More from Mearls' blog re: NPC Creation

[Peter LaCara]

A few folks asked in my last message to talk about NPC creation in 3.5. Keep in mind that there are two modes here:

1. Wurk Mode. In this case, I'm writing something for publication. People will be unhappy if the numbers make no sense. Under 3.5, I'd spend about an hour or so on an NPC, make that 90 minutes for anything high level, half that, down to 15 minutes, for low level guys. The equivalent of the NPCs for H2 would probably be about 90 minutes to 2 hours total (warlocks in 3.5 are pretty simple).

2. Home Mode: I fudge stuff, but I also like to make use of the rules when I do stuff for my home campaign. The two NPCs would take me maybe an hour for a home game. I'm the type to spenda fair amount of time maximizing the utility of spells and stuff. I'm the type of DM to combo up spells like benign transposition with a sorcerer's familiar and his bugbear buddies. In 4.0, I've found that it takes me less than half the time, mainly because I can crunch all the numbers without worrying about all the connections. I'd probably still hunt through my books for good combos, but I'd spend 90% of my time, rather than 50%, doing that.

So, almost all the savings come from a much easier time handling math and basic computations. I'm spend more time thinking of devious things to do to PCs, and that makes me happy.

If I wanted to shoot for pure speed, or if I needed a really simple NPC quick, I can do one on the fly, calculating numbers in my head as I need them, provided that I know the level I need. For instance, if I need a level 3 guard in front of the temple, I know that an attack roll of 17 should hit him, that his attack bonus is around +8, and he should do about 1d8+3 damage with his sword. Now, that NPC is pretty much a Blazing Saddles-esque cardboard building (no depth), but the people at the table wouldn't notice. His numbers would all fit fine with what I'd expect for a level 3 opponent.

In that case, I'd write down hit points to track them and that's about it. Like I said above, the rest I could calculate in my head.

Now, keep in mind that I'm pretty seriously immersed in the system, but everything I'm using is in the DMG. So, should you choose to play 4e, you too could become a Rainman-esque NPC and monster generator!

I dunno if I've been scooped on this or not. It's the part in bold that really makes me happy.

 

[mearls]

You know, I really have to do a better job of editing my blog entries. I wince every time I see my horrid grammar and grade school spelling quoted on a message board.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

You know, I really have to do a better job of editing my blog entries. I wince every time I see my horrid grammar and grade school spelling quoted on a message board.

As long as you can cut down on referring to the new edition as 4.0, I think we'll be alright.

Thanks though. Good stuff.

 

[Dragonblade]

I assume from the context that the second part where you talk about the temple guard, you are referring to the ease of creating him in your head due to 4e mechanics and thus intend to contrast that with the much longer time it took you in 3.5?

I'm sure thats what you meant but it didn't seem clear.

 

[Zamkaizer]

You know, I really have to do a better job of editing my blog entries. I wince every time I see my horrid grammar and grade school spelling quoted on a message board.

For what it's worth, I like title 'Wurk Mode'. Sounds like something that involves the Orks from Warhammer 40K

More Dakka an Choppa confirmed for 4E.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For what it's worth, I like title 'Wurk Mode'. Sounds like something that involves the Orks from Warhammer 40K

More Dakka an Choppa confirmed for 4E.

I thought it was intentional - Work + *Urks* => leads to Wurk. Non-native speakers like me can be easily fooled by bad spelling...

 

[Hussar]

This sounds groovy. Me likes. What this could really mean is I could take my collection of Dungeon magazines and play them, pretty much as is, without having to spend a bazillion hours on conversions.

Might have to switch up the number of opponents, but, you wouldn't have to spend so much time just crunching numbers.

 

[Sitara]

I find the "Warlocks in 3.5 are pretty simple' comment intruiging. Are we to infer that warlocks in 4e will be the opposite of simple..?

 

[amethal]

I find the "Warlocks in 3.5 are pretty simple' comment intruiging. Are we to infer that warlocks in 4e will be the opposite of simple..?

I think he just means warlocks in 3.5 re simple compared to some other 3.5 classes.

The 4th edition warlock may be more or less simple compared to other 4th edition classes, but when it comes to NPCs all 4th edition characters will be simpler than 3.5 ones.

 

[Storminator]

I find the "Warlocks in 3.5 are pretty simple' comment intruiging. Are we to infer that warlocks in 4e will be the opposite of simple..?

No. We are to infer that warlocks are simpler to create than wizards.

PS