|
A few weeks back, our own Jonathan Drain noted the recurrent and unsolved issue of NPCs crafted from base races not providing a challenge sufficient to their suggested CR level.
Calling it the "elephant in the living room," Jonathan demonstrated how, at low levels, an NPC might be equivalent to a monster of the suggested CR- I believe he compares an orc or half-orc fighter (3rd level) to an ogre, and the two are basically equivalent, given sufficient armor and magical equipment.
But, as he notes, this equality soon breaks down, with mid-level NPCs only serving as fractional equivalents of their monstrous counterparts (a 7th fighter vs. a hill giant, a 10th sorceror vs. a rakshasa) and the high-level NPCs paling by comparison (a 16th fighter vs. a horned devil or a 16th cleric vs. a planetar).
Although rarely spoken of by most DMs, this imbalance causes many of us to prefer monsters (or even classed monsters) as our villains and major challenges to the party, with classed NPCs often serving secondary positions. In a way, we can't help but prefer the monsters, whoare generally more of a challenge, while also providing a more balanced quantity of treasure.
In the end, my opinion and proffered "solution" might not appeal to some, but I hope it can aid others who have wrestled with the "pachyderm of weak NPCs."
My idea is based off an optional rule, listed in the Epic Handbook, which notes that an NPC of 20th or greater might be treated as having a CR equal to their class level -2. As this option was based off the growing disparity of wealth between NPCs and PCs (a 20th level PC has over 3 times the wealth of a 20th level NPC), as well as the possibility of the PCs having Epic Spells, I thought it might serve as a suitable guideline for the lower levels.
Note: I am currently playtesting this idea in my current campaign, and thus do not promise it to be perfect. Also, it requires some finessing in encounter design and experience totals, as it will often produce NPCs with non-whole number CRs, i.e. CR 4.5, 6.5, 8.5, etc.
Proposal
-1st level wizards and sorcerors aside, we can generally assume that low-level NPCs provide an adequate challenge to the party (i.e. class level = CR), especially since equipment is generally equal between 1st-4th level. Thus, we make no changes.
-Once the party reaches 5th level, we subtract .5 (one-half) CR from all NPCs whose class levels are less or equal to the party's level. At this point, the party begins to have an edge against an NPC, especially in terms of accuracy/strength of attacks and their ACs, and a typical 1/2 CR creature can no longer provide any sort of challenge.
-Once the party hits 10th level, we subtract 1 CR from all NPCs of equal level or lower, and subtract .5 CR from those who exceed the party in class levels. Again, the party's talents are mounting, and their equipment is really setting them above the average NPC, even those who exceed them by 1-4 levels (I assume few DMs throw a NPC of 5 or greater levels vs. their party, at least not on any regular basis).
-At 15th level, we subtract 1.5 CR from all those equal or below and .75 (or .5 or 1 if you prefer easier math) from those above the party.
-Finally, at 20th level, all 20th or lower NPCs are 2 less CR (befitting the ~610,000 gp deficit in equipment) and those above the party are at -1 CR.
Notes:
-This progression can continue up at each and every 5th level interval, which I confess was an arbitrary determination set to fit the Epic Handbook's optional rule (-2 CR by 20th level).
- I would advocate that NPCs continue receiving the quantity of wealth suggested in the DMG, but that a GM follow the examples set in Dungeon and err on the side of consumable items.
-For classed monsters, subtract the racial HD from the PC level, resulting in the Effective Party Level, then calculate CR adjustments. (i.e. A 12th level party would treat a 12th lvl human fighter as CR 11 and a troglodyte with 11 fighter levels as CR 11.5, but would treat a hill giant with 5 barbarian levels as CR 12
(PC Level - Racial HD= Effective Party level vs. Monster class levels = CR adjustment or
{Human} 12 - 0 = 12 vs. 12 = -1 adjustment;
{Troglodyte} 12 - 2= 10 vs. 11= -.5 adjustment;
{Hill Giant} 12 - 12 = 0 vs. 3= 0 adjustment)
YMMV, but I hope this idea helps make the use of base race NPCS more viable at higher-levels. In my own revisings of Red Hand of Doom, I find it has fit the party's capabilities more ably than if I had used base CR, and generally requires only a few adjustments in the number of NPCs to follow the expected experience/EL curve.
Feedback and advice welcome.
I think that you are correct in your assumption that NPCs are not comparable to monsters of equivalent CRs at higher levels (of course, the calculations of CRs themselves become something of an issue at higher levels). Addressing it by using fractions or percentages of CRs is actually something used in 3rd Ed. (you earn 150% of the normal xp for this monster, etc), but done away with in 3.5. Using your method seems one positive step at addressing the situation, but it needs to be playtested (as you said yourself) to see if it bears out in the long run.
