Gamemastery Guide NPCs (Rant Warning)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 190 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:

Not at all -- I'm that for the level they were at the time the guy was exactly what he was suggested as.

Of course once the players are around level 7 he's going to seem much less to their new perspective than he did when they were level 1.

For the time and at the level the party was during that part of the game the description was accurate.

Also the game system itself has changed between RotRL and CoT -- after all it went from OGL 3.5 to Pathfinder. Similar but different beasts and the APs themselves have evolved over that time too.

Which is specifically why I also cited Kingmaker, which is not only sandboxy but it's also post-3.5 in design. Again, it seemed that it was drastically more common to encounter 1st level anythings, and only special characters were higher than 1st level; not your typical folks. Even the guards that arrived to re-enforce an area in Kingmaker were only 1st level warriors led by a special 3rd level Fighter.

So I don't really see any of this as matching up with the "typical" examples of NPCs in the GMG NPC Gallery.

cranewings wrote:
My own games, especially sense PF came out, have been becoming more and more Sandbox style as time has worn on. One of the problems is that if you are going to claim that enemies shouldn't get stronger as the PCs do, they probably shouldn't always be weak while the party is weak.

I never complained that enemies shouldn't get stronger. "There's always a bigger fish" to quote a famous Jedi. My point is not everything is going to scale up. For example, if the bartender of a town would be a 2nd level commoner, why change him to a 7th level commoner because the PCs gained a few levels? That doesn't make much sense, and it seriously diminishes the value of actually gaining those levels if your "typical" people are going to also rise in level as quickly as you do. This creates issues where stuff is nonsensical.

Let's use Rise of the Runelords as an example of what I mean. The mechanics of it are actually more or less fine for running PF (as intended), though most creatures would have lower CRs by 1 step...

Spoiler:
In rise of the runelords #1, a town is attacked by a bunch of typical goblins wielding dogslicers and horsechoppers. The goblins themselves are just a bunch of 1st level warriors led by a 1st level bard. They are quite threatening to the local community, even with their poor weapons and such, and thus the party steps in to clean up.

Now, if we were to assume that the GMG's NPC gallery actually does represent the typical members of society, then the entire adventure basically falls apart. The "typical" inhabitants of the local tavern would be able to step outside and school the goblins for daring to set foot in their town. That would be a party of one 5th level expert/warrior bartender, a 2nd commoner level barmaid, a 3rd commoner/warrior level drunk, a 2nd level commoner/rogue bum, and sally "easy eyes" the 2nd level expert/rogue prostitute. The bum and prostitute actually being elite members of the species with their 15 point buy attributes.

Instead, the adventure is far more mundane. The vast majority of the people the book mentions are 1st level, most are commoners. The only commoner who's particularly impressive is a 7th level commoner who has a reputation for being the biggest meaty brawler of a commoner around (and what with him having about 17 Hp and a +3 BAB, he was indeed a badass commoner).

The local tavern people wouldn't have been able to repel the goblin invasion so easily with a bunch of normal people with 2-3 HP, +0 BAB, and AC 10. The goblins would have dogsliced their way to victory, being met with resistance by the town 1st level guards who would have had about 5-9 HP, AC 15-19, but were probably outnumbered.

My point was, why so much space wasted on average people who are so very beyond average? I mean, why not have included some premade stats for some NPCs? I mean, just with the Adept, Aristrocrat, Expert, and Warrior, you could have made some pretty cool premade multiclass NPCs. Some sample big bad evil guys would have been cool. I mean, a 10th level Mayor of a town? Couldn't we have gotten that CR 8 slot filled with something a bit more interesting and useful?

Quote:
It is difficult. It takes discipline and planning from the GM and BRAINS on the part of the players to include unbeatable enemies and dungeons from level one that they can die in easy if they are too stupid to avoid them. The way of running games in your example isn't very immulative, and I personally think it is boring and stupid, but a lot of players love it. There is no wasted time. Every week they play they have a good fun hard time and the GM has a simple time planning because with scaling town guards and mayors, the party can never ever get off the plot train, which is what it is really about.

I forget the page, but the 3E and I think 3.5 DMG had some decent examples for how to make a world feel alive. Sometimes, that does indeed mean having locations where PCs are outmatched. Even the Kingmaker #1 works a bit like this (with areas being more difficult or dangerous than others). I too enjoy sandbox games. They make the world feel more real to me.

I think it's perfectly fine to include areas in the world that are beyond the capabilities of 1st level PCs. "If you're thinking of heading east, stick to the main road. If you were thinking of cutting through Bogbarrow swamp, I'd recommend against it. They say trolls are thick in there, and wyverns roost in the thick canopy of the ancient trees there" would be a perfectly reasonable piece of advice from some locals, and likewise makes the world seem more real. It even offers an awesome bit for foreshadowing when the PCs a bit later learn that the quest of the week is going to take them into the heart of the Bogbarrow swamp.

When the PCs remark "Hey, that's that place that's filled with trolls and wyverns. Maybe we should carry some extra alchemist fires, and stock up on antitoxins before we head out there." then you feel a great sense of satisfaction as a GM, your players are more immersed, and all things come together in sweet, sweet harmony. ^-^


@wraithstrike
There is a flag for needing a spoiler flag it and move on. Now the spoiler is in two places.


doctor_wu wrote:

@wraithstrike

There is a flag for needing a spoiler flag it and move on. Now the spoiler is in two places.

Darn it. I knew about the spoiler flag. I just was not paying enough attention to realize that I would duplicate the problem. Thanks.


