| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Orguth the Brawler02-01-04, 12:53 AM | I was wondering how often you folks use a typically NPC class to multiclass with. I was wondering, because I'm giving some consideration to making a Gnome Wizard/Expert/Fighter. Magical/War Engineer, is the idea. Wizard is magic, Fighter is war, Expert is engineer. I was thinking of it as he recieved special training once his aptitude became apparent. |
| Thermanshs02-01-04, 09:03 AM | Just buy som craft/profession skills and you're done.I'm totally against labeling abilities with classes so why multiclass in an expert?An intelligent wizard would have many slots to spare on these choices. |
| Qaetar02-04-04, 05:38 PM | However, Expert gets many more Skill Points than Wizard. You could consider Rogue or the Rogue Variant that allows Skill Focus instead of Sneak Attack Dice. Though, unless you're dipping, that becomes a Jack of All Trades more than a Master of One. Then again, with all the skill points, so will Expert. Fighter levels with Profession (Seige Engineer) or some such should be Engineery enough. (Qaetar) |
| The Hanged Man02-04-04, 05:45 PM | I won't even use the NPC classes for NPC's, except warrior. Just take levels in rogue, if you really have to. |
| Sensei Gith02-04-04, 09:40 PM | That's the problem with NPC classes: they all suck. I really don't see the point in having classes that are just weaker versions of existing classes. Why does Joe Constable have to be a warrior? Why can't he just be a fighter of lower level? And what in hell is the point of a commoner? A commoner is a commoner because he is a level 1 or apprentice-level expert, not because he has levels in "commoner." The stats aren't even realistic; commoners are skill-users first and foremost and would certainly be tougher than a wizard who sits in a tower reading books all day. I think that we need a true Expert PC class, one that would be the undisputed master of skills. Give it a lot of flexibility (pick your own favored save, for example) and it can replace the aristocrat, commoner, and expert. Give it an apprentice level and it can replace commoner1's easily. (Similarly, a fighter0 could replace a warrior1.) The introduction of a playable Expert eliminates the need for three NPC classes, makes those NPC's and their CR's more realistic, and allows for a character who can compete skill-wise with the rogue and doesn't need sneak attack. The Adept is out of luck. Will anyone notice? :) |
| sparkster424202-05-04, 01:16 AM | Half my rogue characters, and a few of my other classes, have had a level or two of Expert. That custom skill list is sweet ... if yer into that sort of thing. Have you noticed that the Adept is a divine spellcaster with a familiar? There is some interesting potential for cheese there... |
| Korimyr the Rat02-05-04, 04:43 AM | I use a lot of Aristocrat for social characters where Rogue or Bard would not be appropriate. I'm still working on converting it to a viable PC class. I'm thinking of combining it, more or less, with the OA Samurai. |
| Dave100102-05-04, 05:33 PM | Originally posted by Orguth the Brawler I was wondering how often you folks use a typically NPC class to multiclass with. I was wondering, because I'm giving some consideration to making a Gnome Wizard/Expert/Fighter. Magical/War Engineer, is the idea. Wizard is magic, Fighter is war, Expert is engineer. I was thinking of it as he recieved special training once his aptitude became apparent. ahem, looking for an engineer-type class for your gnome? look no further than the Inventor! (found in my sig) |
| Tony Vargas02-05-04, 07:00 PM | I've used Aristocrat - one level of it - so as to play a noble character. It was also kind of nice getting all the skills and martial weapon proficiencies, since my main class didn't grant them. Likewise, Expert occassionally makes sense for a PC. I did run one odd game where I started each PC in middle age, with a number of NPC levels under thier belts, when they were suddenly 'called' as part of a divine prophesy and started discovering heroic abilities within themselves (gaining PC class level). But that was just to be different. In general, though, NPC classes are NPC classes for a reason - they're the classes of the non-adventurer. The person who may become very good at what they do, but what they do isn't dodge fireballs and slay dragons - or anything even remotely like that. A prosperous farmer, for instance, might not have any reason to have exceptional combat abilities, many essoteric skills, or anything... but, he might have very good reason to have more than the 4 ranks in Proffession:farming that is the most an 'aprentice expert' or other 0-1st level PC-style class might have. And, if he's a canny old bird, he may just have a lot of ranks in sense motive, too. You never know. And, though he won't be a match for adventurers of comparable level, he wont exactly be a fragile peice of scenery in comparison, either. NPC classes let the DM populate his world with, well NPCs, who are at once, clearly not heroic (or villainous) adventurers on par with the PCs, yet who /are/ on par with the PCs in thier particular niche in the world, making them meaningful 'encounters' outside of the usual dungeon-battle meaning of the word. Frankly, I think they're a fantastic idea. The flip side of PRCs, really, and a very nice contrast to the insane 'NPC Classes' that used to get published for 1E in The Dragon. |
| Sensei Gith02-05-04, 09:52 PM | Why not use lower-level characters instead of inherently weaker classes? The playable expert, for example, might choose a skill that gets a competence bonus equal to his ranks (max level+3). An expert0 "commoner" might have only 4 ranks in profession (farmer), but he'd be better at it than a PC of similar level. Plus, it just doesn't make sense to keep making commoners higher and higher levels without getting anything. How did they get the xp? Why does xp not count as much for them? |
| Tony Vargas02-05-04, 10:18 PM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith Why not use lower-level characters instead of inherently weaker classes? Well, any number of things might be level dependent, most notably maximum skill ranks. In a high-level game, for instance, you might want some 'challenges' that deal with politicing or in addition to the more usual combats - the characters are probably starting to become important and all that. PCs with 12+ ranks of a few social skills wouldn't be much challenged if the various NPCs were statted out with levels based solely on thier combat/magic abilities (way lower than the PCs with attendant lower max ranks) - they're not adventuring heros, there's no reason for them to be juggernauts... but there is every reason for them to have lots and lots of ranks in Sense Motive and so forth. Plus, it just doesn't make sense to keep making commoners higher and higher levels without getting anything. How did they get the xp? Why does xp not count as much for them? Well, xp is uniform in 3E, everyone levels at the same rate, so it does count for the same, in a sense. The NPC classes don't get as much for leveling, because they're, well, ordinary people - no amount of experience will make them into great heros or mighty mages or living saints, they just 'don't have such greatness in them.' Terribly unpopulist idea, but it is just a fantasy world. Adventuring is a /fast/ way to get exp, because you're constantly facing challenges near, at, or above your level. NPC classed-characters probably live less exciting lives - with very few at-or-greater-level challenges in thier lifetimes, but, quite possibly, a lot of minor ones that add up over the decades. At least, until the point where they no longer get XP for them, which helps explain why you'll often have NPCs with years or decades of 'experience' who have none-the-less failed to hit the 20th level glass cieling - even though PCs might be getting close to it after only a few years - they just 'plataued' at some point. Personally, I really like the idea of the weaker NPC classes - it lets you populate your world with interesting, experienced, levelled characters who, none-the-less won't overshadow the PCs. |
