Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4
|
Putting the stat block math in spoiler tags sounds like a good compromise.
Does it hurt, being smart all the time?
*grin*
That's . . . a really good idea. Yeah.
I'd also like to see the commentary rules tightened up to simply prohibit contestants from posting in any of the entry threads (but certainly not general discussion threads) while voting is underway.
Fair enough.
With all the "SRD-only" discussions going around, could the contestants use a tool like PCGen to stat out the villain?
Are spellcasters supposed to list memorized spells separate from their full spellbooks? I am assuming this wouldn't count toward any word-counts, otherwise you are penalizing spellcaster designs.
I would agree with Boomer that a tactics section would be nice. Would this be part of the general description, or would it be given its own section and word-count?
Does the list of magic items that the villain has get included in the stat block, or does it become part of the description area?
And finally...
Gonzo, a term I needed to look up, might be too strong a word.
It is truly sad that Muppet Show references aren't commonly known anymore. Anyone that watched it knows exactly what it means when something is Gonzo (i.e. WAY out there).
Are spellcasters supposed to list memorized spells separate from their full spellbooks? I am assuming this wouldn't count toward any word-counts, otherwise you are penalizing spellcaster designs.
Using the word memorized will lead to automatic disqualification. The proper word nowadays is prepared.
Ok, I am kidding but if the villain is per SRD this would be an error.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
I'd lean towards SRD only, but with one exception. I think it would be fun to allow any entries from previous rounds be used - so if someone wants to give their villain one of the magic items from round 1 or be from a country in round 2 let them.
also, I think that a CR range would be good, but not a fixed CR - that would be too limiting for anyone wanting to use a monster as the base for their villain - only so many options would work within the CR limit then.
On the subject of stat blocks... What if your villain uses a different stat block than that of a monster? For example, I did "Glimmerpane" in Dungeon 127 (intelligent mirror of opposition) and I couldn't have presented that with the monster format. Surely someone out there will want to try something similar.
The idea I'd most like to try if I advance into the next round does have a statblock in the SRD, but it's neither a monster or a magic item.
It's, something else...
I have seen some posts that seem to suggest that some people think the authors are building an adventure proposal piece by piece here. They arent.
That I think arose from an idea a couple people had to try to build an "arc" out of their entries. It's a clever idea. If you get all the way through the contest and it all ties together, it shows how you are a Superstar. That said, it's subsequently been made clear that Paizo has no plans for any of the content except for the final adventure. (Although I'm not sure why. I think a book reproducing and expanding upon the entries would be cool. Or at least a little pdf.)
On to Clark's questions.
1. What's my motivation? What drives me as a villain?
2. What's my goal? What do I want to do? (Oh, and world/plane/continent domination is so damn cliched can we get this stricken?)
3. Do I have significant enemies?
4. What resources do I have? (This could mean personal gp and non-monetary. For gp I need to know if the villain is in a spread of CR 5-9 do they get PC values, NPC values, etc.)
Stat Block Math Discussion
What's important to see in a stat block are:
how you arrive at skill mods
Example: Sense Motive +10 means little; Sense Motive +10 (+4 Cha, 4 ranks, +2 synergy bonus)* lets the editor break down the block to make sure it's correct.)
how attack lines and defense break down
Example: AC 25 says nothing. AC 25, touch 16, flat-footed 22 (+3 Dex, +6 magical chain, +3 magic shield, +3 ring of protection) lays it all out and lets someone go back and verify these.
*Do you see what's wrong here by the way? :D
First question; I assume the stat block will be in the SRD format, not the new WotC format (Personally, since I think the new format is a foul abberation, this suits me fine!)
Second question, not one which I intend to make use of myself whatever, but is Psionics SRD or OGL (and thus allowed or not; I'm not sure?)
I think a section calculating the maths is probably unessecary (as mentioned, AC, where it's important, comes pre-broken down), but if it is, it needs not to count towards the word count.
I think a range of CRs is better than a set one (since, let's face it, CR is a bit of a questionable measure at the best of times.)
