d20 needs different rules for NPCs

[Mouseferatu]

Sorry, I don't buy, and have never bought, the whole "The PCs should be able to do everything the villain can do" argument. I agree that this should be true for most villains.

But I like epic fantasy, and you simply cannot get that if you measure both sides on the same yardstick. Tolkien's Sauron. Feist's Valheru. Eddings' Kal Torak. Not a one of these "Is just like the heroes, but a higher level." The mad Cthulhu cultist performing a rite, or the ancient archmage who created an artifact that is now running wild, aren't using abilities the PCs can use if they just gain enough XP.

Not every game has to involve villains like that. Heck, most of them shouldn't. But such villains absolutely should be an option for them DM to use when appropriate. Any good DM will also include a weakness, something the PCs can do to defeat said villain despite such overwhelming odds and not knowing exactly how the bad guy's powers work. That's the essence of a major portion of fantasy, and simply removing it wholesale doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

[Capellan]

The concept of Villain classes is very different to what people seem to be taking away from this thread.

Some immediate facts:

Villain classes are not better than PC classes.

Villain classes do not 'break the rules'. They do use different rules, but so do templates, monster advancement by hit die, and so on.

What Villain classes do is one thing and one thing only: reduce work for the GM.

To take an example from Mastering Iron Heroes: the Dreaded Sorcerer. This guy isn't any tougher or weaker than a CR-equivalent D&D Sorcerer would be, he's simply easier to stat up. Pick a CR, choose the type of spellcasting he favors, and you're done: feats and skills are done for you, his other class abilities are ready to go, and you know what spell effects he can generate.

All the villain classes in Iron Heroes are set up to do is provide quick'n'easy stat generation for certain archetypes of enemies (demonic brute, dark warlord, evil spellcaster, etc) at different CRs. The idea that "villains should get cool benefits that PCs do not" never enters into the equation, and people need to stop tilting at windmills on that non-issue

As far as Villain Classes in D&D would go, the whole "shopping list" approach to the game (where equipment is at least as important as the character carrying it) would complicate the process of creating workable villain classes a great deal. Iron Heroes doesn't face that issue, which is why villain classes work so well in it.

 

[Gundark]

So... what's the product in which interest I am being asked to express? The product you offer in the middle of the post does not seem to take into consideration the things being discussed on either side of it.

near the bottom of the OP. This isn't anything I'm considering to make and publish. I'm curious to see what you think.

 

[Henry]

Gundark, you're proposing exactly what fellow poster S'mon and I have done, what Spycraft has done with its "minion" system, and what I've desparately hoped that the next edition of D&D WILL FOLLOW SUIT AND DO, which is come up with an "abstract NPC" optional system for DMs in the DMG. I would have interest in such, as a codified but simplistic whole to replace having to fully stat out every single villain I introduce. Now, I do it myself, with my own system (which S'mon took and made it more his own, as well), but I'd love an official WotC version where verious D&D online pundits can tell me that what I'm doing breaks the game, and it totally cheating. (I've actually seen this before, and it's a pet peeve of mine).

 

[Gundark]

The concept of Villain classes is very different to what people seem to be taking away from this thread.

Some immediate facts:

Villain classes are not better than PC classes.

Villain classes do not 'break the rules'. They do use different rules, but so do templates, monster advancement by hit die, and so on.

What Villain classes do is one thing and one thing only: reduce work for the GM.

To take an example from Mastering Iron Heroes: the Dreaded Sorcerer. This guy isn't any tougher or weaker than a CR-equivalent D&D Sorcerer would be, he's simply easier to stat up. Pick a CR, choose the type of spellcasting he favors, and you're done: feats and skills are done for you, his other class abilities are ready to go, and you know what spell effects he can generate.

All the villain classes in Iron Heroes are set up to do is provide quick'n'easy stat generation for certain archetypes of enemies (demonic brute, dark warlord, evil spellcaster, etc) at different CRs. The idea that "villains should get cool benefits that PCs do not" never enters into the equation, and people need to stop tilting at windmills on that non-issue

As far as Villain Classes in D&D would go, the whole "shopping list" approach to the game (where equipment is at least as important as the character carrying it) would complicate the process of creating workable villain classes a great deal. Iron Heroes doesn't face that issue, which is why villain classes work so well in it.

put much better than me . Maybe it's just the way things travel from my brain to what I writing, it seems like I can never say anythin clearly. Ask my wife

 

[Shade]

So if the players can't be dragons, should dragons be removed from the game?
If not, what's the practical difference between an "NPC only" class, and an "NPC only" race?

<sigh> OK, I'll be more specific. I was speaking to classes. (Although PCs can play dragons nowadays).

In the days of old, classes like the death master, mariner, and sentinel were "NPC only" classes. They had cool abilities that weren't really anything that PCs shouldn't have access to, yet were not available to player characters. That's what I'd like to avoid.

