Villains
- Thread starter was
- Start date
LucasC
First Post
I have always preferred the wizard.
I don't know why said wizard wouldn't keep a blackguard around for protection, a cleric to see to the spiritual needs of his minions and an assassin to deal with pesky annoyances though. Wizards are great villains but it definitely helps to have some extra muscle to keep the bad guy away.
I don't know why said wizard wouldn't keep a blackguard around for protection, a cleric to see to the spiritual needs of his minions and an assassin to deal with pesky annoyances though. Wizards are great villains but it definitely helps to have some extra muscle to keep the bad guy away.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
It depends on the edition of the game.
2e I think wizard
3e I think evil priest
4e I think any...
2e I think wizard
3e I think evil priest
4e I think any...
Kinak
First Post
Evil wizard and evil priest are classics for good reason. With magic on their side, they can provide a wide variety of potential threats.
That said, I think both are improved a lot with modified Vancian casting (like Pathfinder's arcanist or 5e's casters). It lets you adapt the villain to the party's tactics while also simplifying tracking when you're actually controlling them in a fight.
When you can use a non-magical villain, though, I think it's almost more emotionally effective. In my experience, they feel more like real people than archetypes, just because they can't drink as heavily from the fantasy well.
In those cases, people love a good enemy paladin, but any of the martial classes can make a pretty convincing villain... if not always the most effective one.
Cheers!
Kinak
That said, I think both are improved a lot with modified Vancian casting (like Pathfinder's arcanist or 5e's casters). It lets you adapt the villain to the party's tactics while also simplifying tracking when you're actually controlling them in a fight.
When you can use a non-magical villain, though, I think it's almost more emotionally effective. In my experience, they feel more like real people than archetypes, just because they can't drink as heavily from the fantasy well.
In those cases, people love a good enemy paladin, but any of the martial classes can make a pretty convincing villain... if not always the most effective one.
Cheers!
Kinak
LucasC
First Post
Warriors can make great villains.
One of the best recurring villains my players have dealt with was just that, a fighter. Rather than rely on magic he was both highly connected to the local government and of noble lineage. This meant that he was essentially 'untouchable' in the beginning. By the time the players had gotten enough clout to move against him they were cowed by the physical threat they perceived he posed (in truth I kept him just a few levels above them but he was a braggart and they tended to believe his ramblings).
He had the worst name ever though. Cardor. I didn't realize it was bad until I said it out loud at the first gaming session.
One of the best recurring villains my players have dealt with was just that, a fighter. Rather than rely on magic he was both highly connected to the local government and of noble lineage. This meant that he was essentially 'untouchable' in the beginning. By the time the players had gotten enough clout to move against him they were cowed by the physical threat they perceived he posed (in truth I kept him just a few levels above them but he was a braggart and they tended to believe his ramblings).
He had the worst name ever though. Cardor. I didn't realize it was bad until I said it out loud at the first gaming session.
dd.stevenson
Super KY
Polymorphed red dragon? Is that a class? If not, it should be.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I'm a fan of barbarians as enemies. Rage is scary, and it's useful to have an opponent whose emotional state is connected to his combat ability.
Conversely, I think fighters are effective at conveying the lack of emotion of brutal, uncaring foes, and a defensive tank can be quite mechanically intimidating.
For spellcasters, I see some attraction but drawbacks as well. They're a lot of work for the DM. The warlock (3e version, anyway) makes a good "evil cult leader class because there aren't so many things to choose and track.
Conversely, I think fighters are effective at conveying the lack of emotion of brutal, uncaring foes, and a defensive tank can be quite mechanically intimidating.
For spellcasters, I see some attraction but drawbacks as well. They're a lot of work for the DM. The warlock (3e version, anyway) makes a good "evil cult leader class because there aren't so many things to choose and track.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
Something I found funny (and I've posted this before) was a game I ran a few times over the years (and will again in 5e someday)
In 2e One of my players made this comment that I always had ancient wizards and liches with big brutes working for them... so I created what I thought was a twist.
The game started with a new continent that may or may not have been used in the past... there was some low level villain and these magic swords to collect and use against him... it seemed like an old story. The twist came when they collected the 3rd magic sword and found a man trapped in a cracking crystal... when they pull the 3rd sword, it opened and this soldier falls disoriented. His name was Praxton and he had only one question... "Are you new gods?" after some jokes they tell him no, and he tells them "Then you are nothing" and he walks out. He goes and kills the badguy then starts to assemble an army.
Praxton was a highlevel fighter who killed Gods because of some past thing... it was such a twist when he had these strange abilities like cutting through wall of force...
In 3e I reran the basic game, but I had a new origin for Praxton. He was this human like race from book of vile darkness. the basics were there, except he now had a few dozen followers who I made up and gave him some cool things.
in both the PCs (only 1 overlap) thought it so strange that this warrior was able to outfight gods... something just felt epic and mythic about it...
then I tried running it in 4e, and (Same PC now played all three) This time like the 2e it was a big surprise (3e most everyone knew what was coming.) I made him an NPC Warlord... and when the revel came out it was no big deal. One of the PCs even said he could imagine PCing Praxton someday... no longer was he such a twist, he was just an epic warlord
In 2e One of my players made this comment that I always had ancient wizards and liches with big brutes working for them... so I created what I thought was a twist.
The game started with a new continent that may or may not have been used in the past... there was some low level villain and these magic swords to collect and use against him... it seemed like an old story. The twist came when they collected the 3rd magic sword and found a man trapped in a cracking crystal... when they pull the 3rd sword, it opened and this soldier falls disoriented. His name was Praxton and he had only one question... "Are you new gods?" after some jokes they tell him no, and he tells them "Then you are nothing" and he walks out. He goes and kills the badguy then starts to assemble an army.
Praxton was a highlevel fighter who killed Gods because of some past thing... it was such a twist when he had these strange abilities like cutting through wall of force...
In 3e I reran the basic game, but I had a new origin for Praxton. He was this human like race from book of vile darkness. the basics were there, except he now had a few dozen followers who I made up and gave him some cool things.
in both the PCs (only 1 overlap) thought it so strange that this warrior was able to outfight gods... something just felt epic and mythic about it...
then I tried running it in 4e, and (Same PC now played all three) This time like the 2e it was a big surprise (3e most everyone knew what was coming.) I made him an NPC Warlord... and when the revel came out it was no big deal. One of the PCs even said he could imagine PCing Praxton someday... no longer was he such a twist, he was just an epic warlord
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
IMO it was (core rules) a wizard in 2e, a wizard or cleric in 3e, and a warlord-flavored opponent in 4e.
I like that a warlord can use their Intelligence or Charisma (or both) for behind-the-scenes and combat purposes, although to be technical this is mere flavor text for a 4e "monster". IME the chief villain needs to be at least a 4e to avoid insta-ganking.
I like that a warlord can use their Intelligence or Charisma (or both) for behind-the-scenes and combat purposes, although to be technical this is mere flavor text for a 4e "monster". IME the chief villain needs to be at least a 4e to avoid insta-ganking.