I'd go with the aforemention 5-15 range; another alturnative would be 'sweet spot' WotC suggested that there was (which as I recall is somewhere around the middle of that range).
I think there ought to a mandatory Tactics section. Why? Because of the SRD-Only limitation. In a lot of games people are likely to be playing, there's going to be nonCore/SRD content which can change the balance somewhat. So I think it's very important to maximise the use of what Core has to be able to present a threat to as much of the full range of potential PCs as possible (which will include noncore). A good tactics section will allow that to be done without having to make specific reference to any non SRD material. Clever tactics can reduce the effect of a lot of nonstandard powers. So it's good practise, I think.
For but a single example, a villain should probably have some method of dealing with flying opponents; either tactically or otherwise. (Or the warlock gets an 'I win' button, as does any PC with wings or natural flight ability.)
(Perhaps even some of the crition of the judging by us and you, should be on the potential threat range of the villain. A villain that is better against a wide series of party types is much more use than one who's good against only a narrow range or even just and iconic party.)
Whether this should count as part of the stat block or word count is debatably.
I also think that it might be helpful to include some kind of importance of weighting each section; last round for example, government was a mandatory requirement, but though I didn't fall into the trap myself, it could have been all too easy to place equal weighting on all the required sections. That clearly wasn't what everyone was looking for.
So I think a very broad level of how much detail is required in a mandatory section would be very helpful to the writers (something like [this section] briefly detail [this thing]. Perhaps a simple explanation of how the mandatory section relates to the theoretical end-user would suffice.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
I think a section calculating the maths is probably unessecary (as mentioned, AC, where it's important, comes pre-broken down), but if it is, it needs not to count towards the word count.
I think that the calculations aren't to make the villain easier to use in play, but to "check the work" on all of the RPG Superstars, and thus probably is a good idea. It's one area of crunch which is very important - I know I hate reading a published product and realising that the AC, saves, and skills (or whatever) are wrong.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Stat Block Math Discussion
What's important to see in a stat block are:
how you arrive at skill mods
Example: Sense Motive +10 means little; Sense Motive +10 (+4 Cha, 4 ranks, +2 synergy bonus)* lets the editor break down the block to make sure it's correct.)*Do you see what's wrong here by the way? :D
Sense Motive is WIS-based.
I think that the calculations aren't to make the villain easier to use in play, but to "check the work" on all of the RPG Superstars, and thus probably is a good idea. It's one area of crunch which is very important - I know I hate reading a published product and realising that the AC, saves, and skills (or whatever) are wrong.
I think a section calculating the maths is probably unessecary (as mentioned, AC, where it's important, comes pre-broken down), but if it is, it needs not to count towards the word count.
Fair enough and I concede that point (especially since I was ranting just the othe day about the poor quality of same in the later WotC splatbooks!), but I do think it needs to be an addendum to the submission rather than part of the submission word count itself. (Compare the amount you'll need to do a Rogue as opposed to, say, a fighter.)
I had another thought too why a range of CRs is important; the mess of LA/CR and nonassociated levels. If some decides to use demon/class X or something, having a bit of play with the CR covers the rather subjective associated/nonassociated levels issue.
Also, a ruling on the alloted wealth I think is important; whether just to go for wealth-by-level freely or with a restriction on, say, no more than half the wealth on any one item (I'd recommend the latter personally). (Actually, is wealth-by-level in even the SRD? If not, they'll need to be an 'offical' guideline.)
The more I though about it, the more I realised that an allies/minions section should be in evidence somewhere (nit nessecarily a section all to iself). Single BBEGs do not work well in 3.5; I've learned this the hard way, especially if you have a larger party. So it's really important to back the villain up with some chaff for a villain to be effective (or something else to divide up the PC's available actions) or you run the risk of an anti-climatic fight.
I'm not suggesting stat blocks, but at the very least an entry of "[villain] often is accompanied by [x] [thingy]" or "[villain's] henchthing[s] [minionbloke] are often [thingy], [wotsit] or [oojaymathingywotsit] who he instructs to [do this]".
I would like to see a wide range of CRs permitted, perhaps 4 to 15, to reduce the chance that two of the contestants would choose similar concepts. The more variety, the better.
