Fraction of NPC encounters

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

What fraction of your encounters are with hostile NPC parties?

As to why I'm asking:

As I've mentioned before, I'm DMing a low-level campaign for my kids. I've
mostly had either monster encounters of appropriate CR, or non-hostile NPCs
like villagers they were helping. I've been avoiding encounters with
similar-leveled hostile NPCs because I've viewed them as really dangerous, and
want to make sure I'm really back in the swing of running things so I have
less of a chance of making mistakes. However, my memory of similar-level NPC
party encounters from past campaigns is that they're (a) tense (b) fun (c)
rewarding, since NPCs are more likely to have Stuff that can be of value to
the party (like spellbooks and nifty weapons) that monsters often don't have.

I realize that a 4-member equal-level party is CR party level +4. So I guess
the question might reduce to: what fraction of enounters do you choose to run
that are PL+3 or +4? Since all NPC parties look alike (more or less), how do
the players find out they're outclassed (especially if they are novices like
my kids?) They often have a good idea with monsters, since one of them has
more or less memorized the monster manual (and has taken some knowledge skills
to represent some of that in the game).
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Reginald Blue wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> > In addition to other suggestions in the thread, you might want to use
> > the new use of sense motive described in Complete Adventurer, which is
> > just this.
> >
> > A succesful sense motive (vs. bluff) check will tell you if the
> > opponent
> > is a pushover (CR = your level - 4 or less), easy (CR = level - (1 to
> > 3)), a fair fight (CR = level), tough (CR = level + (1 to 3)) or a
> > dire
> > threat (CR = level + 4 or more).
>
> You know, I added this to my campaign, but I went through several different
> variants of this, with my last being a feat that people could take called
> "Size up opponent" (which enabled Sense Motive to do this).
>
> I think I should have just said "Sense Motive can do this" and have been
> done with it, but, oh well.
>
> The one thing that bugs me about this is that it seems to me that fighters
> should be able to do this a whole heck of a lot better than rogues can, but
> Sense Motive isn't on the fighter skill list.
>

Not really, Rogues have to size up thier marks, and figure how
dangerous they will be, and generally have a greater range of marks
they have to size up.

Fighters ought to at least be able figure out someone's BAB & strength
though, even if they don't have any idea how tough a particular wizard
is.

- Justisaur
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> What fraction of your encounters are with hostile NPC parties?
>
> As to why I'm asking:
>
> As I've mentioned before, I'm DMing a low-level campaign for my kids. I've
> mostly had either monster encounters of appropriate CR, or non-hostile NPCs
> like villagers they were helping. I've been avoiding encounters with
> similar-leveled hostile NPCs because I've viewed them as really dangerous, and
> want to make sure I'm really back in the swing of running things so I have
> less of a chance of making mistakes. However, my memory of similar-level NPC
> party encounters from past campaigns is that they're (a) tense (b) fun (c)
> rewarding, since NPCs are more likely to have Stuff that can be of value to
> the party (like spellbooks and nifty weapons) that monsters often don't have.
>
> I realize that a 4-member equal-level party is CR party level +4. So I guess
> the question might reduce to: what fraction of enounters do you choose to run
> that are PL+3 or +4? Since all NPC parties look alike (more or less), how do
> the players find out they're outclassed (especially if they are novices like
> my kids?) They often have a good idea with monsters, since one of them has
> more or less memorized the monster manual (and has taken some knowledge skills
> to represent some of that in the game).

I don't know, I've found a like level NPC party to be a pushover. The
PCs are usually so much better equiped and so much better optomized
that the NPCs aren't that difficult. The standard NPC lists in the DMG
don't really have very good equipment either, I usually find the PCs
sell most of it. Of course I've got a group very experienced players
used to very tough encounters - I standarly use 4 or more EL higher
than the party.

I don't really tend to use NPC standard 4 person parties though, I use
single NPCs quite frequently, or a single higher level NPC with a few
lower level or warrior cronies, or at most a pair of equal levels with
one clearly the leader. I just don't see evil NPC adventuring parties
as being terribly cohesive, and don't find a 4 or more equal mid-high
level evil party terribly convincing. If they aren't evil then there's
no reason for the PCs to have to combat them. Even if they are evil it
depends what thier goals are.

