D&D 4E 4E NPC's not walking treasure troves?

[Ruin Explorer]

I certainly hope I can substitute "making an NPC a couple of levels higher" for ensuring he has the correct magical equipment. Hell, I'd like to avoid so many NPCs even having the "big three" items, myself, and if by shoving up their level, I can do this and still make them challenging (which didn't work terribly well in 3E, to put it briefly), then I'll be happy. I hope the DMG has some way to account for whether an NPC has items or not in however you calc his XP value, though.

 

[Stogoe]

In 4e, it seems that you'll just give NPC adversaries the stats that will make them a challenge, and don't worry about having to pile loads of treasure on top just to make the numbers work.

Q: Why does the Level X Skirmisher have a +Z attack bonus?
A: Because that number makes it a challenge for the PCs, and no other reason.

Derren, only in your game will monsters need 'on screen' rules to describe 'off screen' handwaving. I sort of pity you.

 

[FourthBear]

A lot of this will have to do with what the DMG establishes in terms of treasure/rewards guidelines for campaigns. I'm hoping for fewer and more interesting items overall.

From everything presented, there should be no reason that a DM who wished to generate his NPCs by the full PC process couldn't do so, including giving them magic items that they deemed appropriate. It wouldn't be as fast as the methods I believe that the 4e DMG will recommend, but if the DM doesn't feel like NPCs generated in non-PC ways are acceptable, he can do it the way all previous editions have done it. The only thing I could see as a snag is that in previous editions, non-spellcasters were often considered easy and spellcasters hard. That may even out a bit more, with non-spellcasters and spellcasters being closer to equal amounts of effort to generate. Overall, I suspect that it would take about as long as it does in 3e.

 

[Lord Zack]

In 4e, it seems that you'll just give NPC adversaries the stats that will make them a challenge, and don't worry about having to pile loads of treasure on top just to make the numbers work.

Q: Why does the Level X Skirmisher have a +Z attack bonus?
A: Because that number makes it a challenge for the PCs, and no other reason.

Derren, only in your game will monsters need 'on screen' rules to describe 'off screen' handwaving. I sort of pity you.

Maybe he's not talking about "off screen handwaving". At least when I talk about non-combat stuff. I talk about stuff that affect PCs directly.

 

[fnwc]

Derren, only in your game will monsters need 'on screen' rules to describe 'off screen' handwaving.

In Derren's defense, published adventures don't have this luxury. The numbers have to work, or else the consumers will complain. So a lot of NPCs will benefit from 4th edition since they won't have to have as much a dependence on magic items.

But you're right, you can always fudge the numbers in a home game and the players will be none the wiser. Besides, players in 3.5 should be spending most of their time doing their own calculations rather than trying to figure out the attack bonus of the monsters (why even tell them what the NPC attack bonus is, anyway).

 

[Stogoe]

In response, I'm speaking more about Derren's insistence that Pit Fiends can't take a walk in the park or use a divination ritual without explicit language saying so in the Combat Stat Block.

 

[Derren]

In response, I'm speaking more about Derren's insistence that Pit Fiends can't take a walk in the park or use a divination ritual without explicit language saying so in the Combat Stat Block.

See Lord Zacks response. Such things also affect the PCs so it would be nice to have rules for them. You are apparently contend with writing cool adventures while breaking the internal logic of the game world by handing out arbitrary abilities. I on the other hand like cool adventures wihich do not break the internal logic of the game world.

To use a movie as example, you watch Independence Day and say "Good Movie" (Lets assume that it was good for this example". I watch Independence Day and say "Nice Movie, but the thing with the virus was the most stupid things I have ever seen in a movie. I would have liked the movie more if it would have been a bit more realistic".
See the difference?

Also by fleshing out the BBEGs out of combat abilities and activities I give my PCs additional attack vectors instead of only "kick in the door" The PCs might or might not use but they exist.

So in 4E it seems that unless most monsters have a universal "I can cast every ritual I want" ability I either have to give them lots of magical items, lots of minions wihich are able to do most out of combat things for the BBEG (problematic with solo BBEGs. It also dimishes the BBEG a bit as he is totally helpless without minions instead of it being just a small annoyance) or give the BBEG arbitrary abilities with no or very far fetched explanations of how it got it.

 

[Stalker0]

To me, dms always have the ability to give npcs abilities outside of the book, its part of my right as dm to create cool situations and stories. Just as its the pcs right to expect that they will be provided encounters that are manageable for them (either within their range to handle, or allowing them the opportunity to escape an encounter too great for them, or having been provided enough insight to have avoided the situation in the first place).

 

[Derren]

To me, dms always have the ability to give npcs abilities outside of the book, its part of my right as dm to create cool situations and stories.

I do not dispute that. But imo this ability should be used sparingly, only when necessary. But it looks like 4E will require that DMs use this ability whenever they want to create something which goes beyond pure combat and the DM does not want to just give the enemies a lot of magic items (which will fall into the hands of the PCs).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I do not dispute that. But imo this ability should be used sparingly, only when necessary. But it looks like 4E will require that DMs use this ability whenever they want to create something which goes beyond pure combat and the DM does not want to just give the enemies a lot of magic items (which will fall into the hands of the PCs).

If every creature was capable of using Rituals, you don't need to treat this as doing something "exception" or breaking the internal logic of the game.

If rituals are balanced by levels just as everything else, the internal logic of the game tells you that it is reasonable to believe that a level 26 pit fiend can use a Scrying Ritual, or a Dragon can use a "Polymorph to Human" ritual. There are some similarities to "just" adding magical items, with the difference that they don't automatically fall into the hands of the players.

Just as with magical items, a DM needs to decide how common rituals will be in his campaigns, and how likely it is that Pit Fiends, Dragons or PCs have access to them.

In my game, Pit Fiends might not have any Rituals at all, since my story for using them doesn't require it. Except maybe one of them does know a Ritual, and its giving an edge in the hells so that the PCs will need to "investigate" (read: Kill him, and take his stuff).

In your game, most Pit Fiends might have a Scrying Ritual and a Mass Teleportation Ritual, because you want your Pit Fiends being able to watch their troops and move them quickly. It is a bit of "Mutual Assured Destruction" though, since every Pit Fiend has access to these abilities, so they rarely use it against each other. But the catch might be that one, just one Pit Fiend finds a "Divert Teleportation" Ritual, and suddenly, the balance in hell is changed, and again, the epic level heroes will have to intervene...