Regarding monsters, NPCs, and CR, I see some of the problems, as well as some of the possible solutions, as being the following:
1. Two words. Hit points. Like it or not hit points are the major form of currency in battle, and not having enough hit points makes for a poor opponent indeed. This is especially true of wizards, sorcerers, and even rogues and bards. Except for fey creatures, no monster gets less than a d8 and many get a d10 or a d12. Perhaps the hit points for these lesser classes should be upped by one die (wizards to d6 and rogues to d8). If I am running a combat heavy campaign I tend to give NPC humanoids feats like Improved Toughness and give them more than just average hit points for their class and level. With some NPC villains I give them maximum hit points.
2. Magical treasure. I think that while the NPC treasure values are fairly appropriate, consumable magic items should not be counted in the equation. Generally, a good NPC villain can use most of his consumable magic items either before or during combat. This is open to DM abuse, but if carefully handled can make for more challenging combats.
3. A warrior is pathetic compared to a fighter or ranger, so their CR should continue to worsen at higher levels. A 15th-level warrior should not be worth what a 14th-level fighter is worth in terms of XP, but instead have a CR of 11 or 12. By the same token a human NPC fighter of 14th-level is not as challenging as a hill giant with 7 levels of fighter. This is where your method makes perfect sense. In reality, the 14th-level fighter should have a CR of 12 or 13. Of course, as I have already said CR beyond about 5th-level starts getting more complicated and less realistic. James Jacob himself believes the CR system to be flawed. The solution to this problem might need to be a more structured CR system where everything can be looked at an evaluated, and refined on a case by case basis.
For example: A monster with damage reduction 10/silver should be worth +1 CR for that alone. damage reduction 10/silver and good should be worth +2 CR. If the PC have enough silver weapons to make this power obsolete then the +1 CR should be taken out of the equation. The same goes for a devil with a +2 CR for its damage reduction. If the players could successfully bypass its damage reduction, this +2 CR would be reduced by 1 or the whole ammount.
Mmmm... I was getting off track there, but I think that you cannot address the NPC level versus CR problem until you address the CR issue as a whole.
Some people might argue that CR is fine and to leave it alone, or that any good NPC wizard should have a bevvy of summoned minions or friends and be prepared, blah,blah,blah. I frankly disagree with both these viewpoints (though if people are happy with the CR system or use their own method for determining XP for their own games that's fine).
If anyone can understand any of my ramblings then more power to you. I think I said what I wanted to say. Whether I have made any sense in another thing ;)
I totally agree that assuming even NPC-Monster CRs across the board is just plain lazy. Against a mirror party of evil NPCs, a good party of PCs will invariably whipe the floor with them. Your solution is pretty simple...but why all the fractions of CRs? It would be disregarding the ELH suggestion of -2 CR at 21+ but have you considered upping the CR difference? -1 CR/5 levels, say?
Anyway, I recently came up with my own solution which is a lot more complicated than yours. I think that it's the best solution to this problem that I've yet seen but it can't be implemented mid-campaign because it totally revamps DMG wealth-by-level guidelines, item prices and even some items themselves. The idea is to make most items tattoos, because they cannot be looted off dead NPCs. With less lootable wealth, the DM is free to put NPC wealth exactly on par with PC wealth, without fearing that PC purses will grow too fat after defeating an NPC. I'm really happy about creating this new system but it won't be playtested until my next campaign.
As for NPC classes, I recommend simply not using them. A street thug or common soldier is simply a rogue or fighter with a standard ability array. Even a well trained and wealthy noble is merely a level 1 fighter with a lot of magic items. NPCs gain experience of course, but only in their particular fields of expertise. There's really no reason that an aged farmer should have 20 HD and a +10 BAB; he's just a wise old guy with a bunch of ranks in Profession (farming) and some other mundane skills. If I really feel the need to define him statistically (maybe he's skilled at repelling goblin raids), I'll give him a few more hp , a +1 BAB and proficiency with whatever weapons and armor I want to give him.
-TS
Agree with Tequila, except the weird tattoo thing unless it's dragonmark/magic/psion related. Maybe just restrict the PCs from completely looting corpses, ie Adventurer's Guild cut of 20% off dungeon loot or taxes. Not to mention frequent cutpurses or robbers/scavengers. I suppose an easy fix would be simply to draw up some NPCs exactly as you would PCs and some of them equivalent goods. Maybe not everyone, just the major villains. It would be fairly straightforward to increase NPC wealth per level as well.
Agree with Tequila, except the weird tattoo thing unless it's dragonmark/magic/psion related. Maybe just restrict the PCs from completely looting corpses, ie Adventurer's Guild cut of 20% off dungeon loot or taxes. Not to mention frequent cutpurses or robbers/scavengers.
