| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Faraer |
Posted - 02 Apr 2005 : 21:27:21
How much do you care about the accuracy of character stat blocks in Forgotten Realms sourcebooks, for instance characters having the correct number of skill points, or meeting all the prerequisites of a prestige class? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Nilus Reynard |
Posted - 15 Apr 2012 : 04:49:23
Only somewhat for me. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 10 Apr 2012 : 00:30:19
Ideally, I'd like to avoid wasting space on statblocks, as I don't even use D&D to play in the Realms, so I always have to stat NPCs myself anyway, going off the description of the character.
Since statblocks and crunch appear to sell, though, I hate seeing inaccurate ones. I mean, let the character match the description and what he does in canon! I can't stand it when the admittedly cludgy mechanics of D&D lead to some NPC who is clearly meant to be an expert on [insert subject] being at most an amateur or worse, not having the skill at all, because it wasn't 'optimised'.
A good example of something that drives me wild is when the rules for languages are applied in such a way that NPCs cannot speak languages that are spoken where they are from or where they've spent a lot of years, obviously passing for a local or functioning as an ordinary citizen, not someone who doesn't speak the language. And I can't even blame this exclusively on D&D rules, because the rules do include a way to sacrifice skill points or feats or something to learn more languages. It just seems that some authors don't care enough to have the character stats match the source material to bother with it.
It's not that hard to have a rules system that allows characters to have the capabilities that they are shown to have in whatever source material they are taken from and to use that system to represent them accurately. If they are not meant to be accurately represented, how is that not a waste of space?
Isn't the only value from such statblocks the belief that professional designers with access to the writers of the source material will be able to do a better job than the average DM? If they don't even try, isn't the DM better off with a basic description of the NPC? |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 10 Jul 2010 : 14:46:25
Anyway, it has been two trilogies since Drizzt's last stats block, so he's probably 5 levels higher than presented in FRCS. But I agree than compared to PCs, the famous NPCs are far from optimized. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 10 Jul 2010 : 11:19:02
quote:
Originally posted by Brace Cormaeril
Stat-blocks are of little use to me as a DM. Since my play group owns multiple copies of every published WotC book, our characters have classes/feats/skills and tricks from numerous sources. If Drizz't Do'Urden wants to stand a *chance* against Athalus Araukaiun (the Fighter/Battle Dancer/Dervish/Tempest dual wielding FALCHIONS) in twin-sword dueling battle, he needs *significantly* better class/feat/skill selection than what is presented in his stat-blocks.
This would require WotC to state that *ALL* their previous books are required to use a new one which included a stat-block. This wouldn't be fun for many players.
Instead, the stat-blocks they do provide are such that, even with errors, the NPCs are drastically weak compared to my groups PCs. This wouldn't be fun for my group, so I am forced to re-write all stat-blocks.
Give me the single line write-ups.
Good point, Brace. Why there are so little of the single line write-ups nowadays? |
| Brace Cormaeril |
Posted - 09 Jul 2010 : 23:14:40
Stat-blocks are of little use to me as a DM. Since my play group owns multiple copies of every published WotC book, our characters have classes/feats/skills and tricks from numerous sources. If Drizz't Do'Urden wants to stand a *chance* against Athalus Araukaiun (the Fighter/Battle Dancer/Dervish/Tempest dual wielding FALCHIONS) in twin-sword dueling battle, he needs *significantly* better class/feat/skill selection than what is presented in his stat-blocks.
This would require WotC to state that *ALL* their previous books are required to use a new one which included a stat-block. This wouldn't be fun for many players.
Instead, the stat-blocks they do provide are such that, even with errors, the NPCs are drastically weak compared to my groups PCs. This wouldn't be fun for my group, so I am forced to re-write all stat-blocks.
Give me the single line write-ups. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 27 Jun 2010 : 16:00:04
quote:
Originally posted by Sylrae
Well, it's pretty rare that you see decently done statblocks for characters. They often have things they didn't have in the books, or lack things they should have. I agree it's disappointing.
I've only seen it done a few times I wasn't disappointed. I didn't find major fault with any of the War of the Spiderqueen characters statted out in Dragon Mag, and I saw some stats for Liriel Baenre that were quasi-official (I can't remember if they were on elaine cunningham's site or on the wotc site).
<snip>
The same set of official stats from Elaine herself was available on both WotC site and her site. The WotC page with them has since disappeared, but they should still be up on her site. |
| Saxmilian |
Posted - 27 Jun 2010 : 13:39:41
I like having major characters stats (in perfect detail of course =)so my players can stumble across (and as you said novel-plot-interact) with them. Only one of my players has begun to read the novels, having squandered his life away on video games rather than books) and so most of them dont realize they are a part of a bigger picture. "Lots of Orcs in the north amassing an army? Well my ranger hayes orcs, lets go get some!" Then later, "dude, I just finished a thousand Orcs--that was THOSE orcs, right?" Yes, some heroes are still adventuring (depending on what timeline your playing) but thats when I liek to use them the most. My characters have seen Drizzt leaving waterdeep on the Sea Sprite (though they never got to actually speak to an ACTUAL drow!) and once even saw a crusty old man in a bar in Shadowdale while waiting for the great Elminster whom they challenged to a game of dagger-toss and bought a few rounds for--then were happily surprised when that old coot told them the enchanted sword was of ancient origin and those symbols were from Phlan. Only later did they realize they had been in the presence of greatness. And I was pleased that I had a Ranged-attack bonus for the Great Sage's dagger throwing.
I can find a use for anyone (i think its important to be able to do so as a DM) it may be cheesy, it may be comical, or intense, but if my players wanna meet Drizzt, or duel him, I like to show them later how FAIR and JUST he was when his "character" spanked them in an eye-blink..."we'll because he has two-weapon fighting and a +??? with each blade, thats why!" |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 27 Jun 2010 : 11:18:49
Well, it's pretty rare that you see decently done statblocks for characters. They often have things they didn't have in the books, or lack things they should have. I agree it's disappointing.
I've only seen it done a few times I wasn't disappointed. I didn't find major fault with any of the War of the Spiderqueen characters statted out in Dragon Mag, and I saw some stats for Liriel Baenre that were quasi-official (I can't remember if they were on elaine cunningham's site or on the wotc site).
It's not much of a relevent point anymore though. They aren't going to reprint the old ones, and they don't print them anymore in the new books, with 4e.
If people wanted to start collecting/making decent statblocks for characters that don't give them any more or any less than they should have, I'd applaud them. Obviously for things like novels, you need the character at the start and end of each novel. It would be a big piece of work to do.
While it would be an interesting mental exercise, most novel characters don't really need to be statted out, unless they aren't adventurers anymore. It's hard to explain why the players are running into them, unless you like running crossover plots with novel tie-ins. I've never had a group of players that was heavy into FR novels so that's never come up for me.
I have a player who dislikes Elminster because when he ran an FR game, the players built their characters with background tie-ins to know him so they could try to call on him to save them when they had boss-fights and whatnot. He was a bit of a newbie DM and was too stumped to quickly solve the "We cast Gate to Elminster". So he sees Elminster in a player made "Deus Ex-Machina" (He hasn't read the novels).
I'm not going to run a Drizzt Tie-in (And therefore don't need Drizzt Stats), because the Drizzt stories aren't the types of games I like to run.
However, I probably WILL write up stats for the Final Gate Trilogy characters after the novel is over. Most of the characters have moved on from adventuring to government politics, so they are useful for if I put the players in the city. I may use a couple of the ex-drow high mages from lady penitent, as people running a college.
I guess what I'm saying, is that most of the time when I see novel character stats, the stats aren't of any use to me as a GM, and are a waste of page space in the book. Alot of the time when I want a statblock (such as for the ruler of a city), I just get a name and class levels.
In a module, you need the statblock for anyone the players interact with who stands any chance of defending themselves.
That's my rough feelings on the matter.
|
| Saxmilian |
Posted - 26 Jun 2010 : 22:27:15
Im going to have to weigh in on the less-apparent Mega Important. I cant stand seeing stats of important figures that make No sense or that dont portray the character correctly, I take the time to remake the character trying to get them as accurate as possible and my players love them the way I do them, but I wish I didnt have too. It seems that the people that print the stats havent read the materials of the characters they are covering. Wulfgar's Stats say (Pg. 96 of Silver Marches) that he "later married Cattie-brie, but those of us who actually READ the books know he died before they tied the knot. Bruenor (Pg. 77 of Same) is listed as having Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Amulet of Natural Armor, Periapt of Wound Closure and Potions. One of my favorite things about R.A. Salvatore is that the main heroes (wh wield more than impressive weapons) have little in the way of magical items and rely on wits and skill. In fact other than the biscuts Alustriel gave Drizzt, and the potion Cattie-brie gave him in the underdark (and again after his battle with Ellifain) I dont recall any getting potions or healing...well there was that Drow healing Regis (lol)
I guess I just expect the "official" text I paid twenty-some dollars for to have actually been compliled by someone with a sense of professionalism. Or perhaps im just bitter for having to spend a week making Drizzt up from level one, so we can see him go from the underdark to fighting the Ghost King. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 14 Jun 2010 : 05:25:34
I'm in the "must" category. I need it balanced an accurate as my concern is to provide a balanced game for my players. A +1 to this or that in the wrong directin may not seem a big deal, but to the player who discovers after the fact that their character died from a hit that would have missed save for a stats-error, it's not such a big deal (speaking from experience here).
|
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 13 Jun 2010 : 11:40:32
quote:
Originally posted by Mareka
I do care. I just feel it's sloppy for the game designers to make a mess of stat blocks. I rarely use a published stat block as is, but why bother printing them up it they're not going to be correct?
I totally agree... |
| Darkmeer |
Posted - 08 Jun 2010 : 16:18:20
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I'm in the somewhat category also. If it's an NPC that the player characters are going to 'fight', then yes, they should have a full (and correct) stat block.
That said, for some of the 'powerful' NPCs of the Realms, I think that they should all have the one-line stat block, allowing individual DMs to feat and skill them out to suit their own purposes.
-- George Krashos
I'm one of the "not at all" category, but this is really how I feel about it. Thanks for pointing this out. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 07 Jun 2010 : 16:30:01
CotSQ was full of such weird statblocks. Str 10 for a ranger/cleric is a bit low, too... |
| Zanan |
Posted - 07 Jun 2010 : 14:48:51
Middle vote too.
Methinks the guidelines of WotC for any adventures sent to them gave some sort of hints how to prepare statblocks and shortened versions of it.
If the article revolves around one NPC in particular (e.g. those of the War of the Spider Queen series) they should be correct. Oftentimes I'm more concerned about the "mediocrity" of some of those NPCs attributes (Str, Dex et al), for while they may concur with those given in the DMG, these nigh-iconic folks should be at least of half-decent PC level in terms of attributes.
On of my "horror" experiences in early 3.x-FR days were those Kiaransaleen scouts, (ranger/cleric) sneaking about in shadow silent moves full plates (!) and wielding greataxes ... while having an STR score of 10. Sure there was the option of casting Bull's Strength every now and then, but when not fighting, these poor lasses were having a tough time in the Deep Wastes ... |
| GRYPHON |
Posted - 07 Jun 2010 : 14:46:06
Not much. I adjust as needed.
|
| Zireael |
Posted - 07 Jun 2010 : 09:20:55
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
quote:
Originally posted by Jindael
To take matters further, a small line drawing of the character would be far more usefull to me than knowing they have Knowledge (earwax) +11.
One of the last D20 tomes I purchased, well over a year ago, had a small B&W sketch at the start of each NPC's description. I liked that style and wouldn't mind seeing something like that in Realms products.
The idea is nice. Somewhat like AD&D sourcebooks...
I voted a lot. They are a lot of errors and I try to correct them in the versions I make for my friends. Granted, those are for fun that's involved in making sure the stats and backstory fit, but maybe my friends will use them... |
| Amarel Derakanor |
Posted - 07 Jun 2010 : 08:07:46
I agree with Diffan, even though I voted "A lot.", since I believe that if they take the effort to provide us with detailed descriptions, they should damn well better be accurate!
I also think that it would be a lot easier for them to just provide Race, Gender, Levels, et c., and the DM could take it from there. The "One-line" statistic. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Jun 2010 : 06:23:51
I voted not much because frankly they usually do a poor job of it and I disregard many of them right off the bat. I've found soo many errors in just a few supplements that I've stoped caring and do my own. Besides, many (if not most) of the NPC stat blocks came before the relese of 3.5 and thus make them un-official.
Take our beloved Drizzt for example. He has 1 feat that no longer exists and has ranks in a few skills that have been combined. Also, there are so many better options for him now that can mimic his powers that were described in the books (darknes/faerie fire more than 1/day) and a lots of better combat feats IMO. Then you take into account his gear and how's it's changed since 3.5 and you have even more things to account for (his bracers/anklets for 1).
So if I were to use an NPC I'd probably take his adjusted ECL and CR, look at the classes they gave him and his stats and do everything else myself. |
| BARDOBARBAROS |
Posted - 06 Jun 2010 : 21:48:30
A lot |
| Eremite |
Posted - 18 Sep 2006 : 10:36:00
I prefer the 2E standard: just alignment, gender, race and classes.
I don't like seeing stat blocks in 3.xE for a few reasons:
1. They take up too much space that could be better used, IMO, on Realmslore. The new version of the stat block is even worse because it takes up so much more space than the previous version.
2. They're rarely ever correct.
3. I prefer to do my own.
However, clearly they are required in adventures. Unlike Dargoth, I prefer mine to be included as an appendix... which I can then photocopy and mark (that's what I did with CotSQ).
So, except for adventures, I would much rather go back to the 2E standard. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 15 Sep 2006 : 11:14:06
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
As someone who writes stat blocks near constantly, I think they do have a use. The problem becomes when the creature is really complicates, has a lot of hit dice, or a lot of abilities. That makes it take up a lot of space and makes the potential for erros escalate. I agree with the sentiment that 3rd edition is the best rules edition so far in terms of playability, but I also think that stat blocks could use some reform.
My beef is less about the accuracy of stat blocks and more about where you guys insist on putting them in modules. For god sake put the stats in the room descriptions like they where in 2ed. CoSQ has been a right royal pain in the arse thanks to all the book flipping youve got to run the encounters |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 15 Sep 2006 : 10:47:56
Stats are helpful tools for a DM - certainly! However I don't care much for them as I hardly every use characters stated out in source books as villians. If my players ever tried they'd got their arms and legs torn of. I rather see my own creations being slain. |
| Zimme |
Posted - 13 Sep 2006 : 08:34:02
Well I voted 'not much'. npc like drizzt and such are special and if they are not described as such, the DM can simply alter them to his likeing, and that goes for "unrealistic" class levels as well.(at least from my point of wiew)=) |
| warlockco |
Posted - 13 Sep 2006 : 07:26:18
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I'm in the somewhat category also. If it's an NPC that the player characters are going to 'fight', then yes, they should have a full (and correct) stat block.
That said, for some of the 'powerful' NPCs of the Realms, I think that they should all have the one-line stat block, allowing individual DMs to feat and skill them out to suit their own purposes.
-- George Krashos
Have to agree with George here. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Sep 2006 : 01:31:26
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
the short version from 2ed. (name, class, level, at times alignment and high/low scores) was more than enough for me.
Ditto for me. This is all I usually want to know, which is why this is all I use on my NPC files for the Compendium. It allows me to change them around without wondering if I missed something. The large stat blocks in the current books make my eyes glaze over and so I only skim them, if I look at them at all.
Ditto. I don't pay any attention to the stat blocks, and consider them a waste of space.
Ditto*5.
As we've said before, the short still stat blocks Kuje mentioned above works for me as well -- providing simple details that can be easily altered quickly and effectively.
