Or as the DM decides. And then the DM consults the books and looks for some NPCs to struggle with (politically) but cannot find one, for the new design philosophy says that good guys don't need published stats (as if the new minimalized stats give anything not combat related). So if the DM hasn't much time to figure out something good enough he maybe will go on with some fights instead.
What does a DM really need, though? Does he really need a fully-statted out NPC, or does he just need to roleplay the NPC? Maybe DC's for skill checks and the like? DC's which're already built into the game. So there you go. Simple.
Not as if that's new, either. A great many DM's don't use published settings. They use their own homebrew worlds, and there are no NPC's in the core books for them to use. In which case they have to make things up for themselves. So it's not as if we're talking about a wholly new issue, here, as DM's have been able to run NPC's for years without having to rely on campaign setting books to give them NPC's for them to run.
That's right, yes. But combat is given more respect than anything else, with the new rule set. (e.g. just abilities that matter in combat situations will be integrated in the stats; and the skills are too minimalized)
A great deal of what PC classes could do in prior editions also revolved around combat. So once again, nothing new there. As for skills, a lot of them are more useful, and many characters get more skills then they could, before, so characters tend to be more useful in noncombat situations nowadays. Especially the Fighter.
Irrelevant. Just because the PC's are poor it doesn't matter if the NPC's are poor, too?
Not wholly irrelevant, as the adventure in question, Escape from Sembia, isn't an accurate representation of what they're going with. As I pointed out, it was designed around demonstrating the combat system and skill challenge system to PC's. Holding it up as an example of the way things are isn't an accurate assessment at all.
A great many DM's don't use published settings. They use their own homebrew worlds, and there are no NPC's in the core books for them to use. In which case they have to make things up for themselves. So it's not as if we're talking about a wholly new issue, here, as DM's have been able to run NPC's for years without having to rely on campaign setting books to give them NPC's for them to run.
So want me to believe that you (or whoever who uses his own world) flash-out every single NPC, from king to farmer, from archvillain to ally, and don't use some pre-generated stats? Not just for some unimportant thug or soldier?
GreenKnight wrote:
Not wholly irrelevant, as the adventure in question, Escape from Sembia, isn't an accurate representation of what they're going with. As I pointed out, it was designed around demonstrating the combat system and skill challenge system to PC's. Holding it up as an example of the way things are isn't an accurate assessment at all.
I can live with this. Anyway, origninally my point was, that I wasn't surprise that he found no interesting NPCs, because WotC's new way of handling NPCs and my disappointment with that. Nothing more, actually.
Someone saved a thread with my old signature by accident? Please PM me!
A great deal of what PC classes could do in prior editions also revolved around combat.
A great deal may be right, but not evey single ability.
GreenKnight wrote:
As for skills, a lot of them are more useful, and many characters get more skills then they could, before, so characters tend to be more useful in noncombat situations nowadays. Especially the Fighter.
Useful or not, it is too minimalisticaly. Skills and skill points were a big issue in 3e, but Pathfinder made a step in the right direction, even in regards to the Fighter. 4e went way too far, however.
Someone saved a thread with my old signature by accident? Please PM me!
So want me to believe that you (or whoever who uses his own world) flash-out every single NPC, from king to farmer, from archvillain to ally, and don't use some pre-generated stats? Not just for some unimportant thug or soldier?
Well, who needs to? Unless they actually appear ingame, they don't need stats. And even if they do appear ingame, why would they need complete stat blocks? It's not as if the PC's are going to be fighting them, nor will the DM be needing to run a good many of those NPC's in combat. And even if they do, the books do have stats for farmers and the like (Human Rabble, Monster Manual, page 162).
As for important NPC's, once again, it depends on what you need out of them. If they're just there to set a DC for a PC's Diplomacy check, then all you need are the DC's out of the DMG, and set the difficulty depending on the NPC (Is the king a shrewd negotiator? Give the PC's a Hard DC for their Diplomacy check. Is the king a gullible fool? Give the PC's an Easy DC). And if you need the king actually statted out, well, easy enough to create your own NPC's.
And when it comes to archvillains, yes, many DM's do come up with their own. Doubt you'll find a single DM around here who hasn't. Hell, odds are, most DM's use archvillains they statted up themselves far more often than they use archvillains statted up in the books.
A great deal may be right, but not evey single ability.
And not every ability is combat oriented. You have skills, you have a good deal of utility powers, and you have Rituals. What else more do you need?
