Classed NPCs vs Monster Damage

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I kept thinking classed NPCs do wimpy damage. After getting my hands on the July 2010 errata, seeing the monster damage amplification, I thought they'd get left further behind.

I was wrong. Classed NPCs seem to fall only slight behind monsters when it comes to at-will damage, and given they all get at least two additional abilities (1 utility and 1 daily, the latter of which might dish out 3[W] damage) they seem to be doing fine.

For classed NPCs, I assume they have a primary stat of 16 to start, and always boost it with levels. (A starting 18 might have been more reasonable, although that only grants +1 damage.) I assume their at-will does 1d10 base damage (2d10 at 21st-level+) as longbows, bastard swords (in one hand) and eldritch blast all do 1d10 damage and are common.

I assume each NPC is using a +1/5 levels implement or weapon (which essentially means a +1 bonus all the time, at all levels due to the item threshold rule). If an NPC paladin decided on magic full plate instead, their damage would drop by 1. Note that magic weapons/implements means NPC crits are a lot deadlier than monster crits.

Complications: I'm ignoring bonus damage sources like Hunter's Quarry and the warlock's curse, which would do considerably more damage on top of these high damage attacks. Naturally a fighter with starting Strength 18 and a greatsword will be doing more damage. A rogue relying on a dagger would deal considerably less, and a halfling rogue using Sly Flourish might deal comparable damage (but would have sneak attack on top; of course, that's also available to a lot of skirmishers and lurkers). Indeed, some classed NPCs might be considerably more powerful than the basic fighter I'm using here.

PCs would tend to do even more damage (since they have feats and paragon class abilities) but they don't enjoy the NPC's generic level bonus.

Level 1: NPC damage: 1d10+5 (avg 10.5 damage). Monster damage: 1d8+4 (avg 8.5 damage)

Level 6: NPC damage: 1d10+8 (avg 13.5 damage). Monster damage: 2d6+7 (avg 14 damage)

Level 8: NPC damage: 1d10+9 (avg 14.5 damage). Monster damage: 2d8+7 (avg 16 damage).

Level 11: NPC damage: 1d10+12 (avg 17.5 damage). Monster damage: 3d6+9 (avg 19.5 damage).

Level 16: NPC damage: 1d10+16 (avg 21.5 damage). Monster damage: 3d8+11 (avg 24.5 damage).

Level 21: NPC damage: 2d10+20 (avg 31 damage). Monster damage: 4d6+15 (avg 29 damage).

Level 26: NPC damage: 2d10+23 (avg 34 damage). Monster damage: 4d8+16 (avg 45 damage).

Level 28: NPC damage: 2d10+24 (avg 35 damage). Monster damage: 4d8+18 (avg 36 damage).

The damage values are always close, never off by more than 3 damage. I wonder if greatsword-wielders do about the same damage as brutes. I wonder if other stats would stick this close (attack bonuses, AC and defenses, for instance).

 

[the Jester]

Personally, for npcs that are going to see combat, I just use the monster creation rules.

 

[Anathos]

You do know that NPCs with classes are monsters with a class template applied and are not built like PCs, right?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You do know that NPCs with classes are monsters with a class template applied and are not built like PCs, right?

No, using the class template is an additional way to make NPCs. And IMO a bad way. You're giving additional abilities and hit points, but no additional actions, so basically you're making a grindy sack of hit points. (At least it has enough abilities that it's not just going "at-will" every round.)

Class templates are on page 182/3, whereas non-elite NPCs (which are made with rules more similar to those of PCs, but with some significant differences) can be made with the rules on page 187.

It's actually a complaint of mine how those rules are disorganized. 4e has been out for years but you didn't know that? There's some classed NPCs in part of the DMG (in the campaign village section) and some of them are missing their level bonuses. (When trying to learn those rules, it only made things worse.)

Just to make things more complicated, some monsters could be using "both" templates. (The mummy lord, for instance, might have been a human cleric NPC with the mummy template added, or a mummy with the cleric template added.) I don't know if that makes any real difference.

 

[the Jester]

Interestingly, I cannot think of a single instance where those npc creation rules have seen use.

 

[Jhaelen]

No, using the class template is an additional way to make NPCs. And IMO a bad way. You're giving additional abilities and hit points, but no additional actions, so basically you're making a grindy sack of hit points. (At least it has enough abilities that it's not just going "at-will" every round.)

Well, that's a problem of _every_ template. Hence, as soon as the designers noticed the problem, we received monster themes instead.

It's actually a complaint of mine how those rules are disorganized. 4e has been out for years but you didn't know that? There's some classed NPCs in part of the DMG (in the campaign village section) and some of them are missing their level bonuses. (When trying to learn those rules, it only made things worse.)

