Talk:3.5e NPCs

Establishing Standards

I changed this page to sort NPCs by character level, then alphabetically.

I added (DnD NPC), which follows the link nomenclature already established.

CL is used as an aid to find characters of a specific level. There is a good argument to organizing characters by class, but with so many classes available, organizing by CL seemed easier.

I added a tag for a short character description. This should make browsing NPC's easier. For example: [CHARACTER], Gender Race, Class 2/Prestige 2.

--Dmilewski 12:48, 14 March 2006 (MST)

Thanks for the cleanup!--Sand-reckoner 21:56, 14 March 2006 (MST)

Awesome

Awesome, it looks good, I cannot object. Thanks.

--Blue Dragon 20:18, 14 March 2006 (MST)

We Need more NPC's...

This list of NPC's is incredibly small, we should get some more NPC's to add here (and so Sledged can use his nice template :) ). Ideas? Does anyone want to help with this? Is this even a good idea? Where is a good site to get NPC's from? Please help. --Green Dragon 23:42, 30 August 2006 (MDT)

The Rogues Gallery from the EN World forums. —Sledged 09:42, 31 August 2006 (MDT)

Please don't tell me we have to start something like the WFRC 2..... That would not be the best possible way. --Green Dragon 21:59, 31 August 2006 (MDT)

Not willing to go through all of that again, eh? Only other thing I can think of is to google "NPC D&D". When I did the search I found the d20 NPC Wiki. I suppose you could also try the official sites for all the D&D worlds of old: Birthright, Darksun, Mystara, Planescape, and Spelljammer.

I've known about the d20 NPC Wiki for a while now (One of the first sites to link to D&D Wiki :) ), but I don't know if that is really what we want, It's still a very active wiki that will keep their material forever, and their material will not get deleted forever like the material on the Wizards Boards, it just feels like we would be stealing the material. I also just don't know if the other sites would work for getting NPC's.. maybe the forums you told me about would be the best idea, with another thing like the WFRC. I just don't know if I see any other option to get a lot of NPC's on D&D Wiki, however making another thing like the WFRC would kinda suck... Your ideas? --Green Dragon 23:41, 2 September 2006 (MDT)

Maybe we should start something like the WFRC for NPC's.... NPC's help so much in any DM session. Your ideas? --Green Dragon 22:00, 5 September 2006 (MDT)

I can't think of better way to do it. The system you have for the WFRC seems to be the best way to go for NPCs. —Sledged 15:48, 7 September 2006 (MDT)

Got an idea. I was putting together a Stat Block for myself (or rather a d20 manifestation of myself; a librarian in Caer Wyrmshold, the largest library in known Wikiworld), and I thought I'd redo my entire user page as an NPC write-up. So I figured, what if we asked other users to put together NPCs based on themselves? —Sledged 15:03, 14 September 2006 (MDT)

I would never do it, might want to ask other people if they would do it. --Green Dragon 00:33, 22 September 2006 (MDT)

Another idea is to ask for users that create PrCs to include a sample character like the books do. —Sledged 10:57, 23 September 2006 (MDT)

That is true and a very good idea, except not many PrC's are added that often... Maybe someone could make a NPC based of a PrC? --Green Dragon 14:40, 23 September 2006 (MDT)

Guys, if you have any retired or out of play characters just retire them here! That alone will add a lot more NPCs, if you guys have as many out of play characters as I do :). I'm currently shuffling through my characters finding one to put here next.--Sand-reckoner 01:07, 19 October 2006 (MDT)

I like that idea very much, and I think I might add a couple of my old PC's soon. Very good idea. --Green Dragon 22:31, 19 October 2006 (MDT)

People could add their DMPCs if they have any. They are already built (I may not add Rorix though, he is very complex, and would require a lot of time to make him, as well as the time to make his items and the rest of my homebrew associated with him, I want to put it on here, but it may not happen soon). Rorix the White (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2018 (MST)

