15 Minute NPCs

[BryonD]

The post references, by inference (90 minutes to create a high-level 3.5 NPC) blog posts by Rodney Thompson and Mike Mearls (there's was an earlier thread discussing that right here on ENworld).

You are creating a false standard and basing your entire position on exploiting that.

 

[BryonD]

That the NPC follows the rules of the game I am currently playing.

I have no objection to running things at your table such that the character is entertaining -- indeed, I'm all for it! -- but then the rules of the game should support this activity.

So really, we're agreeing and just arguing whether it's possible now. My stance: possible now, yes. Legal under a strict definition of the rules? Not really.

I'm sorry, but that is laughable.
If you are hung up on that level of precision, when it is glaringly obvious that one can easily build 12 different but similar npcs with a range of +/- 4 or so on AC and a variety of other elements, then you are never going to be happy and any shortcomings of 3E are brought to the table by you.

Seriously, quit letting the rules use you. Your game will be better for it.

I fully expect that you will loudly condemn any and all errors in any 4e publication. Of course, from this thread it seems clear that any errata is inexcusable. They can crank out perfect npcs in 15 min, hell, have three people QC it and it still only takes an hour. Anything less than perfection is intolerable, not to mention a terrible breaking of the strict definition of the rules.

 

[Storminator]

You are creating a false standard and basing your entire position on exploiting that.

I'm sorry, but that is laughable.
If you are hung up on that level of precision, when it is glaringly obvious that one can easily build 12 different but similar npcs with a range of +/- 4 or so on AC and a variety of other elements, then you are never going to be happy and any shortcomings of 3E are brought to the table by you.

Seriously, quit letting the rules use you. Your game will be better for it.

I fully expect that you will loudly condemn any and all errors in any 4e publication. Of course, from this thread it seems clear that any errata is inexcusable. They can crank out perfect npcs in 15 min, hell, have three people QC it and it still only takes an hour. Anything less than perfection is intolerable, not to mention a terrible breaking of the strict definition of the rules.

Huh.

PS

 

[Mercule]

Yes.

I'm tempted to say we can end the conversation right there because I cannot believe that anyone honestly believes that. But your further statements intrigue me.

The goal is to use a ruleset that defines the world. Fate determines the location of NPCs, their motivations, their strengths, their weaknesses, their goals, etc. NPCs are not tailored for the purpose of climactic combat or to please the theme of the story. They just are what they are, generated with the goal of less bias and more variety in combat abilities (even if they aren't always optimal).

I can accept the idea that you use the RAW, without house rules -- or, at least expect more work if you tweak things. I can also accept the notion that things aren't always optimized for the PCs or GM fiat. Those are all perfectly reasonable notions in context of a game.

What I'm stuggling with are your pronouncements about "fate" and so on. What qualifies as "tailored for the purpose of climactic combat or to please the theme of the story?" The latter bit especially interests me. If taken to an extreme, it means that a random "dungeon" generation tool should be used for all adventures, just to ensure the appropriate lack of bias. I can't imagine that you're advocating that, though.

So, are you talking philosophic themes or worldbuilding themes (cultures, etc.)? If the former, would you say that RPGs are a wholy inappropriate vehicle for such exploration, or just D&D? For example, Promethean: the Created is designed to explore the notion of what it is to be human (i.e. humanity). Is that a fool's errand, or is the ability (assuming good design) of Promethean to handle that theme one of the things that separates it from D&D?

If the latter, just how would you handle the in-game explanations for the society in which the characters live, their allies, and their enemies? Take the NPC I asked you to create earlier. I gave you free reign with the rules, but the impression I got was that he was somehow out-of-bounds because he didn't neatly fit into a generation tool. The history I gave fit into the RAW, so far as I am aware. I didn't qualify class and the race was human. For items, I didn't say "psionic" and you could have rolled standard and used some of the variants (tokens for potions, etc.) from Complete Arcane or even some stranger items from MIC (a book you recommended). What was wrong with that sort of generation goal?

For that matter, if fate determines the locations and motivations of the NPCs, how do you decide whether there is a war? I don't recall seeing those tables in the books. For that matter, do you randomly roll alignment for the necromancer in the crypts? Or do you roll to see if, maybe, it's a monk/bard instead of a necromancer?

At what point do you stop looking to tables and actually design an adventure, draw a map, or decide, well, anything?

 

[iskurthi]

The stat blocks! They burn!

How about concept, then? I don't care what the classes are, but he's 10th level. Build me a military commander who is purely martial, but has been surrounded by mind-readers for most of his military career and has taken appropriate precautions to avoid being controlled or read. His culture is isolated and secretive, and much of his equipment has a distinct appearance, especially the magic items. He leads a sizable army of orcs, gathered from the surrounding area. He is far from home and requires a means by which to communicate with his superiors that doesn't involve going through a subordinate. He will be supported by an enchanter (or telepath), a cleric/rogue, and an evoker. His staff has wintered in mountain cave complex while they prepare for a spring invasion. He is a tactical genius: what preparations has he made for a strike force invading his base?

