| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 21:52:18
|
That's where I draw my line. Keep the examples of player characters in the D&D rulebook. I'd like my Realms iconics to be undoubtedly NPCs. Now, make them player-friendly, so if people want to play as them, cool. But make them *something definite* canonically, and then say "the DM has the liberty to do as he/she wishes". If you want to include some variable stats, I guess it's fine to a degree. Stats are an abstraction (God knows I'm sick of ignoring ridiculous stats in some products anyway). But make them integrated to the setting and coherent.
And there's no reason level 1 characters, as well as characters with no PC class levels can't be canon. They don't need to be movers and shakers, but then again they might too (not the iconics, that'd be focusing on the movers and shakers again...). |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
Edited by - Mapolq on 25 Jan 2014 14:10:23 |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36996 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 23:14:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
That's where I draw my line. Keep the examples of player characters in the D&D rulebook. I'd like my Realms iconics to be undoubtedly NPCs. Now, make them player-friendly, so if people want to play as them, cool. But make them *something definite* canonically, and then say "the DM has the liberty to do as he wishes". If you want to include some variable stats, I guess it's fine to a degree. Stats are an abstraction (God knows I'm sick of ignoring ridiculous stats in some products anyway). But make them integrated to the setting and coherent.
Well, my idea is to have them canon... As I said in my OP:
In fact, what they could do is -- like Paizo -- write up some characters and keep their write-ups free online. But also, every few months, add to those write-ups. "After Bahb the Fighter's narrow escape from the goblins of Mount Yadda-yadda, he found himself lost in the Flaming Swamp, where he barely escaped giant carnivorous rodents and random balls of fire." This could help develop the characters, make the setting more vibrant, and allow WotC to drop in all sorts of random lore and such (like the mysterious hulking figure that led the Yadda-yadda goblins).
So they'd not be in novels or adventures, but they'd still be doing stuff, and little bits of lore can be dropped in wherever... |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 23:32:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
I get what you're saying about the trickle-down. I guess it doesn't matter in my games because my players don't earn XP, they usually make their characters at the desired level for the arc, which we decide as a group, and then we advance them if we feel they've grown and accomplished things. This way we have them where we want them to be.
That's a perfectly reasonable way to handle experience and I've done the same in some of my games. However, in such discussions dealing with baseline assumptions of the game and setting, it is important to note the way things are as state in the rules and how the information presented was designed to be handled.
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
I'm not sure if you were commenting about my campaign example. But my characters are players in their own right, not overshadowed by local NPCs. The king of Sespech and the Lord of Arrabar are higher level than they are, but Dediana Extaminos of Hlondeth and Prince Woren of Nimpeth are not, for example. In Innarlith, their only senior is the Magister, who isn't a even a resident (Talatha is a native of Innarlith and has some ties to the city still, but as Magister she has other duties). As for political power, one of the characters has managed to be elected Ransar of Innarlith. We try to set the character levels to provide for interesting play.
I realized you were pulling existing Realms examples and drawing on your own game, but I was referring to your discussion rationalizing where NPCs fit in level-wise relative to each other. I was referring to your design discussion and was not making a slight against your own game.
It sounded like in your example you were designing "over" the PCs and your issue with the 1-20 level scale was it did not offer enough granularity to accurately differentiate the many different NPCs. Thus you indicated opening up levels 20-30+ offers an extended range to spread them out. Then even in your own post, you said NPCs of greater influence and power did not necessarily have to out-level the PCs. And that is true.
I've been pointing out that by stretching the scale out (which the designers have done), other NPCs would start sliding up or new NPCs would be designed around this new expanded scale. So we end up with an overall setting that does not match up to the established 1-20 baseline game (which every other setting and the supplemental materials such as Monster Manuals are mostly designed towards).
In a way, the designers have been doing exactly what we've been arguing against. Creating more and more NPCs based around the top tier to balance things out.
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
Concerning dragons, planar invasions, etc... eh, I guess I just prefer my mortals to be generally able to ward off such creatures. It just makes sense to me, otherwise why wouldn't every realm in Faerūn be ruled by dragons, outsiders, etc? NPCs who can make short work of one powerful dragon seem pretty much a necessity. But also, most of these creatures are players in their own right. A dragon is not Godzilla - the Tarrasque kinda is, and I guess that's why I always found the Tarrasque so silly.