I would hope that "anything goes" for the villain's wealth and equipment. If authors diverge from what is normal for their chosen CR, they would be wise to explain their reasoning in the "show your work" section.
I would like to see new items, magic and feats permitted (within reason). While I could give my villain the usual items found for a foe of his level, I strongly prefer to customize magic items. One of the ideas I was toying with used a 35,000 gp magic item: While I could substitute a wand to achieve the same effect (11,250 gp), I hate to use such a "mundane" magic item. A "watered down" version of the wondrous item would be much more appropriate.
If the word counts are tight enough, such distractions as new powers or items will be self-correcting. Those who indulge themselves in novelty items won't have room for "trivia" like character motivation, description, background...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar
aka Leandra Christine Schneider
|
To ask a totally different kind of question:
How will words be counted?
As far as I have learned, there are many techniques for doing that and the resulting word-count varies.
In my case, using different (free) programs yields results that vary by approximately 10% of the number of allowed words.
I think it would be good to agree on a fixed strategy (or even a free web application). At least it would save me (and others that are a little too cautious) from trying to leave some space just in case our way of counting is a little too optimistic.
I think that the calculations aren't to make the villain easier to use in play, but to "check the work" on all of the RPG Superstars, and thus probably is a good idea.
While checking the work is important (and something I miss from the MM format when compared against new ones), knowing the source of the numbers is also useful when running it:
Say my villian/monster has a special ability with a CON-based DC. His Con is then reduced via Poison, Bestow Curse or enhanced with a Bear's Endurance. While the rule text for the ability will say it's con based, I might not remember that when searching for the number mid-combat. But if +X Con is right there, then I remember to adjust it.
Similarly, breaking fown AC let's me see much more readily what happens when a player shows up with a Brilliant Energy weapon or an incoporeal touch attack suddenly cares about Mage Armor. It also helps me be more descriptive to my players: Instead of just 'You miss', I can see what that creatures large bonuses are and decide which one stopped the attack? Did he dodge? Was it the shield? Was it an invisible force barrier?
1) No Gonzo
2) Villain must be CR 10 (for example). State a fixed CR so that every villain is the 'same' powerwise but unique in execution.
3) SRD only
What you call "gonzo", I call "creative and interesting".
I too would like to see the villains at the same CR, or at least a slightly narrower range like 8-10.
Though I'm curious to see how contestants would use the other contestants' material, I don't think material from previous rounds should be allowed. That seems a bit gimmicky to me for some reason. I don't think contestants should be allowed to reference their own submissions, either. It's true that a villain without context is lame, but context can be provided in ways other than saying "He's from such-and-such a country." It seems like a bit of cheat word-count-wise to be able to provide that much context with just a few words.
1) No GonzoThis is a matter of personal preference. If you don't like over-the-top entries, don't vote for them, but telling the authors "Don't do anything too crazy" is kinda ridiculous.
At this point I am not telling, I am suggesting.....
Okay, I've been convinced that both CR should be more flexible... but only within a narrow range, say CR 8-12. Wealth I could see being more flexible depending on if its equips or just loot.
I'm also convinced that allowing the creation of new stuff (feats, spells, etc.) is a huge mistake. The last 2 rounds were all about wild creativity so I say it's about time for a round that's more focused on showing what the contestants can do with a more limited toolkit.
And Boomer... I'm just smart enough to know that it feels pretty good to be dumb sometimes. On a similar note, Ben Franklin once said (paraphrasing here) that alcohol is proof that there is a god and that he wants us to be happy.
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
1) No GonzoThis is a matter of personal preference. If you don't like over-the-top entries, don't vote for them, but telling the authors "Don't do anything too crazy" is kinda ridiculous.
Quite seriously, I think the last two rounds have set certain expectations that ought not to escalate any further. I believe it would be in the interests of the contestants to set some boundaries in the rules.
If 3 of the 16 villains, and that's not a large pool, are a displacer beast, a balor's severed toe and a talking potion bottle, three talented authors have wasted their time and mine.