Template Issues

So I'm finding an issue with the stat block template I put together. Due to the complexity of it, it takes the better part of a minute to load any page that utilizes it. And it seems recently, the max execution time was set to 10 seconds, so every page that uses the template now generates the error:

Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 10 seconds exceeded in /home/dandwiki-com/public_html/w/includes/MagicWord.php on line 339

—Sledged 15:48, 7 September 2006 (MDT)

I will tell Blue Dragon, and we will see what he can do. --Green Dragon 20:57, 7 September 2006 (MDT)

It's back:

Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 10 seconds exceeded in /home/dandwiki-com/public_html/w/includes/Parser.php on line 2631

—Sledged 14:50, 16 October 2006 (MDT)

I will tell Blue Dragon about it, it should be fixed soon. Sorry. --Green Dragon 16:29, 16 October 2006 (MDT)

Fixed. This was the exact same problem as before, and it just came up again because I forgot to do a thorough recursive diff for all of my modifications. It should not happen again, and sorry. --Blue Dragon 19:14, 16 October 2006 (MDT)

Hopefully with the new template this problem will not happen again (or if it does, it won't be alone). —Sledged (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2007 (MDT)

Yup, also the server load has gone down a lot since the Stat Block 2... It's been helpful in every way so far! --Green Dragon 11:01, 26 May 2007 (MDT)

Which format?

I appreciate the work done on the new NPC template, but I wonder if the NPCs should follow the same format that appears in all of the WotC rpg books (i.e. the format I used with Namfoodle)? Thoughts? --Sand-reckoner 01:05, 19 October 2006 (MDT)

Well, there's three reasons why the NPCs follow the new format. (Actually it's one reason why they follow the new format, and two reasons why they don't follow the old NPC format found in most sourcebooks.) The first reason is that all the books now follow a new format starting with the DMG II, and it's not just for NPCs. Monster entries use it, too. (Browse through the MM IV when you get a chance.)

The second reason is because the old NPC format is god-awful. Stringing all the statistics together makes it difficult to find the info you need right away when you're in the middle of a gaming session (or even when you're just trying to convert it to another format).

And the last reason is that the old NPC format is just so god-awful!

You can read more about it in this Design Diary article. —Sledged 09:39, 19 October 2006 (MDT)

I think the new format is much easier to read and get information from easily. For Me, in the beginning of the new system, I was lost and battles, etc took much longer than before. Now, however, I think battles go quite a bit faster, and I do not need to search around for the relevant information as much. This new system has helped me, and the battles I run, quite a bit. This is why I like the new system, speed and accuracy. --Green Dragon 22:40, 19 October 2006 (MDT)

Yeah you guys are right about the new format; it seems I haven't caught a glimpse at the new NPC format in the DnD books! Its a whole lot better, its basically like the monster stats format I guess.--Sand-reckoner 12:23, 22 October 2006 (MDT)

Basically.... A little different though. Also, I am glad that you like it. --Green Dragon 15:51, 22 October 2006 (MDT)

Name of article

The apostrophe in the name of the article should not be there! This article should be called 3.5e NPCs. Fw190a8 19:52, 18 December 2006 (MST)

Thanks for alerting me to this, it is now done. --Green Dragon 23:09, 18 December 2006 (MST)

Arrange by CR

I'd like to arrange the NPCs by CR instead of character level, primarily for the reason that they're for PCs to encounter, and it would mirror how creatures are organized. —Sledged 23:02, 22 December 2006 (MST)

I will make this page more like 3.5e Creatures today (By CR, each CR with separate pages). I have been thinking that this needs to be updated to something like 3.5e Creatures for a while, however I did not want the small amount of NPC's to make it not work as well. Oh well, now is as good of a time as any to implement it. Hope it is better. --Green Dragon 23:49, 22 December 2006 (MST)

A couple problems...

