Creating NPCs

[Ichabod]

I've been making a number of higher level NPCs recently but not for my own use. Some observations:

1. The hardest mechanic to complete is choosing feats. Maybe this has something to do with my not creating these characters to run myself or not knowing what specific role they should play in the world, but nothing else is remotely as difficult as picking feats. Could of course go with all of the better ones out of the mainbook, but that's so boring. Not having all of the supplements on hand limits options considerably, but it's hard to get motivated to even look at the few I have handy. I tend end up taking a lot of mediocre feats of the +2/+2, skill focus, or +2 saves variety. The first for flavor, the second for specialties, the last for survivability.

2. I frequently don't complete languages. This is probably a good thing as having some open slots gives flexibility to the use of a NPC. But, it's amusing how with my PCs I'm always wanting more languages. Obviously, it has to do with the difference between a world traveler and a regional character.

3. I don't find it terribly difficult to write down specials and spells, but I'm quite sure the format of my character template doesn't do a good enough job of emphasizing the abilities that should be important. I already believe that NPCs only need abbreviated stat blocks, only having what is relevant to their roles, but I'm inclined to believe now that when I make NPCs with full stats that I should use a different format depending upon what should be emphasized.

For instance, a sorcerer should have a format that focuses on PPs and spells. A combat threat on combat stats and maybe have an additional section on combat tactics (how much PA to use, etc.). A social character probably works reasonably well with my template as the section that sticks out the most is skills. Actually, every character should have a section on combat tactics. For one of my PCs, I have a separate document for that (which isn't remotely up to date). But, who cares about PCs? Players should be able to manage them in detail (though we kind of suck at even doing that). NPCs need to be quick and blatant, so sections on standard tactics, combat or no, would seem to be in order.

And, of course, I can't imagine any GM remembering every last mechanical feature of a fully realized character. For instance, a borderer/pirate with 5+ ranks in Tumble has fairly fluid skills and DV depending upon circumstances.

4. I'm focusing too much on mechanics. The last one I did was very possibly the only one with enough personality. I do focus on mechanics since that's where I'm adding the most value (with developed backgrounds being the place of next most value added). Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but stat blocks aren't characters. I have a tendency with PCs to have too bland characters, and that's carrying over into NPCs. Both with PCs and NPCs, I think I need to spend more time on larger than life personalities.

 

[treeplanter]

I don't know why you still argue that the skill-boosting and save boosting feat are bad. Alertness, stealthy, Negociator, Persuasive, self-suficient are all feat we frequently take and personally him pretty happy with them. I mean trade one feat for 4 skill point seem pretty fair to me. Skill focus is a bit more narrow but the way I see it is it show your character have an edge in a particular skill wich in my opinion is pretty important for some PC/NPC. If for exemple I want to be known as the greatest tracker in Aquilonia then I shoud take skill focus survival and self-suficiant. And if I want to be the greatest explorator of the see then I should have skill focus: sailor.

For the save I find Iron will to be quite good. Ligthing reflexe is less usuful save for trap but it boost init. Great fortitude is ok I guess but is it the last I would take.

Of course it is all a matter of balance. As I say we use skills a LOT in our game to the extent skills has the same importance as prowess in combat, so it is not because you don't use it in your campain that it suck.

if I understand well your point 4 it think You should not. You should focus on character background first. Anyway it so easy to select feat and skill for NPC when you have a detailed idea of their role and personnality.

Skills and feat are the tools that help define PC and NPC. It should represent his trait of personality, his past experience and his ambition. That how I chose skill and feat when I play and so I do the same for NPC.

 

[Ichabod]

I didn't say bad, I said mediocre. That still makes them worse than good.

The +2/+2s are clearly inferior to: Power Attack; Cleave; Great Cleave; Reckless Attack; Fleet-Footed; Combat Expertise; Improved Feint; Knowledgeable; Sorcerer's Boon; Opportunistic Sacrifice; Meditation; and, yes, Iron Will and very possible Great Fortitude. And, that's if you actually care a lot about both skills.

Iron Will is the best of the three +2 save feats. It's not so much how horrible it is since it isn't horrible, but what's frustrating is how it's strictly inferior to code of honor which doesn't require ... anything ... and no better than faith which doesn't require anything meaningful. Also, scholars get it for free and barbarians get Fearless. A barbarian with a code of honor and a noncrap wisdom can get by without it. A scholar gets good Will saves and gets it anyway. That just leaves thieves who very desperately need it or need to multiclass.

Great Fortitude is frustrating because it rarely matters, but when it does, it's the difference between spending a Fate Point or not. Lightning Reflexes seemed particularly unnecessary to me until I realized just how often we make Reflex saves in our campaign and that they aren't for trivial things often enough to at least consider it, especially as a replacement for Improved Initiative for those characters with weak initiatives; my expectation is that it would be far less useful in most other people's campaigns. I'm less annoyed by these two than I once was and would certainly consider them if I had nothing specific to do or had to shore up a particular weakness (scholars or thieves or any low Con characters taking GF). The problem is that they compete against: Power Attack; Cleave; Great Cleave; Reckless Attack; Fleet-Footed; Combat Expertise; Improved Feint; Knowledgeable; Sorcerer's Boon; Opportunistic Sacrifice; Meditation; and, a host of other feats that either orient the character or address a particular character/party problem (I had to take Sneer just to cut down on the ubiquitous failed Terror checks, something that still occurs even with Iron Will and Fearless).

I do consider some of these feats for PCish characters around 9th level when the basics have been filled out, especially the save pumps since failing saves is routinely crippling/lethal. But, if a character has any sort of nongeneric thing going on, then there's likely not a lot of random slots open.

It's especially problematic when you have every supplement at hand as among the unbelievably bad feats that fill up the supplements there are some that are awesome. And, those may require some other feat you don't particularly want to take as a prereq.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Ichabod, I largely agree with you. With some reservations.

Iron Will is one of the feats I usually plan in at some medium level for all classes with weak Will saves. BTW I can't follow your concerns about IW being weaker than CoH - they stack, so you can have both, and I'm also saying for the umpteenth time now it is NOT like CoH is a freebie. So by and large, I count IW among the good feats and not mediocre ones.

For my upcoming character, I'm still undecided whether to take GF and IW or not. Both saves will get pretty good anyway, maxing out at +16 and +14 or so, so I'll just wait and see what kind of challenges the new GM will be throwing at us. (he allows to "save up" feat slots so you don't have to decide at the moment of levelup.)

It's indeed a funny thing with GF, as you say, it largely matters only for MD saves, but it's not just a difference between spending a FP or not; when you make the save you can still win the battle.

The significance of Lightning Reflexes must indeed be peculiar to your campaign; we rarely ever have Ref saves so most people just take Improved Initiative.

It's especially problematic when you have every supplement at hand as among the unbelievably bad feats that fill up the supplements there are some that are awesome. And, those may require some other feat you don't particularly want to take as a prereq.

Yeah, most of the supplement feats are way too narrow, situational, and often have ludicrous nonsynergistic prereqs. Such as Power Attack for a feat you use with Light Weapons *cough*.
Or simply, as you say, having a (synergistic) prereq feat that you normally wouldn't take. For example I like the HFiercest feat "Drive your enemy before you", but if you normally don't use Improved Bull Rush (and I don't see why anyone would?), it costs two feats to get the bonus.

Also, for instance Menacing Aura is quite neat in itself, but again, you need the rather useless (too limited) Steely Gaze as prereq, so it costs two feats to get a maybe 50% chance to give each opponent a -2 to attack for one round. IMHO not worth it.

The problem here is that for many classes, players simply can't afford to "waste" (i.e. not make the most of) a feat slots because the slots are so limited. And in the second half of the game (levels 11+) you only get 3 feats over the course of 10 levels.

Building NPCs

Be it as it may, I can't see myself _ever_ spending a slot on one of those +2/+2 skillboosting feats for a Player Character.
For NPCs, it may be a different matter, since NPCs usually have worse stats than PCs (at least in our games), so they need some kind of boost if they are supposed to compate in opposed skills (like Stealth vs. Perception).

When you write up an NPC and have to choose feats, you basically have the choice if they are supposed to be "Wild Cards" or "Mooks", i.e. if they are supposed to have an agenda of their own and plan in the long run, or if you just need some fodder to throw at the PCs to make their lives more interesting.

For a low-level Mook, feats like Dirty Fighting are good, because it's easy bookkeeping and is effective for its level, even though nobody expecting to ever advance past level 6 or 8 would ever bother to take it.

Also be careful, when you optimize NPCs for tough encounters, not to over-optimize in an unfair way, taking advantage of your metagame knowledge of the PCs strengths and weaknesses, or at least not on a regular basis.
Likewise, the big bad dangerous brute with Power Attack etc. and a Greataxe should be an exception, not the rule. It's easy to optimize for very deadly fighters in Conan, so all the more you shouldn't overdo it. The players are unlikely to have a lot of fun when every session ends with all of them being dropped and Left for Dead.

[By the way, offtopic but the thought just occured to me: with the rule of Foreshadowing, couldn't you create a kind of fate point perpetuum mobile? -> Foreshadow that you will be Left for Dead.]

 

[treeplanter]

"The +2/+2s are clearly inferior to: Power Attack; Cleave; Great Cleave; Reckless Attack; Fleet-Footed; Combat Expertise; Improved Feint; Knowledgeable; Sorcerer's Boon; Opportunistic Sacrifice; Meditation; and, yes, Iron Will and very possible Great Fortitude. And, that's if you actually care a lot about both skills."

No.

You are WRONG.

They are clearly inferior if you value combat over anything else wich seem to be the case.

I know we played this Saterday. And overral there where 1 combat and a half. And both soldier did not use power attack/reckless attack/cleave since it was against a Ice worm so all those feat was useless. The other combat was a bare hand fight between one of the character (who had improved unarmed strike) and a NPC and de PC easily won thanks to improved unarmed strike. We also made a bunch of hide/MS and Spot/listen wich mean Alertness and stealthy was huge. There was also a bunch of important survival check and search(And nobody has rank in it surprisingly) check so Self-sufficient and Investigator feat would have been pretty useful. But the BIG skills of the session was Diplomacy and Bluff. To the extent skill: focus Diplomacy would have been very very good.

As for NPC: Since your NPC are situational challenge for PC, and you will choose your feat at the same time this is a huge advantage and personnally almost all of my NPC will have at leat one of the +2/+2 feat. Let say I want a big bad ass sentinel. Of course I will want the power attack/reckless attack/cleave crap, as well as endurance diehard and maybe toughness also. But i'll also want Alertness to spot or hear those pesky little rogue or pirate. On the other hand if the PC are on a manhunt for Bob the infamous Pict tracker you can be 100% sure that this one will have self sufficient and skills focus: survival and maybe stealthy. Why would I care about power attack since I want him to be hard to catch?

 

[Demetrio]

Statistically once you are beyond 10 (ranks+ability+bonus) in a skill, you get diminishing returns for any investment in improving that skill (though it can still be worth improving of course). But additionally the relative bonus provided by the feat declines also.

At low levels feats like Stealthy are good. At level 1 for instance you might have 4 ranks, a stat of 18 for +4 and your feat for +2. The feat gives a 25% bonus.

Move up to level 8. You now have 11 skill ranks, plus 5 for your stat (it's likely to be one you've increased) +2 for the feat. The feat now only provides a 12.5% bonus.

At low levels the feats are pretty worthwhile, as I say but later on, not so much. Some skills basically 'top out', ie they have a rank beyond which you don't need to go. Feats which boost these skills are weak.

Survival is actually an example of this skill. Basically DC 15 is about as high as you need to beat. So if you've a stat giving +4 then 10 skill ranks will do fine. So your Skill Focus (Survival) is great up to level 7 (lower if you have a Synergy) and then its work is done... Skill Focus (Bluff) on the other hand is open ended.


On npcs, I tend to work from their personality and background when choosing feats rather than picking 'the best' (ie the ones pcs often pick). Even if a feat isn't very good, it's sometimes a nice change to have an npc use it - or attempt to use it... nothing quite like an inneffectual attempt at Steely Gaze for instance...

 

[treeplanter]

Yeah you are clearly right about that.

This is quite true for unopposed roll.

However in my opinion those feat retain the same value in opposed roll since it is not the % increase wich is important in those situation but the edge you have. Say I've +8 in Hide (4 rank + 2 dex + 2 stealthy) versus a +6 in spot, that a +2 edge. The edge remain the same if you have +18 in hide versus +16 in spot.

I don't agree about survival. DC 15 is quite low, lot of survival check are DC 30 (like finding water in the desert for instance). If you look at the foraging DC break down by terrain you'll see what I mean

Also finding track after one week will be someting like DC 30-40.

And finally tracking someone who hide his track is an opposed roll

Of course for skills who top out those feat are arguably weaker. But as is every skills point you put in those skill! I'll take heal for exemple wich most DC are 15. So if I start at +8 thanks to self-suffcient and I want +10 i'll put 2 more rank in it then i'll put more rank in other skill i want to max out.

In the end it will become trade a feat for 4 skills points wich seem fine to me with the added value you can go higher than your max rank + stat. Also one optionnal rule you can add is that it make those skill class skill exactly like the Hyborian adaptability, so even soldier might be encouraged to take them.

 

[Ichabod]

They are clearly inferior if you value combat over anything else wich seem to be the case.

I value versatility in my PCs because the games we play have lots of different needs. Last session, I made zero attack rolls, I took zero damage. I made two Diplomacy checks, an Intimidate check, a Charisma role to lead a group of freed slaves, a Gather Info check, a Listen check, a Hide check, a Sense Motive check, and a K: Religion check. My borderer has a Diplomacy mod of +23 (+25 w/ chicks) and a K: Religion mod of +17.

I would still never consider taking a +2/+2 over taking Cleave (this character has PA which I didn't want to take but needed some way to do something besides take up space in combat), over Fleet-Footed, or over Knowledgeable (which would amount to around +10 in skill mods). What you seem to be ignoring is that it's not that difficult to have high skill mods whereas you need specific feats to have a substantial edge in combat.

As with everything else in gaming and life, it's a matter of opportunity cost. By taking a skill pumping feat, you give up on taking a feat that will help a lot in combat. By taking a combat feat, you aren't giving up that much in the skill arena. Meanwhile, saves are a huge wild card.

Clovenhoof, as to why I'm annoyed by IW, it's because we have precisely the situation of a barbarian with a good wisdom and a code who doesn't have to take IW to be functional whereas I used to fail Terror checks at a better than 50% clip, which was beyond obnoxious. Sure, it stacks with "money for nothing" or "money for tithe" and sure I find it difficult to come up with a character concept that wouldn't take it at some point or get it for free. Doesn't mean I'm happy that I'm required to spend a feat slot on generic feats when I'd like to take interesting feats.

 

[treeplanter]

Hum I see your point on Knowledgable.

However I still really don't see how having power attack and cleave prevent you from taking some pumping skill feat. I'm not arguing a character should take just that but once you got Power attack and cleave why would you not round your character by taking a nice random feat? Also Power attack only give you an edge if you strike first and play with this stupid rule that add double for two-handed weapon. Otherwise you actually drop your damage output. And cleave honestly is really not that good.

And if you look at ANY of the NPC in supplement they almost all have skill pumping feat or random not-so good feat. Even conan have Sleep mastery and brawl and navigation cause it is the way it should be

 

[Demetrio]

Sleep Mastery is one of the better non combat feats I think. There are loads of times the GM will want to surprise the party when it is abed. Also in a small party, it means you don't have to stand watches. Miles better than straifgt a +2/+2 Listen/Spot or +3 Listen.

Same with Brawl. It ets you fight bare handed as if you were wielding a poinard and gives you the option of subdual or lethal damage. Not to be sniffed at. Even my Str 13 finesse fencer character has taken it.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Sleep Mastery is a _very_ good feat, one that I try to build in if at all possible. It has _five_ different uses / advantages.
You don't need to sleep as much.
You can stay awake for ~42 hours without penalty.
You make Listen checks while asleep without penalty
You can wake any time without delay or penalties.
You get a Save bonus against all effects, including magic, that try to put you to sleep.

If Conan didn't have Sleep Mastery, he wouldn't have survived for long.

Of course the feat is somewhat less important for the typical adventurer party, where you can take turns at standing watch and so the odds are reduced to be surprised in your sleep. But it's still a good feat.

The problem with Brawl is that normally you also need Improved Unarmed Strike to go with it to make sense, or you'll just draw a lot of AoOs. (edit: that is, I'm not sure here - if you wield a weapon in one hand and none in the other hand, you _do_ threaten your opponent, so you might get to punch him with your left without drawing an AoO?)
That's a common problem with many feats I think: that you need two feats for an effect that is worth only one feat in my opinion.

For my new character, I'm planning to take the following feats during his career:
Eyes of the Cat, Improved Initiative, Sleep Mastery, Power Attack, Reckless Attack, Cleave, Combat Expertise.

That leaves me with 3 more feat slots, to be filled depending on how the campaign goes and what's going to make sense with the GM's style. For instance, if we never get to fight big mobs, I'd drop Cleave. But if we fight army after army, I might take Great Cleave.
Other feats on my wishlist include: Improved Trip (I love sending my enemies to the floor), Iron Will, Great Fortitude (depends on how often we have to do MD saves), Fleet Footed (depends on how strict the GM handles movement rates), possibly Leadership... that's five already, and I've already forsaken Fighting Madness, Run, Steely Gaze and Menacing Aura.