Eh, I was intentionally being vague when I was speaking of stuff. I didn't name any NPCs, towns, sections of the adventure, etc. I wasn't aware it was specific enough to warrant a spoiler tag. When I actually listed some people and their descriptions in my later post, I spoilered it because it had more detail and might be more easily placed.

My bad.

EDIT: Fixed the broken spoiler tag in my previous post.


I was just fooling around, but I messed up when I quoted the spoiler.

Shadow Lodge

The mayor in one of the mid-range (4th part) AP's is a 4th level aristocrate. However his sheriff is a level 9 fighter and his deputies are level 4 fighters...

Thats for a 9th level party so the fluff encounter is with a more appropriately levelled NPC, but the potential combat is with a series of NPC's scaled to fight the party.

On the flip side however, the majority of the town NPC's aren't detailed as they don't pose a combat threat for level 9 characters...


Another thing about scaling levels up to meet the PCs is that it's rather pointless. Scaling things up solely to keep every encounter challenging isn't a very good idea from a verisimilitude perspective. I mean, you have these characters who are so strong they can carve their way through a few hill giants, some trolls, and probably eat illithid kalimari twice a week. So why are we interested in having the local sheriff be someone they should fear?

So what does it matter if the party gets in a fight with the Sheriff and his boys and steamrolls them. These guys aren't drunks. They're troll slayers, giant moppers, and squid-choppers. So they become infamous or whatever. Maybe some other heroes come along and are hired by the townsfolk to try and take out the party. Maybe they get a bounty on their head. Maybe the fact that the Fighter is wearing a necklace covered in troll teeth might alert the local constables that they should bring more than the sheriff and a few deputies. I mean about 47 1st level warriors is a CR 9 encounter, so I'm pretty sure you could mix it up to suit to taste.

It just seems really stupid that you'd be off slaughtering hillbilly ogres left and right, only to be challenged by the local sheriff of Anywheresville.

To quote a very good passage from the 3.x DMGs (for literary criticism)...

3.5 DMG :: Campaigns :: Player Characters out of Control wrote:

Power can get out of hand. Power corrupts. PCs may do things that show their arrogance, or their contempt for those below them, as they advance in power. A 10th level Fighter may feel that he no longer has to treat the duke with respect singe he can single-handedly defeat all the duke's soldiers. A powerful wizard may feel so unstoppable that she wantonly tosses around fireballs in the middle of town. While it's fine for PCs to enjoy their abilities as they advance in level (that's the whole point), they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they wish. Even high level characters shouldn't run around completely unchecked.

Players should always remember one fact. There's always someone more powerful. You should set up your world with the idea that the PCs, while special, are not unique. Other characters, many of them quite powerful, have come along before the PCs. Institutions of influence have had to deal with individuals of great power long before the PCs. The duke may have a powerful warrior or fighter on retainer as a champion for when someone gets out of line. The city constabulary probably has a rod of negation or scroll of antimagic field to deal with out-of-control wizards. The point is that NPCs with resources will be prepared for great danger. The sooner the PCs realize this, the less likely they will run amok in the campaign world.

An example of this thinking would be...

Spoiler:
Queen Illosea's personal bodyguard Sabina, a 10th level Fighter
from Curse of the Crimson throne. It's not like 10th level Fighters are just walking around every corner. They're like other PCs. Special individuals. Champions.

Likewise, there's a lot that normal mundane people can do with a bit of planning. For example, an oil of magic weapon applied to the longbows of a towns watchkeepers allows them to pierce protection from arrows, and acid-bombing enemies with alchemical items tends to work pretty well in most cases, etc. Heck, Bob_Loblaw, Mdt, and myself have shown lots of ways that low-level people can pose a significant challenge the higher level foes in open combat.

It is definitely not necessary to scale up law enforcement just because the PCs have risen in level. Honestly, I think I'd be nothing but pissed if my party had been fighting giants, dragons, trolls, ogres, and the like, only to have trouble with the local Officer McSheriff and his good ol' boys.


Obligatory link to my pet peeve: NPCs with levels. Inlcudes Ye Olde "A Theory About Peasants" by SKR, and similar simulationist methods to level NPCs and lots of links with example NPCS (to analyze power/skill level and/or as a resource).


Ashiel wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Not at all -- I'm that for the level they were at the time the guy was exactly what he was suggested as.

Of course once the players are around level 7 he's going to seem much less to their new perspective than he did when they were level 1.

For the time and at the level the party was during that part of the game the description was accurate.

Also the game system itself has changed between RotRL and CoT -- after all it went from OGL 3.5 to Pathfinder. Similar but different beasts and the APs themselves have evolved over that time too.

Which is specifically why I also cited Kingmaker, which is not only sandboxy but it's also post-3.5 in design. Again, it seemed that it was drastically more common to encounter 1st level anythings, and only special characters were higher than 1st level; not your typical folks. Even the guards that arrived to re-enforce an area in Kingmaker were only 1st level warriors led by a special 3rd level Fighter.

So I don't really see any of this as matching up with the "typical" examples of NPCs in the GMG NPC Gallery.

So the guards are first level in the AP -- lets see what level a foot soldier is in the GMG: why... warrior 1... led by a 3rd level fighter -- a guard officer is listed at 4th level fighter... nothing similar there at all of course.

Look farmers at first level commoner -- well that's pretty darn close to the farmers at commoner 1 expert 1 isn't it?

I mean what are you really expecting?

The farmers and guards just about line up perfectly. The common NPCs doesn't state you'll meet one of each of these NPC types in every town, village and cave you go into -- it simply says they are common for what they are.

Besides there is another problem here -- you are comparing system level with campaign level... which we all know doesn't always match exactly.

Besides there are mainly more people at or below 5th~6th level in the GMG than there are above this range -- it's almost like higher level NPCs are more rare or something in the GMG.

Amazing. That doesn't mean the average of the world is going to be level 1 though, or that just because some 90% of the world might be right around CR 1~2 that there isn't the other 10% out there somewhere.

Think about this -- lets say there is exactly 1 level 20 NPC in a world. It would take 1,000 level 1 NPCs just to drop the average level back down to just over 1 -- and that's just to clear out the top level, the number of people of each level higher is half that of the level below that means there are:

2 level 19 = 38 levels
4 level 18 = 72 levels
8 level 17 = 136 levels
16 level 16 = 256 levels
32 level 15 = 480 levels
64 level 14 = 896 levels
128 level 13 = 1,664 levels
256 level 12 = 9,072 levels
512 level 11 = 5,632 levels
1,024 level 10 = 10,240 levels
2,048 level 9 = 18,432 levels
4,096 level 8 = 32,768 levels
8,192 level 7 = 57,344 levels
16,384 level 6 = 98,304 levels
32,768 level 5 = 163,840 levels
65,536 level 4 = 262,144 levels
131,072 level 3 = 393,216 levels
262,144 level 2 = 524,288 levels
524,288 level 1 = 524,288 levels

You'll find that means half the world's population is level 1 (almost exactly in fact). In fact about 90% of the world's population is level 3 or less which means its highly likely about 85% of the world's population is CR 1 or less, with an average world wide level of... 2, even though the most common level (by far) is level 1.

This would make for a very small world by the way -- like before agriculture small. Even around 300~400 AD the world population was likely around 50~60 million -- 50 times the above numbers. Even after the black death made its rounds killing about 15~25% of the world's population we still had some 350~375 million people around with pathfinder technology and no magic to help.

Now people have argued against giving NPCs experience -- but what exactly are you supposed to get experience for?

Quote:
Keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles, and roleplaying encounters the PCs overcome.

Now if we don't want to get all meta here we must remember that from the NPC's point of view, he is the PC from his perspective.

He killed a cow last year, tricked it good got it in the spot and finished it up, later that winter he shot and killed an elk in the woods, and successfully defended his kill from a couple of wolves... well in just those three encounters he's got 1,800 exp. If he does it all with the help of a friend it'll take him 3 more such things happening before he levels.

None of which is unrealistic in the least. Heck he manages to marry the barmaid that's a second level commoner -- that could easily be another 600 for the quest of getting married (including the xp award for roleplaying encounters he overcame *like persuading the father to allow them to get married).

Now if you insist on ignoring how the system works -- yeah we can throw all this out the window and never work with it again... but that's not what the system assumes happens.

IF anything I would complain that the GMG puts NPCs at too low of a level compared to what life entails.


As to the 'scaling enemies' issue, I handle it like this...

The way I do my games is, the PCs get hired to do things they can handle, and get warned away from things they can't. Like, "Yeah, those goblins are annoying, we'd go get rid of them ourselves, but we're too busy with the kobolds who're interfering with our mines. So stay away from the mines, those kobolds would slaughter you in a minute. Anyway, when you're going to the goblins, watch out for a basilisk, there's one down near them. Look for goblin statues, if you see any, get out of there."

That way, the PCs are pre-selecting jobs that are appropriate for them, and the people hiring them have no incentive to send them out without warning them about the dragons or orc hordes.

So it's perfectly natural that challenges scale. The NPCs don't usually, but the challenges do.


mdt wrote:

As to the 'scaling enemies' issue, I handle it like this...

The way I do my games is, the PCs get hired to do things they can handle, and get warned away from things they can't. Like, "Yeah, those goblins are annoying, we'd go get rid of them ourselves, but we're too busy with the kobolds who're interfering with our mines. So stay away from the mines, those kobolds would slaughter you in a minute. Anyway, when you're going to the goblins, watch out for a basilisk, there's one down near them. Look for goblin statues, if you see any, get out of there."

That way, the PCs are pre-selecting jobs that are appropriate for them, and the people hiring them have no incentive to send them out without warning them about the dragons or orc hordes.

So it's perfectly natural that challenges scale. The NPCs don't usually, but the challenges do.

That sounds great mdt, and is a wonderful explanation. Kudos. ^-^

Your Basilisk example reminds me of something else actually, which was seen in a lot of older RPG modules, the Kingmaker module, and in a lot of PC games these days. That's expansive difficulty, or at least that's what I'm calling it for lack of a better term.

What I mean by expansive difficulty is the idea that you need more power to reach further. The further from safety you go, the more dangerous it becomes, etc. For example, in the recent PC/Console game Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, certain areas of the world are innately more dangerous than others, regardless of the level of the player. Likewise, you encounter progressively more dangerous foes as it makes sense.

For example, a lot of old dungeons have Gygaxian ecologies that facilitated this sort of thing. For example, the human settlement near an ancient ruin might be a safe haven, and the first portion of a dungeon might be filled with subterranian plants, and rats that feed on those plants, and spiders that feed on those rats, and goblins that eat and ride those spiders, who are currently worshipping the basilisk in the depths of the dungeon, who is actually a guard-dog of sorts placed there before the goblins came, to prevent people from getting into the ancient tomb of Tal'thamtir, which is guarded by powerful mummies and undead, who are protecting Tal'thamtir's treasure trove, which contains the first piece of the Trine of Zulthular...

You could easily squeeze a ton of adventures out of that. Everything gets progressively stronger the further away from safety you go, and everything makes sense verisimilitude-wise, and it even supports both direct-plots and sandbox style gameplay.

Mdt's example is one of the biggest reasons I don't feel like there's a need to scale everything up constantly. I mean, mdt, Bob_Loblaw, and I were just recently discussing (at length :P) low level NPCs vs high level PCs, and the general consensus was that when prepared (as in not out in the open for the super-beings to poop on) were more than capable of handling even high powered characters despite being low levels (see also "Tucker's Kobolds"). I'm pretty sure that if you gave Mdt and Bob a town full of mundane fellows and said "Make 'em defend it against a 10th level party" that town would be in good, good hands. ^-^


mdt wrote:

As to the 'scaling enemies' issue, I handle it like this...

The way I do my games is, the PCs get hired to do things they can handle, and get warned away from things they can't. Like, "Yeah, those goblins are annoying, we'd go get rid of them ourselves, but we're too busy with the kobolds who're interfering with our mines. So stay away from the mines, those kobolds would slaughter you in a minute. Anyway, when you're going to the goblins, watch out for a basilisk, there's one down near them. Look for goblin statues, if you see any, get out of there."

That way, the PCs are pre-selecting jobs that are appropriate for them, and the people hiring them have no incentive to send them out without warning them about the dragons or orc hordes.

So it's perfectly natural that challenges scale. The NPCs don't usually, but the challenges do.

I like this approach if a first level party in lastwall decides they by themselves are trying to beseige Urgrir in the hold of Belkzen and take the fight to the orcs there is no way they are coming back from that alive really.

Shadow Lodge

I agree very much that scaling up NPC's is pretty pointless, but that's what happens in the AP's, and I think thats what the NPC's in the Gamemastery Guide represent. The sheriff was just and example, I'd put in the exact details, but I'm no good with the spoiler tabs and links...

I do however have a place for a large chunk of 2nd to 4th level NPC's in my own games, particularly of NPC classes. I don't think most NPC's that made it above 4th level would be working in NPC classes any longer. The commoner with such a breadth of experience would most likely take on a PC class in my opinion, and would be somewhat exceptional. I stand by the former examples of how if you choose to use PC mechanics of experience, there would be a good deal of NPC's in that level band.

You can make some very interesting NPC class NPC's that can give players the run around, be very good at a particular role or represent interesting individuals with a few levels. They don't necessarily represent a massive combat threat. I recently terrorised the PC's with a 6th level Adept, who's reputation preceded him. They diced him once they caught him, but he'd made himself a hateful figure with the power he had over most of the population.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Svipdag wrote:

I agree very much that scaling up NPC's is pretty pointless, but that's what happens in the AP's, and I think thats what the NPC's in the Gamemastery Guide represent. The sheriff was just and example, I'd put in the exact details, but I'm no good with the spoiler tabs and links...

I do however have a place for a large chunk of 2nd to 4th level NPC's in my own games, particularly of NPC classes. I don't think most NPC's that made it above 4th level would be working in NPC classes any longer. The commoner with such a breadth of experience would most likely take on a PC class in my opinion, and would be somewhat exceptional. I stand by the former examples of how if you choose to use PC mechanics of experience, there would be a good deal of NPC's in that level band.

You can make some very interesting NPC class NPC's that can give players the run around, be very good at a particular role or represent interesting individuals with a few levels. They don't necessarily represent a massive combat threat. I recently terrorised the PC's with a 6th level Adept, who's reputation preceded him. They diced him once they caught him, but he'd made himself a hateful figure with the power he had over most of the population.

Since I use the bestiary rules for increasing CR when they conflict with the Core Rules, I have become very fond of using NPC levels to round out certain NPCs and monsters for particular tasks as appropriate. Warrior is generally my favorite NPC class to do this with, but Adept or Expert is also good for certain things (such as adding in some extra skills or padding Will saves).

I don't really mind exceptional NPCs, but I do generally think they should be exceptional. One of the recurring antagonists* in my games is a Paladin/Warrior that exceeds 10th level (counting the NPC class levels), around about CR 8 IIRC. You wouldn't just stumble across such an NPC in my games though (she's a high ranking inquisitor for a church who has a reputation for being pretty badass).

*: The Paladin is a recurring antagonist because one of the party members is her sister, who was raised as a ghast after she was murdered in her backstory. The party member has the Civilized Ghoulishness feat and lives as a human during the day and a vigilante superhero by night. The Paladin is currently hunting her sister and the party because they were (wrongly) blamed for the maiming of a woman (whom they actually saved but she was unconscious) and the vigilante ghast is suffering from a sort of Batman crisis (where she's technically considered a criminal due to being a vigilante and a suspect of wrongdoing).

Being undead in a country where such things are considered a heinous crime means that if she were to be captured, she would likely be put to dead (again) and probably found guilty on every crime she is expected to be connected to out of principle. Ironically, the Paladin hunting her has believed her to be death for a long time (which was true), and has only recently discovered that the vigilante "Wraith" may have some connection to her sister who was murdered years ago; but the Paladin is currently in denial and frustration about it as she gets more and more evidence that points back to her sister (who was previously devout to the same religion which shunned undeath in all forms).

I'm pretty sure eventually the two will meet face to face with no where to run, and something is going to go down. "Wraith" more or less refuses to fight her sister, and has evaded her at every turn. Fortunately for the rest of the party (who aren't "officially" connected to the undead character beyond being conveniently nearby almost every time the Paladin arrives), she is more of an annoyance, and gets fed a lot of crap. She has threatened to run some of them up on charges of obstructing justice in some incidents where they "accidentally" allowed the wanted vigilante "Wraith" to escape (which she does by using a psionic power to gain concealment before vanishing off into the night using her very nice Stealth check, hence the alias).

But I digress. :P


In defense of the stupid high level npcs, I'm running an old school sandbox now that assumes a 1-20 world. Every hex has 3-7th level npcs and between 4 settlements there are 3 people 9th level or higher. This is with the largest settlement being 400 people.


First off remember that even the enemies are NPCs -- so if you have a level 20 villain he's still an NPC, which measn "stupid high level npcs" aren't so stupid anymore. Remember all it takes is one and then you have to justify having such a NPC in your world.

Also I would like to point out for the record that I never suggested NPCs should scale with the players -- I said that when a specific NPC was introduced that the description that was provided was correct according to what the PCs knew at that time, and that when they got to level 7 it would be incorrect from their new perspective.


Another aspect to the way I run my games, and I suspect most people do the same thing.

Just because you're level 10, doesn't mean you stop getting attacked by the occasional 1/3 CR or 1/6 CR bandit or goblin or rabid wolf. What it means is, that you dispatch the thing out of hand, no more complicated than killing a rat or scorpion in your sleeping bag. It's so routine that it's not worth XP anymore (yes, I know that's a houserule, but it's the only thing that makes sense, since it has to be a CHALLENGE to give you XP).

However, since we're here to tell the story of the PCs, we gloss over all the mundane stuff like bathroom breaks, or something 5 or more CRs less than the party, or eating for the most part.

The only times those come into play is when it's important to the story, like finding the bathroom in the king's palace during the ball without revealing you're crashing the masquerade ball. :)


I'm actually very similar in style. If there is a long trek and there could be some encounters that were too easy, I just tell the party what they dealt with. Sometimes I'll play it out, my players like an orc-bash every now and then. Sometimes they'll surprise me with their role playing. There was a time when they decided that the goblins weren't worth the time to beat up but they ended up convincing them to not raid the town they were headed to. I gave them a little XP for the role playing.


mdt wrote:
However, since we're here to tell the story of the PCs, we gloss over all the mundane stuff like bathroom breaks, or something 5 or more CRs less than the party, or eating for the most part.

This made me laugh, 'cause it reminded me of a colorful scene this one time. When the players arrived back in a camp that had a few NPCs, but one of them was missing. One of the players asked where the missing NPC was, to which the other NPC said "I think he's off taking a piss".

For some reason, the look on their faces was very amusing. ^.^


Ashiel wrote:

... On the NPC gallery table, we can see the lowest CR dude is in fact a trained footsoldier; warrior 1; CR 1/3. That is, a trained military soldier ready for battle. This guy is pretty much to be expected. He follows the expectancy of your average soldier's power.

A squire; aristocrat 1; CR 1/3 is also fair. It's a nice example of using a class that implies one thing to represent another (aristocrat vs squire). So far so good...

I'm not going to read through all billion posts.

However, I would say a large part of the problem is right here. These 2 already don't match.

The squire is actually pretty good. A squire is a very young adult being given an opprotunity to learn. In medieval terms say 13 to 14 year old noble's son.

However, the trained footsoldier is (IMO) wrong. A warrior 1 should be a guy who has been practicing with his dad (or uncle) getting ready for apply to join the military. Be cause there is nothing less than level 1. There needs to be a progression from the dude just applying (lv 1), the guy finished with his training (lv 2), the experienced guard who has been doing the job for the last 5 years (lv 3), and the veteran soldier who has been in the thick of combat throughout the war (lv 4). With PF the only way to show that is levels gained.

As I recall the base legends, the goblins are dangerous because there are hordes of them not because any 1 of them was a better fighter than a human soldier. The stats and dark vision of an orc make them about as dangerous as a average stat level 2 warrior.

You need the same kind of progression for beggars. My reading indicates this often started with an 8 year old poor kid. Since there is nothing below level 1. Level 1 has to represent the weakest starting beggar. If you get up to a fellow who is a 20 year old beggar. I don't think it is unreasonable to say he has gained a level in a class by surviving in that very dangerous environment.

I think this works. I think that saying the standard army is made up of level 1 warriors is the part that doesn't work.


I disagree with handing out a bunch of levels to soldiers. How many guys can beat a dozen other guys?


If you look at the sample army I built, I didn't hand out a bunch of levels to soldiers. The high majority are level 1 and nearly the entire army is level 5 or below (just over 99%). There isn't any need to hand out a bunch of levels for an army and it wouldn't really be plausible.


I have to go to work so I don't have time to read through the entire thread right now however I have to say I'm one of the people who think this makes sense. Bear in mind for this I work off a theory that in 3.x/PF level 10 is meant to be a master and level 20 a grandmaster unlike in earlier editions where level 7 was probably close to mastery and level 15/16 grandmastery. Anyway consider the following for those classes which bother you. . .

Solidiers = your average trained military force.
Begger = an ex adventurer who is no longer able to handle the strain and begs.
Caravan Guard: On their way to becoming an adventurer because they have to fight off gnolls, goblins and other threats while the average soldier just trains in the barracks.
Drunkards: Are actually adventurers blowing their latest paycheck.
Barmaids/Barkeeps: Have spent the past 20 years dealing with highly skilled drunkards/adventurers.

And so on, don't think of it in a vacumn think about who these people normally interact with. Shopkeeper X who sells fine clothes is probably not that big a threat but Shopkeeper Y who sells stuff that draws in surly hulking fighters and powerful wizards who tend to take the view that they should get a massive discount for the work they do and light fingered thieves who like to pick up items on the side well they're going to try and pick up some skills themself so even if they can't protect their stock they'll survive the experience. I had one group who wound up with the kingds elite battlemages CR 12 chasing after them because they'd been slaughtering a bunch of merchants to try and extract information when they were the good guys.


Liam Warner wrote:
I had one group who wound up with the kingds elite battlemages CR 12 chasing after them because they'd been slaughtering a bunch of merchants to try and extract information when they were the good guys.

?!??!? ERROR. ERROR. DOES NOT COMPUTE. ?!??!?


So, popping in to say two things.

First: my wife wishes it to be known (though I don't think she knows of this thread) that the NPC segment of the guide is, like, one of her most favorite print things ever created in the history of ever, for D&D 3.X/Pathfinder. No, I don't really understand it either. I figured this was a great place for that information to go. She likes the ease of predefined people with no name or real history, so-to-speak, and that allows her to create her own story without doing all the background math which she fines boring (she's fine with math, but too much NPCing isn't fun for her). She's used them to good effect in no less than three adventures that we've put together. So, you know, they function. Pretty well too. Universally, however, they are the rather notable, named NPCs with specific in-game functions that are relevant to the story, not the run-of-the-mill people the characters interact with.

Second: Man, that king's got a lot of levels on 'im. I mean: whoa, wow, duuuuuuuuuuuude. That's huge.

In other words, I mostly agree with Ashiel in the sense that these stats don't really make sense in terms of game-world. They seem and feel rather ridiculously inflated, and the sheer power they represent is overwhelming for an "average" member. I understand what Abraham's saying - and he makes great points about it, too. It's just fabulously shocking to be flipping through what I expect to be typical (the colloquial definition of "average") and instead find numerically average (despite what it says on the tin). I find the use of terms a bit misleading in that way.

One other way to look at it: Razmir is successfully masquerading as a god - he has a functional cult, rules a swath of land larger than most monarchs (I think only three actually match him), and people are worshiping him for his power... and he's 17th level. The king, as-presented? He's 16th level. I grant, they're in completely different classes: one's a wizard (PC-class) and one's an aristocrat (NPC-class) and that makes up a lot of the difference in terms of power. It's still somewhat shocking to see.

That said: I'm not terribly upset about it. It functions, it allows things to happen in the story, and if you're pressed for time, but need something, it's an easy go-to to pull stuff out of thin air. If you put time and effort into it, as Abe's shown us, you can justify it rather simply. I don't particularly like the way it was handled... but I've seen it be useful and loved by others (specifically my wife), so you know, as you like (or don't - it's up to you!).

* Addendum: I mean, just look at Eberron, for example. I can't think of any ruler except a centuries old vampire that's above 7th level. There are higher level PCs, of course, but the actual monarchs themselves aren't nearly so high. I do grant that Eberron's a lower-level world. Also, Forgotten Realms runs things pretty high, so I could easily see these guys fitting in there as-described.


Eberron was funky in the fact that it was a high magic functioning world where no one could manage to make the magical technology they relied on.


Actually they could. Artificers could to amazing stuff. NONETHELESS that's a bit off topic, though if you'd care to talk about it more, I'd be glad if you opened a thread to do so! (and then told me)


Tacticslion wrote:

So, popping in to say two things.

First: my wife wishes it to be known (though I don't think she knows of this thread) that the NPC segment of the guide is, like, one of her most favorite print things ever created in the history of ever, for D&D 3.X/Pathfinder. No, I don't really understand it either. I figured this was a great place for that information to go. She likes the ease of predefined people with no name or real history, so-to-speak, and that allows her to create her own story without doing all the background math which she fines boring (she's fine with math, but too much NPCing isn't fun for her). She's used them to good effect in no less than three adventures that we've put together. So, you know, they function. Pretty well too. Universally, however, they are the rather notable, named NPCs with specific in-game functions that are relevant to the story, not the run-of-the-mill people the characters interact with.

Actually this was my beef with it. I think it would be wonderful to have a lot of premade NPCs that new GMs (or GMs on a tighter schedule) can reference for all kinds of stats. I just would have liked to have seen it more usable. Like you pointed out, they fail at what they are supposed to be - typical examples.

I think I would have liked to see more usable NPCs. A nix mixture of low level NPCs plus some NPCs that could be dropped into games as allies or enemies.

I think the thought was great. I've put together little NPC booklets for some friends of mine by request, so they could have a little NPC-gallery of quick-to-reference stats that they could use to represent all kinds of people, or look up the mods for a shopkeeper's appraise skill, etc. I just think that the stats don't make much sense.

Abraham Spalding wrote:
Eberron was funky in the fact that it was a high magic functioning world where no one could manage to make the magical technology they relied on.
Tacticslion wrote:
Actually they could. Artificers could to amazing stuff. NONETHELESS that's a bit off topic, though if you'd care to talk about it more, I'd be glad if you opened a thread to do so! (and then told me)

I think there were some items that required strangely high caster levels in Eberron, given the nature of the world. Humorously in Pathfinder this isn't an issue because you don't have to be the caster level of the magic item to create it. It just means the creation of the item is more difficult (higher Spellcraft DC). Combine that with the ability to ignore spell requirements by raising the DC and you're in good shape.

For example, a 3rd level adept with Craft Wondrous Items, a good Intelligence (say 14), and skill focus would be able to take 10 and get a 10 + 6 + 2 + 3 = 21. Masterwork tool makes 23. Then he could also have assistants helping with the project. If you wanted to try and craft an Airship, you could probably get quite a few people working on it, and that means Aid Another for another +2 per person who can hit DC 10 on their aid another.

