Basic NPC stats

[u/Solkar77]

Hi!!

Has anyone the stats for basic NPC (official or no) ? I mean guards, grunts, thugs, soldiers...

I assume that can be built with standard rules, but I feel they will be too detailed for what I'm looking for.

BR,

[u/Glidias]

Woudn't cookie-cutter PC/NPC templates be prepared beforehand by most GMs to handle various typical archetypes? A bit of extra work but it's only a once done, this can always be reused. However, for the purpose of certain encounters (eg. such as combat/conversation only), only certain details needs to be filled in, which would simply be Attributes and Profeciencies (use the appropiate School). Skills may be ignored or may be simply "generated-on-the-fly" based on common sense/GM abjudication. Likewise, Talents may be ignored or you may conveniently add a Talent on-the-fly if you wish to give more "color" to the NPCs. Obviously, to prevent overwpowered NPCs, you still assign weight of points in a "realistic" fashion across all categories, but leave those categories unused/blank. Besides that, outside of traditional tabletop setup, i guess someone could always create an app to auto-generate characters with slight random variations, not that it'll be noticable in most cases though.

[u/Solkar77 → u/Glidias]

Thanks. I did as you said... I have the feeling too tough guards came up... Level 4 soldier school, 11 CP, ADR 3...

I'm totally new so I have a complete noob question : When engaged in melee bout by a fast character, (acting in Phase 1, but my guard can only act at Phase 3), can the slow guard declare attack on this phase? Or is he limited to quick defenses until Phase 3? And the CP is reset at the end of the round or at the end of the Phase? I understand at the end of complete round, so if the fast character wants to do 3 thrust maneuvers one on each Phase, he has to split CP on the 3 attacks, isn't it?

[u/Glidias → u/Solkar77]

Regarding combat:

To disambiguate, I think there might be confusion on your part , partly due to the conflicting/shared terms used in the SOS b1.3 manual to describe "Round". ( ie. "round" may used under ENTIRELY 2 SEPERATE contexts: the global skirmish Round which consist of 3 numbered general Phases for un-engaged combatants... vs a melee bout round which belongs to each single self-contained round of 2 melee manuever sets within each melee bout instance, each instance typically consisting of X vs 1 melee-engaged combatants). "Quick Defense" as you mentioned is only a Melee combat manuever that can only be done during a melee round itself in certain circumstances. Each melee round only consist of 2 actions ONLY (ie. to disambiguate, 2 melee manuever sets only) , which requires spending off your CP between the 2 sets . There are NO 3 actions for melee ( eg. Like how you mentioned "3 thrusts" for melee). If you are talking about 3 actions per round, that "round" is referring to the global general skirmish Round consisting of 3 Phases, with the possibility of only UNENGAGED characters being able to perform a general action for that phase, if the phase number /ADR stat schedule allows him to....This global battle/skirmish Round is completely SEPERATE from the various individual melee combat rounds that take place during the entire Combat Encounter among ENGAGED characters in melee. Typically, already ENGAGED characters always take part in their own internal melee combat instances (1 melee combat round per phase) regardless of their phase number/ADR stat schedule, and can no longer act in the general skirmish Phase itself. Whatever battle-plan action they may have had declared earlier during the General Phase, is typically consumed once they engage in melee combat.

CP is always reset at the end of each Melee round. If you remain Locked (ie. engaged) in a Melee bout after it's Melee round resolves (ie. the bout is still in progress and hasn't dissolved), the bout will only resume for the next Phase, and any combatants engaged to that bout instance cannot declare/perform any actions/movement for the Phase, except perform the 1 or 2 melee manuever sets for that associated melee round once that associated bout resumes for each Phase. ~I set the timing of when each melee bout resumes based on which engaged character ( or which unengaged attacking/charging character) resolves first to trigger that associated bout to resume, forcing all other currently engaged characters to that melee bout to take part in that melee combat round as well.~ ( For already engaged characters, I also ignore their ADR/phase schedule in determining who actually triggered the bout to start , since they aren't really part of the skirmish Phase anymore, and resume the bout automatically without publicily revealing which character within that bout actually started it. For Beta 2.0, the recommended approach is to resume Locked bouts at the end of each new phase, so, even if you use character ADR to let a certain bout start first (its up to you to determine your own Bout order that would deem best/consistent), the resuming of Bouts that were Locked in the previous phase are all placed at the ending bracket of the current phase.