| Sensei Gith02-05-04, 11:06 PM | Well, any number of things might be level dependent, most notably maximum skill ranks. Indeed, any Expert class should have some way of specializing. If an Expert could drop his skill points to four (from around ten) and get a competence bonus equal to his level+3 on all checks with a couple skills, you could easily have a diplomat or blacksmith who has little xp, but is so specialized in their craft/trade/favored set of skills that they outshine most others. A fighter blacksmith hits things with pointy, self-made sticks, takes a bunch of damage, learns new combat maneuvers, rides a horse, and crafts weapons. An Expert blacksmith crafts weapons, and craftsa more weapons, and armor too, and a shield on the side, and more weapons. I could easily see him having a large, level-based competence bonus to Craft (Weapons, Armor, Metalworking) and some kind of profession skill because of his singular focus (as opposed to the mostly secondary skill focus of the standard classes). Of course, that's just an example of a possible system; it hasn't been balance-checked or anything. NPC classed-characters probably live less exciting lives - with very few at-or-greater-level challenges in thier lifetimes, but, quite possibly, a lot of minor ones that add up over the decades. The thing that doesn't make sense IMO is this: When a level 1 fighter kills enough woilves to gain a level, he gains +1 BAB, a save bonus, 5.5 hit points, and half a bonus feat. When a level 1 commoner kills the same number of wolves, he gets +.5 BAB, very little save bonus, and 2.5 hp. Same xp, same amount of combat, completely different benefits. Do you have any comments about replacing warriors with fighters, or eliminating adepts? |
| fractal02-06-04, 12:55 AM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith The thing that doesn't make sense IMO is this: When a level 1 fighter kills enough woilves to gain a level, he gains +1 BAB, a save bonus, 5.5 hit points, and half a bonus feat. When a level 1 commoner kills the same number of wolves, he gets +.5 BAB, very little save bonus, and 2.5 hp. Same xp, same amount of combat, completely different benefits. First, the level 1 fighter gains an entire bonus feat. Besides that, it's not a bad point, why doesn't the Commoner learn much? The one suggestion that I have, is that NPC classes are considered to be 1 CR lower. So, if you were trying to be friendly to them exp-wise, you could also treat them as one ECL lower. Then a level 1 Commoner would gain experience as a level 0 character (and start at -1000 exp?). There aren't any rules for level 0 characters gaining experience, but double what a level 1 gets could be a reasonable response. After all, a level 2 Commoner is still inferior to the level 1 Fighter. Equal BAB, lower hp, lower Fort save, more skill points, no bonus feat. |
| Tony Vargas02-06-04, 01:34 AM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith When a level 1 fighter kills enough woilves to gain a level, he gains +1 BAB, a save bonus, 5.5 hit points, and half a bonus feat. When a level 1 commoner kills the same number of wolves, he gets +.5 BAB, very little save bonus, and 2.5 hp. Same xp, same amount of combat, completely different benefits. That's a vaguarie of the experience system, itself. When a wizard kills the same number of wolves, he learns to prepare more spells per day - even if he killed the wolves by whacking them repeatedly with his quarterstaff. Of course, commoners are less likely to get exp for killing things, and more likely to get it from other challenges... heck, maybe even the challenge of gettin' th' crops in 'fore th' ol' 'arv'st mooon sehts.... ;) Do you have any comments about replacing warriors with fighters, or eliminating adepts? Well, I can comment on the reverse. The last campaign that I ran, I used Adepts for all but one the NPC spellcasters the players faced (and other NPC classes for other NPCs). It worked fine, but I was using a variant that let them access a few cleric spells, as well, if they were 'Initiated' into a priesthood, and I had PRC that gave those who took levels in it access to some additional arcane spells as well, so it wasn't that fair a test. As for warriors, I find that it's easier to run a group of NPC warriors, as a DM, than a same size group of fighters, because they don't have the extra feats to choose and keep track of durring the fight. |
| Sensei Gith02-06-04, 08:16 AM | First, the level 1 fighter gains an entire bonus feat. Yeah, half a bonus feat was an approximation. When a wizard kills the same number of wolves, he learns to prepare more spells per day - even if he killed the wolves by whacking them repeatedly with his quarterstaff. But it's balanced. Or at least, it's supposed to be. The last campaign that I ran, I used Adepts for all but one the NPC spellcasters the players faced (and other NPC classes for other NPCs). Wouldn't the CR's be off? As for warriors, I find that it's easier to run a group of NPC warriors, as a DM, than a same size group of fighters, because they don't have the extra feats to choose and keep track of durring the fight. True, but they're much easier than their CR would indicate. And you can always throw weapon focus on NPC fighters. |
| MadBlue02-06-04, 12:22 PM | Originally posted by Korimyr the Rat I use a lot of Aristocrat for social characters where Rogue or Bard would not be appropriate. I'm still working on converting it to a viable PC class. I'm thinking of combining it, more or less, with the OA Samurai. This may or may not be what you're looking for, but the Dragonlance campaign setting sourcebook has a Noble PC class. It also has a Mystic (Divine equivalent of Sorcerer) PC class. There are a lot of "Noble" classes out there, some are by WotC and not for D&D (Star Wars and Wheel of Time) and some for D&D but not by WotC (Green Ronin and Mongoose for example), but since the one in Dragonlance is both by WotC and for a D&D setting, it's probably as official a viable PC Aristocrat as you can get... Then again, even with the Mystic being in Dragonlance, WotC put the Favored Soul in the Miniatures Handbook. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a more PC-worthy variant Expert class in a WotC product (perhaps Unearthed Arcana). MadBlue |
| Shadowfoot02-06-04, 12:30 PM | Originally posted by Orguth the Brawler I was wondering how often you folks use a typically NPC class to multiclass with. I was wondering, because I'm giving some consideration to making a Gnome Wizard/Expert/Fighter. Magical/War Engineer, is the idea. Wizard is magic, Fighter is war, Expert is engineer. I was thinking of it as he recieved special training once his aptitude became apparent. I have two classes that may be along the lines of what you're looking for. My tinker (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85156) is a magical mechanic while the professional (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146203) is a PC version, fleshed out significantly, of the expert. |
| Twisted Puppy02-06-04, 12:50 PM | Originally posted by Korimyr the Rat I use a lot of Aristocrat for social characters where Rogue or Bard would not be appropriate. I'm still working on converting it to a viable PC class. I'm thinking of combining it, more or less, with the OA Samurai. IMC a player took a level of aristocrat; the character was certainly interesting. Taking those classes makes for interesting flavor in a game, and some nice roleplaying opportunities. If the player doesn't mind the disadvantages that go along with the NPC classes (they just aren't as good as the PC classes, IMO), they're welcome to give them a try, as long as they can explain WHY they'd have them. |
| Tony Vargas02-06-04, 02:17 PM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith Wouldn't the CR's be off? True, but they're much easier than their CR would indicate. IIRC, the CR of NPC classes is lower than that of PC classes, isn't it? |
| Orguth the Brawler02-06-04, 02:35 PM | I think the NPC classes are just fine - as far as the commoners not getting much from levels in comparison to PC classes, it's because they have no knowledge to build off of. In the Fighter/Commoner example, a Fighter is already trained in basic combat moves, tactics, and defensive manouevres. As he fights, he learns which ones work better against which opponents, how to more ably score a killing blow than a wounding one, and figures out a new trick (feat) that could help out next time. The commoner, by contrast, is really just worried about surviving. He doesn't have the wherewithal to pay attention wo what works and what doesn't beyond the very immediate, and doesn't have the ability to minimize should he miss. A fighter could kill that many wolves eventually without too much trouble. If a commoner did it, it would be due primarily to luck, and a half-decent strength score. And I fail to see any problem with the expert at all - the fact that he chooses his ten skills as class skills does make him rather the most versatile skill master in the game, allowing him to focus exclusively on one set of skills - which is rather what they do, since experts are trained professionals in a given field. They'll take Skill Focus as their feat, I expect, unless they want to take Track if they're a guide. |