Just thought that was a bit cute, so I wanted to throw it out there. ^-^


Tacticslion wrote:
Actually they could. Artificers could to amazing stuff. NONETHELESS that's a bit off topic, though if you'd care to talk about it more, I'd be glad if you opened a thread to do so! (and then told me)

Exactly what Ashiel said, check the caster level requirements -- that is where the problem lies.

@ Ashiel:

I feel that the vast majority of the examples provided were fine. The huge majority of them were rather low level -- I'll grant the king is probably a bit out of line, but I don't think he's horrendously so, or not matching the other 'royalty' that has been given levels in the Golarion setting (Kingmaker for example has that one king, and in inner sea magic we see other rulers of higher level too).


Ashiel wrote:
Actually this was my beef with it. I think it would be wonderful to have a lot of premade NPCs that new GMs (or GMs on a tighter schedule) can reference for all kinds of stats. I just would have liked to have seen it more usable. Like you pointed out, they fail at what they are supposed to be - typical examples.

You keep declaring this like it's a fact but the simple fact is that these are typical (read: "common" since that's the exact word used in the book). They don't fit your idea of what should be, but they are what the developers feel they should be. Since they are the ones who are actually writing the game, I think their opinion on what's "common" carries far more weight.

Quote:
I think I would have liked to see more usable NPCs. A nix mixture of low level NPCs plus some NPCs that could be dropped into games as allies or enemies.

That's pretty much what they did except you don't find them personally usable. As was pointed out many times in this thread (and I'm sure others), they are very usable to many people. Looking through all the various NPCs throughout Pathfinder, it looks like there are already a bunch of low-level NPCs that start to look like clones because of the limited options of low-level characters. I wonder if you would have a different opinion if you looked at CR instead of levels?


I'm in the "like it" camp. Higher level NPCs don't bother me at all. PCs get xp by fighting monsters and getting treasure. NPCs get xp by being commoners and kings. They don't live by the same rules as the PCs. They're not the stars of the show, they're usually bit players, and only the important ones are remembered at all.

I just don't buy the "Einstein was 5th level" argument. In a fantasy world, there could be 20th level commoners. They're extremely good at being common, and not much of a threat to anyone, normally.

A king should be high level. He runs a kingdom. The position may be inherited, but it's kept by being smart and skilled. He gets king xp for good kinging.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Actually this was my beef with it. I think it would be wonderful to have a lot of premade NPCs that new GMs (or GMs on a tighter schedule) can reference for all kinds of stats. I just would have liked to have seen it more usable. Like you pointed out, they fail at what they are supposed to be - typical examples.

You keep declaring this like it's a fact but the simple fact is that these are typical (read: "common" since that's the exact word used in the book). They don't fit your idea of what should be, but they are what the developers feel they should be. Since they are the ones who are actually writing the game, I think their opinion on what's "common" carries far more weight.

Quote:
I think I would have liked to see more usable NPCs. A nix mixture of low level NPCs plus some NPCs that could be dropped into games as allies or enemies.
That's pretty much what they did except you don't find them personally usable. As was pointed out many times in this thread (and I'm sure others), they are very usable to many people. Looking through all the various NPCs throughout Pathfinder, it looks like there are already a bunch of low-level NPCs that start to look like clones because of the limited options of low-level characters. I wonder if you would have a different opinion if you looked at CR instead of levels?

Not really. CR is a measure of overall difficulty to defeat in combat. Level is a hard measure of what you are capable of in terms of raw statistics. For example, a 6th level warrior is roughly CR 3-4. (depending on whether you use the Core or Bestiary CR guidelines), but his BAB is still going to be +6/+1, 33 base HP, and his maximum ranks in a skill will be 6.

As many others have pointed out, most exceptionally mundane characters don't need large statblocks, but special characters might. Especially those you might use as heroes, villains, and so forth. I just don't really see using a 5th level warrior bartender as that, nor see why the typical drunk is more dangerous than your typical solider, etc. Just breaks my verisimilitude.

I would have rather seen some stuff like...
Elite Hitman (Warrior 5 / Assassin 3), Battlemage (Wizard 5 / Warrior 4), Sage with Familiar (Expert 3 / Adept 2), Warlord (Warrior 10 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 2), Necromancer Lord (cleric 3 / wizard 3 / mystic theurge 10), Manhunter (Ranger 1/Warrior 4/Assassin 1), Grand Vizier (Bard 7 / Adept 2), Cultist (Expert 1 / Cleric 3), Warpriest (Warrior 4 / Cleric 5), Wandering Weaponmaster (Fighter 4 / Warrior 6), etc, etc, etc.

If you use the Bestiary guidelines for determining CR, most of those are CR 8 or less, and most of them can be quickly grabbed and used as good guys, bad guys, or dudes in between.

EDIT: Actually, there's not much point in my talking about it. I will write a pdf booklet of NPCs and post it on the forums when it is done. That way I can give to everyone.


So the Expert 4/Warrior 1 with the massive +3 to hit with his sap is a problem? He's an incredible CR 3. As it says, he is used to some fighting in his establishment.

This is the description of the drunkard:

Quote:
Drunkards might be used as common sailors on shore leave, young country boys visiting town for the first time who can't hold their liquor, or drunk and disreputable off-duty guardsmen. A drunkard could even be used as a surly barkeep who samples his own wares a little too often.

The stats actually do seem to fit that description. I think that the disconnect is that you have looked only at the numbers and not at what those numbers are supposed to represent.


Eh, it still feels a bit off to me too, and I know we're not the only two. As mentioned, there's plenty of people who feel differently, but simply saying "nah, you're just wrong"... well, that also feels wrong. I probably wouldn't make a large thing like Ash did in the OP, but it still feels and looks really out-there relative to the way it's presented: it seems very artificially high.

Also: Einstein was totes 5th-6th level, in game terms (a base DC of 10 for knowledge in our world is very different from a base DC of 10 in the PF one - knowledge is much more prevalent and open to all in general, due to basic education). I'd definitely stand with the Alexandrian blog on that. Of course, Einy was also totes lacking in any character levels whatsoever, 'cause, dudes, he's real and this is game. :D

Re: Eberron, artificers have artificially high caster levels for meeting prerequisites. THAT SAID, it's totally off topic and I'll just accept that some items have unusually high CLs for the setting. I'm not recalling them right now, but them's the breaks. I'll have to check stuff later (unless Ash really wants his thread jacked more).

Tangentially related to the tangent: I've come to the conclusion that PF actually makes a better 3.0 Forgotten Realms than the 3.0 Forgotten Realms, too (in most cases), in the same way it makes Eberron more Eberron-y/capable of existing. Everything just functions better with PF in place and makes more sense (presupposing 3.X prestige classes were allowed in specific instances, that is).


Tacticslion wrote:

Re: Eberron, artificers have artificially high caster levels for meeting prerequisites. THAT SAID, it's totally off topic and I'll just accept that some items have unusually high CLs for the setting. I'm not recalling them right now, but them's the breaks. I'll have to check stuff later (unless Ash really wants his thread jacked more).

I like taking the scenic route too. I don't mind my thread taking a few twists and turns now and again, as long as there's conversation. Also, I believe the airships and some of the weapons and armor (most any of the elemental binding stuff) was generally CL 9+, in a world where the biggest baddest dudes were 10th level at the beginning of the campaign (though it did note that they could creep up with level a bit if you needed them to, as ongoing pro/antagonists).

Quote:
Tangentially related to the tangent: I've come to the conclusion that PF actually makes a better 3.0 Forgotten Realms than the 3.0 Forgotten Realms, too (in most cases), in the same way it makes Eberron more Eberron-y/capable of existing. Everything just functions better with PF in place and makes more sense (presupposing 3.X prestige classes were allowed in specific instances, that is).

Yeah pretty much. Pathfinder's not perfect, but it really does a lot of stuff far better than 3.x did. The largest differences being the minor ones, like the way skills are distributed, magic item creation, and so forth.


I have to say that I see where Ash is coming from. PCs whom the book states "are special" are supposed to be better than some random commoner. If you start out at 1st level and are brutally outmatched by "some young country boy who can barely hold their liquor", you're not very special, are you.

It be a very different case if "trained guards" were above level 1, as a country boy could very well become a trained guard. In that case, why the heck do PCs even start at level 1? Do they get extra levels if they have a backstory or if they start off older? I mean the PCs are supposed to be special, according to the book, so shouldn't they start off better than "some young country boy"?

In comparison to the PCs, the stats do not make sense as "typical" people even in Golarion.

They might make sense as "reputable" people within a city, but not some average joe just walking around making a safe easy living.


These NPCs are the ones that have managed to do things that would have gained them XP. Looking over all the sample NPCs from a few different sources, I don't really see it as an issue. I don't think that the majority of these NPCs are going to matter in the long run anyway.

Dark Archive

It probably is best to ignore the notion that the GMG NPCs are meant to represent common or default versions of 'beggers' or 'barmaids' or whatever, and to be the one in a dozen that happens to be worth statting up anyway.

I've played since 1st edition, when a 9th level Fighter got his own keep and 200 men-at-arms or whatever, so, seeing that lame Epic city that they replaced Sigil with in 3.X (Union?), where the guard patrols were groups of a half-dozen 10th level Fighters (who apparently had nothing better to do, despite being mechanically able to defeat an army and take over their own nation-state and 'trod the jeweled thrones of the earth'), made my eyes roll so hard I still haven't found where they ended up.

I tend to downsize (and, occasionally, upsize) NPCs to make them *only* serve the plot role I have assigned for them. I don't much care whether or not it 'makes sense' that they should be higher (or lower) level. Elminster, in my Dales-centric Realms game, was an 8th level Diviner. He provided useful information, but couldn't teleport anywhere and save the day, because he wasn't powerful enough to cast that spell yet. The players even got to rescue him, once.

On the other hand, I don't use the Commoner or Warrior classes at all, and Adepts, Aristocrats and Experts use a faster XP track (and can 'pay the difference' and upgrade to big-boy pants PC classes, with the proper training). If I need stats for the barmaid, she's not going to be a 3rd level Commoner, that's for sure. That class is an insult to perfectly good experience points...


Set wrote:
I've played since 1st edition, when a 9th level Fighter got his own keep and 200 men-at-arms or whatever, so, seeing that lame Epic city that they replaced Sigil with in 3.X (Union?), where the guard patrols were groups of a half-dozen 10th level Fighters (who apparently had nothing better to do, despite being mechanically able to defeat an army and take over their own nation-state and 'trod the jeweled thrones of the earth'), made my eyes roll so hard I still haven't found where they ended up.

Union didn't replace Sigil. Sigil was still 'round. Union was just sort of an epic level version of it, though not nearly as cool.

151 to 190 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Gamemastery Guide NPCs (Rant Warning) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion