Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 Idea: 5E/Next Iconics

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Wooly Rupert Posted - 08 Jan 2014 : 03:47:23
So Paizo does this thing with characters... There is a group of NPCs that grace the covers of a lot of Paizo stuff, and pop up in other places. They're not really big names in the setting, or anything; in-setting, they're just more adventurers.

They are written up here, without stats: Meet the Iconics

Now, obviously there are a lot of NPCs in the Realms. But a comment in the 5E/Next map discussion got me wondering if the Realms could use something like this. NPCs who don't grace a buttload of novels, who aren't high-level, just average adventurers... Use them as kind of a public face for the setting, instead of slapping the same two characters on every third product.

I think that doing something like this could help decrease the perception that every other NPC is 20+ in level and that there is nothing for lower level people to do. Additionally, keeping the iconics out of novels and modules would help them be an easier "entry point" for new fans.

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).

It's just a thought I had, and I've not really pondered it deeply... Thoughts?
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
The Arcanamach 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.
Dark Wizard 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).
Mapolq Posted - 26 Jan 2014 : 14:53:02
I don't mind different artists, even if the style is very different. As long as the character is immediately recognizable, it's fine. For that purpose, the iconics should probably have a few very defining features that would make them "easy to spot" (should be careful not to go overboard and make them peacocks though).
Wooly Rupert 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.
Jeremy Grenemyer 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?
Diffan 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.
Dark Wizard 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.


Jeremy Grenemyer 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.
Mapolq Posted - 25 Jan 2014 : 14:04:54
That's why I said I wouldn't mind some powerful ones. But that's been done to death, thus the lower level proposal. I don't suppose anyone would think this concept would be permanent (things seldom are), but while they're doing low-level, well, the answer is "don't draw the iconics fighting a beholder". They can still make those scenes and draw other recognizably cool people fighting the beholder if needed. A generic Red Wizard or (presumably high level) Purple Dragon Knight, for example.
sleyvas 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?
Mapolq Posted - 25 Jan 2014 : 11:33:24
A chartered adventuring band sounds very cool. They could be pretty big and come from different backgrounds, despite being chartered somewhere else.

But I agree, it seems WotC is going for these Events. It makes sense if they want to keep their "play in any world" approach instead of pushing the Realms as core. Which may be the ideal for many of us here, since "core FR" almost invariably means "late 1400s FR", whereas support for any world may mean support for 1300s FR too.
sfdragon Posted - 25 Jan 2014 : 07:57:25
...bahb...... really... bahb


funny but these guys keep coming to mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-XYt3JzLJY
Dark Wizard 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.
Mapolq 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.
Dark Wizard 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.
Dark Wizard 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.
Wooly Rupert 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...
Mapolq 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...).
The Arcanamach Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 21:30:32
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.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 21:12:17
I'd not object to seeing them go as high as level 5 or 7... But no further.

Of course, the online write-ups of the Pathfinder Iconics don't even include levels or stats -- and I think that's a great way to go.
Shadowsoul Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 20:52:40
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Redneck with a crossbow.

Every setting now needs a redneck with crossbow.




I'm sure you could get Darrel.
Markustay Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 19:01:42
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon

So the iconics.. levels 1 to 3 for em?
It depends.

In their most basic form, yes. I think Paizo has them at several different (fairly low) levels, depending on which adventure path they are in. Since most of those AP's are made as 'campaign starters', and take a character up in levels, it makes sense they start out pretty low, if not level 1.

However, they also did mythic versions of them, for their mythic tier... which kind of blows everything we are talking about here right out of the water. I guess they can do that because they had already established them as the low-lev iconics, and just added a layer of 'cool' to them. Then again, Mythic =/= Epic, so I could be way off with these assumptions. Presumably a 1st level character can be epic.
Mapolq Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 18:05:58
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.
sfdragon Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 17:18:57
If in 5e, the introduction to the realms is done by Elminster again, that is fine, but he should be listed in Cormyr or Shadowdale under notable npcs in said areas. Should he need to be stated again, then only in whichever area he retired in.

So the iconics.. levels 1 to 3 for em?


Markustay Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 15:19:13
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard

The Realms design is in part based on the (few) outliers instead of the standard (majority). Because the Epics are focused upon so much and their levels are noted as such and such height, the setting has started to shift towards that new normal that doesn't match as well with the standard game.
THIS.

That was the reason (or at least, the one they gave us) for why the Realms had to be 'nuked' in 4e. The game everyone was playing had nothing in common with the stories, or even the setting guides. Why play in a world where you amounted to 'a nobody'?

Which is why ALL focus needs to be shifted OFF the Mary-Sues in the setting. Sadly, The Sundering is a VERY bad start. It screams "its all about THESE guys - don't even bother trying".

But we shall see........

EDIT: Which is why we need to keep the iconics low-level and NORMAL, so that new fans can have something to identify with, whether they use them as pregen characters or not. We are not saying the setting shouldn't have high level NPCs - it just shouldn't focus on them (the way it currently does).
Mapolq Posted - 23 Jan 2014 : 06:30:40
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.

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.

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.
Dark Wizard Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 22:55:08
My stance is not about PCs vs NPCs in the Epic range or otherwise. It was never about fighting NPCs or removing NPCs. It was about how a seemingly innocuous decision (later unsupported) to include Epic stats ultimately fed into an already growing perception working against the Realms that did have some trickle down effect on other non-Epic NPCs over time and how to possibly address or mitigate it.

It's also not about slavishly adhering to a 1-20 scale, but pointing out why the perception is founded on some solid evidence (which even late 3E/3.5E era FR was designed towards).

I don't hate or love the high-level write ups. Of course I say that viewing things from hindsight. I feel a bit more prudence and revised design could go a long way. It's not the panacea for all the supposed ills, but one of many avenues that could be addressed. If Epic had been well supported, that tier of FR could have been a good representative for that branch of D&D. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and it left those aspects of the setting incongruous with the rest of the game.

It's actually not too late if WotC is serious about supporting all eras and editions of play. With electronic publications, it's relatively efficient to address this in a few Dragon articles. They don't necessarily need to rescinde the Epic Level write-ups either. As an example, I point to older edition example with variable stats for some NPCs (such as Khelben in one of the Waterdeep supplements). That provides a versatility to handling NPCs that makes them viable components of the game at all levels (and opens them up for DMs to make their own determinations for them, which they could always do, but this method provides ready made tools to facilitate).

***

Mapolq, why must relatively local NPCs outrank PCs? Especially PCs who have earned their levels through game and roleplay.

This is what I mean by "feel Level 15".

With the Realms some rulers are Level 20ish, others are pure Epic. This trickles down, according to your extended range. A kingdom's general is thus level 18, the court mage is level 19, maybe the guard captain is level 10, etc.

In other settings, the ruler is level 15, his lesser rivals are 13-14. The general is level 11, the court mage is 13. The movers and shakers (Elminster and Szass-Shoon types) are level 20ish.

Where does the Level 15 PC fit into this? In other settings they're the kingdom's greatest champions (they're high level). In the Realms, they're middling level. One might say, well, editions change and all that jazz, but no, AD&D has been decently consistent. Level 15 is a character to be reckoned with, multiple attacks, loaded with often unique magic and weapons, 8th level spells, etc.

It's not about PC entitlement. Level 15 PCs in the Realms worked just as hard as Level 15 PCs in Eberron or Golarion. It's not about "well, Eberron is built around a different level of play" because both FR and Eberron are built on the same game using the same monster manual for most of the regular monsters (and even their setting specific monsters to an extent).

The Realms design is in part based on the (few) outliers instead of the standard (majority). Because the Epics are focused upon so much and their levels are noted as such and such height, the setting has started to shift towards that new normal that doesn't match as well with the standard game.

***

The nuclear analogy is weak one because the equivalent to nuclear-armed politicians are the likes of the Simbul and Szass Tam (Presidents of a sort). While they are internally consistent with each other, mutually assured destruction vs equals. Against the rest of the game, the incongruity widens significantly.

In that scenario, the President (El, Simbul, Szass, etc.) fires their nukes and it wipes out Godzilla (dragons, maybe even the Tarresque) or the alien armada (demon invasion of fairly decent CR fiends) without incident.

It's kind of like a nuclear-armed USA vs non-nuclear Imperial Japan, but not the USA of late WWII, it's like a modern nuclear-powered Nimitz aircraft carrier gone back in time to head off the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Like in the movie The Final Countdown.

In most genre appropriate movies or books, the big bad or unending hordes (ex: alien armada) are "immune to nukes" (the level 13 court mage's spells) and a weakness must be discovered and exploited, thus the tension rises and the story is enjoyable.

Now I'm not saying the Realms aren't enjoyable, but I am pointing out the sort of incongruity the Realms has to navigate. "Solving" this isn't the cure, but the 5E Realms have to be much more on the ball with these situations.
Mapolq Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 15:13:25
Wooly: I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion. I think we're just going on circles here, I'm just arguing there wouldn't likely be this perception (or it would be a lesser one) if these NPCs weren't plastered everywhere, and that it doesn't matter a whole deal which level they're statted at. Of course a player won't be able to do everything all the NPCs do, that would be a pretty crazy story, wouldn't it? But they can do some of the rule-breaking things the NPCs do, or they have in my campaigns.

Dark Wizard: Basically, because an absolute 1-20 scale will tend to compress characters into it, and end up making it more difficult to differentiate them. I grant you, that's not a very good reason. As I said, I admired the simulationist attitude of 3e, where even though people knew it couldn't be well simulated, the idea was that everything could ultimately be made to follow the rules. At the same time, I praise the idea that every one of these rules can also ultimately be scrapped at any time. So I guess an open ended scale would make it easier to throw a simulation of a character when you needed to.

I've run into this problem in Pathfinder. The characters are all around levels 11-13 and senators of the city of Innarlith. They have had, or might have, contact with several people who should be considerably more powerful than them - the Magister, Malchor Harpell, Marek Rymüt (the previous Khazark of Innarlith), King (Baron, canonically) Thuragar, Gavilon Jostins (his "court wizard"), Eles Wianar, and a few Zulkirs. Now, when I try to give these people levels within the 1-20 scheme, they all end up in the 15-18 range, since they must be the PC's seniors, but not quite the top of the heap yet. Now, I haven't statted any of them, I just wanted to establish their levels as a pecking order of sorts (not that people with lower levels can't defeat, or be more influential and powerful than, higher level ones, but levels are a start).

I don't overly mind putting these people into the 1-20 scheme, though, I just think it's a mistake to think this will address the "powerful NPC" problem. It will just shift "powerful" to whatever level they are, because they're powerful by definition - through the way they're described, not their levels. The way to actually go dispel this perception is just not showing the powerful people that much. I think most people here who are long-time fans of the setting, understand that these powerful NPCs are, generally, internally coherent and there is no in-world basis for the "NPC who makes PCs redundant" idea. It is just a matter of presentation, then.

A kind-of-stupid analogy now, but here it goes. Imagine we make a setting that's basically modern, real Earth. Players will generally be supposed to play powerful people, but not necessarily "world-runners". The only way people would start griping the game is boring since they can't, by general consensus, use a nuclear arsenal to solve their problems is if you show powerful people solving things with their nuclear arsenals (or the threat of using them) all the time. If not, well, it's a given that nuclear arsenals exist, but it just doesn't impact most people in significant ways.

Jeremy: I understand that was the reason for the high-level write-ups, and I loved them for it (even though going as far as wasting a third of a hardcover splatbook statting deities was... a bit far, I think). But the first pages of the FRCS wasn't a good idea in my opinion. Being a fan of the Realms and (more or less at the time) experienced player, I got what they wanted to say, but many people may have got other ideas from it.

Bottom line: as far as the original topic goes, I pretty much would like to see the same iconics as you guys, I've just been arguing the reasoning.

Jeremy Grenemyer Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 10:19:39
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq

Point: The problem with Elminster's character sheet in the 3e FRCS isn't that he was 35th level. It's that it was there in the first place, and right in the first few pages, when it probably should be in a splatbook or article.

Some factoids:

At the time the FRCS was published, the Epic Level rules had not been finalized.

The inclusion of Elminster (with stats) in the FRCS, just as with the inclusion of other NPCs, was to show gamers that the (new at the time) D&D rules could both handle play above 20th level and allow for a very accurate simulation of (previous) game and story elements via the new rules system.

One of the design goals of 3E was to create a system that was light years better than AD&D in terms of detailed character and NPC creation (read: players and DMs alike would have access to a set of mechanics that allowed for an accurate portrayal and translation of story and world elements into a PC or NPC's stats).

I'll also note that the front end of the FRCS includes a note from Elminster himself, stating flatly that the Realms needs its heroes.

*************

I don't agree with much of the criticism of high level play as written in this scroll. I appreciate and am aware of the Realms' baggage vis-a-vis high level and Epic NPCs, but in terms of play at the gaming table, as well as in terms of mechanics (for 3E), there is really no such thing as being able to compare the stats of Epic level NPC's against Epic PC stats and declaring winners and losers.

Having run a game from levels 1 to 23-25ish over a span of ten years or so, I can say from experience that there's just a whole hell of a lot more going on than simple number comparisons.

***********

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Who will these iconics be aimed at, if most of us are still playing in the pre-plague world?

I don't put much stock in the notion that most active Realms players run games in the pre-Plague Realms.

Regardless, the iconics would quite naturally be aimed at the same people Next is aimed at: brand new players and DMs, as well as gamers who are interested in giving Next a spin, and anyone interested in playing D&D who's interested in the Realms.
Dark Wizard Posted - 22 Jan 2014 : 06:59:47
D&D's limitations aside, and I don't think it' as limited as we wave it off as, but that's left to a good DM and individual groups.

I feel the high levels are absolutely arbitrary. Just as Eberron or Golarion's focus on a Level 20 max is arbitrary, but at least they have a decent basis for it (scaled to foes in the bestiaries). The models might be limited, but the 1-20 model is far more rigorous than the 20-30, or in the cases of big names often 30-35. Rather than start a new faulty model that is more or less abandoned (and never worked well to begin with), why not project forward with an active model that everyone is using (and much of Pathfinder's Mythic Adventures is based on this concept).

If high-level character levels start to become meaningless (even before 20), why shove them a whole half-scale beyond the typical end game?

If their levels mean nothing, why have them there at those heights to begin with?

It would matter less if their influence didn't also gradually (through game design) pull the baseline higher even for mundane archetypes (where levels do matter for a under Level 12-15 games). Then the entire setting is skewed high or at least seems like it.

And I'm not saying it is or that it ruins the game, but it's unfortunate the Realms is saddled with this reputation when other settings have some Epic level beings and get none of the flak.

Points as summarized:
- Epic NPCs with levels that do not match up to the rest of the game, partly due to edition conversion and gradual level creep.
- Central focus (novels, media, covers, advertising) on Epic NPCs creates perception of high-level setting.
- A few mundane NPCs are stat'ed at higher levels that expected due to the skewed scale of the Epics. High-level becomes self-fulfilling as a new standard is gradually established over time through edition changes.
- Other settings and game products realize this and focuses support to level 1-20 play. Old setting level standards is not revised, now seems more jarring compared to current offerings.
- Despite changes in edition, perception is not abated (that the novels and movers and shakers haven't changed all that much doesn't help).
- Continued focus on high-level NPCs (even in new edition) in media. Rinse, repeat, recycle.

This thread is asking for a new focus in addition to the traditional aspects of the Realms (which don't get me wrong, have helped popularize the setting).

It's not a binary choice (game Iconics or Epic iconics).
Also, "new, low level, or gameable" does not mean "detached" from the setting or "generic" or "immersion breaking". Every edition of D&D has pre-gen characters, Iconics is just putting them in a more memorable and active role with the setting support behind them. They neither replace established setting heavy weights, nor do they prevent people from rolling up their own characters. They are a tool given some semblance of setting hooks.

And it's about time WotC started plastering images of diverse and identifiable playable character examples all over their wares in addition to their novel-based money-makers.

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000