- Justisaur
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In past one-shot adventures at conventions I've run, the Big Battle at
the end was with the party's doubles, i.e. the same character classes
of the same level with pretty much the same equipment, maybe a
different Feat here and there. It was more out of convenience for me
in creating the bad guys. Anyway, while everyone had fun for the
one-shot, the battles were quite tough for the party. The party as a
whole did win but a few party members went down in the process. Since
this has happened more than once, I don't recommend your party face an
equal number of equal level, not even for a one time thing expecting
the campaign to continue.

I don't utilize such battles anymore :).

Gerald Katz
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d8prrk$762$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> What fraction of your encounters are with hostile NPC parties?
[snip]
> like villagers they were helping. I've been avoiding encounters with
> similar-leveled hostile NPCs because I've viewed them as really dangerous,
and
> want to make sure I'm really back in the swing of running things so I have
> less of a chance of making mistakes. However, my memory of similar-level
NPC
> party encounters from past campaigns is that they're (a) tense (b) fun (c)
> rewarding, since NPCs are more likely to have Stuff that can be of value
to
> the party (like spellbooks and nifty weapons) that monsters often don't
have.

In short: hostile NPC parties are reserved for VERY special events. I
*ALWAYS* give the PC's PLENTY of reason to despise them, in terms of
dastardly deeds and whatnot, and make sure that it is KNOWN that they are a
real and viable threat to the party. That way, they don't feel bad if they
have to withdraw(it's a tough encounter!), and they always want to finish
the job.

My guys SHOULD go into an encounter with an NPC party on the understanding
that it is likely to result in a high number of character deaths, simply by
virtue of the deadliness of true "characters", even the NPC ones. I'd make
this particular little tidbit VERY clear to your players(especially
considering their age).

I agree that NPC party combats are HIGHLY charged situations, which is why
they are reserved for those very special occasions that warrant such a
highly competitive atmosphere. I consider them to be on a par in terms of
"campaign value" as an encounter with a dragon, an encounter with the BBEG,
an encounter with high up henchmen of the BBEG, and so on, providing the
setup is appropriate. I would *NEVER* just plunk a hostile NPC party in
front of the PC's without a damn good reason.

In my current campaign, there is ONE known hostile NPC party who's been
running around doing the dirty work of the BBEG for quite some time. The
hostile NPC party has been responsible for kidnapping, murder, extortion,
releasing a deadly disease, assassinations, and the PC party is ALWAYS one
step behind them. To top it all off, just recently, I had the hostile NPC
party start dropping the name of the *PC* Party as who they were. Instead
of the NPC party's name, they started sullying the good name of the PC's! I
just *KNEW* that would cause my guys to go ballistic, and sure enough, they
did. They are, as we speak, in search of the NPC Party to beat their asses
into mincemeat. The next adventure, they will (try to) kill the NPC party.
I anticipate them needing to call in many a favor to raise the PCs that get
killed.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
> I realize that a 4-member equal-level party is CR party level +4. So
> I guess the question might reduce to: what fraction of enounters do
> you choose to run that are PL+3 or +4? Since all NPC parties look
> alike (more or less), how do the players find out they're outclassed
> (especially if they are novices like my kids?) They often have a good
> idea with monsters, since one of them has more or less memorized the
> monster manual (and has taken some knowledge skills to represent some
> of that in the game).

Visible gear, perhaps? That tends to fall down later because so much of
it looks much the same, regardless of power, but it can still be useful.

A first-level party might have some riding horses, chain mail, and so
on. If they run into a party mounted on warhorses and wearing heavy
armor, they should probably treat the situation cautiously.

At higher levels it can be a little tougher to tell, but people armored
in dragonscale armor, with glowing eyes and *flying* warhorses should
still tell you something.

You might consider just telling them 'these guys look way out of your
league'. After all, there's a good chance the characters could tell, if
the players can't.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> What fraction of your encounters are with hostile NPC parties?
>
> As to why I'm asking:
>
> As I've mentioned before, I'm DMing a low-level campaign for my kids.
> I've mostly had either monster encounters of appropriate CR, or
> non-hostile NPCs like villagers they were helping. I've been
> avoiding encounters with similar-leveled hostile NPCs because I've
> viewed them as really dangerous, and want to make sure I'm really
> back in the swing of running things so I have less of a chance of
> making mistakes. However, my memory of similar-level NPC party
> encounters from past campaigns is that they're (a) tense (b) fun (c)
> rewarding, since NPCs are more likely to have Stuff that can be of
> value to the party (like spellbooks and nifty weapons) that monsters
> often don't have.
>
> I realize that a 4-member equal-level party is CR party level +4. So
> I guess the question might reduce to: what fraction of enounters do
> you choose to run that are PL+3 or +4?

Not often at all. The DMG guidelines on how often parties should run into
higher-EL encounters are reasonable (page 49), so pretty much stick to
those. One major thing to bear in mind is that it's a lot easier for one
person (the DM) to make several characters attack in effective co-operation
than for a group of players to do so, so make sure you're not playing the
NPCs more tactically than they would actually act.

> Since all NPC parties look
> alike (more or less), how do the players find out they're outclassed
> (especially if they are novices like my kids?) They often have a
> good idea with monsters, since one of them has more or less memorized
> the monster manual (and has taken some knowledge skills to represent
> some of that in the game).

At low level (2nd-5th), Spot checks to recognise masterwork equipment are a
good indicator. Above that, a surreptitious Detect Magic will work, given
time.

Depending on the setting, once you get above a certain level you're almost
certainly either famous or infamous, so allow a Knowledge (local) or Bardic
Knowledge check to see if they match the description of someone you've heard
of.

--
Mark.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1118861405.431758.228810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
DougL <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> I realize that a 4-member equal-level party is CR party level +4. So I guess
>> the question might reduce to: what fraction of enounters do you choose to run
>> that are PL+3 or +4? Since all NPC parties look alike (more or less), how do
>Why in the world do you assume an equal level NPC party?

Because I remember several of those from the old AD&D 1 campaigns I was in.
The only reason we won is we had several tactically good players, and the DM
was by himself.
>
>Use an NPC party about two levels lower on average and IME it is
>a good challenge, quite dangerous, provides plenty of scope for
>non-violent solutions, and rewarding for almost any method of dealing
>with it.

I think I'll stick with your suggestion (APL+2) for a while and see how it
works out.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <d8prrk$762$1@knot.queensu.ca>, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca
says...

> Since all NPC parties look alike (more or less), how do
> the players find out they're outclassed (especially if they are novices like
> my kids?)

In addition to other suggestions in the thread, you might want to use
the new use of sense motive described in Complete Adventurer, which is
just this.

A succesful sense motive (vs. bluff) check will tell you if the opponent
is a pushover (CR = your level - 4 or less), easy (CR = level - (1 to
3)), a fair fight (CR = level), tough (CR = level + (1 to 3)) or a dire
threat (CR = level + 4 or more).

Also, bear in mind that D&D is (very!) high fantasy. Magic weapons often
actually glow, and even if they don't, I'd exect a visible difference
between a 5th-level fighter and a 15th-level fighter, even if all they
have is clothes, a full plate, a shield and a bastard sword.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here's two:

http://www.darrencalvert.com/gnomegirl.html
http://www.darrencalvert.com/necrogirl.html

> They often have a good idea with monsters, since one of them has
> more or less memorized the monster manual (and has taken some knowledge skills
> to represent some of that in the game).

Ha! Some good roleplayers, those kids! :D


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In addition to other suggestions in the thread, you might want to use
> the new use of sense motive described in Complete Adventurer, which is
> just this.
>
> A succesful sense motive (vs. bluff) check will tell you if the
> opponent
> is a pushover (CR = your level - 4 or less), easy (CR = level - (1 to
> 3)), a fair fight (CR = level), tough (CR = level + (1 to 3)) or a
> dire
> threat (CR = level + 4 or more).

You know, I added this to my campaign, but I went through several different
variants of this, with my last being a feat that people could take called
"Size up opponent" (which enabled Sense Motive to do this).

I think I should have just said "Sense Motive can do this" and have been
done with it, but, oh well.

The one thing that bugs me about this is that it seems to me that fighters
should be able to do this a whole heck of a lot better than rogues can, but
Sense Motive isn't on the fighter skill list.