• Artemesia (3.5e NPC) used to be listed as CL3, now she is put into CR1. Is this okay?

Yup. That's the way it's supposed to be, because she has levels in an NPC class. —Sledged 10:07, 23 December 2006 (MST)

• Since Dmilewski messed up on all the <noincludes> many creations are misplaces... This should be fixed after I am done finding all the rest of the problems. Done, I think.
• You (Sledged (3.5e NPC)) were changed from CL3 to CR2.

What was said about Artemesia goes for Sledged (me?). (See non-associated class levels) —Sledged 10:07, 23 December 2006 (MST)

• [[King Mark (DnD NPC)]] was labeled as CR9, but included in category CR7... I changed it but I am not sure this is the correct CR. Please look this over.

You fixed right. —Sledged 10:07, 23 December 2006 (MST)

• Worm Eater (3.5e NPC) has been put under CL12 but is has not been made and is part of Category:CR?.

CR is dependant on class levels, whether or not the levels are NPC classes and race/template, and Dmilewski's villainous system might have it's own modifiers to CR. So Worm Eater's CR is up in the air right now. —Sledged 10:07, 23 December 2006 (MST)

• Namfoodle (3.5e NPC) has been listed under CL16 and but in Category:CR18.

Yes, the author made a note that Namfoodle's CR is higher because he has access to significantly more magical items than that a typical 16th-level character has. I think it's warranted. —Sledged 10:07, 23 December 2006 (MST)

• Voice of Corruption (3.5e NPC) has no categories and not been made. We need to ask Dmilewski what he want to do with this.

Like Worm Eater, this character hinges on Dmilewski's villainous system.

Trying to get this hammered out right now. The Villainous Characters are a bit harder to place. The characters should be CR=ECL, but there are minions to add in. I think that the villains and minions should be packaged together into an encounter. --Dmilewski 14:07, 27 December 2006 (MST)

Hm... If you want to do it by encounter level, just make each NPC correct (with the correct CR) then make a page for the entire encounter (with all the NPCs on the page with {{:ARTICLE NAME}}), and add it via categories into the correct CR. Would this work/is that what you are looking for? I think this would be good because then all the NPCs could be run as a separate encounter, and the entire thing could be one as well... --Green Dragon 16:52, 27 December 2006 (MST)

Like familiars, animal companions, special mounts, fiendish servants, cohorts, followers, and the like, companions (or partners in crime as the case may be) that are gained as class features should not change the CR of the character (at the very least, it shouldn't increase the character's CR beyond his ECL) as these class features are already taken into account with the class's overall balance. —Sledged 23:43, 19 January 2007 (MST)

• The Add a New DnD NPC has been made (just to get the link not-red, and to make sure that I linked all the places to the same page), it needs to be brought up to the "Create new creature" standards.
• A couple NPC's that previously were not listed showed up after I made the changes... If I was you I would compare the old version of DnD NPCs (With the CL's) to the new version of DnD NPCs (With the CR pages) via history and see what items moved where.

I think I got them all. —Sledged 10:07, 23 December 2006 (MST)

All these problems need to be discussed, and seeing that you know the most about the DnD NPCs section, and mainly run this part of D&D Wiki, you should be making the final decision in this area. --Green Dragon 00:31, 23 December 2006 (MST)

By the way, I know CR's get changed, I just wanted to alert you more than anything else that their location was moved... Also, I made the Add a New DnD NPC, is it okay? --Green Dragon 19:31, 23 December 2006 (MST)

Looks good. I added a less-than-or-equal-to sign to the CR 1 or less link. —Sledged 13:00, 27 December 2006 (MST)

DPLCU

So, should we incorporate dplc's into this section of D&D Wiki? Is so, what should they say? Should they have a short description? Their race? Their class? I am willing to do the implementing work but I would like to know what should be carried with them. Please help. --Green Dragon 18:38, 12 January 2007 (MST)

How about...