Villains should have opposable thumbs and pass for humanoid, in the interests of having 16 entries that we can actually compare to each other.
IMPORTANT QUESTION: (at least, important to me)
Which style of stat block are we using here? There have been several core stat block styles, and it would help a lot if the judges would stipulate which we are to use.
I will provide a very detailed stat block format to use.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
Villains should have opposable thumbs and pass for humanoid, in the interests of having 16 entries that we can actually compare to each other.So no evil dragons?
I'd rather not see one, personally. But any restriction could be worded differently than my attempt.
I think it would be good to specify how close to the given template/format you want the contestants to follow. I would guess the answer would be "extremely close" in regards to the "stat block", but I would hope you'd allow a good deal of leeway in regards to what the contestants do with their "descriptive text".
Oh, I also think that stat block math is a waste of time. My eyes will bleed if I start reading stuff like, "And since he's wearing half-plate armor, I had to subtract the ACP from the following skills ..." And if we're not supposed to read it as part of our judgement, why bother including it?
I will provide the stat block format and we want you to follow it exactly.
Yes, you will get leway in the descriptive section. In fact, we will provide some mandatory content we want in there, but other than that, how you deliver that section is up to you.
As for showing math, it is only numerical and it is in brackets. Showing math will NOT include any explanation of design decision or the "why" behind something, it will just show the numbers, such as "Skill +8 [+5 ranks, +3 Int]" or something like that. It will NOT allow for the text explanation that you mention above.
I'd rather not see one, personally. But any restriction could be worded differently than my attempt.Villains should have opposable thumbs and pass for humanoid, in the interests of having 16 entries that we can actually compare to each other.So no evil dragons?
A villain can be a monster. There will be no opposable thumbs and humanoid requirement. That said, there is a difference between a monster and a villain. You can have monstrous villains of course.
1) No Gonzo
2) Villain must be CR 10 (for example). State a fixed CR so that every villain is the 'same' powerwise but unique in execution.
3) SRD only
1. Gonzo will be the author's choice. But my guess is that the appeal of gonzo is wearing a bit thin.
2. I like the idea of a range. I dont think that we will state a fixed CR (meaning only CR 12 for example). I have asked my fellow judges and we are discussing.
3. No doubt SRD only.
I would agree with Boomer that a tactics section would be nice. Would this be part of the general description, or would it be given its own section and word-count?
Does the list of magic items that the villain has get included in the stat block, or does it become part of the description area?
Tactics, etc, are part of the stat block a la Paizo's most recent published works (see Pathfinder). Magic items, etc, that are part of gear are also in the stat block. None of this counts against word count. BUT authors will be cautioned that tactics and gear are meant to be just that--short, stat block-like references as you see in published works. I dont want 5 paragraphs on tactics. That is not what you see in real stat blocks in real published works.
I'd lean towards SRD only, but with one exception. I think it would be fun to allow any entries from previous rounds be used - so if someone wants to give their villain one of the magic items from round 1 or be from a country in round 2 let them.
also, I think that a CR range would be good, but not a fixed CR - that would be too limiting for anyone wanting to use a monster as the base for their villain - only so many options would work within the CR limit then.
I am leaning towards both of these. It would be fun to allow someone to reference an item from round 1 or a country from round 2. And I personally think a CR range (say 8 to 16) is a good call. But I am not the final decision maker here.
Stat Block Math Discussion
What's important to see in a stat block are:
how you arrive at skill mods
Example: Sense Motive +10 means little; Sense Motive +10 (+4 Cha, 4 ranks, +2 synergy bonus)* lets the editor break down the block to make sure it's correct.)how attack lines and defense break down
Example: AC 25 says nothing. AC 25, touch 16, flat-footed 22 (+3 Dex, +6 magical chain, +3 magic shield, +3 ring of protection) lays it all out and lets someone go back and verify these.*Do you see what's wrong here by the way? :D
That is exactly what we are looking for, except in brackets, so it would be:
"Sense Motive +10 [+4 Cha, 4 ranks, +2 synergy bonus]"*
or
"AC 25, touch 16, flat-footed 22 [+3 Dex, +6 magical chain, +3 magic shield, +3 ring of protection]".
*not commenting :)
|
|
Is this meant to be a recurring villian or a one shot, you are putting stats to a villian so you are breaking the main rule of a recurring villian, if you stat it they will kill it.
Villian Points of Interest:
SRD Only
CR Limitation 1-20 - no epic, too much work to research and judge.
Background (Treat it like a resume and job interview):
- What started this person's career in villany?
- Where does the villian see himself in 5 years?
- An antagonist is only as good as his protagonist, so who are his enemies?
- List of minions and flunkies who get to die horribly throughout a campaign setting?
- List of good guys and allies who the players will see suffer at the hands of this villian?
- Hobbies, what does he do in his down time to continue to be competitive with the heroes who oppose him?
- Is this villian specialized?
- Is this villian part of a larger group or organization?
- Is this villian a sub-villian to a larger villian?
- Special villian information for the DM?
- How would you introduce the villian into a campaign?
- How do you envision his demise?
- What do you think are his strengths and weaknesses?
- Secret Lair - Where does he go to lick his wounds or torture company?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Okay, I've been convinced that both CR should be more flexible... but only within a narrow range, say CR 8-12. Wealth I could see being more flexible depending on if its equips or just loot.
I'm also convinced that allowing the creation of new stuff (feats, spells, etc.) is a huge mistake. The last 2 rounds were all about wild creativity so I say it's about time for a round that's more focused on showing what the contestants can do with a more limited toolkit.
I don't mind that CR range, and I can certainly see an argument for a narrower range.
I guess it depends on how each person weights the parts of the entry. Are you looking for the most number-crunched stat block or the most compelling descriptive text? Of course you want to see both, but the one doesn't necessarily have any connection to the other. You have have an "uber-l33t-pwn-min-maxed" whatever build and be boring as hell and you can have a great story and hook but be straight vanilla with a chaser of musty tap water on the build. So I guess I can see level/CR not mattering that much and I can see it mattering a lot.
It just depends on how comfortable people are with evaluating different categories of things. A 'villian' doesn't have to be Dr. Doom, Darkseid, Sauron, and Benedict Arnold rolled into one, but if it would be too hard to compare Hitler to "evil Staff Sergeant Wolfgang Killmeister", then maybe it would make more sense to make it a tight CR band to make things easier to compare.
FWIW, I would also be in favor of making this round of the contest SRD-only.
Next round, should we make it, is for flights of fancy--invent your own thematically linked monsters! Fly, be free! For this round, keep it to the basics mechanically and show us what you can do.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
In addition to listing the wrong ability (Wis, not Cha), synergy bonuses only apply if you have 5 ranks or more.Sense Motive +10 (+4 Cha, 4 ranks, +2 synergy bonus)*
*Do you see what's wrong here by the way? :D
It would be a synergy bonus FROM another skill... (like if you have 5 ranks in Bluff, your Diplomacy score would say [+2 synergy] regardless of how many ranks you had in Dip.
Speaking of SM, I know SM gives synergy TO Diplomacy, but does it get synergy FROM anything? Not that I recall, but I'm too lazy to go look.
In addition to listing the wrong ability (Wis, not Cha), synergy bonuses only apply if you have 5 ranks or more.Sense Motive +10 (+4 Cha, 4 ranks, +2 synergy bonus)*
*Do you see what's wrong here by the way? :D
By the way, no math is ever perfect. However, mistakes are appropriate basis for comment by voters. That is one reason we want to see the math.
My thought is that we hold submission to the "average Paizo publication standard" (as opposed to the lower "average WotC splat book" standard, which definately contains more errors :) )
Are you looking for the most number-crunched stat block or the most compelling descriptive text?
We are looking for the best villain. :)
I can already see people missing the forest for the trees, if you know what I mean. That is one of the tests here--dont get so lost in the stat block that you forget to give us a great villain.
All stats based upon the elite array. So no uber builds that attract undue attention just because of the size of their bonuses.
Is this meant to be a recurring villian or a one shot, you are putting stats to a villian so you are breaking the main rule of a recurring villian, if you stat it they will kill it.
Villian Points of Interest:
SRD Only
CR Limitation 1-20 - no epic, too much work to research and judge.Background (Treat it like a resume and job interview):
- What started this person's career in villany?
- Where does the villian see himself in 5 years?
- An antagonist is only as good as his protagonist, so who are his enemies?
- List of minions and flunkies who get to die horribly throughout a campaign setting?
- List of good guys and allies who the players will see suffer at the hands of this villian?
- Hobbies, what does he do in his down time to continue to be competitive with the heroes who oppose him?
- Is this villian specialized?
- Is this villian part of a larger group or organization?
- Is this villian a sub-villian to a larger villian?
- Special villian information for the DM?
- How would you introduce the villian into a campaign?
- How do you envision his demise?
- What do you think are his strengths and weaknesses?
- Secret Lair - Where does he go to lick his wounds or torture company?
You have to stat a villain whether or not they PCs actually fight him or her or it.
I agree no epic villains. At a minimum, I see us capping CR at 20 even if we dont provide a range (though I guess by capping at 20 we would be giving a range of 1-20 :) ).
Those background items are all interesting. They wont all be mandatory to include. That is part of the author's choice of how to use his or her word limit for the descriptive portion of the submission.
All stats based upon the elite array. So no uber builds that attract undue attention just because of the size of their bonuses.
Good question Darkjoy.
My guy says we leave this decision to the author. But I do need to address this.
I think our voters are saavy enough to not be fooled by simple uber bonuses (though they did apparently fall for blink dogs :) ).
I think our voters are saavy enough to not be fooled by simple uber bonuses (though they did apparently fall for blink dogs :) ).
Really? I hadn't noticed ;>
I think our voters are saavy enough to not be fooled by simple uber bonuses (though they did apparently fall for blink dogs :) ).
*Erik rolls 1d100 and gets a (33)* Just as your attack was about to hit, the blink dog flashes out of sight, and your barb passes through the empty space harmlessly. The blink dog reappears directly in front of you, rears back, plants its paws on your chest and licks your face. You take 10 points of cuteness damage.
Don't hate the Ghost Hound Kinships. They love you, Clark!
I'm really struggling with how to instruct regarding stating up animal companions and cohorts and things.
My gut says dont stat that stuff up, but then again, if a villain has a key companion or cohort I dont want to restrict that.
But I need to be able to give instructions.
Clearly, henchmen and lackeys are not to be stated. Nor are simple non-cohort followers from the Leadership feat.
What if I said: "Animal companions, familiars and cohorts from the Leadership feat may be stated at the authors discretion though it is not required. Other henchmen, lackeys or non-cohort followers shall not be statted though they can be referred to in the description section at the author's discretion."
Is that clear enough guidance if I went that way?
My concern is this--I odnt want to encourage big stat blocks and lots of cohorts and companions just so that an author can have a huge submission and try to wow people with all of that content.
A big part of me still leans to saying this is about the villain, not the cohort or companion and so we only stat the villain. But I am torn. I'd love to hear more thoughts on this.
I think our voters are saavy enough to not be fooled by simple uber bonuses (though they did apparently fall for blink dogs :) ).*Erik rolls 1d100 and gets a (33)* Just as your attack was about to hit, the blink dog flashes out of sight, and your barb passes through the empty space harmlessly. The blink dog reappears directly in front of you, rears back, plants its paws on your chest and licks your face. You take 10 points of cuteness damage.
Don't hate the Ghost Hound Kinships. They love you, Clark!
I dont hate them. :) At this point, I am treating my view on blink dogs more as a running joke than anything else. I think it is pretty clear from the boards that mine is a minority view.
By the way, is cuteness damage kind of like the opposite of vile damage? Was that from the Book of Fluffy Bunnies?
My concern is this--I odnt want to encourage big stat blocks and lots of cohorts and companions just so that an author can have a huge submission and try to wow people with all of that content.A big part of me still leans to saying this is about the villain, not the cohort or companion and so we only stat the villain. But I am torn. I'd love to hear more thoughts on this.
