Muahaha

[ralphmelton]

I've had an insight:

The PCs in my campaign are all a bit above the DMG's claimed average for characters of their level. Four of them have better-than-average stats, and Turok (the exception) benefited from my failing to understand the difference between CR and ECL. And I think that they're running a bit above average on treasure, too.

Given that, it's reasonable for me to give some of the opposition some improved stats and similar benefits, too.

Comments

[cellio]

Makes sense to me. And remember that ninth-level characters have had two stat boosts and probably have one stat-boosting item as well, on top of the favorable conditions for creating PCs vs NPCs.

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

That, I did remember.

More detail on what I was originally saying: the standard for 'elite' NPCs is starting stat rolls of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8, permuted to suit. (In fact, I think all the NPCs you've met so far have had those stat rolls.)

One of the campaigns I've played in used that as the mechanism for assigning starting stats. It made for an interesting angst about which stat to put the 8 into. :)

[cellio]

For the elite NPCs, you could probably do worse than to bump those starting numbers to 16 or 17, 15, 14, 13, 12, (something in the 8-11 range), and then giving yourself a floating +2 from a magic item (of course you do have to give the NPC the item).

One of the campaigns I've played in used that as the mechanism for assigning starting stats. It made for an interesting angst about which stat to put the 8 into. :)

8 is -1, right? For many character classes that one's pretty easy, though it's also nice to avoid stereotypes. :-)

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

8 is -1, yes. For many classes, it makes sense to put the 8 into Charisma, which may explain why adventurers so often get viewed as somewhat scruffy and disreputable.

[cellio]

Charisma is an obvious candidate for many classes, yes, especially for semi-disposable characters where you don't have long-term role-playing issues. (Most people do not play low-charisma characters all that well to begin with, and by their very nature NPCs don't get as much focus as PCs.) For sorcerors, I would argue that the "duh" slot for the low stat is strength, though a human could perhaps afford int and that might make for an interesting character.

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

For an archer-focused ranger, I ended up putting the 8 into Constitution (where it ended up as a 6, since I was an elf). I'm far from sure that that was the right idea; I didn't ever get a chance to test it in play.

[cellio]

I assume the character has good dex; not getting hit as often can offset being squishy when one does get hit.

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

Good Dex and an intention not to enter melee combat.

The whole idea might be a big mistake (and I never got a chance to test), but there were class abilities and skills that I wanted for every other stat. And Con "only" affects hit points, Concentration, and Fort saves...

[cellio]

I take it this was a campaign that never got off the ground, as opposed to one that just hasn't started yet?

Con: makes sense. With Larissa I was intimidated by the four-sided hit dice and put my second-highest stat in con, but rangers have more wiggle room. And while archers face damage from other archers and from spell-casters, they at least don't seek out melee the way regular fighters do.