Name	Race	Levels	Short Description
Average Town Guard	Human	Warrior 1	This is the average guard in a city wearing only studded leather and being very proficient in the longsword.

How could this be improved? --Green Dragon 19:24, 12 January 2007 (MST)

That looks good by itself. I don't know of any way it can be improved. —Sledged 19:59, 12 January 2007 (MST)

Agreed. --EldritchNumen 00:58, 13 January 2007 (MST)

So, to implement this a template is needed. So, Sledged, since you are the best with templates, would you mind making one like Template:LA Race that works with class="d20" tables? --Green Dragon 12:21, 13 January 2007 (MST)

Nevermind, I will implement it without making a class="d20" table. The reason is because a class="d20" table would make this non-dynamic (always have to change the |class="even"). --Green Dragon 00:47, 14 January 2007 (MST)

How does 3.5e NPCs CR 1 or less look? How could it be improved? --Green Dragon 12:36, 14 January 2007 (MST)

Does it really look good enough to be implemented all over DnD NPCs? --Green Dragon 22:07, 31 January 2007 (MST)

As far as the class="even" issue, if I can find a variables extension that doesn't mess up the RSS feeds, I can make it so the template is smart enough to know when to and not to include the class attribute. —Sledged 15:43, 14 January 2007 (MST)

That would be great. I will ask Blue Dragon if their is a way to make that one extension work with RSS feeds. If not, then another one might be the best option. --Green Dragon 09:28, 15 January 2007 (MST)

The variable function was not causing a problem with RSS feeds. It is something else, so I have enabled it. Have fun! --Blue Dragon 09:34, 15 January 2007 (MST)

(Montgomery Burns impersonation) EEeeexcellent! I'll take care of it when I finish formatting the SRD weapons (on which I've been dragging my feet way too much). —Sledged 10:15, 15 January 2007 (MST)

Could you fix my attempt to make it work please? Or can it not be done with the current dplc? --Green Dragon 18:26, 18 January 2007 (MST)

I'm not sure I can. I tried it with the DnD Classes with similar results. —Sledged 21:03, 18 January 2007 (MST)

Blue Dragon needs to send you over the DLPC php so you can look it over. Recently Blue Dragon has been unoccupied with D&D Wiki. I will tell him to post it on a new page so the community can look it over. --Green Dragon 21:17, 18 January 2007 (MST)

http://www.dandwiki.com/w/extensions/intersections/DPL2custom.php.txt for those who are interested. If you want to make a change, let me know and I will look it over. --Blue Dragon 21:23, 18 January 2007 (MST)

Character Level/Effective Character Level

I understand why we added CR to NPC's. That makes sense. Removing character level information, though, is problematic. CR and CL/ECL are two different systems. As many NPC's are not combat encounters, using CR is a poor metric to measure their ability. That makes finding a non-combat NPC more difficult. A CR 10 craftsman is in no way a CR10 encounter. I'd like to add ECL back in. Is there any reason to not implement BOTH systems? --Dmilewski 11:03, 13 January 2007 (MST)

If we did this, how would 3.5e NPCs look (please give an example look)? --Green Dragon 12:15, 13 January 2007 (MST)

Possibly this? Or is this too cluttered? I think this is possibly to much for someone to grasp and handle...

---

Back to 3.5e Homebrew

Add your own NPC to D&D Wiki by clicking the link and following the instructions.

NPCs	Homebrew NPCs by CR	Homebrew NPCs by ECL
Homebrew Homebrew by CR Homebrew by ECL	CR ≤ 5: CR 6–10: CR 11–15: CR 16–20: CR 21–25: CR 26–30: CR 31–35: CR 35–∞: CR ≤ 1 CR 2 CR 3 CR 4 CR 5 CR 6 CR 7 CR 8 CR 9 CR 10 CR 11 CR 12 CR 13 CR 14 CR 15 CR 16 CR 17 CR 18 CR 19 CR 20 CR 21 CR 22 CR 23 CR 24 CR 25 CR 26 CR 27 CR 28 CR 29 CR 30 CR 31 CR 32 CR 33 CR 34 CR 35 CR 36 CR 37 CR 38 CR 39 CR ≥40	ECL 1-5: ECL ≤ 1 ECL 2 ECL 3 ECL 4 ECL 5 ECL 6-10: ECL 6 ECL 7 ECL 8 ECL 9 ECL 10 ECL 11-15: ECL 11 ECL 12 ECL 13 ECL 14 ECL 15 ECL 16-20: ECL 16 ECL 17 ECL 18 ECL 19 ECL 20 ECL 21+: ECL 25 ECL 30 ECL 39

---

--Green Dragon 17:19, 13 January 2007 (MST)

Stacking them would be more intuitive. Putting things horizontally means that they are very related. Stacking things vertically means that they are distinct groupings:

NPC's                     NPCs BY CR
                          <stuff>

                          NPCs BY ECL
                          <STUFF>

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmilewski (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 January 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.

I was thinking along those lines, however would that make the page to long? --Green Dragon 12:03, 14 January 2007 (MST)

I use many differenet PC's. I think it is better to err on too long than too wide. --Dmilewski 15:34, 14 January 2007 (MST)

Are the Homebrew by CR and Homebrew by ECL links necessary if the pages to which they link are included in the current page? —Sledged 15:45, 14 January 2007 (MST)

They are not. However, if they were to be removed we could make it horizontal like 3.5e Classes. Do you guys think that would work? --Green Dragon 09:47, 15 January 2007 (MST)

That's what I had in mind. —Sledged 10:15, 15 January 2007 (MST)

If we did that where would the link to "All" go? --Green Dragon 22:53, 15 January 2007 (MST)

I'd say put it at the bottom of the page, like so:

---

Back to 3.5e Homebrew

Add your own NPC to D&D Wiki by clicking the link and following the instructions.

NPCs by CR

CR ≤ 5:	CR 6–10:	CR 11–15:	CR 16–20:	CR 21–25:	CR 26–30:	CR 31–35:	CR 35–∞:
CR ≤ 1 CR 2 CR 3 CR 4 CR 5	CR 6 CR 7 CR 8 CR 9 CR 10	CR 11 CR 12 CR 13 CR 14 CR 15	CR 16 CR 17 CR 18 CR 19 CR 20	CR 21 CR 22 CR 23 CR 24 CR 25	CR 26 CR 27 CR 28 CR 29 CR 30	CR 31 CR 32 CR 33 CR 34 CR 35	CR 36 CR 37 CR 38 CR 39 CR ≥40

NPCs by ECL

ECL 1-5: ECL ≤ 1 ECL 2 ECL 3 ECL 4 ECL 5

ECL 6-10: ECL 6 ECL 7 ECL 8 ECL 9 ECL 10

ECL 11-15: ECL 11 ECL 12 ECL 13 ECL 14 ECL 15

ECL 16-20: ECL 16 ECL 17 ECL 18 ECL 19 ECL 20

ECL 21+: ECL 25 ECL 30 ECL 39

All User-Contributed NPCs

---

Or if you think users are more likely to browse alphabetically over by CR or ECL, put the "all" link at the top instead. —Sledged 15:33, 16 January 2007 (MST)

I'm for the "All" link going to the top... Other than that it looks very good. --Green Dragon 17:16, 16 January 2007 (MST)

I like this format. I was too lamenting the loss of other information about NPCs, since they are not made solely as encounters, but rather as active (or passive) characters in the group narrative, and thus their character level is often much more important than their ability to stand up well in combat. --EldritchNumen 01:06, 18 January 2007 (MST)

I made all the ECL pages so they used dlp's. Now all that needs to be done is each NPC be placed in the correct ECL category. If anyone would like to help please go ahead. --Green Dragon 22:28, 19 January 2007 (MST)

Balance?

As all DnD NPCs will soon go over a major haul, should the Template:Balance be used here for each NPC? Or would this template not work well with DnD NPCs? --Green Dragon 15:31, 17 January 2007 (MST)

I'm don't think the 1 to 10 scale is applicable with NPCs and Creatures since the d20 system has it's own rating system, and the rating is already posted for each one. —Sledged 16:36, 17 January 2007 (MST)

?? What are you referring to? I am talking about rating the NPCs on how well made, how well they match their CR, how original, and how correct they are, just like the PrC's are rated. They would use the same template as the Classes use... Is this really that bad of an idea to use the rating scale on these? --Green Dragon 18:30, 17 January 2007 (MST)

I was referring to CR. With regard to originality and creativity, they have little to do with balance, so I don't think the balance template should be used for that. With CR, the SRD has formulas for determining that, so the author either calculated the CR correctly according to the rules or she didn't. For those NPCs who, despite the rules, don't fit the derived CR, it's better to just change the CR than to assign a balance rating to them. —Sledged 19:58, 17 January 2007 (MST)

Okay. That makes sense. --Green Dragon 20:00, 17 January 2007 (MST)

I like the idea of a rating system for NPC's. Maybe make it like this? --Salasay Δ 18:58, 17 January 2013 (MST)

Another sorting request

I understand why there is no option to sort by class (we have what, 50 classes now?), but I have a suggestion that may help. Perhaps we could have a "type," option to help sort characters. I see the types as Tank (Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, etc.), Arcane (Wizard, Sorc, etc.), Divine (Cleric, Druid, etc.), Skilled (Rogue, etc.), and Mixed (including Bards, Rangers, and Scouts). I imagine folks can come up with a few more categories, and may move some items around (maybe a natural category for Druids and Rangers if we can put chars in multiple categories). The reason behind this is I wanted a medium level cleric, and it would be a lot faster looking at divine casters until I found something useful, rather than going into a cr, seeing only names, and finding a wizard and barbarian, then trying another CR... Thanks for the great site.Aaror 15:28, 28 January 2007 (MST)

I agree, more options would be nicer. The types could be arranged like 3.5e Classes by type, and use DPLCU's like the Prestige Classes by type does. So, to complete this we need to figure out the general categories. I like Tank, Arcane, Divine, Skilled, but is their more? What would classes that use psionics go under? What about classes that are not exactly good at living (non-tanks), but are still combat-oriented? Could "Nature Oriented" be one? As soon as we get the categories fleshed out I would be more than willing to change this around so it works. --Green Dragon 21:02, 28 January 2007 (MST)

k, here are my types (second try)

• Tank=high hp, med or high attack (Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, etc.).
• Striker=high attack, non front line (Rangers, Monks).
• Arcane=primary casters whose spells are "arcane," (Wizards, Sorcerers).
• Divine=primary casters whose spells are "divine," (Clerics, Druids).
• Skilled=builds with high numbers of skill points (Rogues, Bards, Scouts).
• Mixed=chars that handle two or more roles (Bards, Mystic Thurges, many multiple class chars)
• Psion=chars that are primary psionic users (Psion).
• Psi user=chars with lesser Psi powers and other abilities (Psychic Warrior).
• Evil=chars who are evil, or who work well with evil goals (Cn).
• Good=chats who are good, or work well with good (Ln, sometimes N).
• Natural=chars who do well in wilderness (Druids, Rangers, Scouts, Barbarians).
• Urban=chars who do well in cities (Rogues, some others).
• Holy/Unholy=chars with strong auras(Paladins, Clerics).
• I'd put the types below the CR and ECL lists. Any additions?Aaror 16:22, 29 January 2007 (MST)

After seeing this, I don't see why we just couldn't also use the class categories for NPCs:

• Bad Guy
• Combat-Focused
• Good Guy
• Moderate Spellcasting
• Strong Spellcasting

—Sledged 19:20, 29 January 2007 (MST)

That sounds good. It would work alot better than how I've always done it by Fighter, Caster, Thief and breaking it down from there.