Useful or not, it is too minimalisticaly. Skills and skill points were a big issue in 3e, but Pathfinder made a step in the right direction, even in regards to the Fighter. 4e went way too far, however.
The point, though, is that it didn't take away from the other spectrum (aside from Profession skills), and in fact added to that end. A Fighter, for instance, had 2 Skill Points and had one non-physical skill, Intimidate. Now the Fighter has the equivalent of 3 Skill Points and also has Streetwise (Knowledge: Local) in addition, making him more useful outside of combat. And if he takes Athletics, then he's got the equivalent of 5 Skill Points. Other characters have also seen an increase in the number of skills they have. And because a lot of those skills have been consolidated, that makes the taking of skills like History and Religion more viable options.
Well, who needs to? Unless they actually appear ingame, they don't need stats.
Exaclty. And if they shall appear, in a fight maybe protecting the PCs, you don't have them at hand. So you begin to stat out the good guys.
GreenKnight wrote:
And even if they do appear ingame, why would they need complete stat blocks?
There are not even short-stats in 4e, to begin with.
GreenKnight wrote:
The point, though, is that it didn't take away from the other spectrum (aside from Profession skills), and in fact added to that end. A Fighter, for instance, had 2 Skill Points and had one non-physical skill, Intimidate. Now the Fighter has the equivalent of 3 Skill Points and also has Streetwise (Knowledge: Local) in addition, making him more useful outside of combat. And if he takes Athletics, then he's got the equivalent of 5 Skill Points. Other characters have also seen an increase in the number of skills they have. And because a lot of those skills have been consolidated, that makes the taking of skills like History and Religion more viable options.
As I said, Pathfinder made a step in the right direction. The Fighter for example now still has 2 points, but more class skills. And some skills were combined in order not to be overwhelmed by the countless number of skills. 4e on the other hand, combined skills which should be seperated, because the things you can do with them are clearly different, imho. Actually, I'm one of those guys who prefer more over less.
Someone saved a thread with my old signature by accident? Please PM me!
Exaclty. And if they shall appear, in a fight maybe protecting the PCs, you don't have them at hand. So you begin to stat out the good guys.
A DM with a little bit of foresight knows to stat up any important NPC's if he thinks they may get into a fight. Or he could use the base stats for NPC's found in the Monster Manual modified in some way. And once again, how is this new? A DM who makes up his own homebrew campaign isn't going to have published NPC stats to fall back on, either.
There are not even short-stats in 4e, to begin with.
Again, is this new? I'm looking at the 2E Forgotten Realms book, and we got NPC's like "Learned Father Hasicor Danali (LN hm P12)", and Elminster CG Human Wizard 29. You're claiming these things are all new, when they're not. You think DM's didn't have to come up with NPC stats before the advent of 4E?
As I said, Pathfinder made a step in the right direction. The Fighter for example now still has 2 points, but more class skills.
Added variety doesn't mean much if you can't take advantage of it. They ought to give every class 4 Skill Points bare minimum. The 4E Fighter has more than the 3E Fighter, though. As I already mentioned, he's already got effectively more Skill Points. With Skill Training, you can become Trained in any skill of your choice, and it becomes the equivalent of a Class Skill in 3E. No cross-class skills or any silliness like that.
And some skills were combined in order not to be overwhelmed by the countless number of skills. 4e on the other hand, combined skills which should be seperated, because the things you can do with them are clearly different, imho.
...except that 4E combined many of the same skills that Pathfinder combined. Both games combined Move Silently and Hide in Shadows into Stealth. Pathfinder rolled Balance, Jump, and Tumble into Acrobatics, and 4E did the same with Balance, Tumble, and Escape Artist.
Actually, I'm one of those guys who prefer more over less.
Well, if you can't see that in many ways you're getting much more now than in prior editions, then I doubt that there's anything I can say to convince you.
A DM with a little bit of foresight knows to stat up any important NPC's if he thinks they may get into a fight. Or he could use the base stats for NPC's found in the Monster Manual modified in some way. And once again, how is this new? A DM who makes up his own homebrew campaign isn't going to have published NPC stats to fall back on, either.
To be honest, I can't remember what the original point here was. Either the battles or the NPCs. However, yeah, what shall be new with the concept of battle. And Rant_Casey said 'memorable NPCs'. So if you just take one found in the MM, it isn't very unique, is it? Only if the modification is a major one. Or an fancy one, for that matter.
