NPC levels on the fly

S'mon said:
Re skills - give them skill ranks to fit what they need to do their job without regard to their level. Level is really a measure of power/combat ability, I see no need to make a skilled stablehand 10th level. I'll give PCs free skill ranks in stuff like Profession (Sailor) if they're employed as sailors for awhile, likewise.

I see no reason for a skilled stablehand to be 10th level either but I do see a reason for NPCs to play by the same rules as PCs.

(skilled stablehand male human exp 1: handle animal +10 (+4 ranks, +1 charisma, +3 skill focus, +2 from an as yet unnamed +2/+2 feat (+2 handle animal, +2 ride)). And said, skilled stablehand is WAY better than he needs to be as a stablehand, considering that he can train most animals for most purposes by himself while taking ten. He's more like an experienced stable master at that point (and is probably entitled to a few more levels).

Re level - use whatever the average level is in your campaign. According to DMG, most NPCs are 1st level. If in your game the median level is 3rd or 5th, use that. I do think assigning level by age is particularly inappropriate (the elderly being typically less combat capable than the young), but YMMV.

I rather approve of assigning base level by age myself. You still end up with most NPCs being 1st level if you assume medieval style demographics (bulk of the population under 20). That also allows you to simulate NPCs' life experiences. The young Com 1 with toughness and a good strength score is still better than an older com 3 without them. But the middle aged Com 5/War 1 who's a veteran of the orc wars can still teach the newly recruited War 1 a thing or two.

The reason the elderly are typcially less combat capable than the young is their reduced strength, dex, and con. Like IRL, experience usually counts for them.

If you add or subtract a level or three to reflect the NPC's dedication to his/her career and personal improvement as well as the variety of experiences they've had in life, you get a convincing world that way.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doghead said:
If you need to determin the level of an NPC on the fly, how do you go about it.
"On the fly" I pick a number, just like I randomly pick an age "on the fly."

If I have more time, and the game doesn't call for a Special Character, I assume one encounter per month at a set CR in a set environment, and just go from there.
 

Basilisk - obviously our approaches vary. I find skill-based systems work much better for creating non-heroic NPCs than level-based ones do. I also find that levels _always_ make NPCs vastly tougher, regardless of stats.

I do treat PCs same as NPCs - they can gain skill ranks for frequent routine non-adventuring use of skills; with no XP involved. XP are gained for adventuring, heroic actions, overcoming dangerou challenges. Most NPCs never do those things so never get XP, IMC. OTOH most NPCs are using certain skills a lot, so get to be very good at them without ever improving their BAB, hp or saves.

Edit: I guess you could say the Conan RPG firmed up my perspective on this.
 
Last edited:

Interesting.

I do tend to think that give the nature of the dnd setting, full of beasties and badness, in general the average person will develop better Saves, HPs, and BAB's. While they will not be meeting the residents of the MM with the regualrity that the PC will, there seems to be a sufficient spread of creatures and environments that they will pop up everywhere at some time or another.

Not a great deal of advancement though. The 30 year old NPC would be about 5th level according to Bihor's tabulation of Sean's progression.

Commoner5: BAB +2, Ref +1, Fort +1, Will +1
Expert5: BAB +3, Ref +1, Fort +1, Will +4

Enough to give the first level PC something to think about.
 


I'm a bit more (read : way beyond) freeform then the rest of the board i guess, from what I've read. I rarely give "commoner" NPC's levels or skills, never mind saving throws. It eats away "thinking time", time for figuring out what to feed the beasts on the next gaming sessions. I just jot down some info about personality, appearance, sometimes an adventure hook. The rest is just on the spot decision making.
I mean, if someone tosses a fireball into a crowd of commoners, do you really roll for each and evry one of them? Or a sleep spell or whatever? I just roll a dice and decide. Works fine for me.

On a side discussion: the NPC's that do matter are not graded according to PC level, I mean, the green watchman will be lvl 1 , his experienced companions lvl 2-3, and so on. If that means the PC's are the biggest badasses in town so be it.
 

