[D&D/PF] Making important NPCs more powerful, weaker or equal to the party?

[Spore]

So I have a general question to you. At which level compared to the party do you create NPCs.

I play under several DMs and I DM myself occasionally.

I have one DM who chooses levels and challenges appropriate to the world not the players. He makes the important ruler 7th level and the current archmage of the mages' academy 17th level.

Another DM makes most important NPCs epic level. We worked for a chaotic neutral black dragon with wizard levels assuming at least 11 levels of wizard and at least adult dragon, our adversaries are an high level orc warlord (where my15th level PC evil orc barbarian is merely a henchman) and an LE ancient red dragon with several levels as sorcerer as well as a Cleric 8/Sorcerer 9 MT 10 Half Fiend Drow.

The third DM made his important NPCs almost always beatable for us. Unless it's the Archmage of ALL Elves or the Ancient Red Dragon that rules the north of the continent.

And then there's ... me. I have no real concept of good choices for levels for NPCs, I just happen to have some NPC ideas. The royal fleet's admiral should be some swashbuckling halfling. But is he 7th, 13 or 18th level? The setting's creator has set his most dangerous pirates ranging from 10-17. As the ruler is "just" an aristocrat (possibly with a few levels of Fighter as he stands for the old style of battle without guns) I wanted his advisor be an Rakshasa.

My main problem is that certain decisions have to be made beforehand and I am pretty unsure how I want to shape the world power level wise. The adventurers are 3rd level (will go fast progression until 8th or 9th level, no full casters) so they can't really do much of anything yet. Still as I want a sense of involvement and progression they should be able to pull SOMETHING. Now. Not tomorrow. Not next week. So how are you doing it?

[Rhunder]

For me, this is all based on starting level and type of campaign. I DM'd one game where the PCs started at level 6 but had accelerated leveling so base non important NPCs were level 6 NPC classes while more important characters were different based on what I was trying to portray.

The military ruler was level 12 fighter. Tougher than the average PC but no threat to the raptoran dragonfire adept PC. Than I had an epic level NPC who was the original main BBEG, I scaled him back anytime they fought him based on their level. I designed him to be fought on by 4 level 20 PCs. That was the plan, but the whole campaign turned when he party was more evil than the BBEG.

[MrConsideration]

ANYBODY who ends up travelling with the party should be weaker if they're a combatant at all.

A world in which PCs are an irrelevance is tedious.

I vote for 'appropriate for the world' with a caveat that the current adventure plot should probably involve characters the PCs could take in a fight. I always think a character with high class levels is going to be famous, though. That level 17 Archmage's name would be legend and he would treat with kings - I personally hate when high-level characters exist in the world for verisimilitude and end up just being window-dressing.

[Spore]

A world in which PCs are an irrelevance is tedious.

This is just ... like ... your opinion, man.

Well, I never said the PCs should be irrelevant. But I don't see how power disparities further good roleplaying habits. You can't just wade into battle thinking: "I'm a 16th level wizard. There is either no one strong enough on the field to kill me as long as I have spells or the fate (DM) will just adjust his difficulty to my whims."

The thought process I am aiming towards is more like this: "I'm a 16th level wizard. My presence on the battlefield might be advantageous but I would also endanger myself. Maybe I am more suited for divinating up the weak points of their defence, buffing up my soldiers and protecting them from enemy magic."

But in that sense I also am a sucker for classical drama. PCs have to die at some point. A wizard should be vulnerable to a magical poisoned dart. A fighter should be able to be dominated. A rogue should be in major trouble if a perceptive fighter spots him. There should always be a risk. The problem is just how to enact that?

NPCs can be very well prepared (due to the knowledge the DM has about the heroes). They can fill a great niche while PCs have to be some sort of generalists. PCs on the other hand have more daily ressources, often better action economy and the power of synergy. You can't always expect a called demon to protect the squishy necromancer of the encounter. But you can expect the fighter to cover for the party's wizard.

[Sartharina]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]
But in that sense I also am a sucker for classical drama. PCs have to die at some point. A wizard should be vulnerable to a magical poisoned dart. A fighter should be able to be dominated. A rogue should be in major trouble if a perceptive fighter spots him. There should always be a risk. The problem is just how to enact that?
A shame there's almost no such thing as a Perceptive Fighter in D&D/Pathfinder. And if you dominate fighters, you're a terrible, terrible person, because that's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Thrudd]

I think it would be up to the type of setting you want to run. For 3/PF, I prefer a world where the vast majority of people are lvl 1. 3rd level characters would be known in their home town as successful adventurers, but probably not much beyond that. Average size cities probably have a handful of level 10 people who would be famous throughout the area of a kingdom, like a famous blacksmith, the war hero guard captain, and the king's advisor wizard. There may be a handful people over level 15 in the entire world. Some of those handful may be involved in world changing plots, but I would recommend against having low level PC's get involved with them.

I second the notion that any NPC's who actually accompany the party on a permanent basis be lower level than the PC's (basically henchmen). Equal or slightly higher level NPC's may be part of an adventure for a short time, but not be a permanent party member. Significantly higher level NPC's might be quest givers or patrons or long-term environmental hazards (like a tyrannical warlord behind the invading hordes or a wizard creating a plague of undead).

How big is this kingdom and this fleet that the Halfling is the admiral of? Do you feel your PC's at level 8 or 9 should be heroes the kingdom is counting on? If so, then the admiral probably shouldn't be much higher level than that, otherwise he and others like him might have handled everything themselves.

[sktarq]

ANYBODY who ends up travelling with the party should be weaker if they're a combatant at all.

A world in which PCs are an irrelevance is tedious.

I vote for 'appropriate for the world' with a caveat that the current adventure plot should probably involve characters the PCs could take in a fight.
Yeah about that irrelevant thing. It is really is your opinion. I personally find the opposite to be generally true. Trying to save kingdoms etc is very impersonal and a personal touch will make the players give a damn and that's what makes it fun. If you can get your players to give a damn about the epic quest to save all ....good on ya. But even if they are irrelevant at the big scale doesn't mean they will irrelevant in the small scale. That innkeeper's live has totally changed because the PC's we able to rescue his daughter.
As being able to take the adventures NPC in a fight....never a good idea to have that as a general rule. As a DM you need to be able push the PC's away from certain choices by have the NPC's be too tough for them to hack apart. Show them the world doesn't revolve around them is a great way to make it matter when they do effect things-let them be clever and "punch above their weight" in effect by smart play.


A shame there's almost no such thing as a Perceptive Fighter in D&D/Pathfinder. And if you dominate fighters, you're a terrible, terrible person, because that's like shooting fish in a barrel.

That is why it makes such a good threat....They know this mage likes to cast dominate on fighter types. . . watch the fighter suddenly marshal armies, get political, etc.


Also almost all power in things like military, politics etc. are based on social power not personal power. It is that social power and the power of the ROLE that matter. Pleaty of generals have never served in combat and can barely shoot a gun. Hell Genghis Khan wasn't actually that great a battle commander (good but not great) but was extremely talented at finding, promoting, and keeping loyal those who were. So there is very little need for higher ranking people to actually be more skilled at whatever end-result ability (classically poking people with sharp objects) than the people who will actually go out and do that thing. The key skills to running an army are management skills not sword skills.

[jedipotter]

So I have a general question to you. At which level compared to the party do you create NPCs.



As a default I use 10th level as the average level for typical experienced person in the world. Though some will have a couple more or couple less levels. Most will have a good bit to make them powerful, though in a more direct limited way.

If a NPC might be in direct conflict with a PC, they will just about always a trick to make them powerful enough to be a challenge....but not always. I do like the more ''storybook'' type of character, where the NPC will be powerful, but have some sort of role-play limit on their power(in a way few PC's ever want to do).

And unlike the typical ''Lone Wolf'' PCs, NPC will actually work together. So if the PC's go all crazy to kill a single NPC, they will often find themselves in a very unbalanced encounter vs a lot of NPCs. Not that the PC's can't kill a NPC, I'm only talking about the crazy ''Lets goes to town and kill the magic shop owner..in broad daylight at one in the afternoon..and take all his stuff..woo hoo!''

[VoxRationis]

It depends upon the NPC.

Mages are usually going to be higher-level, I feel, because you generally need them to be casting NPC-type magic that accomplishes story effects, and those tend to be at least mid-level.
The king? Unless he's specifically a warrior-king who leads from the front, he's not going to be high-level at all. If he's particularly competent, he might be a mid-level skill character. Leader-type characters, unless they come from cultures where authority is directly dependent upon battle prowess, are unlikely to be especially adept in such things.
Any NPC established as having accomplished a particular task needs to be high-level enough to reasonably do that task; anyone with a backstory needs to be at least as high-level as that backstory would propel a PC. Otherwise you get stuff like the war hero Carth Onasi being 3rd level, which breaks suspension of disbelief but hard.
I generally have low-level NPCs for the reason that I'm a low-level kind of DM. I like things to be down-to-earth. The king should be someone you can assassinate with clever play and good skill rolls, not a 4-on-1 boss battle.
It can be fairly tempting to have NPCs be much higher-level than the PCs, as a deterrent to the players' desire to solve roleplaying problems through violence, but I feel that such a thing can lead to ravaging verisimilitude via the "why send level 4 characters to save the world" problem.

[LibraryOgre]

Who is your daddy and what does he do?

So, a king might be moderately leveled... 7th isn't unreasonable, assuming he's had some real-world experience. An Archmage, though, is going to be impressively leveled; he's gotten his position through skill and merit (in most cases), and so is going to be more powerful than most of the others, or have a REALLY good reason he is not.

[ElenionAncalima]

I generally try to maintain the following standards:
1. If the NPC is recruitable, keep PCs' level or lower.
2. If interactions with the NPC will probably result in combat, give them a beatable CR.
3. An uber-powerful NPC should have a good reason for being so strong and their power should not be rubbed in players faces.

However, sometimes it is impossible to predict who your players will recruit and who they will instigate combat with. Also, I think it is good to have some people who are out of reach to the players. It gives them something to work towards and encourages non-murderhobo problem solving. As such, I take each NPC on a case-by-case basis. I don't think there is a universal rule that can be applied.

[BWR]

In short, how NPCs fit into the world is more important than anything else. The idea that everything should adjust itself to fit the PCs is ridiculous. There will be plenty of threats for the PCs to face their entire careers, from kobold attacks to demonic invasions. The opponents and the various non-hostile NPCs have their own ideas and their own histories and own plans and own strengths independantly of the PCs. The game has the PCs as the main characters but that doesn't necessarily mean the world revolves around them. A powerful warlord or continent-threatening wizard isn't going to be 7th level so the PCs have a challangeing but winnable fight at 4th or 5th level. If the PCs go after someone who is obviously out of their league, they will have their butts handed to them. NPCs I intend the PCs to fight are generally not going to be more than a couple levels higher or lower than the party. This is not so much the world adjusting to fit the PCs as the PCs finding appropriate challenges. Sometimes they will bite off more than they can chew and have to run. Sometimes the enemy is surprisingly easy.

The important thing to remember is that if you intend the PCs to fight someone, they should have some realistic chance at winning or escaping if the opponent is too powerful. For all my talk of world building and internal consistency being more important that automatically scaling all NPCs to the PCs, the game is intended to give PCs a chance. Maybe they have to think outside the box, maybe they have to retreat and plan revenge while undergoing a training montage in the form of other adventures, maybe they have to find the McGuffin, maybe they have to put their diplomatic skills to work and create an alliance of powerful people but they should have a reaslitic chance at winning in some way. Wiping out a party with obviously superior opposition just because 'she's that awesome' without giving them a chance is no different than saying 'rocks fall, everyone dies'. If PCs mess with people they don't need to, no such concerns are necessary (like telling the emperor that his first born child, whom you have been so graciously been allowed to see as a reward for your oustanding service, is an ugly little troll).

[Mr Beer]

World appropriate with a tendency for PC level to exert some 'drag' over the default NPC level if I think they might cross swords.

Also powerful NPCs might be combat weak but powerful in that they have lots of money, henchmen and the legal system on their side. The PCs could probably best the Archduke of Mistonia in a fistfight. But the Archduke didn't get where he is today by getting into brawls with murderhobos, that's what his extensive collection of elite guards is for.

[paraWitchling]

ANYBODY who ends up travelling with the party should be weaker if they're a combatant at all.

A world in which PCs are an irrelevance is tedious.

I vote for 'appropriate for the world' with a caveat that the current adventure plot should probably involve characters the PCs could take in a fight. I always think a character with high class levels is going to be famous, though. That level 17 Archmage's name would be legend and he would treat with kings - I personally hate when high-level characters exist in the world for verisimilitude and end up just being window-dressing.

My case may be a bit of a special one (seeing as in the two games I currently run, the PCs are a bunch of ambitious evil-doers specifically running an evil cult with a bunch of minions, and newly anointed pirates running their own pirate crew), but my PCs have taken to...'adopting' NPCs, if you will, and making them permanent members of the party via circumstance and sometimes brainwashing.


I've gotten around this by a. Letting the PCs effectively 'mentor' these NPCs (like a master/student sort of thing) and letting them have a say as to how said characters develop, (class options, feats, ect), as well as b. taking control of them during battle.


This means that I can both focus on portraying the relationship said characters have to the PCs (as they form a big ol family of evil), while not letting them 'outshine' anyone when it counts - because anything amazing said NPC pulls off is a decision and a die-roll made by a player.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder:

Whatever you do, the important NPCs should not be zombies. Unless they really should be. But not zombie threads, because those are bad.