--
Reginald Blue
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup (originator of C++) [quoted at the 2003
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces]
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d1aaafdb30d078d9896d4@news.iskon.hr>,
Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
>A picture is worth a thousand words, so here's two:
>
>http://www.darrencalvert.com/gnomegirl.html
>http://www.darrencalvert.com/necrogirl.html

Nice. Not sure why the higher levels change weapons, but the armour
differences are striking.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Reginald Blue wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>> In addition to other suggestions in the thread, you might want to use
>> the new use of sense motive described in Complete Adventurer, which
>> is just this.
>>
>> A succesful sense motive (vs. bluff) check will tell you if the
>> opponent
>> is a pushover (CR = your level - 4 or less), easy (CR = level - (1 to
>> 3)), a fair fight (CR = level), tough (CR = level + (1 to 3)) or a
>> dire
>> threat (CR = level + 4 or more).
>
> You know, I added this to my campaign, but I went through several
> different variants of this, with my last being a feat that people
> could take called "Size up opponent" (which enabled Sense Motive to
> do this).
>
> I think I should have just said "Sense Motive can do this" and have
> been done with it, but, oh well.
>
> The one thing that bugs me about this is that it seems to me that
> fighters should be able to do this a whole heck of a lot better than
> rogues can, but Sense Motive isn't on the fighter skill list.

Well, that's not entirely true - Fighters will be good at sizing up other
fighters, but not necessarily rogues or wizards. I'd just give something
simple like a +2 circumstance bonus to characters attempting to size up
opponents who have at least one level in common with them.

--
Mark.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Reginald Blue <Reginald_Blue@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>> In addition to other suggestions in the thread, you might want to use
>> the new use of sense motive described in Complete Adventurer, which is
>> just this.
>>
>> A succesful sense motive (vs. bluff) check will tell you if the
>> opponent
>> is a pushover (CR = your level - 4 or less), easy (CR = level - (1 to
>> 3)), a fair fight (CR = level), tough (CR = level + (1 to 3)) or a
>> dire
>> threat (CR = level + 4 or more).
>
> You know, I added this to my campaign, but I went through several
> different variants of this, with my last being a feat that people
> could take called "Size up opponent" (which enabled Sense Motive to do
> this).
>
> I think I should have just said "Sense Motive can do this" and have
> been done with it, but, oh well.
>
> The one thing that bugs me about this is that it seems to me that
> fighters should be able to do this a whole heck of a lot better than
> rogues can, but Sense Motive isn't on the fighter skill list.

Sense Motive seems a lame skill to use. I mean, it's the natural
counter to Bluff, but what if the opponent isn't bluffing?

For that matter, it seems fighters would be the worst at determining how
relatively powerful their opponents are, and the worst at masking it.
This does not seem right.


What would seem right? For experienced combatants to be fairly good at
sizing up the (obvious capabilities of) their foes. It should be less
easy for poor combatants to do so. Now, what are fighter-types good at
that non-fighter types aren't so good at?

How about BAB? Make a BAB (flat DC, probably) to determine whether the
opponent is obviously more or less dangerous than you are. If they are
trying to hide their ability, make either a Sense Motive or BAB check
against the Bluff attempt (Sense Motive because it's the usual check
against Bluff, BAB because a skilled enough eye can see past the fake),
whichever is better. Sense Motive (maxed ranks) will still work better
because you can have up to three ranks higher than your level, *and* you
can have a bonus to it from Wis, magic, or other sources.


Of course, this can miss less obvious dangers (spellcasting, spell-like
abilities, magic items, etc.), unless they are visible or otherwise
demonstrated, but that makes sense too.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <slrndb16uf.gg1.keith.davies@kjdavies.org>,
Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>How about BAB? Make a BAB (flat DC, probably) to determine whether the
>opponent is obviously more or less dangerous than you are. If they are
>trying to hide their ability, make either a Sense Motive or BAB check
>against the Bluff attempt (Sense Motive because it's the usual check
>against Bluff, BAB because a skilled enough eye can see past the fake),
>whichever is better. Sense Motive (maxed ranks) will still work better
>because you can have up to three ranks higher than your level, *and* you
>can have a bonus to it from Wis, magic, or other sources.

This sounds fairly good to me, but I'm waiting to see if someone points out a
flaw.

I'd be inclined to add Wis since that's the stat for most "perceive" rolls.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:55:35 -0400, Jeff Goslin wrote:

>To top it all off, just recently, I had the hostile NPC
>party start dropping the name of the *PC* Party as who they were.