So you see, I could easily fill about sixteen feat slots that increase my fighting edge and survivability, but I get only ten slots altogether so I have to cull the selection relentlessly. There is simply no way in all hells that I could spare a precious slot on a crappy +2/+2 feat.

 

[Demetrio]

For mook killing I prefer Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Greater Combat Reflexes to Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave.

GCR allows you an AoO against any foe who misses you. If you boost your defence with CE then that works better than Great Cleave to my mind.

Fleet Footed is very good. I wish I had room for it.

I like Iron Will and I agree that all the Feats you listed are better than the +2/+2 feats unless you really need to maximise a particular skill as much as possible for a particular reason.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Yeah, see, GCR is another of those "one for two" feats I was talking about. Combat Reflexes as such is largely useless unless you wield a Reach weapon. So you take a feat that most likely will never do you any good, only to be allowed to take another feat that is useful. (But I have to admit GCR in conjunction with CR really isn't bad, maybe I should add that to my list nonetheless...)

 

[Demetrio]

Aye, CR is pretty crap mostly but I think it's worth taking for GCR, especially for finesse fighters for whom PA isn't necessarily a good choice.

 

[treeplanter]

Well in my opinion some character can fit one or 2 of those +2/+2. I like the idea to make those skills class skills i think it would make sense. I took Alertness with my borderer cause I hate being surprised and it open the quite powerful Clarity (+4 to spot listen and search), and I plan taking Self-suficient with the 10th level borderer bonus feat (So I can track my nemesis) and I don't think it make my character crappy, it just represent in a fair fashion where I want my strenght, and I still have the feat I want combat wise.

The crappy feat are IMHO those who give a +2 circonstantial bonus to one skills in particular situation.

I aggree sleep mastery is pretty cool but it still not a combat feat. Brawl is not that great without improved unarmed strike but having both will certainly help you in harsh situation.

One feat I like is Carouser. it's so funny. Basicly read "You can drink infinite alcool and never get drunk" lol

 

[Demetrio]

Carouser is actually very underrated I think. Not quite as good as Sleep Mastery of course but as you say 'never suffer adverse affects from alcohol' is very useful in a setting where carousing is de rigeur...

 

[Clovenhoof]

I dunno, Carouser still seems to be a perfect candidate to be handed out as freebie feat by the GM, because it's a nice effect but 90% flavour.

As for Brawl/IUS: note that the Barbarian is the class that can get by without these feats easiest. As long as there is anything lying around that you can pick up - _anything - you don't need to fight unarmed. Smash a chair, it counts as a Club. Pick up a chandelier, it's a Light Mace for you. And so forth.
Besides, keep in mind that a Barb 10+ is largely immune to AoOs, which also includes those drawn from attacking unarmed.
Conversely, this means that the Barb gets less out of these feats than any other class because he can often duplicate the effects easily.

Personally, I'd take it if it was one feat, i.e. if IUS did what it does _plus_ upping your damage to d6.

 

[Ichabod]

I would never bother with Brawl. Improved Unarmed Strike, OTOH, is a prereq. for Improved Grapple. Given that IG hoses humans really well and should provide some much needed defense against the plethora of animals/monsters that get free and difficult to break grapples, it's good to keep on the radar.

 

[Demetrio]

It's potentially very useful flavour, worth having for a 'face' character, especially a temptress I think. A slip of a girl drinking a hulking Cimmerian under the table could be as useful as it might be amusing...

She could also match a potential informant drink for drink and remain in full command of her faculties whilst he becomes more and more indiscreet.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Grapple might get interesting in our new campaign. Up to now the players have always been spared from cuddling monsters, quite mundanely because the regular Grapple rules are so terribly convoluted, complicated, slow, unintuitive and a downright pain in the ass, that the respective GM never - repeat, NEVER - bothered to use them in the game, neither in D&D nor in Conan.

Now we're gonna use the Pathfinder CMB rules for Grapple, which reduces the whole circus to one single roll per round. So it may very well happen that we get more cuddly monsters in the future, making Improved Grapple interesting as a feat. And I'm not sure but it may well be that in Pathfinder, IG does not need IUS as prereq. Bring em on!