While the commoner, expert, etc. are NPC classes in the current rules, a PC could take them, although they'd be at a disadvantage in most cases. Although I'd gladly play a character with at least a few levels in Expert if given the chance.

 

[Harlekin]

Sorry, I don't buy, and have never bought, the whole "The PCs should be able to do everything the villain can do" argument. I agree that this should be true for most villains.

But I like epic fantasy, and you simply cannot get that if you measure both sides on the same yardstick. Tolkien's Sauron. Feist's Valheru. Eddings' Kal Torak. Not a one of these "Is just like the heroes, but a higher level." The mad Cthulhu cultist performing a rite, or the ancient archmage who created an artifact that is now running wild, aren't using abilities the PCs can use if they just gain enough XP.

Not every game has to involve villains like that. Heck, most of them shouldn't. But such villains absolutely should be an option for them DM to use when appropriate. Any good DM will also include a weakness, something the PCs can do to defeat said villain despite such overwhelming odds and not knowing exactly how the bad guy's powers work. That's the essence of a major portion of fantasy, and simply removing it wholesale doesn't make sense to me at all.

Well said. It is also totally pointless. Abilities given to NPCs have a different value than abilities given to PCs. Fr example the ability to cast CLW at will is nigh irrelevant for and NPC after level5, but will always be useful for PCs. On the other hand, a class that allows you to cast a 6d6 Fireball at level 4, but at the cost of 2 points of Wis Drain would make for a nasty opponent, but if the other abillities were weak it would make a terrible PC class.

In other words, I can write up every special abillity that I want to give to my NPC as a custom prestige class or feat that is available but not attractive to PCs. But why bother? i can also just decide to give it to my NPC, and save me some work.

In the end, the whole idea that PCs and NPCs have to play by exactly the same rules comes from some kind of competition idea. If the goal of the evening is to make it as enjoyable as possible for everyone involved, there is no need of "fairness" in the tools that the GM uses.

 

[Harlekin]

<sigh> OK, I'll be more specific. I was speaking to classes. (Although PCs can play dragons nowadays).

In the days of old, classes like the death master, mariner, and sentinel were "NPC only" classes. They had cool abilities that weren't really anything that PCs shouldn't have access to, yet were not available to player characters. That's what I'd like to avoid.

While the commoner, expert, etc. are NPC classes in the current rules, a PC could take them, although they'd be at a disadvantage in most cases. Although I'd gladly play a character with at least a few levels in Expert if given the chance.

But today, you can't play an asassin in a good-aligned party, most groups will not abide a frenzied berserker or an alienist and some parties are even closed to a paladin. So I am not sure what the difference is.

 

[Gundark]

Gundark, you're proposing exactly what fellow poster S'mon and I have done, what Spycraft has done with its "minion" system, and what I've desparately hoped that the next edition of D&D WILL FOLLOW SUIT AND DO, which is come up with an "abstract NPC" optional system for DMs in the DMG. I would have interest in such, as a codified but simplistic whole to replace having to fully stat out every single villain I introduce. Now, I do it myself, with my own system (which S'mon took and made it more his own, as well), but I'd love an official WotC version where verious D&D online pundits can tell me that what I'm doing breaks the game, and it totally cheating. (I've actually seen this before, and it's a pet peeve of mine).

Well after reading through the Spycraft 2.0 book I felt that I had "seen the light " . I would LOVE a D&D version of the Spycraft 2.0 NPC creation system. It would be complex to do though, so which is why I took the Iron Heroes method.

Stating out the badies is such a major pain, so much so that I purchased Etools (and various add ons). The problem is that while Etools works really well with WotC style settings and games it doesn't work well with some 3rd party settings. Iron Kingdoms and Arcana Unearthed for example. Now while I could enter in all the Iron kingdoms data in etools that is hugely time consuming. Having a fast NPC stat system that works accross settings would be "mana from heaven".

While I'm not wanting 4th edition come anytime soon, if it has something like what I'm talking about I'll be all over it (espcially if it's like SC 2.0). I think however that a "fast NPC stat system" can come without changing edtions. I'm actually surprised that more publishers havn't jumped on this given that stating NPCs seems to be a point of irritation for many.

 

[SteveC]

I am terribly interested in this idea.

I am a huge fan of the NPC system from Spycraft, and I think it would make an excellent addition to the D&D ruleset. The best thing about it, as far as I'm concerned, is that you can design an adventure level independant. You can explore the dark tower of high sorcery at any level you wish, and things will be kept balanced.

The thing that I think people are missing is that the rules would not result in characters or monsters that are inherently more powerful than the PCs, but rather they would be able to do the same sort of things but take far less time for the GM to generate.

So yes, if someone were to make a product along these lines, I'd buy it in an instant.

--Steve