Why doesn't the NPC party physically disguise themselves as the PCs and
go do something bad somewhere where they'd be mistaken for the PCs? Then
instead of "they said they were" it becomes "it was them, I saw 'em!"
(If the NPCs don't know what the PCs look like, I bet the BBEG does...)

....or, even better, half of the NPCs disguise themselves as members of
the PC party, do something dastardly, then get "stopped" and/or
"defeated" by undisguised members of the NPC party, thus making
themselves "heroes" and the PCs "villains".
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
My attention span will focus on monkeys in 45 seconds.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <DpadneaeWom6OS3fRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

I think Jeff is sending us a coded message.

> VERY *ALWAYS* PLENTY KNOWN SHOULD VERY HIGHLY *NEVER* ONE ALWAYS *KNEW*

Hmm.

That or he's channeling the Orz.

--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Justisaur hastily scrawled:
>Reginald Blue wrote:
>> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>> > In addition to other suggestions in the thread, you might want to use
>> > the new use of sense motive described in Complete Adventurer, which is
>> > just this.
>> >
>> > A succesful sense motive (vs. bluff) check will tell you if the
>> > opponent
>> > is a pushover (CR = your level - 4 or less), easy (CR = level - (1 to
>> > 3)), a fair fight (CR = level), tough (CR = level + (1 to 3)) or a
>> > dire
>> > threat (CR = level + 4 or more).
>>
>> You know, I added this to my campaign, but I went through several different
>> variants of this, with my last being a feat that people could take called
>> "Size up opponent" (which enabled Sense Motive to do this).
>>
>> I think I should have just said "Sense Motive can do this" and have been
>> done with it, but, oh well.
>>
>> The one thing that bugs me about this is that it seems to me that fighters
>> should be able to do this a whole heck of a lot better than rogues can, but
>> Sense Motive isn't on the fighter skill list.
>>
>
>Not really, Rogues have to size up thier marks, and figure how
>dangerous they will be, and generally have a greater range of marks
>they have to size up.
>
>Fighters ought to at least be able figure out someone's BAB & strength
>though, even if they don't have any idea how tough a particular wizard
>is.

How about a Sense Motive check to figure out any stat, with an added
bonus equal to your bonus in that stat? So, a Fighter would be better
at figuring out BAB, and a Wizard would be better at figuring out
Caster Level.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> wrote in message
news:hpq2b1lbqv357iqn5ia8iphjbl0oih11ih@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:55:35 -0400, Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
> >To top it all off, just recently, I had the hostile NPC
> >party start dropping the name of the *PC* Party as who they were.
>
> Why doesn't the NPC party physically disguise themselves as the PCs and
> go do something bad somewhere where they'd be mistaken for the PCs? Then
> instead of "they said they were" it becomes "it was them, I saw 'em!"
> (If the NPCs don't know what the PCs look like, I bet the BBEG does...)
>
> ...or, even better, half of the NPCs disguise themselves as members of
> the PC party, do something dastardly, then get "stopped" and/or
> "defeated" by undisguised members of the NPC party, thus making
> themselves "heroes" and the PCs "villains".

Err... uh... mainly because I didn't think of it at the time... ;)

Besides, I didn't want them to ACTUALLY be in trouble with the law, just to
hear that their good name was being sullied. :)

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:26:26 -0400, Jeff Goslin wrote:

>"Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> wrote in message
>news:hpq2b1lbqv357iqn5ia8iphjbl0oih11ih@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:55:35 -0400, Jeff Goslin wrote:
>>
>> >To top it all off, just recently, I had the hostile NPC
>> >party start dropping the name of the *PC* Party as who they were.
>>
>> Why doesn't the NPC party physically disguise themselves as the PCs and
>> go do something bad somewhere where they'd be mistaken for the PCs? Then
>> instead of "they said they were" it becomes "it was them, I saw 'em!"
>> (If the NPCs don't know what the PCs look like, I bet the BBEG does...)
>>
>> ...or, even better, half of the NPCs disguise themselves as members of
>> the PC party, do something dastardly, then get "stopped" and/or
>> "defeated" by undisguised members of the NPC party, thus making
>> themselves "heroes" and the PCs "villains".
>
>Err... uh... mainly because I didn't think of it at the time... ;)
>
>Besides, I didn't want them to ACTUALLY be in trouble with the law, just to
>hear that their good name was being sullied. :)

Methinks my way would perhaps make for a more "interesting" (as in
"chinese curse" kind of interesting) game for the players.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
As a final line of defense against intruders, the throne room had a trap
door. Course, it only led to the first floor. But remember - no
staircase.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies wrote:
> A first-level party might have some riding horses, chain mail, and so
> on. If they run into a party mounted on warhorses and wearing heavy
> armor, they should probably treat the situation cautiously.
>
> At higher levels it can be a little tougher to tell, but people armored
> in dragonscale armor, with glowing eyes and *flying* warhorses should
> still tell you something.