The only reason I'll look at the long stat blocks in 3e is to note particular new abilities or aspects of the stat blocks that I'm not familiar with, but since these are usually noted in the creature's/NPC's/PC's/other-statted-element write-up itself, even these instances are rare.
quote:
I've seen a couple of folks suggest that the stat blocks could be web enhancements, and that's something I'd not mind -- it'd be more room for Realmslore.
Indeed, I've heard this before.
However, to utilise such a practice would mean that the stats would be freely available, unless WotC intended to charge for the purchase of such PDFs through online download sites like DrivethruRPG -- since you are paying for both Realmslore and stats when you purchase an RPG printed product from WotC.
|
| Skeptic |
Posted - 12 Sep 2006 : 23:18:55
I don't bother with detailled NPC stats, but I like quick ones (HD, class levels, special magic items or custom powers).
|
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 12 Sep 2006 : 22:03:31
As someone who writes stat blocks near constantly, I think they do have a use. The problem becomes when the creature is really complicates, has a lot of hit dice, or a lot of abilities. That makes it take up a lot of space and makes the potential for erros escalate. I agree with the sentiment that 3rd edition is the best rules edition so far in terms of playability, but I also think that stat blocks could use some reform. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 12 Sep 2006 : 20:42:48
I prefer full stat blocks. As an active DM who runs an Epic Third Edition Realms game once per week, I know from experience that full stat blocks are necessary to keep things flowing smoothly.
In my situation I don’t always have time to plan ahead for each game, which means I often have to use stuff on the spot. Without full stat blocks I’d have to spend far too much time during play extrapolating missing information.
Of course, if I did have more time to plan I’d still consider it a waste of time to have to finish the work WotC started (so to speak). Also, IMX it’s very easy to alter NPCs/Monsters with full stat blocks, because the feats, skill points, etc… can generally be swapped out/around as needed.
I can’t imagine how having a partial stat block would make things any easier for DMs, particularly for those who intend to use each NPC/Creature to the fullest.
J. Grenemyer
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 12 Sep 2006 : 18:12:46
First off, let me add my voice to the chorus of those that are saying they prefer the "one line" stat block for NPCs that are meant to be long term characters. In fact, if they are envisioned as leader types that drive a city or organization, such a stat block would be a sort of "heads up" that the character will be referenced in the future, and might curtail some of the "I can't believe they used X when X is going to be the main villain in my campaign," syndrome I have seen.
I like 3.5, and think it really is the best of all D&D systems so far, but if it has taught us one thing, its that if you give something stats, people think they should kill it.
On the other hand, creatures that are meant to be adversaries, such as monster stat blocks, creatures in adventuers, encounter zones, etc. should have accurate stat blocks, but I'm not obsessive about these either. When you give an arcane caster a divine spell, it bothers me, when you give a gaurd to extra points to his bluff skill, I could care less.
One of the things I think is funny about the whole issue in 3.5 is that stat blocks are more and more looking like computer programs (add +3 to the line called str modifer, etc). If you looked at the lines of code in a supposedly "finished" computer program and saw how many screw ups, extra lines of useless code, etc., I think some people might be VERY surprised (this last bit of input came from my wife, when she decided to show me some of the programs her company has been using, and where lines of code had to be fixed). |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 12 Sep 2006 : 18:05:01
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
the short version from 2ed. (name, class, level, at times alignment and high/low scores) was more than enough for me.
Ditto for me. This is all I usually want to know, which is why this is all I use on my NPC files for the Compendium. It allows me to change them around without wondering if I missed something. The large stat blocks in the current books make my eyes glaze over and so I only skim them, if I look at them at all.
Ditto. I don't pay any attention to the stat blocks, and consider them a waste of space. I've seen a couple of folks suggest that the stat blocks could be web enhancements, and that's something I'd not mind -- it'd be more room for Realmslore.
And this dwarf here belong to your ranks: the old edition stat blocks are too much better (as Jorkens said). I think that npcs fully stated need to appear only in adventures, or when this is completely necessary.
Beyond that, it´s waste of space, that could be filled with more lore, (realmslore, in Forgotten Realms books; generic lore in core books, and so on. ) |
|
|
