How are people making NPC Magic Users?

[reverenddak]

I'm curious how you Judges have been statting your magic users. I need a Cult Leader and a few cult followers. The Cult-leader is a level-5-ish cleric or wizard, and the followers are level-1-ish clerics.

Using the philosophy of NPCs & Monsters use different rules than PCs, how have you guys been doing it? And how would you write them in a published adventurer? Are spells listed and cast like DCC PC spells? or fire & forget like powers? Or a combination, or a little bit of both?

[reverenddak]

... this is what I have in mind, so far. does it fit with the philosophy? (ignore XP, it's what I'm using for now.) I wanted spells that fit in a single stat-block, a simple fumble & crit mechanic and even simple fail/cast effect. What do you think?

Cult Leader: Init +1; Atk claws +5 (dmg 1d6); AC 16; HD 5d6+3; MV 30’; Act 2d16; SA Cause fear, command; SV Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +7; AL C, XP 600

Cause fear: Spell Check d20+6 (Fumble, caster flees for 1d4 rounds. 11 or less, failure and lost. 12 or more, target flees for 1 round. Crit, target flees for 1d6 rounds.) Will save vs Spell Check.

Command: Check d20+6 (Fumble, caster is dumb for 1d4 rounds. 11 or less, failure and lost. 12 or more, target is subject to one single word command for 1 round. Target is subject to single word commands for 1d6 rounds.) Will save vs Spell Check.

Human Cultist: Init +0; Atk scimitar +1 (dmg 1d6); AC 14 studded leather; HD 1d6+1; MV 30’; Act 1d20; SA Cause fear; SV Fort +4, Ref +1, Will +4; AL C; XP 15.

Cause fear: Spell Check d20+2 (Fumble, caster flees for 1d4 rounds. 11 or less, failure and lost. 12 or more, target flees for 1 round. Crit, target flees for 1d6 rounds.) Will save vs Spell Check.

[ragboy]

Using the philosophy of NPCs & Monsters use different rules than PCs, how have you guys been doing it? And how would you write them in a published adventurer? Are spells listed and cast like DCC PC spells? or fire & forget like powers? Or a combination, or a little bit of both?

I like your approach. I like to keep NPC's and monsters fluid and fast. No fumbling for charts and rules -- they're really only going to exist in the character's minds for a few rounds. I usually treat NPC spells as "spell effects" with a fumble, failure or success (I like your take on it will adopt, actually). A success is just a single effect, though the spell check affects the save. I might go a little more detailed on the Boss, but other than that, Fast and Furious...like Savage Worlds taught me.

[goodmangames]

This is pretty much where I have been heading, too. NPC's get unique powers that fit their description and role. Whether you define their "attack roll" as a spell check or a traditional attack roll, either way they roll some die to make a straightforward attack of some kind. Nothing overly complicated.

Here are a couple examples of NPC's from the core rules. (Note: I'm taking this from the unedited file so there may be some typos in here.)

ACOLYTE
Acolyte: Init -1; Atk mace +1 melee (dmg 1d4) or charm (see below) or harmful spell (see below); AC 11; HD 1d8; MV 30’; Act 1d20; SP charm 1/day, harmful spell 2/day; SV Fort +1, Ref +0, Will +2; AL varies.
Acolytes are novice clergy in a church. They are encountered in groups of 2-8, generally leading a flock of followers and often accompanied by a friar. Acolytes can use a simple charm once per day that turns any humanoid friendly to their cause for 1d4 hours (DC 11 Will save to resist). They can also cast minor harmful spells, which typically manifest as sparks of flame, cold rays, or electrical shocks. Each acolyte can cast two harmful spells per day, each of which causes 1d6+1 damage at a range of 50’ (DC 11 Will save for half damage).

BERSERKER
Berserker: Init +2; Atk axe +3 melee (dmg 1d8+2); AC 14; HD 2d12; MV 30’; Act 1d20; SP battle madness; SV Fort +3, Ref +2, Will +0; AL varies.
Berserkers are savage warriors. When in combat, they fly into a battle madness that makes them even more dangerous. A berserker fights normally until wounded. When first wounded, he undergoes the battle madness. He gains +5 hit points and a +2 to all attacks, damage, and saving throws while in combat. After 1 turn this madness fades. He then loses the extra hit points, and drops dead if this brings his total below zero.

FORTUNE TELLER
Fortune teller: Init -1; Atk club -1 melee (dmg 1d4-1); AC 9; HD 1d4; MV 30’; Act 1d20; SP tell fortune; SV Fort -2, Ref -1, Will +4; AL varies.
A fortune teller uses divination to reveal a character’s future. Any character who spends 10 minutes with a fortune teller can learn something about his future. Roll 1d20 and compare it to the character’s Luck score. On a result less than or equal to the character’s Luck, the fortune teller provides information that is genuinely useful, conveying a +1 bonus to some upcoming check related to that fortune (at judge’s discretion). On a roll of a natural 1, the fortune teller glimpses the character’s doom, becoming shaken and distraught as a result, and hinting at terrible things to come.

FRIAR
Friar: Init +0; Atk cudgel +3 melee (dmg 1d4+1) or sling +3 ranged (1d4) or harmful spell (see below); AC 13; HD 3d8; MV 30’; Act 1d20; SP heal 2/day, harmful spell 3/day, turn 3/day; SV Fort +2, Ref +1, Will +4; AL varies.
Friars are religious leaders. A friar is often accompanied by acolytes and followers, but may also be found on a solitary pilgrimage. Twice a day, a friar can heal 1d4 hit points from any follower simply by laying on hands to that person. Each friar can cast three harmful spells per day, similar to an acolyte, each of which causes 1d8+2 damage at a range of 100’ (DC 13 Will save for half damage). Finally, a friar can use his religious symbol to turn away his foes. This can be done three times per day, and the foes must make a DC 13 Will save or be held at bay, unable to approach within 20’ of the friar. Such foes can still make ranged attacks.

[meinvt]

Does the game still feature spell duels? Are these NPCs able to cause or initiate them? That has been a big part of what I'm excited about in the new magic rules, but it does seem to present a challenge with NPCs. I suppose you can create specific NPCs for spell duel situations, but it would be cool if it were more generalizable.

[goodmangames]

Yes, there are still spell duels. In some cases it makes sense to fully stat an NPC wizard so that such duels are a possibility. For example, the upcoming DCC module The Emerald Enchanter features full "PC-style" stats for the Emerald Enchanter himself. He is a significant enemy and the big final encounter. But for more mundane NPC encounters, shorter stats make more sense. I don't want to repeat some of the "later-edition D&D" scenarios where it took 15 minutes to figure out the stats for an NPC who occupied only 4 minutes of game time!

[ragboy]

I don't want to repeat some of the "later-edition D&D" scenarios where it took 15 minutes to figure out the stats for an NPC who occupied only 4 minutes of game time!

15 minutes! You either comprehend faster than me or never ran any of the stuff from Paizo (Dungeon magazine for me, mostly). I had to puzzle on some of those things for, what seemed like, ever. And I still forgot half of the crap they were supposed to do in the three rounds that they appeared in the adventure!

That, for the most part, is what drove me back to 1e, C&C, and now DCC. I want to run the game...not have the game run me! And overall, it just doesn't have to be that complicated.

[reverenddak]

exactly. 3-5 rounds, that's the life expectancy of a typical NPC in my game. I personally don't like combat taking more than a few rounds. Except, obviously, it's an epic set-piece, final battle kind of thing. But yep. Stats are really only needed for combat. Outside of that, I can just make things up. Heck I make up the stats of monsters on the fly, or re-skin something from a book.

But I've been giving a lot of thought about NPC stats in a Spell Duel. The minimum specs are a list of spells and a Caster Level, which will typically be the HD. I plan to give NPC "spells" same or similar names as PC spells, but they'll work using the simplified chart (like I did above.) Then apply common sense if they can be used to counter or not. Table 4-6: Counterspell Power favors spells that have variable effects, but they're not necessary. But NPCs with limited spell use (x/day) will be significantly disadvantaged in a Spell Duel. But then, I guess, you don't want every NPC spellcaster to get into a Spell Duel... or do you? There is only one way to find out. And I needed another NPC spell caster tonight anyway.

[reverenddak]

This took me more than 15 minutes, but she's a baddie that I want to have a lot of spells and can spell duel, but not much else (She's basically a naga). I imagine this will be easier to reference than flipping through a book, but might be a bit much for a "stat block". We'll see how it works in play.

Serpent Highborn: Init +5; Atk bite +7 (dmg 1d6, poison); AC 16; HD 7d8; MV 20’/40’ swim; SA Spells, poison; SV Fort +7, Ref +6, Will +8; AL C; XP 1400

Poison: Fort Save hard (DC 15), 1d6 Stamina damage immediately and 1d4 per day until cured.

Charm: Check d20+7 (Fumble, caster enamored with target for 1d4 rounds. 11 or less, failure and lost. 12 or more, target is subject dazed, move half-speed and no other actions, for 1d4 rounds. Crit, Target is subject complete control until dispelled.) Will save vs Spell Check.

Sleep: Check d20+7 (Fumble, caster becomes drowsy, all rolls at -4, for 1d4 rounds. 11 or less, failure and lost. 12 or more, one target falls asleep for 1d6 turns. Crit, Up to three targets fall asleep for 1d4 hours.) Will save vs Spell Check.

Mirror Image: Check d20+7 (Fumble, caster sees double, all attacks -4, for 1d6. 13 or less, failure and lost. 14 or more, 1d4 images of the caster acting in sync. Crit, 1d4+2 images.) Attackers can’t tell the images from the real caster. Any attacks may randomly hit an image instead of the caster, which disappears if hit.

Magic Missile: Check d20+7 (Fumble, a magical explosion, caster takes 1d4+5 damage. 11 or less, failure and lost. 12 or more, 1d4 missiles hurled at one target, 1d4+5 damage per missle. Crit, 1d4+2 missiles for 1d4+5 damage, each missile can be aimed at separate targets.)

Magic Shield: Check d20+7 (Fumble, caster is blown back 10’ and knocked prone, taking 1d4 damage. 11 or less, failure and lost. 12 or more, caster gains +4 AC for 2d6 rounds. Crit, caster gains +4 AC for 1d4 turns, automatically blocks magic & mundane attacks.)

[jmucchiello]

That, for the most part, is what drove me back to 1e, C&C, and now DCC. I want to run the game...not have the game run me! And overall, it just doesn't have to be that complicated.

Statting out a high level MU or cleric in 1e is no easier than doing it 3.Xe in terms of the meat of the stat block. You still need to pick what spells he has available and give him appropriate magic items. I ran 3.0 and 3.5 for years and I NEVER EVER made up complete stat blocks for the monsters/NPCs. They always looked like 1e stat blocks. (My 1e stat blocks were "extensive" compared to module stat blocks. I always wrote down the NPCs saves and stuff so I wouldn't have to look them up in the DMG during the encounter.)

Personally, I think module stat blocks from 1e were too small (orc, 6 hp). You had to look the critter up in the MM to find out their AC, damage, #atks, and to see if they had any special abilities that weren't in the module and you had to look up their saves and such whenever someone attacked them with magic. 3.Xe just went overboard in the other direction with its stat blocks.

[Tortog]

I'd like to take a moment to argue for 'more detail is better' idea. I take the time to write up full stat blocks for all NPC's and monsters, because you never WTF the players are going to do. The few times where I've gotten lazy and tried to just write down what I think is most likely to be used... the players do something that requires me to either look something up or create something on the spot. Doing full stat blocks for your critters in advance of the game has other spin off benefits too. For starters, The process of writing it down in your notes will help you remember it later. Second, if you keep the write ups in a file folder they can be re-used; and modifying it will take far less time than the full write up from scratch. After a while you'll have a file of custom monsters that will be unique to your game(s).

The other thing that it does is allow you to find new and interesting ways of using that NPC... I could go on at length on this part, but I think an example will do better here. SPOILER ALERT!!! I have to be careful what I post, since I have access to the final draft, but here are a couple of the spells after randomly rolling on the newly expanded Mercurial Magic Table: (EDIT- RE read the contract )


There are 2 nasty NPC wizards in DCC #1, both goblins. I took their ability scores straight out of the module and then built them as a 1st and 4th level wizards per the DCCRPG rules; with their 0-lvl = 1 goblin HD. I perused the list of spells available for the module variants and then gave them the closest DCC versions including mercurial magic and Luck bonuses. It's nice to finally have a use for a monsters Charisma stat: CHR 5 => Luck 5.

{EDIT substituted some stuff from the beta instead}
1st level
Magic Missile- Psychic focus. Casting this spell clears the caster’s mind and prepares him to channel further energy. For 1d4 rounds after the spell is cast, the wizard receives a +4 bonus to other spell checks. This effect does not stack with itself.

I now have 2 spell lists full of little gems like this... and they will radically change the way the respective encounters will play out. {edit}

just my {edited} 2 coppers worth...

[meinvt]

I'd be fascinated to see playtest reports on these npc spellcasters. I think for players it is interesting to have all sorts of variable spell outcomes, as well as interest in the case of spell failure and fumbles. For NPCs I think this is rarely the case.

Now I'm thinking I'd name the spell something equivalent to a player spell (so that the counterspell/magic combat system can work with it), but give it a much more defined power based on the NPC. So perhaps:

Magic Missile - Spell difficulty: 12. Does 1d8 damage on success. Can be cast repeatedly so long as spell is successful.

or

Magic Missile - (Single Use) Spell difficulty:14. Creates three missiles each doing 1d6 damage on success. On a roll of 1 it instead creates a single missile that does 1d6 damage to a caster's ally.

I think having many (4-7) spell options is fine for key enemy spell casters so long as only a couple are multiple use.

For 99% of NPCs this is enough. If it will be a long running NPC I would just stat them up like a PC and use those spell charts.

[Tortog]

@meinvt> If you wanna see them in action then stay tuned to my game thread, because one of the NPC wizards is on the same level of dungeon as the players... I have no idea when (or if) they will interact with it, but it should be interesting if they do.
---
The main point I was trying to make is that investing the time in the creative process of fully developing the monsters and NPC's has the potential to spark new ideas and new story options that the DM might not have thought of otherwise... even if you don't need or use all of it. The act of having gone through the creative process in that detail will enhance the game.

I've known for years that I'm in the minority with my opinions about the level of detail the DM provides. If I had a dollar for every DM I've run across who thought that 'minimal info is best', I could buy a house. Such DM's are also the main reason that I gave up being a player, and switched to full-time DM. As a player it is really easy to accidentally trip up a DM by stopping to figure out the new details on the fly; and there is much greater risk of destabilizing the game balance. I have found from experience that if you leave big blank holes in the NPC stat block, then you leave yourself vulnerable to the rules lawyers, power gamers, and clock turtles; who will quickly turn the situation to their advantage when they can.

To each their own, I suppose, but I liken it to my painting... the fully rendered NPC's and other creatures are the colors on my palette. The more vibrant the pigments, the more 'alive' the story becomes. I think that's the major difference with how I approach all of this; I'm an old school story-teller first, DM second. The open frame-work nature of the DCCRPG system doesn't get in my way of telling the story, that's why I like it so much.


---
Clock turtle- the invisible creature that shows up and slows Time to an agonizing crawl; creating a pause that threatens to drag on into infinity, and shatters the mood while the DM and a player work out unforeseen details. This voracious beast gobbles up games, and no game is ever completely safe from their slothful menace, but diligence as well as proper prior planning usually dissuades these little b*stards from a full scale invasion.

[reverenddak]

My brain doesn't remember much past google these days, so I try to spec out NPCs as much as I think I need. What might be the "minimum" to me might be inadequate for others, while "too much" for someone else. Totally each his own, fer sure. My original questions had to do more with curiousity about what everyone else were doing about statting out NPC magic-users, especially for publication. I just went ahead and gave an example of what I've been doing. I doubt, heck I know, I'll never stat out a full NPC. But I'm really happy with the way these NPC version of spells are working. I will definitely keep the names the same for Spell Duels, although I know I can always apply common sense.

@meinvt, I ran the Serpent Highborn on Thursday and it was great. The spells worked really well. I wanted to spec her out with 8 spells, the equivelent of a 5th level wizard. But then I remembered that I doubt she'd live past 5 rounds. She lived way over. It was a long battle but it was nuts. There was no opportunity for a Spell Duel, although I could have forced (fudged) something. Dispel Magic isn't in the BETA rules, although I guess I could have cheated and included somethings...but I digress. I got the point I just picked spells randomly. They all worked really well as written. I CRIT with the Charm spell, so the PC had to defend the Highborn, but try and reason with his party at the same time for the whole combat. I rolled low and lost a couple of the spells, but the rest worked really well. Time was running short, one of the PC's cast Chocking Cloud, and everyone backed off and I had her run away... She's going to become a regular pain in their butt. The variable effects are fun. And having the spells right in front of me made things so much quicker. I think a good rule of thumb is one different spell for every level of spell casting the NPC has. The human cultists were awesome. The PCs were really scared of the Cult Leader and his Command spell. He successfully casted the Command once, and it made for some classic comedy. The Fear spell, the little cultists had, worked really well too. They all tried to cast their Fear spell at least once. Most of them lost it, one got off the minor version of it. I think I'm going to bump up the standard Fear effect to Caster Level in rounds, and the Crit effect to "CL" in turns.

I think it's pretty important for the players to see NPC's fumble and have variable spell effects. Although simplified compared to their own spells, they at least get the impression they're playing with the same rules, i.e. they see me roll when an NPC casts a spell.

The variable effects (fumbles, crits, spell effects, etc.) are one of the things that make this game different that other "D&D" games. And the moments of anxiety and anticipation when casting spells, or waiting for fumble or crit results have been priceless, and they haven't lost their charm one bit in since playing DCC.

[meinvt]

Great report! And, I think you have a good point about players seeing your fumbles have a negative effect on the NPCs. I also roll almost everything in view of the players.

[ragboy]

I'd like to take a moment to argue for 'more detail is better' idea. I take the time to write up full stat blocks for all NPC's and monsters, because you never WTF the players are going to do. The few times where I've gotten lazy and tried to just write down what I think is most likely to be used... the players do something that requires me to either look something up or create something on the spot.

I don't know -- I've just found that no matter how much you prepare (more detail) the players are either going to do something crazy that makes all that work pointless or one-shot your carefully crafted stat block. I try, instead, to play the NPC's _character_ rather than the character's abilities. I make sure the critical stuff is there, especially for wizards or other spellcasters -- couple of buff spells, couple of offensive options, a "helper" spell (summon, illusion, etc), and some form of escape (either physical or magical).

Even if you carefully construct the encounter, you're still winging it in reaction to PC actions. Anything you put in front of the PC's is only going to last a handful of rounds (regardless of the result of the combat). If I spend more than 5-10 minutes coming up with a single encounter, that's too long.