Well, similar to the problems with templates, the npc creation guidelines are something that is rarely used by the designers anymore. I remember a WotC podcast where they basically admitted they never used them in their games, since it's so much easier to just custom-design them like a monster and the results are a lot better.

As we've seen with all the evolution the game went through, the designers are reluctant to deprecate any of the old stuff that they found didn't really work well. Instead they just conveniently forget about the old ideas and introduce new-and-improved stuff.

Does the DM's Kit have something to say on the matter?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, using the class template is an additional way to make NPCs. And IMO a bad way. You're giving additional abilities and hit points, but no additional actions, so basically you're making a grindy sack of hit points. (At least it has enough abilities that it's not just going "at-will" every round.)

Except that giving a creature a class template also gives them access to additional powers. Just like with any conversion from standard monster to elite you can't just make the basic adjustments and not make changes to the creature's action economy and power suite and have a good result. This is no different with the classed NPCs where you still have to select a few iconic powers for the NPC to use. In neither case do the rules provide some kind of exact formula for doing this, you have to work out for yourself exactly what makes a good NPC/Monster.

Class templates are on page 182/3, whereas non-elite NPCs (which are made with rules more similar to those of PCs, but with some significant differences) can be made with the rules on page 187.

It's actually a complaint of mine how those rules are disorganized. 4e has been out for years but you didn't know that? There's some classed NPCs in part of the DMG (in the campaign village section) and some of them are missing their level bonuses. (When trying to learn those rules, it only made things worse.)

Just to make things more complicated, some monsters could be using "both" templates. (The mummy lord, for instance, might have been a human cleric NPC with the mummy template added, or a mummy with the cleric template added.) I don't know if that makes any real difference.

IMHO the NPC rules in DMG1 are obsolete. In fact I can't find even one single example of a published product, INCLUDING Fallcrest etc, where WotC has ever actually used these rules. ALL existing official material "NPCs" are actually built as monsters. Beyond that DMG2 provided functional class templates for monsters but doesn't provide page 187 style ones for any of the newer (PHB2 mostly) classes at all. DMG2 also introduces Companion Characters as the preferred way to make NPCs that are allied with a party and adventure with them.

So the real question is what is the purpose of the NPC rules in DMG1? I think basically they were a hold-over from past editions where NPCs were simply DM controlled PCs. They never worked very well, the rules for them are ambiguous at best, WotC never used or further developed those rules, and there are alternate ways of doing anything you might want to do with those rules.

That isn't to say NPCs are unusable, but IME they have too few hit points to stand up in combat against PCs, more powers than they really need and more complex powers than are really desirable for the DM to deal with, and we don't even know what their XP value is. Nowhere do the rules clarify if an NPC is elite or not. They certainly don't have anything close to elite hit points, though they may have in some cases healing powers that make up for that. Overall they tend to be flaky opponents. You can use them as allies, but then why not just make a CC, which is really mostly a refined version of the same system. As opponents a monster with a class template has both better defined rules and works better in a fight.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IMHO the NPC rules in DMG1 are obsolete. In fact I can't find even one single example of a published product, INCLUDING Fallcrest etc, where WotC has ever actually used these rules.

Okay, obsolete then. I usually used monster rules "flavored" as classes, but I didn't know the NPC rules were considered that bad.

Didn't Fallcrest and the MM1 use these rules though? What does so-and-so the 8th-level tiefling rogue mean? Although I notice they didn't have daily powers, supporting the assertion that said rules have never actually been used.

That isn't to say NPCs are unusable, but IME they have too few hit points to stand up in combat against PCs

They had the same hit points as equal-leveled monsters. Even more than PCs, since they usually got 8 hp/level vs the PCs getting only ~5.

more powers than they really need and more complex powers than are really desirable for the DM to deal with

On this I agree. Especially for paladins or some non-core NPCs like shamans Or anything that does any kind of summoning. Or a lot of dailies.

and we don't even know what their XP value is. Nowhere do the rules clarify if an NPC is elite or not.

Unlike the template, it never said they were elites, so they'd have been worth the same XP as a monster of the same level.

I still have a hate-on for the class template though, although I suppose I could say the same thing for a lot of templates (eg lich; it's an elite, but other than loads of hit points it doesn't feel like it!). I'd rather just make a controller/soldier/whatever-type from scratch and use re-statted (but identically flavored/effected) powers.

 

[Jhaelen]

Didn't Fallcrest and the MM1 use these rules though?

IIRC, Fallcrest used them. And at least some of the early adventures used the templates, e.g. in the Ashen Crown adventure there's an npc bard.

But I don't think they've been used anywhere after the release of DMG2 (I might be wrong, though).

 

[keterys]

If you know what you're doing with power selection, class templates were _the_ best way to amplify a creature's power prior to the MM3. Even after that, it's still probably a good route with well chosen powers.

That said, in general I think you're better off just designing a monster intentionally rather than using templates and getting a more haphazard result.