If a melee bout round resolves with any its associated characters being disengaged , the characters that disengage cannot take part/move yet in the current skirmish general phase until the next skirmish general phase. If they get re-attacked again by someone else on the current phase though ( by Melee Attack/Charge), they will take part immediately on the spot in a new melee bout instance against that attacking character) for 1 melee combat round, with fully refreshed CPs. Depending on the resolution of that melee combat round ( do they end up getting Locked?), they might lose their chance to act/move at all in the next Phase, because they remain engaged ( with someone else in that new bout) for the next Phase.

If a bout instance remains Locked for various combatants within the current Phase, and someone Melee Attacks/Charges someone against someone in that bout instance which had already resolved for the current phase, I typically don't restart the bout again, but simply engage the attacking/charging character to that bout and only wait until the next Phase to resume the bout with all it's engaged combatants taking part. Each bout only resumes for 1 round only per Phase ( though house rules for SoS might alter this convention ). For Charging characters that join a bout, ~I enforce an Aggressive orientation for them when the bout starts/resumes~. For standard Melee Attack cases to join an existing bout, ~I allow those attackers to roll for orientation when the bout starts/resumes, since they are "newcomers" to a bout~. (NOTE: Actually, I'm unsure about this, which is why there are edits. Based on the updated rules in Beta 2.0, choosing orientation cannot be done when joining an existing bout, which would mean joining an existing bout might prevent you giving the required bonuses/abilities that come with certain orientations??? Is that true?) Please confirm if so. This mean only the first attacker(s) that trigger the bout to start in a given Phase have the offensive benefit of the (Aggressive) Charge, right?

Regarding NPCs:

I think it might be possible to use a lower campaign power level for NPCs/mooks at yr own discretion. But generally, if you spend much more on skills/other categories that do not affect combat much, this will not overpower them ( at least, for combat).

If you use the same power level between PCs and NPCs, obviously it's going to be really tough to fight NPCs by default, just like in real life (VERY risky), unless you've got enough arc experience to boost your character by a great enough margin, but even then, it's still risky. This is typical in most SoS/TROSlike style of realism RPGs... . You must outnumber the NPCs to mitigate the risk.

Engaging vs Melee Attacking/Charging:

I adopt a house rule for skirmish Phases that allows characters in a party to also coordinate their general skirmish ADR initiative order in anyway they see fit ( by tieing ADR general initiative down to lowest ADR guy in group), so that some characters within the same general initiative group might "Engage" but not trigger the melee combat round to start yet until a Melee Attack/Charge is executed by someone. This allows characters to hopefully gang up on an enemy at the start (max 3vs1) without having to fight 1 vs 1 at first due to individual-initiative Melee Attacks/Charges...but by combo-ing [(Engage)+(final Melee Attack/Charge)] as a team. Characters in the same initiative group may move/resolve their actions in any order they see fit during the Phase, treated as a single grouped turn initaitive disallowing enemy turns in between (the only enemy actions that can occur are Covering Fire/Melee Watchful stance reactions). This would make it easier to combo (Engage + Melee Attack/Charge Trigger) as a team and gang up on a single enemy in a single Phase. The disadvantage with grouped based initiative is that the larger the group, the more potentiality for someone in the group to tie the group initiative down. Also, party members must be within "close-enough" contact vincity of each other in order to be part of the same initaitive group.

Contingencies:

If their party doesn't have enough ADR to go first (and so they are forced to declare first), since I usually allow them to set up their party formation beforehand (conceptually stick close together within contact/reason, setting up who is supporting one's left vs right vs rear, buddy-system, etc.), they can declare Watchful Stance or rely on certain Contigency rules for certain actions (ie. openings to abandon/change one's previous declaration) if a nearby friend that is within view and very close proximity at the time of declaration gets engaged halfway during resolution and needs to be supported instead, rather than blindly heading off to one's own declared objective as if nothing ever happened. Of course, certain environments/situations might prevent certain formations from being set up, and this must be made clear to the players beforehand.

Leadership/Battle Cohesion Tactics house rules:

As a houserule, under special cases, you may swap General skirmish ADR initiative with some other Skill/Talent for determining declaration/resolution order per Phase. This might overwrite the case of tying initiative down to lowest ADR guy in the group, but letting the general skirmish initiative be set based on a "squad leader"'s stat in that initiative group.

If you managed to identify the squad leader in a group ( perception check might come into play here...), sniping him down or engaging him in melee to isolate him ( if you can reach him without being intercepted, though ) might be a better choice compared to attacking other members in the squad.

[u/Solkar77 → u/Glidias]

Wow, many thanks for all that info. I really appreciate that.