But yeah, I agree they should make the level scale as internally consistent as possible. And then focus on the low end of it.
How to handle powerful intelligent monsters aside.
My "real world" example was saying: The extended scale as described above essentially translates in a modern setting to few modern world Presidents armed with nuclear pistols can single-handedly defeat major alien armadas and ancient menaces. This happens in superhero stories, so we get the comparison of the Chosen with the Justice League.
Indeed, the Realms were once ruled by dragons, giants, creator races, fey, demihumans, and outsiders (ex. jinn). The setting has in-story explanations why those races declined enough for the mundane races to overrun them. Mortal magic also used to be much more powerful, but after calamities a new baseline has been established.
Also note humans with a few levels can theoretically be decent contenders for much of these dragons and outsiders. Take an honest look at the CRs of such dragons and outsiders (drawn from the Pathfinder SRD, cause it's handy for me):
CR 6
- Djinni (Str 18, Int 14, Wis 15, Cha 15, CL 9)
CR 8
- Efreeti (Str 23, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 15, CL 11)
CR 10
- Fire Giant (Str 31, Int 10, Wis 13)
- Rakshasa (Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 17, CL 7)
At this point we're looking at monsters a level 10 party can handle, which is to say most of the game groups fall somewhere in this area. It's half the 1-20 game. While these monsters wipe the floor with Level 1 human warrior, the "elite" (a party like Miklos Selkirk would belong to) would be even matches.
Compared to most PC races, a handful of these guys could easily found a petty kingdom or dozen.
Sure, the genie lords Calim and Memmnon were probably Epic, but again they were the outliers. Most of their citizens were CR 6 or CR 8.
CR 15
- Very Old Black Dragon (Str 31, int 16, Wis 19, Cha 16, CL 9)
- Mature Adult Red Dragon (Str 33, Int 16, Wis 17, Cha 16, CL 9)
CR 16
- Horned Devil (Int 14, Wis 22, Cha 23, CL 16) These aren't rank and file grunts, they're elite warrior devils.
CR 17
- Marilith Demon (Int 18, Wis 18 Cha 25, CL 16) These are the generals of abyssal hordes. A demon invasion has a few of these as commanders, they're not the regular soldiers.
CR 20
- Balor Demon
- Pit Fiend (As the one above, these are the top of the food chain for the demons and devils, short of the unique nobles and archfiends who operate on a planar scale.)
CR 22
Great Wyrm Red Dragon (top of the Chromatic dragon food chain)
By this point we've moved away from rank & file. We're dealing with monsters elites if not monster sovereigns. All attainable within a 1-20 game. We could even throw in an advanced Balor or Great Wyrm (a template or a few levels, with elite stats and optimized feats and skills plus appropriate gear) and still be an achievable end boss for a level 20 party.
These beings are plenty deadly and more than enough to found an empire using a small cadre of servitor monsters serving as nobles and surrounded by mortal subjects. |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 23:48:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
That's where I draw my line. Keep the examples of player characters in the D&D rulebook. I'd like my Realms iconics to be undoubtedly NPCs. Now, make them player-friendly, so if people want to play as them, cool. But make them *something definite* canonically, and then say "the DM has the liberty to do as he wishes". If you want to include some variable stats, I guess it's fine to a degree. Stats are an abstraction (God knows I'm sick of ignoring ridiculous stats in some products anyway). But make them integrated to the setting and coherent.
Well, my idea is to have them canon... As I said in my OP:
In fact, what they could do is -- like Paizo -- write up some characters and keep their write-ups free online. But also, every few months, add to those write-ups. "After Bahb the Fighter's narrow escape from the goblins of Mount Yadda-yadda, he found himself lost in the Flaming Swamp, where he barely escaped giant carnivorous rodents and random balls of fire." This could help develop the characters, make the setting more vibrant, and allow WotC to drop in all sorts of random lore and such (like the mysterious hulking figure that led the Yadda-yadda goblins).
So they'd not be in novels or adventures, but they'd still be doing stuff, and little bits of lore can be dropped in wherever...
What Wooly said.
I'm really not understanding these cautious reactions towards the concept of Realms Iconics. And it's come from more than one scribe throughout this thread.
It's as if a few characters designed as pre-gens with a background for low level play somehow sullies the Realms if they're not traditional NPCs with novels and stuff, featured heavily in the canon, or hobnobbing at holiday feasts with the Chosen.
How are they different from a level 1 party in your home Realms game (they're not canon) or any hundreds of adventuring bands actually mentioned in canon sources?
I'll answer to save posting again, they're not. Why not feature such characters more heavily for 5E Realms for a change.
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
I'd put them around levels 1-3 myself, but I could see making it 5 or so to give them the ability and inclination to travel farther and have more initiative.
I guess what I'm trying to say all along, though, is that people shouldn't de-scale the levels and think that'll solve the problem. It might be part of the problem, but a relatively minor one. Drizzt, for example, was level 17 or something in 3e, and statted in a way that most level 12 PCs could give him a sound beating one-to-one, but he still was perceived as stealing the scene. He would probably still be stealing the scene if he was level 5, if he was still shown as "that guy" who pops up everywhere doing the awesome stuff and gracing sourcebook covers. Instead we should have about twenty of those, so no targets can be painted anywhere.
Also, I'm aware that Drizzt is way more than that, I'm just commenting on that dreaded perception.
Optimization is irrelevant as many monsters are not optimized. Drizzt is capable of dealing with threats around his level (more or less, but we're getting into imprecise novel:game transcription) and more importantly under (and at CR 17, that under consists of most of the MM). He's also not saddled with stunted caster levels (he never progresses in Ranger enough to reach spellcasting), so his warrior type bonuses (BAB, Saves, HP, Feats) stack in a way. If he were CR 5, this wouldn't be as much a problem, as he's just your typical middling adventurer. He would have "everyman" adventures like most PCs in the Realms with potential for greatness. But Drizzt alone isn't the problem.
Drizzt is the lower end of "twenty of those" who consist of the Chosen and the like. They've got bigass Epic bullseyes painted on them. Any one of the Chosen, or even a dozen aren't the problem. It's all of them combined, and featured in novels and covers and RSEs. It's the decades of focus on them that led us to today.
We've already discussed this, all of us. It's not that the Epics or Drizzt exist. They bring a lot of popularity to the setting, but the setting has more layers than them.
Golarion is able to have Iconics and different continuing characters for their novel line. The pathfinder Eando Kline has been featured in several short stories. I think the novel characters Varian Jeggare and his bodyguard Radovan have been featured in three or four novels now, plus some short stories.
We can have Iconics and novel characters (and they don't have to be epic level) and all of it can be fun.
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
I know this may seem counter intuitive but I think their stats should vary depending on the adventure they are placed in as pregens (which is what I think Paizo does with them). They are meant to be examples of playable characters, NOT part of canon in the sense that they are 'movers and shakers' or appear in novels. And now that I think about it...DnD did this with the original (non-advanced) game. Their 'iconics' were placed in the Companion and Master-level games 'as needed.'
By stats I mean level, not attributes.
The Paizo Iconics have variable stats. There's probably a level-by-level write up for them somewhere, or if not, at least for the first few levels and then every couple of levels beyond that for a bit.
The stats are not important. The characters are important (but not important in a Realmsian Epic kind of way). They're important for representing a "slice of life" for Golarion adventurers and being recognizable faces to put on book covers and art. |
Edited by - Dark Wizard on 24 Jan 2014 00:13:02 |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2014 : 00:38:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
How are they different from a level 1 party in your home Realms game (they're not canon) or any hundreds of adventuring bands actually mentioned in canon sources?
I'll answer to save posting again, they're not.
They're different from PCs because PCs are not canon and their story is in the hands of a player, they aren't different from other mentioned and/or statted adventuring bands, in fact that's exactly what I'd want the iconics to be.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Drizzt is the lower end of "twenty of those" who consist of the Chosen and the like. They've got bigass Epic bullseyes painted on them. Any one of the Chosen, or even a dozen aren't the problem. It's all of them combined, and featured in novels and covers and RSEs. It's the decades of focus on them that led us to today.
We've already discussed this, all of us. It's not that the Epics or Drizzt exist. They bring a lot of popularity to the setting, but the setting has more layers than them.
I meant we should have twenty or more characters without stupendous power who appear everywhere instead of a couple (plus another famous clique of epics and two or three "villains of the day"). If it were me I'd actually keep *a bit* of focus on the high and mighty as well, because they make for great stories too. I wouldn't mind if some iconics were powerful (though not rulers or puppeteers, since being iconic means their story should be fairly static, so you don't want them interacting with too many people - so powerful retired adventurer or cloistered mage/priest would be better). But I guess we've already have powerful people overdoing that stuff, so I think it's a good idea to break with the flow for a good while.
Still, sourcebooks ought to give you something about the high and mighty, because from them it's much easier to extrapolate how the rest of society might work. For this reason most sourcebooks will tell you about rulers and other powerful people. It's really difficult building a setting from the ground up. But there's got to be some compromise - more page-count for characters who don't seem as relevant. Ed does that all the time in his Forging the Realms column and elsewhere. It's just that I want to see, spread the focus - and it will become evident that all or most of these high-level folks aren't even well-known outside their main area of residence/influence. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2014 : 04:53:47
|
Perhaps that's one way Wizards can "top" Paizo. Have their Iconics be an official adventuring group, with charter and everything. It could serve as a smaller scale Pathfinder Society or Markus's Wayfarer Guild. A good way to give the Iconics some association and a bit more weight than a freelancing, roving adventuring party.
The Wayfarer Guild I think should be an official part of the Realms (in some form), perhaps am explorers/travellers/wanderers guild supported by the auspices of an alliance of clergy for Shaundakul, Mielikki, Llira, Tymora, Oghma, etc. Somewhat less meddlesome than the Harpers, they're people who just like to travel, see, know, and learn.
The 5E FRCG should definitely provide ample space for the various Mighty and Epics of the Realms. Taking a look at other settings show they are not devoid of such characters, they play integral roles in the setting. For whatever reason, the Realms just sort of clings to its high-levels for the press.
Seems Wizards is aiming for a different approach either way. They're going for an Event-based marketing/development plan rather than a character-based strategy. Where as Iconics sort of tie the Paizo APs and other products together, it may be the regular Events which will drive and sell WotC products as a cohesive package. |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12221 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2014 : 12:17:54
|
| On the level 1 to 3 for iconics.... so you show them facing off against a beholder or something and we're supposedly to believe they survived? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2014 : 20:26:54
|
| Why couldn't they survive against a beholder? Regardless, theartwork doesn't need to adhere to encounter guidelines in the DMG because the art is there to inspire and excite. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 25 Jan 2014 20:27:37 |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2014 : 04:05:15
|
Right what Jeremy said. The art is meant for inspiration.
Also, the level of the Iconics varies with the adventure.
And before we get into a discussion about inconsistency and immersion, consider it looking at the Iconics at differing times in their careers.
Unlike novel characters, there doesn't need to be a linear narrative, though one could easily cobble one together if desired.
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4494 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2014 : 06:03:12
|
| Like the Pathfinder Iconics, what they should do is write-ups of them at various levels. If you'll check out the Pathfinder_OGC you'll see you can check for the iconic character at 1st, 7th, and 12th level. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2014 : 07:25:45
|
| Regarding the artwork: for the sake of consistency, must the Realms Iconics be drawn and painted by the same artist? |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36996 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2014 : 13:58:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Regarding the artwork: for the sake of consistency, must the Realms Iconics be drawn and painted by the same artist?
I, personally, would not have any objection to multiple artists, provided they are consistent in their depictions. Sadly, though, consistent artwork is not something WotC has ever shown any ability to manage. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 26 Jan 2014 13:58:55 |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2014 : 21:51:14
|
The Iconics don't need to be drawn by the same artist. We see from Paizo's material many artists have worked with the Iconics. What they did do was get one artist (Wayne A. Reynolds) to design the initial visual concept from which all later depictions are based on.
It's not too different from what WotC did with 3E Iconics (and FR NPCs) concepts by Todd Lockwood, Sam Wood, (and Matt Wilson). |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1885 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2014 : 23:42:15
|
| I think they need to be conceptually the same artwork and I would prefer a single artist for them all. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Idea: 5E/Next Iconics
