D&D 4E XP for NPCs in 4e?

[Magus Coeruleus]

I think they don't

From what i've read, the difference is that NPC's get only 1 of each type of power, no AP's, no second wind, and only one magic item. They also seem to use the monster system for gaining hp.

Naturally, an NPC that is built like a pc should be much more powerful, but i think that was an oversight

The class template vs. from-scratch NPC difference makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is that it seems like the NPC gives you many much better stats that typical monsters of the same level. Then again, I look at the strangeness of the monster creation rules saying AC = X + level where other creation stuff (e.g. NPC) follows 10 + 1/2 level + stat mod and I'm not sure what to think.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think they don't

From what i've read, the difference is that NPC's get only 1 of each type of power, no AP's, no second wind, and only one magic item. They also seem to use the monster system for gaining hp.

Naturally, an NPC that is built like a pc should be much more powerful, but i think that was an oversight

They still get Second Wind, IIRC. But the rest sounds correct.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How much XP do you get for killing a PC?

Maybe an Elite of that level?

I wondered that myself. As it stands, there is no expectation to use NPCs created by the PC creation, but if you would, I think Elite might still be a bit too high.

My guess is 125% to 150% of the XP for an NPC of that level.

But I might underestimate the value of the full range of dailies available for a PC-like NPC vs PCs.

 

[kylone]

One problem I had when building a mid-level human villain was I started by following the rules for an NPC ranger and was getting number much higher than level 4 things in the MM. Anyone else get the feeling that a level X NPC is tougher than other level X creatures?

Yup, I agree. I decided to give a 50% xp boost ( kinda like a 1/2 elite) to NPC villians

 

[Cirex]

Right, but I'm not talking about class templates (pp. 182-183); I'm talking about creating NPCs (p. 186-188). There's nothing in that section to suggest that classed NPCs count as elites.

You are correct. I forgot about that section, however, after rereading it, it just looks like a review of how to create a more simple and weaker PC.

I guess that if I want to create a NPC with class from a race that is not core (or from the last chapter of the MM), I must set a template, since we don't have the stat modifiers for other races.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

I just wanted to share the following which I posted in another thread. It's tangential to the issue of XP for NPCs but related to other things that have come up here:

...The DMG p. 184 table does not look like it gives a good approximation of the MM monsters. I know it's guidelines and everything gets tweaked, but I would hope that the tables would generate something close to the mean. Instead, take as an example Artillery monsters. I looked through every single one. DMG table says Attack vs. AC should be Level + 7. Looking at non-solo, non-elite Artillery, there is ONE that has an attack at level + 7 (goblin sharpshooter). There is ONE that is one point less (i.e. level +6, the dwarf bolter). All other Artillery in the MM are 2+ points below Level + 7 for their Attacks. It's usually 2-3 points below, sometimes less. So why doesn't the table say Level + 5 like it does for Skirmisher, Lurker, and Controller? Mind you, I haven't checked to see if all other monster roles also have attack mods 2+ lower than expected from the table.

So what the frack is going on when 1 MM Artillery is Level + 7, one is Level + 6, and the majority are Level plus 4 or 5? Why not reflect the mean or something at least closer to it in that DMG table?

 

[Jhaelen]

So what the frack is going on when 1 MM Artillery is Level + 7, one is Level + 6, and the majority are Level plus 4 or 5? Why not reflect the mean or something at least closer to it in that DMG table?

Excellent question!

I'd bet an official answer would be: 'because they were designed that way'.

If I was optimistic, I'd say, the guidelines for creating monsters were dumbed down. I.e. if you cannot think of appropriate powers for a good artillery monster, you'll still get a reasonably balanced one if you give it a higher attack bonus.
It's easier to give them a flat bonus than think hard about a power that will basically have the same effect.

If I was pessimistic, I'd say it's a botch. Either the guidelines were written at a time well before or after the MM entries were finalized. They may have matched at a certain point in time, but they don't match with the finalized version.
What makes matters worse is that there is no way to verify that monster stats are correct (i.e. the way they were designed to be) or in error.
Good for the designers, bad for DMs/players.

 

[JGulick]

So what the frack is going on when 1 MM Artillery is Level + 7, one is Level + 6, and the majority are Level plus 4 or 5? Why not reflect the mean or something at least closer to it in that DMG table?

Might it be the footnote that says attacks against multiple targets are at -2?

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Might it be the footnote that says attacks against multiple targets are at -2?

Good to bring up, because in what I reported I did not correct for that. Many artillery attacks are against single foes, however, and none of those except the dwarf bolter are at level +7. Scanning just a few artillery again (don't have time to look through again--should have done it the first time) I see that in many cases the multitargeting powers have the same or even higher attack bonus. I don't doubt that there are some that are at Level + 7 after all when you take multi into account, but I highly doubt there are enough to make the table a fair approximation. Even if all of the multis were correct after the -2, given that the single foe attacks are on average around level +5 they should have just said that (level +5) and eliminated the footnote.