledge skill?). Still, there is a lot of work to do.

Cutting down the statblocks, however, usually means limiting the NPCs. If you cut down the info in a statblock, then you are removing options from NPCs (for example, if you don't list feats, then an NPC won't have Power Attack).

Of course, some DMs will "wing it" and throw in those abilities. In some cases, though, the NPCs will often be have more options then the PCs. "Wait, that low level half-orc guard had power attack, combat reflexes, improved trip & cleave."

I think one solution is to split the choices up a bit. High detail vs. low detail can certainly be chosen separately for characters. If NPC statblocks are a chore, chose high detail for PCs, and low detail for NPCs (and certain characters would get the PC treatment - like the evil masterminds).