| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| AleksanderTheGreat |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 09:10:54
... rather weak? I mean their stats. They are portrayed as being powerful heroes (Elminster and Drizzt the most) but their official stats don't show it.
I'm not saying thay they should have more levels or be better optimized but at least don't give them such lame stats.
I didn't have the chance to read any books about Drizzt but from what I read here on this boards he's supposedly a badass warrior who defeats thousand orcs and balors (demon lord or not). And in reality he would have quite a big trouble with a level appropriate encounter (which a balor is not). |
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 07 Apr 2011 : 06:22:19
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And yet at the gaming table the measurement of power is illustrated in levels, stats, feats, and items. Not saying the Shepard's story wouldn't be awesome to hear about nor do I believe Larloch is the ultimate force and nigh indestructable since we've heard very little about him in recent lore. But when this stuff matters is when we're playing the game. So using that context, many of the NPCs written up over the last decade (most of which was written using 3.0 rules) are sub-par when it comes to character creation.
-All true, but that doesn't justify the philosophy of PCs being more powerful than NPCs because they're PCs, and not NPCs (when it comes to those iconic personages in the setting). Being central to a story =/= relative power (in D&D terms), and being relatively powerful =/= being central to a story. |
| althen artren |
Posted - 07 Apr 2011 : 00:38:06
But I like being the bully, Markus.
I mead come on, somebody has to be the
foe for all those PC's out there, and Ill
volunteer.  |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 21:53:39
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Right.
The level 0 shepherd boy who discovers a planer rift which is about to be used by an insanely powerful evil army of psudofiends and manages to grab the control-device, sacrificing himself but saving the Realms in the process, just became the savior of the world.
And no-one ever knew about it.
Some of the most powerful beings on Toril don't concern themselves with 'outside matters' and keep to themselves, affecting the realms not a whit, whereas some of the least powerful perform 'great deeds' every single day, because they are heroes.
Being a hero isn't about power.... I wish people would understand that. If you are level 45 with 27 artifacts in your pocket that wins every fight, you are not a hero... you're a bully.
And yet at the gaming table the measurement of power is illustrated in levels, stats, feats, and items. Not saying the Shepard's story wouldn't be awesome to hear about nor do I believe Larloch is the ultimate force and nigh indestructable since we've heard very little about him in recent lore. But when this stuff matters is when we're playing the game. So using that context, many of the NPCs written up over the last decade (most of which was written using 3.0 rules) are sub-par when it comes to character creation. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 19:26:15
Right.
The level 0 shepherd boy who discovers a planer rift which is about to be used by an insanely powerful evil army of psudofiends and manages to grab the control-device, sacrificing himself but saving the Realms in the process, just became the savior of the world.
And no-one ever knew about it.
Some of the most powerful beings on Toril don't concern themselves with 'outside matters' and keep to themselves, affecting the realms not a whit, whereas some of the least powerful perform 'great deeds' every single day, because they are heroes.
Being a hero isn't about power.... I wish people would understand that. If you are level 45 with 27 artifacts in your pocket that wins every fight, you are not a hero... you're a bully. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 18:39:17
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
No its just that PCs are (and should be) more powerful (they are the stars of the home campaign).
-Unless they're not. Being the star of your individual D&D game =/= being more powerful than X NPC. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 06 Apr 2011 : 15:36:33
quote:
Originally posted by AleksanderTheGreat
... rather weak? I mean their stats. They are portrayed as being powerful heroes (Elminster and Drizzt the most) but their official stats don't show it.
I'm not saying thay they should have more levels or be better optimized but at least don't give them such lame stats.
I didn't have the chance to read any books about Drizzt but from what I read here on this boards he's supposedly a badass warrior who defeats thousand orcs and balors (demon lord or not). And in reality he would have quite a big trouble with a level appropriate encounter (which a balor is not).
No its just that PCs are (and should be) more powerful (they are the stars of the home campaign). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 18:37:28
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Sounds like a nifty idea, but Wizards would never publish it -- not with older edition stats, and certainly not with Pathfinder stats! 
Sadly your correct. Any correlation between Paizo and WotC would probably never happen.