Having done a stat block or two, I believe that if you state it as you did a writer would shoot his or herself in the foot if he statted everyone. More stats equals more room for error. And RPG superstars don't submit errors (or atleast not several of them).
I'm really struggling with how to instruct regarding stating up animal companions and cohorts and things.
My gut says dont stat that stuff up, but then again, if a villain has a key companion or cohort I dont want to restrict that.
But I need to be able to give instructions.
Clearly, henchmen and lackeys are not to be stated. Nor are simple non-cohort followers from the Leadership feat.
What if I said: "Animal companions, familiars and cohorts from the Leadership feat may be stated at the authors discretion though it is not required. Other henchmen, lackeys or non-cohort followers shall not be statted though they can be referred to in the description section at the author's discretion."
Is that clear enough guidance if I went that way?
My concern is this--I odnt want to encourage big stat blocks and lots of cohorts and companions just so that an author can have a huge submission and try to wow people with all of that content.
A big part of me still leans to saying this is about the villain, not the cohort or companion and so we only stat the villain. But I am torn. I'd love to hear more thoughts on this.
I think it would be best if cohorts and animal companions and so forth be limited to just race/class/level or animal type in the stat block. The rest can be referred to in the descriptive text.
For instance.
Feats: Leadership (10th-Level Human Wizard Cohort)
Class Abilities: Animal Companion (Brown Bear)
In my opinion that should be more than sufficient and won't boggle up the whole entry with stat block information. Any details about the cohort and/or animal companion could be referred to in the descriptive text.
"Smokey, a brown bear trained to grapple and put out fires on command, is Druid-Man's constant companion."
"Smokey, a brown bear trained to grapple and put out fires on command, is Druid-Man's constant companion."
LOL, you should talk with the folks that gave us he-man.
I think it would be best if cohorts and animal companions and so forth be limited to just race/class/level or animal type in the stat block. The rest can be referred to in the descriptive text.
For instance.
Feats: Leadership (10th-Level Human Wizard Cohort)
Class Abilities: Animal Companion (Brown Bear)In my opinion that should be more than sufficient and won't boggle up the whole entry with stat block information. Any details about the cohort and/or animal companion could be referred to in the descriptive text.
"Smokey, a brown bear trained to grapple and put out fires on command, is Druid-Man's constant companion."
I have to admit I am strongly leaning this way. I think that is a good way to do it. But again, I am not the only decision maker on this. I think your logic is sound and that is a good example to give of how to do it.
I think it would be best if cohorts and animal companions and so forth be limited to just race/class/level or animal type in the stat block. The rest can be referred to in the descriptive text.
For instance.
Feats: Leadership (10th-Level Human Wizard Cohort)
Class Abilities: Animal Companion (Brown Bear)In my opinion that should be more than sufficient and won't boggle up the whole entry with stat block information. Any details about the cohort and/or animal companion could be referred to in the descriptive text.
"Smokey, a brown bear trained to grapple and put out fires on command, is Druid-Man's constant companion."
I agree here: Animal companions, mounts, and familiars all follow very simple formulas and need very little declaration. At most, they should get the 'summary form' stat block to account for special gear. Cohorts can need full stat blocks, but since they shouldn't be allowed to become more interesting than the villain, they can be restricted to NPC format (i.e. Ftr2/Mnk3).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think it would be best if cohorts and animal companions and so forth be limited to just race/class/level or animal type in the stat block. The rest can be referred to in the descriptive text.
For instance.
Feats: Leadership (10th-Level Human Wizard Cohort)
Class Abilities: Animal Companion (Brown Bear)In my opinion that should be more than sufficient and won't boggle up the whole entry with stat block information. Any details about the cohort and/or animal companion could be referred to in the descriptive text.
"Smokey, a brown bear trained to grapple and put out fires on command, is Druid-Man's constant companion."
I think that this is a good way to do it. It still gives us the flavor of the cohort/companion/whatever and tells us how the villain uses it, which is the relevant information, without glutting the entry with multiple stat blocks. Your villian may be complex enough without adding potentially complex sidekicks.