I'd like to add to this though, perhaps, otherworldy characters, or outsiders. Also, I've occasionally had NPCs that were catagorized as outsiders.--Cypresslyshra 21:05, 29 January 2007 (MST)

Hm... Either way works with me (however the class way is a bit easier to understand, and they are made by Wizards... However, they are more general categories...). --Green Dragon 21:52, 29 January 2007 (MST)

I guess I misunderstood, I was thinking that a character could be under more than one category (which is why, for instance, paladins are in the tank list and the holy list). In that situation, the more categories the better (within space limitations). I had also thought about just using the categories we use for classes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaror (talk • contribs) 2007-01-30 03:26:52. Please sign your posts.

I think more often than not, an NPC would have to be assigned multiple categories. —Sledged 09:33, 30 January 2007 (MST)

We probably should have been adding the type and subtype categories to NPCs from the beginning. —Sledged 09:33, 30 January 2007 (MST)

Anyway, voting time... Please place a vote and a reason for the category type you want chosen. The type with the most votes will win. --Green Dragon 18:23, 30 January 2007 (MST)

Looking at it, I think I'm in favor of Aaror's idea, at least to begin. It's a reasonably simple frame work and easy to build off of, and if you're just looking for an NPC who can stand toe to toe with your PC's paladin, it would be far easier.--Cypresslyshra 18:34, 30 January 2007 (MST)

I think we should start with the existing categories that Dmilewski has put together. There are alignment categories: lawful, chaotic, good, evil, and neutral. In fact, if we use these we won't need the Good Guy and Bad Guy categories I suggested earlier. There's also a category for each creature type and subtype. After that I'd add Aaror's categories; maybe change "tank" to "melee" and add "ranged" to the list. "Psi user" is not really necessary unless you'd want to include "divine user" and "arcane user" for secondary spellcasters. —Sledged 20:21, 30 January 2007 (MST)

Deleted NPC?

There was a sweet NPC here a few days ago, but I can't seem to find it anymore. Was a girl, who fell in some sort of pool that turned her into a lich with no phylactery? I think ECL somewhere around 15. Anyone know what happened to that NPC? --Othtim 02:49, 22 December 2007 (MST)

What was it called? --Sam Kay 03:15, 22 December 2007 (MST)

That's the problem, I don't recall! :( Was a sweet idea, though. --Othtim 15:23, 22 December 2007 (MST)

I've looked through the Category:NPC, and didn't find (or overlooked) such an NPC, and I usually keep tabs on NPCs, and don't recall seeing one like that. Are you sure it was on this wiki and not on another site like d20 NPCs? —Sledged (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (MST)

Yes, my bad. I did get it off another site. Sorry for being a bother. --75.153.172.237 07:55, 14 January 2008 (MST)

NPCs by class

I was wondering if there is a way to add one more way to find an NPC - by class. That way, say if a DM comes to find a bard for the local tavern really quick he can just click the Bard link, then have them listed by CR or something. Just thoughts. Not sure if its even possible.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:01, 24 November 2008 (MST)

It sure is possible. I will see if I can work up some wiki magic to do what you are looking for. --Aarnott 20:22, 24 November 2008 (MST)

Generic NPCs

What was the original intent/idea behind the Generic NPC subsection presented on the page? It is currently completely void, and was wondering what the goal is to get it completed?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:11, 19 January 2009 (MST)

I added ECL 3 as a test on the Generics... just copying from the other list and changing the category entry, though, before that all gets copied, perhaps there is a few things that need to be updated, like the footer breadcrumb (which might require making that breadcrumb, haven't checked yet), but yeah, that just seems to be the problem, no one made the pages. --Ganteka 23:55, 19 January 2009 (MST)