But that doesn't mean we as the saple-point in the FR community can't do something similar here.
Individuals could do something like this; re-statting existing NPCs is a popular thing, I've noticed. But I've also noticed -- and this even applies to official write-ups -- that everytime a character is detailed, there are people that think another class/level/kit/PrC/template/race/whatever combo would be better, either to be an "optimal build" or because something in this other sourcebook seems to fit better than this thing from this first sourcebook. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 13:23:17
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Sounds like a nifty idea, but Wizards would never publish it -- not with older edition stats, and certainly not with Pathfinder stats!
Sadly your correct. Any correlation between Paizo and WotC would probably never happen.
But that doesn't mean we as the saple-point in the FR community can't do something similar here. I just worry if this falls into the same baddy-bad area that the compendiums are in? I'd be down for doing at least the Pathfinder and/or 4E stat blocks of the major character, dead or not. So even dead characters in 4E time would still get a stat block. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 11:21:12
sfdragon, I think you've got it wrong. They don't want to kill them for their stuff. That's just a bonus. If all they wanted was the stuff it's easy enough to come up with a plotline that boils down to "[Character] lost his/her signature weapon and [Player character] found it and picked it up." They want to fight and kill them because they don't like(and in some cases, outright hate) them. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 11:15:23
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
You know, I think it'd be a great pet-project to publish a fully colored Forgotten Realms supplement that details all the major NPCs with their stats, motivations, current location, etc. I know there was something called the Villians Lorebook or some such and there is also the Epic Level Handbook but that's not really where I'm going with this idea.
The best feature about this supplement would be the fact that each NPC is statted using 2e/AD&D, 3e (official stats re-print), v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E. Each NPC would probably take up 4-5 pages (front and back) with the stats of all of those versions of D&D and a little tid-bit about the lore from each era of play, where and what that NPC is doing during each edition, and ideas on integrating him into your game. This would appeal to pretty much any Realms fan as it pertains to all the big editions of play. And you then do this for, ohh I dunno, the top 20 NPCs of the setting? Make it a big hard-cover book called Forgotten Realms: The Greatest Heroes and Villains of Faerūn. I'd buy it.
Sounds like a nifty idea, but Wizards would never publish it -- not with older edition stats, and certainly not with Pathfinder stats! |
| Quale |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 11:01:19
Hardly any of the full stats published during 3e were useful, Storm? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 10:49:13
You know, I think it'd be a great pet-project to publish a fully colored Forgotten Realms supplement that details all the major NPCs with their stats, motivations, current location, etc. I know there was something called the Villians Lorebook or some such and there is also the Epic Level Handbook but that's not really where I'm going with this idea.
The best feature about this supplement would be the fact that each NPC is statted using 2e/AD&D, 3e (official stats re-print), v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E. Each NPC would probably take up 4-5 pages (front and back) with the stats of all of those versions of D&D and a little tid-bit about the lore from each era of play, where and what that NPC is doing during each edition, and ideas on integrating him into your game. This would appeal to pretty much any Realms fan as it pertains to all the big editions of play. And you then do this for, ohh I dunno, the top 20 NPCs of the setting? Make it a big hard-cover book called Forgotten Realms: The Greatest Heroes and Villains of Faerūn. I'd buy it. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 05:15:26
the only other reason people like fully stated npcs is the lets kill 'em and take their stuff mentality.
that and the I hate how this character killed off such race mentality
I'd take the class lvl and name..
if you stat it, some where, someone wants to kill it just for the stuff.
hmmm I did not know that GK... I like that one better.... (being taht I dont like the npc/mpnter stat block for 4e non monster npcs or the chort block) |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 04:51:17
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I've often been somewhere in the middle of this debate. For prominent NPCs, I'd expect a full and complete stat-block. For background NPCs and characters who probably only receive the briefest amount of attention, I'd prefer the shortened stat-block.
