Aldarc
Legend
It's really one of those "some ways yes and some ways no" sort of deals.
How to unite people who want opposite things?
- Thread starter MatthewJHanson
- Start date
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Lets follow the NPC PC example:
When you see two statblocks, one derived from PC rules and one from NPC rules, you should not notice directly which one you used:
this means: Someone with a dagger uses d4 for damage and if he has heavy aromor, the armor should be quite high. HP amounts should also be the same.
Also i want to notice, that the 4e guidelines are also restraining. I am a little monk when I create NPCs that are human: I try to make plausible NPC´s that reach the brute/controller guidelines by adding the right aromor, using the right stats etc... (add in some little bonuses for feats i don´t write down)
It would be a lot easier to handle it following way: Stat up your NPC as you like and compare the result to a chart to assign an xp value, which is derived from effective level, which is not the actual level of the NPC. Instead, If you have a monster with +x to attack and +x to defenses, derived from supernatural powers, magic items or whatever, you give it this xp value.
This really has not to be exact. Guidelines are better than hard and fast rules.
Hmmh, i derailed the thread a bit...
so: if you have opposite opinions, look what lies behind the opinions. Sometimes reasons for liking something and disliking something are not the same. So it may be possible to keep the good thing (the first group really does not care about) about something and change the bad things (The other group does not care about).
Vancian casting:
Add: wizard (good old vancian one)
Add: sorcerer (new non vancian one)
When you see two statblocks, one derived from PC rules and one from NPC rules, you should not notice directly which one you used:
this means: Someone with a dagger uses d4 for damage and if he has heavy aromor, the armor should be quite high. HP amounts should also be the same.
Also i want to notice, that the 4e guidelines are also restraining. I am a little monk when I create NPCs that are human: I try to make plausible NPC´s that reach the brute/controller guidelines by adding the right aromor, using the right stats etc... (add in some little bonuses for feats i don´t write down)
It would be a lot easier to handle it following way: Stat up your NPC as you like and compare the result to a chart to assign an xp value, which is derived from effective level, which is not the actual level of the NPC. Instead, If you have a monster with +x to attack and +x to defenses, derived from supernatural powers, magic items or whatever, you give it this xp value.
This really has not to be exact. Guidelines are better than hard and fast rules.
Hmmh, i derailed the thread a bit...
so: if you have opposite opinions, look what lies behind the opinions. Sometimes reasons for liking something and disliking something are not the same. So it may be possible to keep the good thing (the first group really does not care about) about something and change the bad things (The other group does not care about).
Vancian casting:
Add: wizard (good old vancian one)
Add: sorcerer (new non vancian one)
Last edited:
howandwhy99
Adventurer
This is actually kind of a classic maneuver. Need to know the DEX of an NPC, roll 3d6. Do NOT roll until the moment you need to know. I mean, some prep is nice, but it may not make it into play. It depends on how much you want prepare.
I think this neatly combines both options, but I would still say we need both. What do you want your NPC to be? Pick those options. Want to generate them via rolls like the PCs? Roll the dice. It should be open to the specific game played. Sometimes picking out some stuff for a 3rd level foe is all you want. Sometimes rolling up a faction of monsters with 3rd level enemies in it is what you want.