The problem is that in order to maintain the proper wealth-per-encounter numbers (about 1/13 gold-per-level per character), -20% loot wouldn't solve the problem. Each NPC needs to be 4/13 lootable (-20% creates 10/13 lootable NPCs); any more and a DM needs to sbutract equivalent treasure from an adventure's monsters. I know that this tattoo idea is new and weird but I intend to playtest it in my homebrew, so I won't be stepping on the toes of any d&d canon material.
2) Remember the guideline on p. 282 of the (3.5) DMG, ie. Magic items requiring a certain alignment or class to use. Such items can have a market price of up to 30% less (or to put it another way, 0.7). If an evil NPC’s items require evil alignment to use, then 1 divided by 0.7 = 1.43, or 43% extra equipment! Just make sure that the equipment provides no magical benefit for non-evil creatures, and that Use Magic Device CAN’T mimic alignment.
3) Location restricted magic. It’s easy to conceive that magical equipment only works within, say, 1-10 miles (or whatever) of a certain location, primarily for anti-theft reasons. For example, the Tower of Fire Masters gives its guards Wands of Fireball; several miles away from the Tower, those wands are just pretty sticks. Of course, you’d have to give the NPCs some normal equipment (ie. that works anywhere), or you’re really going to annoy your players.
Both of these are somewhat problematic. Use Magic Device, while certainly useful, is a skill of really limited scope. Its sole purpose is to allow someone to use magic items that they couldn't normally use. To remove part of its function not only makes putting precious skill points seem, well, more pointless, but it's also not a method of wealth control that was abandoned by D&D 3.0 and 3.5.
As for the restricted location items... while these have their place (the Eberron modules introduce keycharms that are only useful one or more cannith holdings, but... they're just magical access cards, so..), are another throwback to methods that the new D&D rules abandoned, namely in the form of Drow magic items. They had such cool equipment, but if you ever left the underdark it was rendered useless. Often DMs would ignore this rule, and there was even a magic item (Ring of the Underdark, I think) that allowed one to use drow equipment anywhere. Anyway, it's one of those things that pretty much just screwed the players out of hard earned treasure. I'd be especially wary of using this to control treasure. Once in a while to give a location special flavor could be interesting, but more than that and you could risk a mutiny.
Tequila, three thoughts I’ve had about the wealth-per-level for NPCs.
1) Give the NPCs more consumable items (which are used before combat, like potions of magic vestment, greater magic weapon, etc.).
There are 4 reasons why I don't like this solution:
1: I have a very hard time remembering that my NPCs have consumables and to use them.2: If the NPC is caught off-guard, those cosumables will be useless.
3: Potions only allow 1-4 levels spells, so after the low-mid levels, this solution looses value.
4: Thinking from an NPC's perspective, who would prefer a consumable rather than 'the real deal' item? Yes, versatility is great but that NPC knows as well as a PC that the difference between slathering his sword with a magic oil and swinging an already magical sword is often the difference between life and death.
Nah, it's cool. Just thorwing around ideas at the moment hoping one is like "wow, that's so simple. why didn't i think of that?"
I pretty much do a simple "two NPC class levels = 1 CR". It works well enough, and is in keeping with how to calculate CRs for monsters with class levels that are not related to their base abilities.
And really, why even calculate XP for a 15th level commoner? "Congratulations, the very experienced farmer finally drops... everyone gains a level" just doesn't sound right.
|
|
I noticed this problem as well in my current campaign (I'm running through the Red Hand of Doom). I allowed my characters to use a high number point buy, and to use a roll 2, pick highest method for HP at level. I have modified pretty much every NPC encounter thus far in RHoD one way or another. For every NPC, I use the same HP method my PCs did. Suddenly, my level 3 fighter hobgoblins can actually stand up to more than a round of punishment from one of the level 6 party members. I often give the more interesting NPCs the elite array and when appropriate, advance them to more HD without bumping them in CR. Sometimes I change feats to make them more effective, also.
I don't know if it's common, but I suspect it is, for PCs to be allowed higher abilities and HP than most monsters as written in the MM, not to mention that they will most likely be tweaked using rules not contained in the core books (though this is not true of the NPC stats contained *in* the RHoD book -- it references monsters found in core books). My methods bring the monsters in-line with my high-powered characters, and it doesn't take a whole lot of time (make yourself a chart of the average values for the HP rolls and it goes very quickly). My methods are working great from levels 4-6. I have a modified CR 6 green dragon that the party has fought at levels 4, 5, and 6 (a total of 5 encounters with the dragon), and the dragon has not yet been dispatched. Had I not tweaked him, he would have died in the second or third encounter.
It's not much help with wizards (because d4s suck). I may institute the d6 method mentioned above (I think it is standard in Arcana Evolved).