-That's pretty much how it was in the the FRCS. Drizzt, Elminster, Entreri, a bunch of other "main literary characters" had full stats, along with a few random other characters. All other mentions of NPCs and their stats were of the abbreviated variety. The reason I don't like the extended entries is that they are too concrete in a ruleset that "prides" itself on choice and adaptability and change. You have Drizzt's official stats, and until they make an official redo, he's stuck with certain weapons, certain abilities, certain things on his official write-up that may not fit as well with the character as future weapons/items/feats/abilities/spells/whatever might provide.
-Plus, as mentioned, in the entire page or so it takes to write these extended stat entries, you can have an extra page about whatever the book it's in is about. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 03:30:48
I never liked that banal campaign style either, GK, nor the sorts of players who are invariably attracted to it.
Having said that, I will confess to having entertained "Kill Cyric" campaign notions. I'll also confess that my already low opinion of Cyric actually managed to plummet further when I first saw his published stats ("that pathetic useless feeble stupid little unworthy squirt was selected to replace 2½ cool gods?"). Unsurprisingly, Cyric's cult was never able to completely displace the old Myrkul and Bane religions in my world. Perhaps this wouldn't be the case if Cyric had better stats (and a non-dorky portrait). Perhaps. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 03:13:30
I like the "old Grey Box" take on NPCs. Depending on the needs of your game and campaign, they can (and mostly should) be at least 10 levels higher than the highest level PC in your group. Nice and simple. If you are running a level 20 epic campaign, then Elminster is a 30-35th level wizard. That is, if NPC stats are necessary at all. The "I kill Elminster" campaign is such a cheesy constant since 1987 that it really has IMO become totally banal.
-- George Krashos |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 02:15:26
I'm inclined to agree with your view, Sage ... but I feel all the essential stats (that is, all the random/assigned values you can't figure out) should exist for every NPC who's worth more than a name. I'd like to see more prominent NPCs have some unique or "special" rules/feat/trick (ą la 1E/2E Drizzt's "instant kill" percentage, for example), something unique that no (almost) other character in the Realms can do. But only if it doesn't go overboard and start layering on piles of powers or "Chosen" templates and the like or just turning every 20+ NPC into a walking battleship. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 01:47:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-I, personally, like the shorthand statblock, myself. Give me the race of an NPC, their class, and their level, and I'm good. I don't need a page and a half dedicated to a full Drizzt statblock, but appreciate that, in D&D terms, he'd be a Drow Ranger 16, or whatever.
I very much agree with this... Particularly since more than once during the 3.x era, official stats either had errors in them or didn't match the description of the character. And all of those stat-blocks could have been filled with Realmslore, instead.
I've often been somewhere in the middle of this debate. For prominent NPCs, I'd expect a full and complete stat-block. For background NPCs and characters who probably only receive the briefest amount of attention, I'd prefer the shortened stat-block. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 00:56:12
Yeah, that was one of my minor beefs, too. I learned to live with it, however, and in some cases, I even like having them, just to get an idea of characters I've read about or even those I've never read in novels. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Apr 2011 : 00:46:17
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-I, personally, like the shorthand statblock, myself. Give me the race of an NPC, their class, and their level, and I'm good. I don't need a page and a half dedicated to a full Drizzt statblock, but appreciate that, in D&D terms, he'd be a Drow Ranger 16, or whatever.
I very much agree with this... Particularly since more than once during the 3.x era, official stats either had errors in them or didn't match the description of the character. And all of those stat-blocks could have been filled with Realmslore, instead. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 23:26:27
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
A better question is Why are there NPC stats in these sorts of books? I mean, unless you plan on going toe-to-toe with Elminster or Drizzt then why have a section dedicated to them in the first place?
-Cause some people do? And, you know that if such stats weren't included, there'd be a general decry that WotC did not give these characters official stats, as is/was the case with plenty of NPCs.
-I, personally, like the shorthand statblock, myself. Give me the race of an NPC, their class, and their level, and I'm good. I don't need a page and a half dedicated to a full Drizzt statblock, but appreciate that, in D&D terms, he'd be a Drow Ranger 16, or whatever. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 21:42:39
As a matter of point, a lot of people do want to go head to head with Elminster and Drizzt. A lot of people hate both characters with a passion and relish the thought of killing them in horrific ways.
