Anyone else long for old days simplicity?

[Lord Vangarel]

I don't know, start a thread, go home, come back and look what's happened.

Judging by all the response this has generated it seems fairly obvious that I'm not alone with these thoughts.

The original post was not to do with mechanics, or stat blocks being better now a days, or newbies (I'm hardly that having played for 20 years), it was to do with the feeling that 1st edition describe a 9th level fighter (I could do it even now) compared to 3E where you have feats and skills and prestige classes to think of. As I said originally in terms of options 3E is much better but in terms of coming up with logical thought out character stats (not just random through a generator - although these have their place also to throw curve balls into predefined thinking) that don't leave out that the fighter should have taken this feat or that skill to get into that prestige class. Sure they can be reverse engineered (a 4th level Bow Initiate is X so he must have all these) and the blanks can be guesstimated, but it just seemed simplier in the old days. If you wanted a specific type of fighter you made it into a class all of its own (there were no choices).

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit here, but its almost like some of the others have suggested, a netbook of classes with easy logical choices statted out in advance.

As an idea here is the choice facing a fighter (using core rules only - no splatbooks):

Human (3 feats, probably) - does he take Power Attack so he can get Cleave (useful at 1st level) and Weapon Focus (almost a must have for any 1st level fighter) or does he use the 2 spare feats to bump up Toughness, Saving Throws, Initiative, or fight with Two weapons, etc.

You get the point? If the fighter isn't human then there are only 2 feats so the choice is harder (or simpler). Now this is just one character class at 1st level with no thought for prestige classes or what he wants to be when he's grown up.

What about all the other classes? A DM already has to keep a massive amount of info in his head without having to think about all the character creation options. Why is this important, well if pressed for time (as I am), and not wanting to give XP away cheaply by underpowering or making bad choices needlessly, it is time consuming and difficult (especially in game) to do this.

Now anyone who doesn't DM might think its not that difficult but I play once a week, I don't want to pregenerate lots of characters in addition to writing up an entire adventure (I don't have the time).

The original idea by jfiz has merit, and so lets create the Netbook of Archetypes. I'm going to get started on thinking some through and see what I come up with. I'll let you know.

 

[Desdichado]

A fighter NPC only needs three stats: AC, BAB and HP. Those can easily be improvised on the spot. Anything else like feats, skills, etc. can be improvised as needed, but mostly ignored.

How exactly is that complicated?

 

[hong]

A fighter NPC only needs three stats: AC, BAB and HP. Those can easily be improvised on the spot. Anything else like feats, skills, etc. can be improvised as needed, but mostly ignored.

How exactly is that complicated?

Of course, you could make much the exact same argument, but the other way. If you want lots of options in 1E, you can just make up your own class. This even has the advantage that there are no constraints on your imagination; no "must balance against core classes" or "can't stack typed bonuses" or such. Given that the argument is at least as much about the merits of the two rulesets as anything else, invoking rule 0 does not seem kosher to me.

 

[Black Omega]

A fighter NPC only needs three stats: AC, BAB and HP. Those can easily be improvised on the spot. Anything else like feats, skills, etc. can be improvised as needed, but mostly ignored.

How exactly is that complicated?

Well, saves and damage are also good to have statted out.

 

[KDLadage]

Re: Re: Re: NPC Generator

Umm. In my books, 13 Int is enough to allow a character to realise that he's wasting his time endeavouring to develop skills he can't use.

Depends. In my group right now, my players have a PC Cleric -- 10th level -- with a Wisdom of 13. He cannot exceed 3rd level spells, but the player is not about to multiclass -- has no desire to do so.

Its a great character, by the way...

Besides which, if I want to pit a 13th level Wiz against the party, I want a 13th level Wiz, not a 5th level Wiz with good saves and hp.

Creating a viable character and minmaxing are two very different things.

Yes it is. But the definition of VIABLE is very fuzzy. I can see having a 13 Int level 13 Wizard... without too much of a problem really...

I will admit that this could make for a very interesting NPC who was going to interact with the party as a major (or even just comic relief) story device. But I would never use a random generator to create that sort of character.

Then don't. But it is an option. Granted, the generators are not perfect, but if you set them to generate a couple of dozen, I am sure a few will meet standards.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, saves and damage are also good to have statted out.

Whoops! Good catch.

Of course, you could make much the exact same argument, but the other way. If you want lots of options in 1E, you can just make up your own class. This even has the advantage that there are no constraints on your imagination; no "must balance against core classes" or "can't stack typed bonuses" or such. Given that the argument is at least as much about the merits of the two rulesets as anything else, invoking rule 0 does not seem kosher to me.

Not really rule 0, just pointing out that you don't need that detail in an NPC unless he's going to be a recurring figure. Not only that, NPC "classes", if you want to call them that, don't have to balanced against the core classes, or worry about stacking bonuses: you just have to make the challenge appropriate for the PC.

The complaint, if you recall, was that in 3e you can't "wing it" with NPCs and generate them on the spot with enough detail to be meaningful in, say, combat. I'm saying that is simply not the case: it can easily be done.

 

[Henry]

I fall in with Joshua and Arcady's camp on this one: Most of the time, I only have raw base stats for NPC "mooks," and only add feats and skills as needed to spice things up. I don't have to be 100% correct, and I know the general guidelines (no characters with whirlwind attack at 6th level, no 5th level mages casting disintegrate, no 7th level barbarians getting damage reduction, etc. etc.)

I think some people here are also forgetting the Warrior NPC class. It is the perfect "fighter-lite" to use for NPC's - not all non-spellcasting combatants are going to be fighters, barbarians, or rangers (or even rogues). The NPC warrior was designed to beef up humanoids, thugs, and the like to use against PC's. Just put them one level ahead of the fighter you were going to use at the same CR.

Also, Experts, Aristocrats, and Adepts work as excellent NPC's- it's just that people seem to forget them and want to go with just core classes.

Finally, 1E & 2E had one problem that 3E does not - I can now figure out the BAB, hit points, saves, Armor class, and Spell use of an NPC simply by taking one minute and thinking it out - I could not do this in 1E, except by wrote memorization. Is there ANYONE out there who had the Saving Throw charts for all four classes memorized? I couldn't even do one, because they were so haphazard and did not follow a logical formula. Now, I can tell you any character's base saves in my head, and therefore their final saves.

1E was fun, I had many good times with it, but I have a very hard time visualizing playing it. It's the old "you've tried a washer and dryer, now go back to your rock, your lye soap, and your clothesline" syndrome.

quoth Orcus:

Not true at all. You have to know the mechanics for 3E. In OD&D you made it up: "ok, you want to break through the stone wall, lets see...roll a d6." There werent mechanics for things. It was presumed a DM could come up with a resolution system. I prefer that, actually.

Now you have to look up hardness and hp and all that other crap.

3E is more consistent. Dont confuse consistency with ease of use or simplicity.

I cant tell you how many things I resolved with the old d6 roll.

However, Clark, how many of those d6 rolls were not only inconsistent, but possibly unfair? Did that d6 take all factors into account? Did you use those SAME factors six weeks later when the group wanted to try and break through another similar stone wall? That was my only beef with making up so many rules on the fly - I could never remember them 6 weeks later when I needed them.

As for hardness and HP - that's what DM screens are for.

 

[SableWyvern]

Re: Re: Re: Re: NPC Generator

KDLadage: Your points have merit, but you seem to have missed the thrust of mine.

The character generated has some fine roleplaying characteristics. But its useless as something that I just want to throw at the party - as I stated, its effectively a 5th level wizard with good saves and hp. I wanted 13th.

And, as Numion pointed out, this thread is (or at least, originally was) looking at the generators as a time saving device. If I have to generate a dozen characters and then pour over them looking for strange ability, skill and feat combos, it's not doing that.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: NPC Generator

Yes it is. But the definition of VIABLE is very fuzzy. I can see having a 13 Int level 13 Wizard... without too much of a problem really...

As a non-combabtant maybe but would you give normal XP to the party if they fought and defeated a 13th level wizard (CR13 average XP value vs EL 13 party would be 3900XP) who couldn't cast any spell above 3rd level? If he has magic items adding to his Int score that's another story but why bother going trough all that if he can swap another score into Int? I tailor my NPCs along similar lines that the PCs use - highest stat into prime ability and all that.

I just can't see the appeal of troting out a CR13 NPC who hasn't the abilities he should and represents very little challenge compared to what he should. Beyond just wierdness or for laughs that is.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

Originally posted by Joshua Dyal
A fighter NPC only needs three stats: AC, BAB and HP. Those can easily be improvised on the spot. Anything else like feats, skills, etc. can be improvised as needed, but mostly ignored.

The thing is feats can't be ignored if the character is in combat. Also skills such as bluff and tumble can be used in combat, and prestige classes can alter the fight an awful amount. If the npc gets into a fight with the players then feats become very important as do the rest.

What I would like is a document where the average of each class is present including prestige classes and with different takes on the same core class with an alternative concept. For example, stat out an 8th level pirate with appropriate prestige classes applied if required. To do this will take time but if it has already been done with a variety of options you can just pick one and go.

As I've stated before I prefer 3E to previous editions but the extra flexibility offered sometimes leaves me thinking I haven't done a good enough job as DM and I come up with stuff on the fly.