Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 2776828" data-attributes="member: 1165">I can't believe I'm arguing with Henry...No, this isn't something I agree with. What if he's a &quot;light fighter&quot;? Shouldn't the DM know his stats then? And I don't think it's fair to &quot;force&quot; him to buy save-boosting stats. Even with Iron Will, fighters are known for having lame Will saves. There's a reason fighters tend to boost their Wisdom.As in &quot;wow, that guy was a total pushover; I didn't feel challenged at all?&quot; I felt like that so often in 2e. The tiny NPC stat block doesn't lead to a memorable character type or a challenge.Well, there's stuff I agree with here and stuff I don't.I've found working up generic NPC types ahead of time solves that problem. (So they killed him. I can use a similar NPC next time, with some minor changes.)But I'm not seeing a fighter with Alertness making the rogue at all worried. He's still going to fail his check the vast majority of the time, unless the place has nightingale floors...Well, maybe it's just me, but I think the NPC should require at least a little more flesh than that. Enough to be a reasonable challenge, and not just in the arena of kicking butt, but in skills as well.You'll notice that stat block I pointed to earlier - you could use something like that, without even doing a &quot;complete NPC&quot;. Those guys aren't just bare-bones fighter builds, and they've got enough detail to have the skills and combat ability they need.(To relieve any possible confusion, Fraser Ronald drew up a complete NPC and then created that abbreviated stat block. It isn't necessary to do the complete NPC first, of course, if you want to save time - and a lot of GMs want to do just that. I personally always draw up the complete NPC first because I find I &quot;metagame&quot; if I don't do all the skills. If I had drawn up a security, I would have forgotten to give them ranks in things like Computer Use, Forgery and Search and just maxed out their Listen, Sense Motive and Spot.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 2776828, member: 1165"] I can't believe I'm arguing with Henry... No, this isn't something I agree with. What if he's a "light fighter"? Shouldn't the DM know his stats then? And I don't think it's fair to "force" him to buy save-boosting stats. Even with Iron Will, fighters are known for having lame Will saves. There's a reason fighters tend to boost their Wisdom. As in "wow, that guy was a total pushover; I didn't feel challenged at all?" I felt like that so often in 2e. The tiny NPC stat block doesn't lead to a memorable character type or a challenge. Well, there's stuff I agree with here and stuff I don't. I've found working up generic NPC types ahead of time solves that problem. (So they killed him. I can use a similar NPC next time, with some minor changes.) But I'm not seeing a fighter with Alertness making the rogue at all worried. He's still going to fail his check the vast majority of the time, unless the place has nightingale floors... Well, maybe it's just me, but I think the NPC should require at least a little more flesh than that. Enough to be a reasonable challenge, and not just in the arena of kicking butt, but in skills as well. You'll notice that stat block I pointed to earlier - you could use something like that, without even doing a "complete NPC". Those guys aren't just bare-bones fighter builds, and they've got enough detail to have the skills and combat ability they need. (To relieve any possible confusion, Fraser Ronald drew up a complete NPC and then created that abbreviated stat block. It isn't necessary to do the complete NPC first, of course, if you want to save time - and a lot of GMs want to do just that. I personally always draw up the complete NPC first because I find I "metagame" if I don't do all the skills. If I had drawn up a security, I would have forgotten to give them ranks in things like Computer Use, Forgery and Search and just maxed out their Listen, Sense Motive and Spot.) [/QUOTE]

Verification