GreenKnight wrote:
I'm looking at the 2E Forgotten Realms book, and we got NPC's like "Learned Father Hasicor Danali (LN hm P12)", and Elminster CG Human Wizard 29. You're claiming these things are all new, when they're not.
Show me your 'CG Human Wizard 29' or any other short-stats in any 4e product released so far. (except that one in FRCG page 158). I don't claim that this is new or old or whatever. I'm just saying that with some short-stats it would be easier for DMs to build their NPCs. But there are none. So every single DM who reads a name in a 4e product comes up with another class or level or anything for this NPC.
GreenKnight wrote:
Added variety doesn't mean much if you can't take advantage of it. They ought to give every class 4 Skill Points bare minimum. The 4E Fighter has more than the 3E Fighter, though. As I already mentioned, he's already got effectively more Skill Points. With Skill Training, you can become Trained in any skill of your choice, and it becomes the equivalent of a Class Skill in 3E. No cross-class skills or any silliness like that. ...except that 4E combined many of the same skills that Pathfinder combined. Both games combined Move Silently and Hide in Shadows into Stealth. Pathfinder rolled Balance, Jump, and Tumble into Acrobatics, and 4E did the same with Balance, Tumble, and Escape Artist.
The point is, and there I have to agree with you, that mechanic-wise 4e is an improvement over 3e (or 3.PF). However, I never said otherwise. Just that I don't really like it (yet)
Someone saved a thread with my old signature by accident? Please PM me!
To be honest, I can't remember what the original point here was. Either the battles or the NPCs. However, yeah, what shall be new with the concept of battle. And Rant_Casey said 'memorable NPCs'.
Well, as I said, Escape from Sembia isn't exactly a definitive adventure to base ones judgments on.
So if you just take one found in the MM, it isn't very unique, is it? Only if the modification is a major one. Or an fancy one, for that matter.
How unique is a published NPC that the players have undoubtedly read the stats for several dozen times? :P Besides, it's not that hard to come up with NPC stats in 4E. I've come up with several just on a lark. It's fairly quick and easy.
Show me your 'CG Human Wizard 29' or any other short-stats in any 4e product released so far.
Nope, there aren't any 'CG Human Wizard 29', but then again, that isn't terribly useful, as there's a lot more to Elminster than just "Wizard 29". Yet people managed to run games in the 2E Realms despite only having a class and level for the listed NPC's. And the FRCG has a discussion on how to handle NPC's, which basically amounts to assigning whatever level is most useful to the DM. After all, if they're not appearing in your game, then their level doesn't really matter. And if they do appear, then the DM can come up with whatever stats he feels are appropriate. And even if they do appear, you can go a long way with an NPC with nothing more then an appropriate skill DC.
Incidentally, that section also stated that DDI will be releasing stats for some of those NPC's. Might it take a while? Sure. But the FRCS didn't come out til 10 months after the release of 3E. It was a good long while before NPC stats were released in any number for 2E, as well. 4E's only been out for two months, and so far only has adventures, dungeon tiles, and the FRCG in addition to the core books. Looks to me like things're coming out at a bit of a faster clip this time than before, as you won't have to wait 10 months, at least, for the campaign information.
So every single DM who reads a name in a 4e product comes up with another class or level or anything for this NPC.
To be honest, I can't remember what the original point here was. Either the battles or the NPCs. However, yeah, what shall be new with the concept of battle. And Rant_Casey said 'memorable NPCs'. So if you just take one found in the MM, it isn't very unique, is it? Only if the modification is a major one. Or an fancy one, for that matter.
I'd like to cut in here and point out that how memorable an NPC turns out to be has more to do with how the DM plays the character than the stats the character uses (and of course, what types of characters stick in the minds of the players).
It is perhaps worth noting here that the notion of "Lawful = Good" opposing "Chaotic = Evil" is not something new. In the Basic/Expert/Companion/etc boxed rules of (Basic) Dungeons and Dragons, there were only three alignments - Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. Effectively, you were either Lawful Good, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil. In Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (aka "First Edition"), this was expanded to 9 alignments, giving us the familiar Law-Chaos axis and Good-Evil axis. It's worth noting though, that this version of (basic) D&D also only sported four classes - fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief, all of whom were human only, as well as three race/class combinations - Elf (Fighter/Mage), Halfling, and Dwarf.
Thus, this sort of thing isn't at all new... it is, however, a step backwards in terms of complexity. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion. Personally though, I would say that most of the complaints I've heard about the alignment system over the years centered around it being too restrictive - not too complex.