I think it would be very difficult. Say, for instance, our mid-level
group is encountered. Half the party is wearing no armor and half the
party is wearing chain shirts. Particularly shiny chain shirts, but
they don't all glow with magic either. All of us are on foot. How
tough are we? Maybe weapons will tell. Person #1 has a sword* and no
armor. Person #2 has two maces* and a chain shirt*. Person #3 has a
sword and no armor. Person #4 has a longbow*, two maces, and a chain
shirt. Person #5 has a warhammer* and a chain shirt* and a large
shield*. The * marks magic items. You'd think we're not that tought,
but you'd be wrong.

1 and 3 are a wizard and a sorcerer both around 8th level with a level
of cleric and paladin, respectively. Person 2 is a cleric who's all
about the kicking of butt, casts nothing but buffs. Person 4 is a
min/maxed archer who does over 50 damage per round, average. Person 5
is a typical barbarian/fighter with high AC. It just goes to show you
how deceptive equipment can be. Half our weapons and armor aren't
magical, and half our party doesn't wear armor while the other half just
wears light armor. We are all DEX-based characters except the mages,
and they can't wear armor anyway. Our 3 combattants (cleric, archer,
and barbarian) all have ACs between 21 and 25.

Alex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <MPG.1d1aaafdb30d078d9896d4@news.iskon.hr>,
> Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:
>
>>A picture is worth a thousand words, so here's two:
>>
>>http://www.darrencalvert.com/gnomegirl.html
>>http://www.darrencalvert.com/necrogirl.html
>
>
> Nice. Not sure why the higher levels change weapons, but the armour
> differences are striking.

If you read the description on the web site, the point of the drawings
was not advancement in levels, but "X character type in light, medium,
and heavy armor". It just happens that the exceptionally talented
artist also scaled the weapons from "cheap and light" to "fancy and large".

Alex
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> Reginald Blue wrote:
>> The one thing that bugs me about this is that it seems to me that
>> fighters should be able to do this a whole heck of a lot better than
>> rogues can, but Sense Motive isn't on the fighter skill list.
>>
>
> Not really, Rogues have to size up thier marks, and figure how
> dangerous they will be, and generally have a greater range of marks
> they have to size up.
>
> Fighters ought to at least be able figure out someone's BAB & strength
> though, even if they don't have any idea how tough a particular wizard
> is.

Sorry, you're right, I over simplified.

What I meant was, given a character facing the ravenous bug blatter
beast of Traal who only has obvious physical characteristics (sharp nasty
teeth, bulging muscles, etc.) that I would believe that a fighter, of all
the classes, should have the best ability at saying "yeah, I can take him"
or "you must be joking. I recommend a strategic retreat...run."

You're absolutely right that fighters wouldn't likely be any good at
identifying particularly dangerous wizards, psions, clerics, etc.

Honestly, in terms of game mechanics, I have no clue how to represent that,
yet it seems like there should be some mechanic for that.

--
Reginald Blue
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup (originator of C++) [quoted at the 2003
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces]
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Reginald Blue wrote:
>
> Honestly, in terms of game mechanics, I have no clue how to represent
> that, yet it seems like there should be some mechanic for that.

Give them a feat which allows you to make a check to "size up" an opponent's
fighting ability, or make it a class feature. Make it a level check, say, so you
don't have to worry about tying it to any mental ability score - just the
fighter's own experience.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in any country.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> What fraction of your encounters are with hostile NPC parties?

Your question is broken. No modern RPG rules system discerns
between "NPCs" and "monsters".

Can we please all upgrade to the 1980s?

> As to why I'm asking:
>
> As I've mentioned before, I'm DMing a low-level campaign for my kids. I've
> mostly had either monster encounters of appropriate CR, or non-hostile NPCs
> like villagers they were helping. I've been avoiding encounters with
[...]

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom