D&D 4E Am I missing something? What happened to spell circles in 4e?

[DracoSuave]

Just as likely???

Minion is a game mechanic monster role for attacking PCs with large groups of opponents for them to mow through.

It isn't designed for high level quasi-important NPCs. That would be a rather unusual use of a minion.

I would question a DM having a King minion unless the plot of the story was for an Assassin (or the PCs) to definitively and easily kill the King. Otherwise, I'd question making the King a minion (who is he a minion of? why is he cannon fodder?).

NPCs that PCs aren't meant to combat actually don't have combat statistics at all. I'd question the DM who made a king anything outside of a social encounter unless it was actually -really- relevant to the game.

And no 'He's a warrior king and so is a fighter' is -not- that relevant unless the party and said king actually involve themselves in combat with each other. If not, the king's combat is off camera, and therefore stats are unnecessary.

 

[Nifft]

4e really tries hard to break the time honored tradition though of a society where everyone has levels in classes and important people are high level. The base assumption is more like society is organized pretty much like in the real world where people are good at their jobs but unless your job actually involves something like fighting you probably don't have much in the way of combat ability.

... unless you lose your mind. Those insane nobles are scary!

Cheers, -- N

 

[Garthanos]

Otherwise, I'd question making the King a minion (who is he a minion of? why is he cannon fodder?).

(Ummm minion the mechanic does not necessarily mean you are somebodies servant... but all "good" kings ought to be servants of the people ... just ask them).

Abdul is right... How important a character is to the story or fate... is not the same as how important in the society of the game ... which is not the same as how skilled that character is.

There are organizations which require proofs of skill for advancement however and a wizards guild seems likely to be one of them. Rituals seem more likely use as proof.. unless they have some sort of dueling thing going on... and that could be fun too.

In a guild were defeating the leader is required to take over... or a country were becoming the high king is battle earned ... well fated characters ... have serious advantages. So I wouldnt expect a king who earned his place through battle to very likely NOT be a minion... or atleast he wasnt likely one when he earned it.... That is a weird thought ... just because they weren't a minion back then doesn't mean fate still shines blessing on them.

 

[Garthanos]

And no 'He's a warrior king and so is a fighter' is -not- that relevant unless the party and said king actually involve themselves in combat with each other. If not, the king's combat is off camera, and therefore stats are unnecessary.

Well there is that too....

The original poster was perhaps thinking about how the "name ranking" which conceptually corresponded to organizational ranks was associated with character levels in some earlier versions of the game. It really did imply a connection in that regard.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well.... 4e doesn't really have Name Level like 1e and BECMI did...


...you have Paragon and Epic Tier, which is -way- better because Name Level isn't the same for everyone. It's assumed that in Paragon and in Epic you have greater social standing reflecting from the sheer fact of your awesomeness and the increasing scope of your adventures within the world -and beyond.-

 

[KarinsDad]

NPCs that PCs aren't meant to combat actually don't have combat statistics at all. I'd question the DM who made a king anything outside of a social encounter unless it was actually -really- relevant to the game.

Precisely. So if a DM was going to go out of his way to create combat statistics for an important NPC, he would typically do it for real.


A minion would be for a sickly King or a King destined by the DM for death.

A non-minion, possibly lower level (maybe even much lower level) than the PCs, would be for a King that has the possibility of getting into combat and who is expected to survive for some period of time.

The third more likely option is, as you state, not combat stating out the King.


I understand the story element of making a King a minion if the DM wants the King to die. I don't understand the concept that any old King would be "Just as likely" to be a minion (i.e. a cardboard cutout). I would think that most Kings would a) not be combat stated, b) normally combat stated, c) a minion, in most games in that order.


And if the DM wants the PCs to accidently kill the King or some such, making him a minion won't necessarily do it if the first PC hitting the King decides to knock him out instead.


I'm not saying that a DM cannot make an important NPC a minion, I just find it a bit unusual.

How many socially important NPCs have you created as minions in your game?

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Relax guys, let's not lose sight of the goal, i.e. the story.

As such, the 4E ruleset allows for three different kinds of Kings

Does the story require the King to be assassinated in the middle of the feast, with the PCs as impotent witnesses? Then you don't need to make stats for him, just declare that he's dead Jim. Also, if the King is just there to look noble and assign quests and reward players, you don't need to stat him either.

Now, does the story require the King to fight alongside the party in a great battle? Sure, make him a level-appropriate monster* with the fighter or paladin template (or whatever else fits). After all, if you are just using these combat stats for a one-time encounter, then you don't need to flesh him out completely.

Oh, but if the King is going to be joining the party, under control of a player (maybe he's exiled, in disguise, or means to defeat his evil uncle), THEN you stat him up as a complete PC



* Monster here means "NPC created with the rules in the DMG or the monster builder"

 

[Rothe_]

If you like the concept of classifying spells in terms of power and complexity for "in-game" reasons, you could just decide on a classification system in general terms.
For example:

- At-wills (1st level) are basic spells that any novice would be able to use, same goes for things like Cantrips (predestigation etc).

- Encounter spells could be classified as advanced magic, with associated power levels (for example a level 1 encounter spell might be a "circle I spell" and then a third level encounter spell would be "circle II spell" since it is the next time you get encounter spells.

- Daily spells would be complex spells that have their own rating, since they are so difficult to use that you can manage to cast about 1 of each per day. You could call them something like "tiers" or "traditions" or whatever. If it feels good to call a 1st level daily a "An arcane incantation of the 1st tradition" then do it that way. Space them out so that 1st, 5th and 9th level dailies correspond to 1st, 2nd and 3rd "traditions" or whatever classification you wish to use.

- Make some similar arrangement for utility spells. Call them "knacks" or something and give them levels.

- Rituals deserve a similar treatment, perhaps they are called "weaves" or something like that.

It should be fairly simple to come up with a system where you have spell levels in "in-game" terms and then you can refer to those when you play to keep in character.

You could call spells of the different classes with different types of names, so that bard spells are instead songs or poems etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Relax guys, let's not lose sight of the goal, i.e. the story.

As such, the 4E ruleset allows for three different kinds of Kings

Does the story require the King to be assassinated in the middle of the feast, with the PCs as impotent witnesses? Then you don't need to make stats for him, just declare that he's dead Jim. Also, if the King is just there to look noble and assign quests and reward players, you don't need to stat him either.

Now, does the story require the King to fight alongside the party in a great battle? Sure, make him a level-appropriate monster* with the fighter or paladin template (or whatever else fits). After all, if you are just using these combat stats for a one-time encounter, then you don't need to flesh him out completely.

Oh, but if the King is going to be joining the party, under control of a player (maybe he's exiled, in disguise, or means to defeat his evil uncle), THEN you stat him up as a complete PC



* Monster here means "NPC created with the rules in the DMG or the monster builder"

Yeah, I think that about sums it up in terms of what the probable options are. My main point originally was just that 4e long since left in the dust the concept that there is some sort of pyramid of leveled class NPCs in the world where the important guys are all high level characters. If truth be told I never ran my campaign world that way to start with, but it was a pretty ingrained assumption that the system made. Especially in OD&D/1e/2e, though maybe not so much in 3.x (at least by then named levels were gone).