| Sensei Gith02-06-04, 04:11 PM | IIRC, the CR of NPC classes is lower than that of PC classes, isn't it? By one level, I think. |
| DrakaraGM02-08-04, 01:18 PM | Yep, 1 lower CR than number of levels in an NPC class... I have posted these elsewhere, but this thread seems like a good place to repost them. In my 3.0 (O.A.) campaign, and in my future 3.5 campaign, NPC classes have the following improvements which make them a bit closer to PC classes, and make some of them viable for PCs to multiclass in them if appropriate. (In Drakara (O.A.) the Aristocrat class is in fact one of three options for noble characters at 1st level, the others being Samurai and Shugenja, and it is the ONLY option at 1st level for a character wishing to come from one of the Imperial Vassal families.) Anyways, the changes: 1) All NPC classes get 2 additional skill points per level (8 at 1st level). This makes them much more competitive in terms of skill points compared to many PC classes -- and especially makes them more worthwhile as 1st level choices. Which is good -- because, like the Aristocrat, I require any NPC class to be taken at 1st level or not at all. I.e. unless there are extremely unusual circumstances involved, you don't get to multiclass into an NPC class later on. (I also start characters at 2nd level at least, so the NPC class isn't necessarily the only class a character has.) 2) All NPC classes get a bonus feat at 2nd level and an additional bonus feat every 3 additional levels thereafter (5th, 8th, etc.). This provides a PC with a valid/useful reason to take the class up to 2nd level at least, if they have it at all. The bonus feat lists are 6-10 feats selected for the class in question -- Skill Focus is on all the lists, and many NPCs do take it in their primary craft or profession, but an Aristocrat might have things like Mounted Combat, Leadership, Quick Draw, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and so on, while an Adept might have Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll, the "+1 level" metamagic feats... 3) In addition to the above, an Adept gets one domain, getting +1 domain spell for all spells per day table entries of 1st level spells and up, plus the domain granted power -- AND gets the ability to spontaneously cast any normally prepared adept spell as his domain spell of that level or lower instead. This gives the adept a bit more flexibility in spell selection (though not as much as the shaman or cleric) and a single granted power (which can be anywhere from marginally useful to awesome depending on the domain), and a specific 'flavor' based on the domain chosen. As indicated in O.A., in Drakara many adepts are called diviners, and that is in part due to the fact that many take Divination domain... Adepts are in Drakara the most common spellcasting class by far among NPCs, whereas PCs are shamans, shugenja, sorcerers and wu jen in about equal numbers... Okay, now for why I like the NPC classes in general -- and to outline a basic philosophical difference between PC classes and NPC classes. I think of the PCs -- and NPCs with PC classes -- as having the adventurers' mindset. This mindset leads to risking life and limb for cemmensurate rewards, resulting in the gaining of fame, wealth and power at a relatively young age -- or an early grave. Plenty of NPCs do have PC classes and are adventurous in nature, the PCs are not the only ones, but these NPCs and the PCs do have this mindset in common, and they gain their experience in the standard manner -- overcoming challenges, some tougher than others, involving defeating enemies and traps, thwarting the plans of others and advancing their own cause, achieving difficult goals and so on. Thus such characters advance in abilities quickly, through overcoming these challenges they so readily seek out... However, the bulk of the NPC population -- lets call them civilians -- do not seek such a dangerous path to fame and glory -- instead, they much prefer to live their lives in relative security, carrying on at a trade or craft or simply eking out a living as best they can through their labors in whatever walk of life they find themselves. This mindset -- getting by, living their lives as they were born to do -- means that they do not tend to face such dangerous and difficult challenges, and instead, they gain experience slowly, over time, simply by overcoming the more normal challenges of life itself. Some have much pride in their work and strive to imrpove themselves -- others may just do the minimum necessary to survive -- and those efforts great or small will determine how often they may advance in their skills and abilities -- which is why some civilians may attain decent levels in an NPC class over time while others may still be relatively low level in an NPC class as an advanced age. The key is that the mindset of the NPC with an NPC class only is not geared towards the defeat of monsters, and the doing of great and glorious deeds -- but rather of getting through life without such deeds being necessary! A couple of examples... An adept will prefer to tend to the needs of his fellow villagers, providing healing and common sense guidance as needed. The adept may be called upon to help defend his village against monsters upon rare occasions -- but he certainly does not seek out such a duty, and would much rather leave such activities to the heroes brave enough to do such things as a way of life! Yet while such heroes would quickly get bored living the adept's life, the adept takes a quiet pride in his mundane, yet vital, role in the lives of his fellow villagers... A warrior in the village militia will much prefer to be called upon to break up the occasional drunken brawl at the inn, to make sure that vagrants and thieves do not unduly bother the honest folk of the village, to catch the occasional brigand or poacher, and so on. If monsters prey upon the village, the warrior will be the first line of defense, and do her duty -- but the warrior seldom goes out hunting the monsters in their lairs in the deep woods... And so on. Where adventurers seek out adventure, embracing challenges as their fate and for the opportunities they present, civilians seek only to live their lives the way they wish to live them and raise their families, care for their friends and loved ones, and otherwise survive in an occasionally hostile world. Sometimes civilians get caught up in events that test their limits as much as any adventurer does -- and a civilian may well learn plenty from such experiences (considering that an NPC with only NPC classes also effectively counts as a level lower for the purpose of gaining experience from such challenges) -- but civilians do not tend to seek out such events, and are much happier when such events are a thing of the past. Some NPC classes are more likely to embroil the civilians in dangerous events -- aristocrats are often caught up in intrigues, adepts may be called upon to deal with a supernatural menace when there are no adventurers nearby to take on the challenge, and warriors may be called upon to risk their lives in battle as part of their normal duties -- but a civilian will generally much prefer to avoid such activities when possible. Now, when a PC is multiclassed with an NPC class and one or more regular PC classes, I give them experience as a PC, do not 'discount' the NPC levels, and do not provide them with tiny amounts of experience over time -- but I DO consider that at least some small amount of the civilian mindset does influence the character's views to some small extent. For example, an aristocrat/fighter will be more likely to consider the ramifications of his actions on the common folk (noblesse oblige) he has been set above and the honor and prestige of his family, and will be more likely to successfully deal with the local power structure, than a simple fighter, even if the latter was officially born into a noble family. This mindset is also reflected in the fact that the aristicrat/fighter is a little less effective in combat than the straight fighter (+0 BAB and d8 at 1st level) but more skilled in dealing with a variety of things (lots of class skills and more starting skill points) and is more strong willed as well... An NPC who has mostly NPC class levels but might have one or more levels in a PC class would count as an NPC with primarily a civilian outlook, but with perhaps a streak of adventurousness that occasionally makes the character take chances... So, with the improvements I made to the NPC classes, those classes do become viable -- and the different mindsets between adventurers and civilians is why the vast bulk of the population has NPC classes while a small minority has PC classes. That isn't to say that all NPCs are weak and all PCs are strong -- but that the civilian NPCs do tend to be a little stronger in terms of skills and weaker in adventuring capability than the adventurer NPCs and PCs alike. A warrior is actually going to have more skills than a fighter of the same level, but fewer feats and hit points. An expert has as many skill points as a rogue, and a few bonus feats, but does not have the special adventuring abilities of a rogue such as sneak attack and evasion. An adept has more skills than a cleric, but less powerful spells and combat abilities. But the important difference is the mindset, civilian vs adventurer. |