---------------------
Commander CR10
Human Marshall2/Fighter4/Tactical Soldier4
Languages: Common, Orcish

Init +4
BAB +9
HP 2d8+4d10+4d10+20 (81)
AC 22
Att +14/+9 +1 glaive 1d10+5

Fort +12 (+13)
Ref +4 (+5)
Will +8 (+9)

28 point buy
STR 14 (16)
DEX 13+1 (14)
CON 14
INT 12
WIS 10
CHA 13+1 (14)

Skills: Listen 5, Diplomacy 5(10), Spot 5, Sense Motive 12, Intimidate 5(8), Survival 5, Knowledge (Geography) 5(8), Balance 5(9)

Feats: Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Power Attack, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, WF: Glaive, Hold The Line, Vexing Flanker (PHB2), Endurance, Steadfast Determination (PHB2), Strong Will, Sidestep
Abilities: Minor Aura Motivate Dexterity, Major Aura Resilient Troops, Flanker, Interpose, Defensive Shield
Equipment: +2 full plate of Command, +1 amulet of natural armor, +1 glaive, Sending Stones (MIC), gauntlets of ogre power
------------------

I know the challenge wasn't to ME, but I couldn't get it out of my head. I took about 15 minutes to think about what might work well and find where my books were, 15 minutes to actually crunch numbers (mind you, I used NONE of the many electronic tools which would have sped this up), and then about 10 or so looking through the Magic Item Compendium for the Sending Stones (sending 1/day) to fill in the last part of the puzzle. The commander is, for a fighter type, a surprisingly diplomatic (in both the normal and orcish senses) and perceptive leader, capable of inspiring trust in his followers - for good reason, as everyone within hearing range gets +2 on initiative and +2 on saves (from his aura and the Commander enchantment on his armor). He has a surprisingly strong will for a fighter, thanks to two feats (Strong Will and Steadfast Determination, which add +2 to his will and let him use con instead of wisdom - thus if he gets bears endurance cast on him his will AND fort increase). He also has Endurance (the Steadfast prereq), which doesn't do him much good in combat but how are you going to lead orcs if you can't demonstrate stamina?

Tactically he is not about dealing damage directly, but the flanking abilities of Tactical Soldier and Hold The Line paired with a reach weapon make him reasonably effective at battlefield control. If the casters stick close behind him, he can try and use Interpose to take hits that would normally affect them. He is not beefy enough to stand up to a hard pounding alone, but buffs are what his backup are for...

A good synergy of staff would be a Wiz5/Warweaver5 for his mage (the ability to put Anticipate Teleport on each of them with one casting lets you cover the entire base within Anticipate Teleport, and Quiescent Weaving lets them pop a nasty surprise on anyone trying to use SBT) (plus if you're going for an enchanter type or a "power behind the leader" how can you resist having someone whose casting metaphor is literally pulling people's strings), and a Clr5/Rog3 (buffs and flanking synergy, esp. with elusive target) and a Warmage 8 (blasty blasty). This would be a (8+8=10, 10+10+10=13) CR 13 encounter, with a possible +1 CR modification if your players aren't using anything broken.

I wanted to give him a Mindvault or something else specifically against mental domination, but with NPC gold there's just no way to pull that off without gimping him in other areas. I had to settle for making his will save as high as I could manage. Having a will almost as high as your level isn't bad for a fighter!

I've now managed to take twice as much time writing about the NPC than it took to actually stat him up.

 

[Storminator]

So character do not get more complex as you go up in levels? Isn't that a default assumption of D&D? More feats, more talents, more spells/maneuvers, more magic items to choose from? Is all of that just going away now? Or are you the one making the assumption?

But none of that is where your character is wrong. His saves are wrong because you didn't factor in stat boosters. His equipment is wrong because you've conflicting slot items. His cleric spells are wrong because you didn't factor in the stat boosters. His skills are wrong because you didn't use cross class skills.

And every one of those things is going away!

Again, not that much different. My characters only need a few minutes of quick editing. Perhaps another time I will try again, and perhaps the challenge will be more a more appropriate comparison of Mearls creation (8th level, core only, one class). I just don't have the time tonight. I'd love to see someone else take up 'the challenge'.

But it takes a few minutes to figure out what you did, and a few minutes to fix things. Now we're up to 35-40 minutes on a 15 minute NPC.

Isn't it possible that they're just making 'the way you're supposed to' the equivelent of my 3.5 'good enough'? And the stuff you say will be 'on the fly' isn't really a stat block at all but just fudging numbers?

Possible. But we also know there's some fundamental simplifications.

PS

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Here are my thoughts on "15 minute NPCs" statement.

My first thought was "heh. More boilerplate WotC Marketing approved hype. 3e bad. 4e good. Coming from someone whose paycheck depends on people buying 4e, I'll believe the 4e good bit when (and if) I see it. But I've played 3e for 8 years now and it's not bad. It's good."

Thinking about it a bit more, there are a few other things that spring to mind.

