Talk:Thelbaerone Shadowdark

Challenge Rating
The source gives her CR as 10, which is crunch we currently allow. Should it not be categorized? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:18, April 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * In 3.x edition, an NPC's CR is a product of their race and level. Thelbaerone is a Wizard 10, so she's CR 10. It's not an especially important measure of her power when we already have her level.


 * We haven't done it for any other NPC, except maybe for 5e NPCs who aren't statted as characters. If we were to go down this route, we'd have to compute CRs for all 3.x-statted NPCs, which might be trivial for standard races like humans but involves increasingly complex math and estimation for unusual races like drow (CR +0 with NPC classes, CR +1 with PC classes) or frost giants (CR +1/level of associated class like fighter, CR +0.5/level of non-associated class like wizard until it matches its HD). And it's never consistent.


 * I argued against this before at Forum:5e Classes / CR and don't think we really settled it. I remain unconvinced that it's necessary while it would be a lot of unnecessary work to update and/or calculate CRs for all 3.x NPCs. — BadCatMan (talk) 01:48, April 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favor of calculating CRs from published descriptions because 1) work and 2) subjectivity; but if they give us the CR, I don't have a problem with just adding the category. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:09, April 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * But only NPCs intended to appear in a fight, usually as foes, are given a CR, so on that basis maybe about half of them would actually get one, so the system would be very incomplete or skewed towards enemies in modules. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:17, April 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * Heh, reading through that Forum, it looks like I volunteered to add challenge3e and challenge5e parameters to the Person template, got buy-in from two or three people, but never did it. Are you putting your bureaucratic foot down on this idea? :-D &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:17, April 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have a bureaucratic foot. :) If you insist and enough people agree, then fine, it's on you, but I don't think it's worth it. It's a key part of 3.x encounter design, but not of how NPCs are defined. And really, we include crunch when we must, not when we can. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:48, April 21, 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cat on this one. It's crunchy and kinda out of place when it's regarding characters IMO. Ruf (talk) 07:40, April 21, 2018 (UTC)