Clearly our approaches do differ. It doesn't bother me in the least if an ordinary NPC has one or two points of BAB and might have saving throw bonusses. I also find the D&D skill system flexible enough that I can make NPCs good enough to have the skills they need no matter what their level (+0 to +15 (+4 ranks, +2 attribute, +3 skill focus, +2 +2/+2 feat, +2 masterwork equipment, +2 from an assistant with Aid other) modifiers at first level).

If I need an NPC to have more than +10 or so to a skill, he's obviously an old and experienced character who's probably been drafted and served in one war or other or had to fight muggers and hooligans in the slums (for the lower class characters), had to fend off theives and bandits (for the merchant class characters), or had the customary military training and noblesse oblige experience as a military officer (for the upper class characters) and consequently ought to have decent combat abilities.

In fact, it would seem rather strange to me if, in a world where PCs will face various human and humanoid opponents ranging from 1st to 20th level, there were such a disconnect between "PCs and Opponents vs normal NPCs" that nobody other than PCs or Opponents is even the combat equal of a first level character. I much prefer a world where, as Mat Cauthon was told in Tar Valon, the world's greatest swordsman might conceivably be bested in a contest by a farmer with a quarterstaff because he was overconfident and didn't consider that the farmer might have spent his life fighting off wolves, bears, and lions that seek to devour his livestock. I also prefer a world where it's not immediately obvious which category everyone falls into. The shepherd boy guarding his flocks over there could be the same person who, just a few days later will take on and defeat the champion of the Phillistine army and, a year from now will be seen to eclipse the king's military prowess. And similarly, the young apparent commoner threshing grain in a wine-press could tomorrow become the military leader who drives the Amalekites from the land. One could simply assign PC classes to David or Gideon from the beginning of their careers, but I think it makes a lot more sense to have characters with a few commoner, expert or aristocrat levels step into roles that they are not entirely unprepared for and take fighter, bard, and Marshal levels from there.

The possibility that some of the members of the huddled masses might have save bonusses, attack bonusses, and double digit hit points also serves the purpose of making the barroom brawl, murderous mob, peasant rebellion, and slum riot potentially interesting encounters through the mid levels as well. (It's a feature not a bug).

The only time I think that there's any reason to worry about the possibility that Old Farmer Dell might have a +2 attack bonus, +1 to all his saves, and 10 hit points (because he's a Com 4) instead of +0, +0/+0/+0, and 2 hit points is when you're asking why he asks first level characters to go rescue his missing daughter from the kobolds instead of doing it himself. And even then, comparing his combat stats with those of a typical 1st level iconic spread fighter (+4 to hit with a longsword (1d8+2) instead of with a quarterstaff/club (1d6), armor proficiency, +4/+1/+0 saves, 12 hit points, Power Attack, Cleave, and actual adventuring equipment and expertise) makes it pretty obvious why farmer Dell is asking Regdar to rescue his daughter from the kobolds instead of doing it himself. And, of course, he doesn't think of himself as a fighter which makes a big difference too.

S'mon said:
Basilisk - obviously our approaches vary. I find skill-based systems work much better for creating non-heroic NPCs than level-based ones do. I also find that levels _always_ make NPCs vastly tougher, regardless of stats.

I do treat PCs same as NPCs - they can gain skill ranks for frequent routine non-adventuring use of skills; with no XP involved. XP are gained for adventuring, heroic actions, overcoming dangerou challenges. Most NPCs never do those things so never get XP, IMC. OTOH most NPCs are using certain skills a lot, so get to be very good at them without ever improving their BAB, hp or saves.

Edit: I guess you could say the Conan RPG firmed up my perspective on this.
 

I certainly agree that some 'common' NPCs should be over 1st level, and some will be quite tough, but I think a budding 'David' is clearly going to have PC-class levels and be an exception to the rule. I disagree that every NPC with a (non-combat) skill of over +10 needs to be, or should be, a combat veteran. IMO (& IMC) battles with wolves, bears etc are not necessary to improve one's Craft (basketweaving) skill.

For NPC levels, in non-elite groups I usually use 75% 1st, 12.5% 2nd, 6.35% 3rd, etc. For elite groups I use 50% 1st, 25% 2nd, 12.5% 3rd, etc - but this is used primarily as a measure of combat ability, not noncombat skills.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top