First, like some others here, I would agree that 90 minutes for a single NPC is a bit much. 4 hours on NPCs will produce eight or nine NPCs with versions appropriate to challenge 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th level characters, using the standard WotC format with all the hiddent text they make us use when writing for the RPGA. On the other hand, I know that there are statblocks I've spent a LOT of time working on--maybe not 90 minutes per statblock generated, but more time than I would like.

The designers are promising me that 4e will fix that. How realistic is that claim?

When I think about designing 3e NPCs, there are several factors. What kind of NPCs am I creating? A warrior type is generally quicker than a spellcaster. Anything is quicker than a wizard. (Increasing Int every four levels and thus having skill points that cannot simply be analyzed by saying "Skills per level x(Class level +3)" as well as requiring a spellbook (which no other class requires) makes wizards inherently more time consuming than any other class). Adding multiple prestige classes takes time. Anything that is a clone (or close to it) of one of the PCs I have played or have thought of playing takes less time. Equipping a character takes a little time. Thinking about the amount of gold I'm handing the party and revising the equipment to be more stingy takes time. However, what it really comes down to is that, in 3e, I can spend as much time as I want to to create a character. If a straight up orcish barbarian is required, I can crank that really quickly. If I want a fiendish displacer beast, that's fairly quick too. If, on the other hand, for some reason I want an awakened tauric multi-headed half-fiendish axiomatic bullette marshal/wizard/spellsword advanced by hit dice, that's going to take a while. As a writer or a DM, I can choose how particular I want to be.

Now, why would 4e be quicker? If the rumors about using more or less the SAGA skill system are true, that would make 4e NPCs somewhat quicker. (On the other hand, if I want to be quick, at the moment, I simply numbering the number of skill points the NPC gets per level and putting that many class skills at max ranks (the next level of detail is dropping a few max rank skills to get two half-rank skills each); that's not really significantly slower than picking "trained" and "untrained" skills in similar numbers. What about not having to calculate multiple attack routines? I'm pretty sure that's going to be balanced out by having multiple x/day and x/encounter powers. (In any event, it's calculating the first attack where all the work is; the iterative attacks take an extra second. So, reducing the number of attacks doesn't seem like a likely candidate for saving time). Here's what I would see as the biggest reason: At this stage in its development, it's likely that any designer is working with the equivalent of a playtest PHB, DMG, and MM. No Complete Sasquatch or Races of the Wild Blue Yonder. No MM II, MM III and Complete book of bizarre templates. So, anything that the designer is likely to cook up is going to be the 4e equivalent of a bunch of (probably single classed) NPCs plus one fiendish NPC. 4.0 simply doesn't have enough supplements for their to be any equivalent to an an awakened tauric multi-headed half-fiendish axiomatic bullette marshal/wizard/spellsword advanced by hit dice. Furthermore, as writers working with a new system, designers know that whatever abilities they give their gnolls will be somewhat new and exciting to players (assuming that the game is as good as 3e). Writers don't need to distinguish themselves by writing bizarre anomalies in order to get past jaded player syndrome. The meat and potatoes monsters will be new and interesting enough.

In short, I'd bet that SRM, et al are comparing apples to oranges. By the time 4th edition has been around 5 years, they'll be back to spending 90 minutes on a statblock for an an awakened tauric multi-headed half-fiendish axiomatic bullette marshal/wizard/spellsword advanced by hit dice in order to have a new and interesting opponent that the PCs haven't faced before.

 

[Lackhand]

I'm sorry, but that is laughable.
If you are hung up on that level of precision, when it is glaringly obvious that one can easily build 12 different but similar npcs with a range of +/- 4 or so on AC and a variety of other elements, then you are never going to be happy and any shortcomings of 3E are brought to the table by you.

Seriously, quit letting the rules use you. Your game will be better for it.

I fully expect that you will loudly condemn any and all errors in any 4e publication. Of course, from this thread it seems clear that any errata is inexcusable. They can crank out perfect npcs in 15 min, hell, have three people QC it and it still only takes an hour. Anything less than perfection is intolerable, not to mention a terrible breaking of the strict definition of the rules.

Apology accepted, but you misinterpret me

I'm not saying that I wouldn't do the exact same thing you guys are doing -- moreover, I do, when I'm not running prepublished adventures -- I just approve of the rules of the game being accurate to how I use them.
If the rules say "Make monsters this way, make characters this way", then it should be reasonable -- nay, correct and helpful! -- to make characters this way, PC or NPC.

If the rules say "Make monsters this way, and make NPCs that way too. It's quick an easy. If you're going to be using the monster/NPC a lot, consider adding more detail by stealing from the rules to make a PC. Here are the rules to make a PC" (which is what it sounds like 4th edition is doing) then they're right.

Anything less and you can't use the rules as they're published. That's why I was saying earlier that we're agreeing and just arguing over technicalities now. I think your way is best, I think you can do it using the 3.5 mechanics...
... but not the rules as written. Far easier to (as they're doing!) fix the rules as written, even if it's not as earthshaking as the announcement sounds.

 

[iskurthi]

an awakened tauric multi-headed half-fiendish axiomatic bullette marshal/wizard/spellsword

...of Legend

 

[Incenjucar]

...of Legend

Needs the Winged template or it may as well just not get up in the morning.