4e gives both write ups as bosses. Drizzt has a comparable write up to some deities(in length). So no, wouldn't say they're too weak. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 21:06:52
A better question is Why are there NPC stats in these sorts of books? I mean, unless you plan on going toe-to-toe with Elminster or Drizzt then why have a section dedicated to them in the first place?
I think this is a big reason why we didn't see any such thing in the 4E Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, because the majority of Realms players aren't bent on killing off NPCs and the like. So a DM really has no use for those stats unless said NPC might be trying to help the players, and even in that instance, why not just RP what said NPC is doing and leave it at that?
I think this is one area that I'm very much approve of designe change within the game as NPCs/Monsters aren't built in the same capasity that players are built. As you create a monster or NPC, you can add in cool powers that relate to that character without having to jump through hoops and class levels or abilities just to get that one class feature that allows shadow jaunt or death attack or etc... Now, Elminster can have Sneak Attack without having to worry about taking x-levels of Rogue. He could also have a power or two that allows for healing or even a Channel Divinity (4E's verison of turn undead ability) that reflects his character's time as a cleric but not be required to have that reflected in this stat-array.
NPCs don't follow a mold like PCs do because they're taken from books, non-game materail, TV shows, cartoons, etc. and may not work with a specific class or PrC. So in this instance, I think it's silly to conform these characters to a set parameter just because some rule says so. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 16:56:30
We all have our preference in playstyle and balance, as do D&D designers and authors. Some play Monte Cook, others play Monty Haul, Monty Hall, Monte Carlo, Monty Python, Monte Cristo, Montessori, or Montezuma. There's many kinds of Monte. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 15:51:45
-That's thinking in D&D terms. Novels are framed in reality, for a lack of better words. In D&D, you slice someone's throat with a dagger, they take 1d4+STR damage, or whatever. In reality, you slice someone's throat with a dagger, they die. In D&D, when faced against 1,000 Orcs, you get X amounts of attacks per round. In reality, in those six to ten seconds that a D&D round is supposed to represent, whatever you can do, you do. In D&D, a Balor would be an almost impossible challenge for a Level 15 character, or whatever Drizzt is/was. In reality, anything that can die (in whatever context of the word 'die', since this is D&D here, with semi-immortal creatures existing) can be killed with enough ingenuity and skill, be it a lowly Troglodyte or a powerful Balor. Authors have artistic license to allow their characters to do things that the D&D stats say they might not be able to do, or even outright can't do. Authors are authors, not game designers; I don't think that WotC would allow an author to get away with doing something that drastically goes against the grain of the general framework of how things work that the D&D rules provide without explanation (ie, Drizzt can randomly fly now, without being a magician, having an item, or some other explanation), but they have full control over the details in their books, and how they describe them. If that means that, in a minute, Drizzt can kill 20 Orcs, whereas, according to his D&D stats, he'd only be able to kill 15, so be it. That's how artistic license works. Novels would be a lot more boring, if you ask me, and a hell of a lot harder to write, if every niggling detail had to toe-the-line to the D&D rules of the moment.
-A lot of level weirdness that published NPCs also have reflects the fact that some have been around for decades, and multiple editions of the D&D rules. Take, for example, Elminster. Growing up, he was a bit of an adventurous rogue, then a priest(ess), then a fledgling magician, then a mighty wizard. His 3e stats in the FRCS tried to reflect that by including levels in Rogue and Cleric, asides for Wizard. Then, the Epic Level Handbook came out, and his stats were again redone, to take into account that he's an Epic Level Wizard. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Apr 2011 : 12:19:32
And thats the inherit problem with trying to make a character from literature and force them to adhere to a set of game rules. Much like fitting a round peg into a square hole. The writers arent under any conract to write within the rules of any one specific edition or even game. They do so to give the reader a sense of continunity, a comparison to the current rules for that game/novel relationship. But if a writer does wholly conform to the rules, I strongly feel the novel would suffer more for it.
That being said, I think the 3e stats for many of the NPC in the campaign setting are done so with little synergy in mind to actually optimized characters. |
|
|
