4th Edition Red Wizards

[ZappoHisbane]

Bah, if you really followed the rules in D&D 3.X, you had to roll randomly for your NPCs as well...

As I recall, the Standard and Elite Arrays were part of the rules in 3.X, and entirely not random. I'd even dare to say that the system assumed you were going to use them for NPCs and monsters, rather than alternative methods.

70 is a random number, but following some guidelines.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[DandD]

...so in the end it simply is the same as in D&D 4th edition if they're going to tell you how much hp the NPC should approximately have.

Yo, bro, don't forget the missing part as well next time.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

The only thing making all PC race NPCs require PC class levels would provide is to give Anal Retentive Rules Nuts something to complain about when an official product gives some mook bandit 1 too many skill points in Knowledge: Bass Fishing. I realize this is a major loss for the ARRN for which I am deeply sorry.

Mind if I latch onto this as a signature, with proper attribution?

 

[Campbell]

Not all NPCs are classless.

This has been said innumerable times by developers.

You can still build NPCs as classed characters.

I'm starting to think about putting together a fund to have this skywritten in major cities throughout the world the day 4E releases.

Individual DMs can do so if they desire, but I sincerely doubt that we'll see any NPCs that are built with PC rules in WotC products.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Individual DMs can do so if they desire, but I sincerely doubt that we'll see any NPCs that are built with PC rules in WotC products.

I dunno. Elminster (for example, if he still lives) would be to important a character to be statted as an NPC. IMO there will be some mega villians or heroes as PC classes.
But I could be wrong

 

[Jim DelRosso]

IIRC, Mearls posted a few months back about how quickly he statted up two NPCs for a product using PC classes. Gnoll warlock and something else, I think.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I dunno. Elminster (for example, if he still lives) would be to important a character to be statted as an NPC. IMO there will be some mega villians or heroes as PC classes.
But I could be wrong

Explain to me the benefit of stating up "important" NPCs as PCs as opposed to Elites or Solos again?

 

[mach1.9pants]

No real reason, but I just get the feeling that it will be done for 'completeness'. I enjoyed reading through the original realms 3E hardcover and having the famous NPC's statted up (Artremis Entreri, Elminster, etc). I had no intention of using them IMC; or in fact having them IMC! And I reckon that will still happen. Just my opinion

 

[small pumpkin man]

No real reason, but I just get the feeling that it will be done for 'completeness'. I enjoyed reading through the original realms 3E hardcover and having the famous NPC's statted up (Artremis Entreri, Elminster, etc). I had no intention of using them IMC; or in fact having them IMC! And I reckon that will still happen. Just my opinion

Ah, okay, cool, to satisfy geek curiosity and provide character examples for players, actually, that's not a bad reason.

It's just they mentions Jarlaxle and the Red Wizard lich guy as being Solos, and I was trying to think why you wouldn't do that for other characters.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Ah, okay, cool, to satisfy geek curiosity and provide character examples for players, actually, that's not a bad reason.

It's just they mentions Jarlaxle and the Red Wizard lich guy as being Solos, and I was trying to think why you wouldn't do that for other characters.

Yeah you put it better than me.....satisfying my inner geek
Well, in fact, satisfying my outer geek as well!

 

[Ydars]

This is a strange thread...............

Some people seem to worry that monster stats in 4E will be arbitary! I suspect they will be since this is a game and in a game, everything is arbitary (i.e. there will almost certainly be some underlying math or system for creating monsters in 4E but the purpose of creating monsters is merely to challenge the party in a game. Therefore the system is deliberately and arbitarily set up solely to create a workable game).

3.5E monster generation was totally arbitary; it just followed the same rules as for PCs. Why this is a good thing has always evaded me because it meant you had to slavishly follow these rules in longwinded fashion just because WoTC never let us DMs in on the underlying math. 3.5E monsters creation was HORRIBLE and complete nonsense. I loved many of the monsters but I don't think I ever created any of my own because it was such a nightmare. WHY would monsters choose to follow careers as if they were humans? It makes NO SENSE. NPC/Monster creation was such a complete chore in 3.3E that it made the game much less fun for the DM.

My great hope for 4E is that is removes this horrible burden from the DM and makes monster generation mechanics explicit and simple. That way, we DMs can prepare a few surprises for players who know how to get around everything you throw at them because they are DMs themselves. This very fact has always lessened the game for me when I play rather than DM.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Unless certain posters use common sense and courtesy to stop destructively poisoning this board out of spite that their chosen rules wankery isn't supported.

Unnecessary, since ignore lists exist and are quick, easy and satisfying to use.

I have to say that "Thay = evil Tibet" sounds very nice. I was never all that fond of the school-specific structure of the Red Wizards, both because it felt meta-gamey in a bad way to me (like the "nine gods for nine alignments" pantheon every DM ever has built at some point), and because I always felt that wizard specialization in 3.* was a lousy choice.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is a strange thread...............

Some people seem to worry that monster stats in 4E will be arbitary! I suspect they will be since this is a game and in a game, everything is arbitary (i.e. there will almost certainly be some underlying math or system for creating monsters in 4E but the purpose of creating monsters is merely to challenge the party in a game. Therefore the system is deliberately and arbitarily set up solely to create a workable game).

3.5E monster generation was totally arbitary; it just followed the same rules as for PCs.

I think I'll will have a post or thread up in a while that discusses my groups last experiences with the great 3E system of monster creation and statting, and how it wrecked our Age of Worms campaign.

 

[cwhs01]

This is a strange thread...............

Strongly considering sigging this

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Unnecessary, since ignore lists exist and are quick, easy and satisfying to use.

No, they aren't. The threads still get posted, others reply to the crap. It's just sad how much people want to beat a dead horse.

 

[vagabundo]

No, they aren't. The threads still get posted, others reply to the crap. It's just sad how much people want to beat a dead horse.

It gets a little tiring when there is a drive-by-treadcrapping.

They could have the decency to slug it out and take their beating.

 

[Ashardalon]

There does seem to be some rhyme and reason to the statting of NPCs and monsters in 4E. Some people managed reverse-engineer hit point formulas and XP formulas. They do seem to create minimums, however, rather than fixed values. And let's not forget the half-level bonus, on which the New Math^(tm) seems to rely very strongly.

The recently published malebranche actually is right on target regarding the hit points predicted by this system (255 for a 22nd level Brute with Con 25). Its XP is a bit above what seems to be considered normal, perhaps due to its Leader-ness. The succubus seems to be off-target for a 9th level Controller with Con 10 - the formula I have predicts 70 hp rather than the 90 she has. On the other hand, the formula does predict 90 hp for Soldiers and Skirmishers with those stats, so maybe I simply have copied a wrong Controller formula.