| Thermanshs02-08-04, 07:12 PM | Hey guys......... ever tried to see what an n.p.c. means? N=Non P=Player C=Character ok...... after this lesson lets proceed to our next one NPC classes Brief explanation of the term(also can find that in DM'S guide 3.0 ed pg36(sorry I don't have the new piece):The player's handbook extensively describes adventurers.BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD???!!!!SURELY NOT EVERYONE'S A :censored: FIGHTER,ROGUE,WIZARD NOR CAN THEY BE COMPARED WITH THEM IN POWER WHATEVER THIS MIGHT BE!!! ...bla...bla...instead they represent the rest of the people around the pc's WHO DON'T TRAIN TO GO ON ADVENTURES AND EXPLORE DUNGEONS. So if you guys want a skill specialistst then the rogue was made for you.If you can't see beyond its sneak attack and stealth that's YOUR problem not the class system's. |
| Orguth the Brawler02-08-04, 07:46 PM | Precisely the point - the class would be used to represent non-adventuring based training and experience. That's why I considered the Expert class. Additionally, Aristocrat fills a similar function, though I can't see any other class being used by PCs. |
| Sensei Gith02-08-04, 08:30 PM | Thermanshs: Read the thread. |
| JoAT02-09-04, 01:01 AM | As far as why the majority of characters in D&D are NPC class, I agree with DrakaraGM Originally posted by DrakaraGM I think of the PCs -- and NPCs with PC classes -- as having the adventurers' mindset. This mindset leads to risking life and limb for cemmensurate rewards, resulting in the gaining of fame, wealth and power at a relatively young age -- or an early grave. Plenty of NPCs do have PC classes and are adventurous in nature, the PCs are not the only ones, but these NPCs and the PCs do have this mindset in common, and they gain their experience in the standard manner -- overcoming challenges, some tougher than others, involving defeating enemies and traps, thwarting the plans of others and advancing their own cause, achieving difficult goals and so on. Thus such characters advance in abilities quickly, through overcoming these challenges they so readily seek out... However, I take it somewhat further - rather than improving the NPC classes, this is also the reason the NPC classes are handled like they are, as far as I'm concerned. The PC classes are tougher because of what they do - running around, confronting traps, monsters and danger at every turn, and learning how to over-come them. The NPC classes tend to do diffrent things, learning how to confront thier tax-collectors, over-coming the perils of drought and root-worm, and delivering newly created products on time... Originally posted by Sensei Gith The thing that doesn't make sense IMO is this: When a level 1 fighter kills enough woilves to gain a level, he gains +1 BAB, a save bonus, 5.5 hit points, and half a bonus feat. When a level 1 commoner kills the same number of wolves, he gets +.5 BAB, very little save bonus, and 2.5 hp. Same xp, same amount of combat, completely different benefits. Well, it depends. As I see it, the benifits would be exactly the same - any commoner who was able to kill that many wolves would probably gain a level of fighter, as opposed to a level of commoner - after all, all of the experiance came from either somehow single-handedly killing off a rabid pack of wolves, or hunting them down and destroying them one by one (unless, of course, he used traps and the like, in which case perhaps ranger or Rogue would be more apporpriete.) But, if on the other hand, a Fighter farmed and toiled, gaining enough experiance to go up a level by learning about life on the farm, overcoming crop-failure and drought, negoiating (or maybe driving off) people who want to take over his land, then I'd say that, when leveling time came, he'd most likely gain a level as a commoner. Of course, this isn't what I force my players to do, but I do encourage it, and it is how I do things for my own characters. |
| Nifft02-09-04, 01:49 AM | IMC, most NPCs use regular PC classes. I've beefed up my Expert and Aristocrat, and you can see them here: http://klimt.cns.nyu.edu/~fishman/DnD/new-classes.shtml Nothing as weak and tasty as a Commoner would have survived the last 1,000 year long demon invasion. So, there aren't any. -- N |
| Thermanshs02-10-04, 07:51 AM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith Thermanshs: Read the thread. Not tryin' to point my answer to individuals here but... All I can see is an attempt to equal N.P. classes with Core classes.So what should we do about that?!Boost N.P. classes just to feed some greedy players?If you think that a N.P. class doesn't fit your character then get along with a core one and expand its concept..it's THAT simple.Core classes were designed for HEROES and ONLY heroes should be able to attain them. Consequently a FIGHTER is the General in army, the rogue is the chief of the guild (thieves' guilds are not the ONLY ones),the cleric is a deity's chosen (trained for combat,energy channeler,power granted) compared with common priests and acolytes,the wizard/sorcerer is the master of the art bla...bla.... so that's why they're so sparse among others (just check how many people have core levels in a Metropolis....mmm...don't bother...I'll tell you Average Metropolis(35.000 citizens) Average highest-level fighter's level:15 Number of such fighters:4 Total fighters in this Metropolis:128 As for less common classes such as Monks,Wizards,Sorcerers etc. these numbers are half as much as the fighters'. Core classes have lesser equivalents in the N.P. list as the fighter has the warrior eq.,the wizard has the adept eq. etc.You could insist that the aristocrat doesn't have a core equivalent while I can see no reason why a fighter,paladin,bard etc. can't be a noble one still not having attained aristocrat levels. |
| Sensei Gith02-10-04, 08:37 AM | All I can see is an attempt to equal N.P. classes with Core classes. Your perception amazes me. Read it again. Nothing as weak and tasty as a Commoner would have survived the last 1,000 year long demon invasion. :rofl: A boring life doesn't equate to a weaker class. It equates to a low level. NPC classes don't make sense because two characters with the same amount of xp have vastly different power levels, which also throws off the CR system. Which would you rather face: a level 4 fighter or a level 5 commoner? Not a hard choice. |
| DrakaraGM02-10-04, 09:36 AM | Posted by Thermanshs: "All I can see is an attempt to equal N.P. classes with Core classes.So what should we do about that?!Boost N.P. classes just to feed some greedy players?" Not true -- in fact, when I first made the NPC class changes for my world, I did so in order that the common folks in the world not be quite so far behind the PC classes in terms of simple things like skills. Note that despite my changes, the NPC classes are still inferior to the PC classes overall -- and that is as it should be! But as they are they provide some options for PCs as well, those options are just a little less inferior with my changes. Indeed, even with my changes, the only NPC classes considered as a 'real' option by the PCs are still aristocrat and expert -- adepts, commoners and warriors are still inferior to just about all PC classes. BUT for my NPCs who are 'stuck' with NPC classes, due to their nature, they are a slightly greater challenge for the PCs or else slightly more effective themselves when dealing with monsters and each other. I LIKE the idea that a warrior, though clearly inferior to the fighter in combat, actually has a few more skills because he is living more within normal society -- and with a few levels can also pick up a few 'combat tricks', i.e. a bonus feat or two on top of the standard character feats. As for aristocrat... The difference between being 'noble' but just a fighter or other PC class, as opposed to having a level or two of aristocrat, is simple -- the fighter has a lot fewer skills (both in terms of options and skill points) but is a more competent warrior. The border lord can easily be represented by a straight fighter or ranger -- he has no time for the fancy skills of the court baron, and the constant skirmishing with raiders, monsters, etc. means that if he is the sort of lord who leads his men in the field and by example, then sure, a straight fighter may work just fine. Take him to court and he'll be a country bumpkin for sure, but put him in armor and give him a sword and those court barons better look out. But what about the player who is willing to give up some combat effectiveness in order to BE one of those court barons? Don't tell me he should take his few skill points as a fighter and spend them at 2 for 1 in order to pick up a couple ranks in court skills -- he will STILL be incredibly inferior to any aristocrat in terms of the skills needed at court. That is exactly what the aristocrat class if for -- a decent number of skill points available with which to select from a wide variety of class skills, at the cost of a couple hit points and +1 BAB at 1st level. A noble who has had the luxury of being brought up at court would indeed have had the opportunity to learn a variety of skills, and could indeed have been able to spend less time in combat training in order to take advantage of those opportunities. Trying to 'get along' with a fighter, paladin or ranger doesn't make sense for most court nobles. The paladin may come closest -- but what percentage of court nobles can truly be said to be paladins? The code of conduct alone is gonna be a problem... So aristocrat, as it stands in the dmg, is possible -- but when, as a GM, working on my NPC population, I started looking at actual NPCs and deciding who could do what, it was clear to me that the aristocrat class was decidedly underpowered, even though it is one of the better NPC classes. I looked at commoners -- and having grown up in a rural environment, I have a lot of respect for the skills needed to 'get along' as a farmer or tradesman -- and it seemed to me that their skill points were sadly lacking as well. The expert seemed almost good enough as it was -- but after much review and comparison, I decided that a +2 skill points per level across the board for all NPC classes was justified. And as noted, the primary impact of that is that the bulk of the population is no longer quite as far behind the adventuring population in terms of skills. Their skills do not tend to be adventuring ones, of course -- few adventurers will allocate their skill points the way most commoners do! Second, I looked at the higher level NPCs, using the same guidelines you were looking at in the DMG as to population breakdown of PC and NPC classes in a community (though I had to revise it for an O.A. setting), and decided that since the vast majority of the population was pretty low level, I wanted them to have slightly more feats than the standard 1 (+1 if human) at 1st level and another feat at every level divisible by 3. Yet I didn't want to give an extra feat to 1st level NPCs -- and by far the vast majority of NPC class characters are indeed 1st level -- so I gave them a bonus feat at 2nd. The few that manage to get 5 levels or more can actually take advantage of the extra feats I gave them beyond that. But even with the extra skills and feats, and in the adept's case, the domain, these classes are STILL plenty below the power of PC classes of the same level -- and that is fine. I was NOT trying to make the NPC classes as good as the PC classes -- I was just trying to make them less far behind. And that is a change that benefits the population of the world as a whole, the NPCs much moreso than the PCs. Can the PCs take advantage of it? Sure! But by doing so they are still giving up roll-playing power for extra role-playing effectiveness. They are just not giving up as much as they would have if I had not improved the NPC classes a bit. And note that I AM running an O.A. campaign, where a combat-intensive 'noble fighter' is actually a samurai -- who does get more skill points than a fighter but fewer feats. The aristocrat, even with my improvements, only has a few more skill points than the samurai, and has fewer hit points, BAB and feats, plus the samurai gets good fortitude and will saves both while the aristocrat only gets good will saves. The aristocrat's advantage in class skills and skill points makes one level an acceptable investment, but multiple levels are still a tough sell to a PC when samurai is an option. Yet I used aristocrat as an option for noble characters -- and a requirement for Imperial characters, who MUST be skilled in courtly skills, and the slight drawbacks of the class are made up for by the fact that an Imperial character has more clout than a 'mere noble'. It all works out quite well. Would it work without my changes? Sure, but not quite as smoothly. So I didn't make these changes lightly,nor did I make them to satisfy the desires of the players -- the players had no input at all, the chanegs were essentially in place before character generation began. There are three characters who have an aristocrat level -- all of them have enjoyed having more skills, even though one occasionally regrets not having the extra BAB she could have had, and the other two, being a sorcerer and a wu jen (~wizard), have always had less magical power as a result, and have had times when they might well have preferred to have a few more spells available. Yet the characters all have interesting stories, nice backgrounds and character development as a result of their choices -- and that is the important thing. So play your game however you like -- nobody is forcing you to improve the NPC classes for your game, or to take levels in them. But some players want their NPC classes to be just a little closer in effectiveness to the PC classes, or want their PCs to be able to use NPC classes for flavoring without sacrificing a significant amount of power relative to the PC classes -- some, sure, but not too much. This thread is for those players and GMs who want to discuss those ideas, and although the viewpoint "NPC classes are for NPCs only and PC classes are for PCs only" is certainly a valid one, it is by no means the only valid one. BY the way, do you also believe that the DMG mechanics for determining the highest level NPC in each class and the resulting lower level guys is a 'reasonable' one? In my opinion it is reasonable as far as it goes -- but the mechanic does result in some pretty boring sets of NPCs in terms of levels, especially in the communities where you don't get two or more 'seed' characters. It bugs me, for instance, that the second best guy in a class, in most communities, is no better than half the level of the best guy, rounded down... Slavishly following the rules here does result in an easy to determine number of characters, but for many of the smaller and medium sized communities doesn't allow for rivalries between two characters of the same class and almost the same level, nor for multi-classed NPCs, nor for two characters of the same level in different classes having slightly different numbers and levels of lower level members of those classes. By that last bit, for example, I mean that by the rules, a 7th level character ALWAYS generates 2 3rd level guys, each of whom always generates 2 1st level guys. So if 7th level is generated as the highest, then the distribution is always 7 3 3 1 1 1 1 -- there is no chance for any 4th or 2nd level characters. Yet if the highest level character in a class is 8th then the distribution is always 8 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- a single additional level for the top guy means that ALL the lower level guys of that type go up a level too AND enough new guys show up in the class so that they new guys outnumber the old by 1! Yet add another level to the top guy, and you get 9 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- nobody else gains a level, so sorry... I changed that method for my world slightly -- it doesn't get rid of all the wierdness, but does make odd-level characters a little more interesting. Whenever I divide by 2 for the next batch of characters, if the result is a half-level, I flip a coin to round up or down rather than always rounding down. Therefore a 7th level character might generate 2 3rd levels, or 2 4th levels, or a 4th level and a 3rd level character. And a 3rd level character might generate 2 1sts, or 2 2nds, or a 1st and a 2nd. So whenever odd level characters higher than 1st level are involved, their next tier of characters is a bit more variable -- two 7th level guys in different classes could have totally different sets of lesser characters behind them... And then if I want to have a 'rivals' situation, what I may do is generate the 'highest' level guy, bump him up a level or two to get to the next higher odd level, generate the two lower level guys -- then get rid of the high level guy that started the class. Now there are two 'highest level guys' of either the same level or off by 1. So for example say I generate an 9th level rogue, but I wanted this town to have two rival 'gangs' each based on a lower level leader. I bump the 9th level guy to 11th, generate two guys at level 5.5 (flip a coin for each, heads = 6th and tails = 5th), get rid of the 11th level guy (indeed his 'death' may have split the original guild into two warring factions, if I decide such a character actually existed) and let each of the two guys generate lower level guys for their own 'gang'. So for example I may end up with a dominant gang led by a 6th level rogue and an upstart gang led by a 5th level rogue, each with some 3rd level or lower minions... But of course, perhaps I should just be satisfied with the rules as they are, and not get creative -- after all, the game designers took all possibilities into consideration, right? (That was sarcasm, my friend, but tongue in cheek, no offense intended...) These boards are full of ideas that warp the core rules in some way to go along with what specific GMs and players think fits their game better. These ideas are in that spirit -- use them if they make sense for you and your friends, otherwise ignore them. :) |
| eudas02-10-04, 11:03 AM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith That's the problem with NPC classes: they all suck. I really don't see the point in having classes that are just weaker versions of existing classes. Why does Joe Constable have to be a warrior? Why can't he just be a fighter of lower level? And what in hell is the point of a commoner? A commoner is a commoner because he is a level 1 or apprentice-level expert, not because he has levels in "commoner." The stats aren't even realistic; commoners are skill-users first and foremost and would certainly be tougher than a wizard who sits in a tower reading books all day. I think that we need a true Expert PC class, one that would be the undisputed master of skills. Give it a lot of flexibility (pick your own favored save, for example) and it can replace the aristocrat, commoner, and expert. Give it an apprentice level and it can replace commoner1's easily. (Similarly, a fighter0 could replace a warrior1.) The introduction of a playable Expert eliminates the need for three NPC classes, makes those NPC's and their CR's more realistic, and allows for a character who can compete skill-wise with the rogue and doesn't need sneak attack. The Adept is out of luck. Will anyone notice? :) Because Fighter0 doesn't even make sense. What's its BAB? What kind of HP does it have? What are its saves? Level 0 in any class doesn't make sense. You need classes that progress upward in power, but are notably *not* the standard PC classes, so that you can have an intimidating warrior who is a challenge, but isn't going to be the complete equal of your fighter; &etc. NPC classes fulfill the typical background roles that you need them to fill without being dominant roles in the game. eudas |
| eudas02-10-04, 11:18 AM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith (w/rt class comparisons) But it's balanced. Or at least, it's supposed to be. (snip) and it is -- for PC classes. NPC classes aren't balanced to PC classes, nor are they meant to be. they're meant to scale upwards to fulfill basic background roles, without "threatening" the dominant place of PC's. eudas |
| Sensei Gith02-10-04, 11:36 AM | Because Fighter0 doesn't even make sense. What's its BAB? What kind of HP does it have? What are its saves? Okay, then, call it fighter1/2. BAB: +1 HP: d10 Saves: Fort +1 Just off the top of my head, obviously. |
| eudas02-10-04, 02:06 PM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith Okay, then, call it fighter1/2. BAB: +1 HP: d10 Saves: Fort +1 Just off the top of my head, obviously. in a system of whole numbers, fighter0 and fighter1/2 make the same amount of sense, which is to say, none whatsoever. the solution, therefore, is that if you want two similar classes with slight variants, you make two classes, which, voila, they've already done -- they're called Warrior and Fighter. In other words, you're reinventing the wheel because you either don't understand or don't agree with the basic design philosophy or decisions, which is your prerogative, but it doesn't make what you are proposing any more logical. Personally, i think the NPC class design philosophy makes sense, but I suppose we should just agree to disagree at this point, as I do not anticipate much productive discussion on this point... eudas |
| JohnSnow02-10-04, 02:52 PM | in a system of whole numbers, fighter0 and fighter1/2 make the same amount of sense, which is to say, none whatsoever. Except for the rules about Apprentice Levels (to allow multi-class level 1 characters), I'd agree completely. But this is all irrelevant. NPC commoners aren't commoners because they're farmers. They're commoners because that's all they've ever been trained to do. Actually, more to the point, they've NEVER been trained to do anything else. The game doesn't have a specified rule on "training" or "education" other than "Research and training aren't a part of the standard rules. They're assumed to be going on in the background." (3.5 DMG, p. 197). However, the fact that they're occurring "off-stage" doesn't mean they're NOT occurring. A fighter doesn't kill two orcs and suddenly become better. He's training, he's practicing, he's sparring. He's tilting at windmills. And then, after he has a chance to apply this enough in LIFE AND DEATH situations, he gets better. A commoner doesn't get this "off-stage" training. Nobody ever showed Joe Commoner the proper way to swing a sword. He might manage, a rare one may even spend a precious feat on it (to show a hobbyist commoner who likes swords). If he spends enough effort on it, and gets the proper training, he gains a level in warrior (instead of gaining one as a commoner). Keep in mind that Craft, Profession, Use Rope, Listen, and Spot are class skills for a commoner, but NOT for a warrior, which explains why a commoner might prefer to go back to his original class. If our commoner becomes an apprentice in a trade (and moreso if he sticks to it), he may become an expert. A rare NPC is born an aristocrat, but on occasion a commoner, warrior or expert may find himself multiclassing into this role. Expert, warrior, adept and aristocrat represent the pinnacle of training a "non-adventurer" can get. Remember, "Most commoners never attain higher than 2nd or 3rd level in their whole LIVES." (3.5 DMG - p. 107). Adventures have to entail risk to earn experience. No risk, no experience. I think it's pretty clear. Commoner is the basis. If you haven't improved any abilities beyond your god-given gifts, you're equal to a commoner (all Poor saves, Worst BAB, Worst Hit Dice, proficient with one simple weapon and no armor), and minimal skills (although actually superior at this to the warrior who is out swinging weapons and learning to wear armor rather than learning a non-violent trade or to be aware of his surroundings - reflected by the commoner's access to the Craft, Profession, Use Rope, Listen and Spot skills). The most flexible NPC class is Expert...this is intentional. Is there a value to a PC-based "Expert?" Sure...and there are already two (maybe 3) - Rogues and Bards, and maybe Rangers. A simple variant of the Rogue class could create a playable nonmagical, non-stealthy, non-combat "Expert." |
| eudas02-10-04, 03:11 PM | "Except for the rules about Apprentice Levels (to allow multi-class level 1 characters), I'd agree completely." Which are 3.0 rules; according to other threads i've read, they're not found in the 3.5 PHB or DMG. Other than that we are in agreement. eudas |
| Sensei Gith02-10-04, 04:35 PM | the solution, therefore, is that if you want two similar classes with slight variants, you make two classes, which, voila, they've already done -- they're called Warrior and Fighter. Warrior is not a fighter variant. It's a class whose sole purpose is to suck compared to the otherwise similar fighter. That is absolutely unecessary. Adventures have to entail risk to earn experience. No risk, no experience. I think it's pretty clear. And yet a commoner with the same amount of experience is in every way inferior to a rogue. A rogue is a better farmer than a commoner. A commoner might spend every day, most of the year, for his entire life on becoming the best farmer he can. A rogue who devotes a small fraction of their resources to farming is just as good, and he can be a lot better with other synergistic skills, even if he is primarily a sneak or a thief. This is illogical. Is there a value to a PC-based "Expert?" Sure...and there are already two (maybe 3) - Rogues and Bards, and maybe Rangers. A simple variant of the Rogue class could create a playable nonmagical, non-stealthy, non-combat "Expert." None of those classes are Experts. A rogue is not in any way an expert. An expert could be seen as a rogue with tons of skill abilities and no sneak attack, uncanny dodge, trap sense, evasion, or special abilities, but he could just as easily be seen as a fighter with less BAB and HD and more SP, and a modified bonus feat list. Expert!=Rogue. |
| Tony Vargas02-10-04, 05:01 PM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith A commoner might spend every day, most of the year, for his entire life on becoming the best farmer he can. A rogue who devotes a small fraction of their resources to farming is just as good, and he can be a lot better with other synergistic skills, even if he is primarily a sneak or a thief. This is illogical. Y'know, it's illogical, but, oddly enough, it's not that unrealistic. Give different people the same challenges and opportunities (exp) and some will muddle through without growing much or acquiring a great deal of ability while others with thrive on adversity and excel to an amazing degree. I'm not a big fan of realism, though. Life's not fair, games should be. Still, I can see using NPC classes (for NPCs, obviously) that are clearly under-powered, just like I can see giving monsters or other adversaries abilities you'd never permit a PC to acquire - they're NPCs, you don't have to be fair to them. Conversely, if a character concept calls for an NPC-like class, I could see customizing a balanced one for a PC.... just to be fair. ;) |
| MadBlue02-11-04, 02:54 AM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith Warrior is not a fighter variant. It's a class whose sole purpose is to suck compared to the otherwise similar fighter. That is absolutely unecessary.Well, the NPC classes are really meant to represent the "extras". A high level Warrior is a soldier or thug that can fight well (good BAB) and withstand punishment (d8 HD), but isn't bounding all over the battlefield like a Fighter with his slew of Bonus Feats is. And yet a commoner with the same amount of experience is in every way inferior to a rogue. A rogue is a better farmer than a commoner. A commoner might spend every day, most of the year, for his entire life on becoming the best farmer he can. A rogue who devotes a small fraction of their resources to farming is just as good, and he can be a lot better with other synergistic skills, even if he is primarily a sneak or a thief. This is illogical.True. Although the classes in the PHB are for adventurers and heroes - people who can do what the "everyman" can do and much more. Most PC classed characters aren't going to be putting their skill points into the same skills that a Commoner would, though. So while a 10th level Rogue could have 13 Ranks in Profession (Farmer), he's probably not going to, whereas a 10th level Commoner most likely would. None of those classes are Experts. A rogue is not in any way an expert. An expert could be seen as a rogue with tons of skill abilities and no sneak attack, uncanny dodge, trap sense, evasion, or special abilities, but he could just as easily be seen as a fighter with less BAB and HD and more SP, and a modified bonus feat list.The Expert class from Unearthed Arcana is pretty sweet. It's meant to be a "generic" PC class, to be used in conjunction with the generic "Warrior" and "Spellcaster" PC classes (that is, instead of the classes in the PHB), but it really makes for a nice PC-worthy Expert to use in addition to the classes in the PHB. Here it is in a nutshell (based on what was reported on EN World's message boards): Expert: d6; medium base attack; two good saves, one poor save; class skills: any twelve plus Craft and Profession; skill points: 6+Int mod; All simple weapons, one martial weapon, light armor; bonus feats:Lvl 1,2,4,8,12,16,20 (pick which Saves are good and which is poor, some features of the base classes in the PHB can also be chosen as Bonus Feats) MadBlue |
| Thermanshs02-11-04, 05:33 AM | [QUOTE]Originally posted by Sensei Gith Your perception amazes me. Read it again. That was all I had to argue about... Drakara:your modofications are minor so I don't go on insist like a kid...it's your game anyway Sensei:NP classes are not meant to suck,when talking/comparing them with core classes don't mess them with PCs.Follow my logic to know what I mean Core level player=cp Core level non player=cnp Non-player-class player=npp Non-player-class non player=npnp This sample assumes that both characters are same level,same class 1. cp>cnp 2. cp>npp 3. cp>>npnp (way better) 4. cnp>npp (slight difference) 5. cnp>npnp 6. npp>npnp That's because players are the best of the best and could do pretty well with NP classes.So a player's commoner could be far more powerful than a non-player fighter.So I think that PCs deserve a higher CR than they currently have.Also the NPCs usually encountered by the PC's happen to be NP "elites"...note that?Still weaker than the PC's but still stronger than the majority of their NP kind. Another point I'd like to mention is the NP class' CR you criticized.If you have checked the rules about a matched pair's CR(which I presume you have) then you see that 2 NP 6th level warriors equal 1 NP 8th level Fighter.Who's side would you choose in a fight between 'em?Tough decision to take....so a single point higher in a creature's CR CAN make a big difference. Regarding to the expert's competence skill bonus you suggested I think is a bit redundant.Some skills(craft-proffessions the deal is all about) just can't get better by simple rank-picking,as I can't imagine the 12 HANDED-6 LEGGED EXPERT FLASH GORDON you're telling me,that could do better than a rogue with the same ranks on the same skill.I could cautiously set a maximum-rank bound when a character just can't do better in that particular craft-profession.I could instead apply synergy bonuses for synergies like profession(herbalist)-profession(farmer),profession(brewer)-craft(alchemy),profession(hunter)-craft(leather working),profession(farmer)-knowledge(nature),profession(sailor)-Spellcraft......bah! just kidding...therefore the expert picking from his plethora of choices the right skill combinations could become a real expert of the art and so far we haven't mentioned the skill focus feats that an expert is most likely to apply on most of his skills.Never heard of an adventurer (shown in your rogue-commoner comparisson) that could have the time,interest etc. to become a master farmer ( 4+ ranks). As for the poor commoner's class table,I think it stands fine as it is,for a commoner could specialize in a couple of the above-metioned skills.I also beleive that his CR should be lowered by 1 or maybe 2 steps.He's the weakest of all in the end! |
| Sensei Gith02-11-04, 08:07 AM | Regardless of how much sense it makes, it also messes up the CR system. A "CR 5" commoner (or any other NPC class) is not an EL 5. |
| Thermanshs02-11-04, 12:30 PM | Glad we finally agreed!Although I'm not tryin' here to change some people's game-play,I'm tryin' to show how things in real life work. As for EL's they're quite easy calculating them if taking a look on table 4-1 DMG 3.0 |
| Tony Vargas02-11-04, 02:13 PM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith Regardless of how much sense it makes, it also messes up the CR system. A "CR 5" commoner (or any other NPC class) is not an EL 5. Certainly not in combat, no. And the commoner is weak, even compared to other NPC classes. You could set the EL of most NPC classes at CL-1 for encounters within thier area of expertise - for a warrior or for an adept thowing lightning bolts at you, that might well be combat, but for an Aristocrat it might be a debate in front of the peerage. Set it at -2 if the NPC is out of his element - an expert tailor in combat, for instance. For commoners, you could set it at -4 (or just 1/2 CL) for most adventuring situations, and, possibly, -2 if the encounter somehow plays to thier abilities (You have to beat out farmer Josiah in the biggest pumpkin competition at the harvest festival because, unbeknownst to the little town, the traditional trophy is actually an ancient artifact... and it only functions for those who acquire it honestly) ... so, basicly, -4 prettymuch all the time. ;) |
| Thermanshs02-11-04, 03:14 PM | regarding to the EL calculation table on DMG then a (x+4) lvl character equals 4 x lvl characters,isn't this just too much?However the Player's handbook clearly states that if a creature is no threat for the party then the xp award greatly decreases.But don't abuse this every time your wizard instantly kills an opponent casting finger of death.CRs represent(off topic statements) the challenge for the average party so a party's unity,backup,overal power,coordination,right spell picking are just for the character's advantage and should NOT be considered when determining an XP award. But if you set the same creature at the bottom of a deep pit with no chance to escape and the party is throwing boulders on it then that's definitely not a challenge at all while it doesn't interfere with the party's capabilities(at least seriously) |
| Sensei Gith02-11-04, 04:24 PM | Glad we finally agreed! We don't. I still think it's a complete load of crap. You could set the EL of most NPC classes at CL-1 for encounters within thier area of expertise - for a warrior or for an adept thowing lightning bolts at you, that might well be combat, Nope. Compare a wizard5 to an adept6. Or a fighter5 to a warrior6. At high levels, just forget it. And why mess around with levels and CR's when that aristocrat can be a lower-level Expert with no hassle? Just give a specialization option, and that aristocrat can have less skill points per level than a standard Expert, but huge bonuses to Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff, and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty). And supposing that the aristocrat was a skilled diplomat, what separates him from a PC in an IDRP campaign? Where do you draw the line between "common" aristocrat and "elite" PC class aristocrat, especially considering that aristocrats are the privileged minority? What if your PC is a renowned, world-famous smith? A PC expert class would certainly be appropriate. But what about an NPC blacksmith? Why is he different? An Expert PC class is needed because there is no way to fill that role with the core rules. Rogue? That's an expert with sneak attack, uncanny dodge, trap finding and trap sense, and special abilities like Crippling Strike. A bard could be an expert if it weren't for the whole singing/magic business. A ranger? I don't think I need to say anything. At this point, I am usually advised to play a rogue and not use the other abilities, to which I reply: try it yourself, and don't blame me for the results. And once you have an Expert class for PC's, why stop there? It can replace three useless classes seamlessly. A low-level specialized expert, for example, might be just as good of a farmer as the rogue twice his level. He could be the same power as an expert of the PC's level, but it would be far more integrated and balanced. CRs represent(off topic statements) the challenge for the average party But a commoner of one level higher is nowhere near the same challenge. |
| DrakaraGM02-11-04, 06:39 PM | Just for amusement, I was browsing through the 3.5 SRD in the section on improving monsters. Where it discusses adding class levels and determining CR, they have a lot to say! The relevant section is as follows: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADVANCED MONSTER CHALLENGE RATING When adding class levels to a creature with 1 or less HD, you advance the creature like a character. Otherwise, use the following guidelines. ADDING CLASS LEVELS If you are advancing a monster by adding player character class levels, decide if the class levels directly improve the monster’s existing capabilities. When adding class levels to a creature, you should give it typical ability scores appropriate for that class. Most creatures are built using the standard array of ability scores: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, adjusted by racial modifiers. Associated Class Levels Class levels that increase a monster’s existing strengths are known as associated class levels. Each associated class level a monster has increases its CR by 1. Barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger are associated classes for a creature that relies on its fighting ability. Rogue and ranger are associated classes for a creature that relies on stealth to surprise its foes, or on skill use to give itself an advantage. A spellcasting class is an associated class for a creature that already has the ability to cast spells as a character of the class in question, since the monster’s levels in the spellcasting class stack with its innate spellcasting ability. Nonassociated Class Levels If you add a class level that doesn’t directly play to a creature’s strength the class level is considered nonassociated, and things get a little more complicated. Adding a nonassociated class level to a monster increases its CR by 1/2 per level until one of its nonassociated class levels equals its original Hit Dice. At that point, each additional level of the same class or a similar one is considered associated and increases the monster’s CR by 1. Levels in NPC classes are always treated as nonassociated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that these two interesting things especially: "If you give a creature a PC class use the elite array of ability scores before racial adjustments: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Creatures with NPC classes use the nonelite array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. " "Levels in NPC classes are always treated as nonassociated." So for monsters, those with NPC classes get the non-elite array of ability scores AND all their NPC class levels are considered as non-associated -- which means each level of an NPC class increases the monster's CR by 1/2 -- rather than the CR increase being total NPC levels minus 1. So an ogre (CR2) with 6 levels of warrior is CR 2+3 = 5 rather than CR 2+5 = 7. This (CR increase = NPC levels / 2) makes a lot more sense in terms of the actual increase to a monster's capabilities. Of course, these rules are supposedly only for monsters with more than 1 hit die, since those with 1 or less are supposed to be advanced as characters. But even for standard characters, those with NPC classes having a CR = level/2 makes more sense to me than those with a CR = level-1. And it is also interesting that adding (for example) spellcasting classes to a melee monster or vice versa only counts as +1/2 CR per class level even for PC classes -- but it makes sense, if a melee monster gets levels in a spellcasting class, his actual capabilities in an encounter may not be that much more powerful, just slightly more flexible, until/unless his levels in such a class outstrip his HD, i.e. his innate combat abilities. So even PC classes no longer matter as much in terms of increasing CR, unless they are classes which enhance what the monster does best already. And NPC classes always add only 1/2 CR per class level for monsters over 1 HD -- which to me strongly implies they ought to count as 1/2 CR per class level for 'standard' NPC-class characters as well. Thus a Warrior6 would be a CR3 encounter rather than a CR5 encounter. That is, assuming the DMG NPC classes as they stand. With my own changes, I'll probably keep the (NPC class level-1) CR. After all, my NPCs will have a few feats and more skills, enhancing their challenge... :) |
| Tony Vargas02-11-04, 08:54 PM | Originally posted by Sensei Gith And why mess around with levels and CR's An Expert PC class is needed because there is no way to fill that role with the core rules. And once you have an Expert class for PC's, why stop there? It can replace three useless classes seamlessly. Well you could mess around with CRs because it's a little simpler to subtract a bit more from the CR of an NPC encounter to fit what you think the relative power levels are than to build new classes from the ground up. But, sure, once you start changing things, how much work you want to put into the changes is up to you. I like the function of NPC classes in the game, so would certainly keep them - but I might be persuaded they're whimpier than a mere -1 CR, and give out fewer exp for beating them. |
| Sensei Gith02-11-04, 09:31 PM | Well you could mess around with CRs because it's a little simpler to subtract a bit more from the CR of an NPC encounter to fit what you think the relative power levels are than to build new classes from the ground up. I'm working from the premise that a balanced PC Expert is made. I'm working on one right now, in fact. |