Post/Author/DateTime

Post

#1 zombiegleemax Nov 12, 2004 16:07:05

NPC class levels are no good. There is a reason why NPC levels provide a reduced increase to the CR of an opponent. Any given NPC class has less to offer than a comparable PC class. The NPC classes were created to represent the everyday people in a world where one might routinely cast spells, slay powerful monsters, bring people back from the dead, or disarm lethal traps. They were developed to represent the 'common (wo)man'. Now, from a storytelling perspective, they are very useful. If I'm just outlining a blacksmith who would never enter a dungeon, and has spent his life making hammers and horseshoes, he's not going to be a Fighter, or a Rogue, or any of the other less appropriate classes. He is a person who has trained in a few select skills, and little else. Thus, he is an Expert. Unless of course the story calls for him being a 14th level bard who happens to have learned smithing. But why is he an Expert, instead of any of the other classes that could fill his role, and offer so much more? Why isn't he a Rogue of equivalent level? He'd be just as good of a smith, but he'd also be able to injure or knock out people really effectively who let their guard down, dodge traps, survive fireballs, and do any of a number of other things that a Rogue can do that an Expert can't. Let's face it, given an awareness and option between Adept levels and Wizard levels, no one is going to go Adept. No one wants to be 'common'. Allow me to preface the rest of this with the statement that I feel that NPC classes do play a vital role in storytelling. It is their realism that bothers me. So why do NPC classes exist? Here are several possibilities: A) Because they just do. This is pretty much the most usual stance. It assumes that this is a world where there are some people who are more powerful than others, and there is no real reason why this is so. Class types are kind of like physiognomy*. Some have one sort. Others have another sort. The factors that go into determining who has what sort are so complex and uncontrollable that they are effectively random. Thus, some people are heroes, or powerful, or just really important, and others are not. The former groups are Fighters, Clerics, Bards, and so on. The latter are Experts, Adepts, and Warriors. Pros: Simple and requires no real thought or explanation. It is accepted that a certain percentage of the population is composed of 'NPC class characters', or whatever the local term is. The difference between PCs and NPCs is not important. Cons: It does not mimic real life. An ideal game has the big things change, and the little things stay the same. Thus, unless the difference between Fighters and Warriors is a significant recognized aspect of the game, it creates a dissonance in those who are aware of it. Anyone who asks, “Why is there a difference between a Wizard and an Adept?” receives the answer “Because that's just the way it is.” An unsatisfying answer at best. B) Training. This involves the idea that there are such things as 'Fighter's Schools', to go with the Wizards Colleges and Bards Academies. Those who don't receive proper training don't advance as quickly as those who do. This is a very realistic approach. An Adept can end up doing what a Wizard does. He just does it a lot later on in his career, since he had to learn how by trial and error, which generally takes much much longer to hone a skill than a little competent instruction. Pros: It mimics the real world. A self taught mechanic, or even a mechanic with an instructor who is relatively untrained, is going to develop their skills slower than one who receives comprehensive training on how to do their job. This is of course, assuming equal physical and mental potentials. Cons: There are two significant drawbacks of this system. The first is that it means that a character has to spend a certain amount of time in training, whether this is at the beginning of their career, or during the course of it. Characters, as created, are effectively just beginning their life. According to the PHB, the average human 'enters their career' at the age of 15, in the peak of their physical and mental development, and spends the next 1 to 12 years 'learning a trade'. For a realistic system, it's rather unrealistic. Classes are not 'careers', it requires that the character be aware of their 'class', ones physical and mental development, while quite significant in the teens, tends to peak in ones 20's physically, and continues to develop quite significantly well into ones 30's. So time wise and awareness-wise it rings false. The second significant drawback is that it leaves little to no openings for natural talent and those classes that receive little training. Barbarians and Sorcerers, and some Fighters and Rogues all are classes that are described as being significantly self-taught. Their powers and abilities are described as being spontaneously bestowed or developed. However, there is no game rule preventing players from making an entire group of self-taught fighters, nor should there be, regardless of how unlikely it is that such a group would be all fighters in a world containing warriors. C) Ability scores. Let's face it, any straight spell caster who develops with a 14 or less in their primary mental attribute isn't going to be able to cast the top level spells. And any fighter without at least one 13 in strength, dexterity, or intelligence, is going to be unable to take a number of their bonus feats. Finally, any paladin or monk without a 12 or higher in wisdom is going to lose out on a lot of the potential of their class. And these are really low end characters, even if they 'meet the minimums', as it were. In this system, a character cannot advance as a cleric, fighter, or bard, unless they have a minimum score in the relevant attributes. This system is not explicitly supported by the core rules, and so is often overlooked. Supposedly, the average NPC has a stat array of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. This sort of person simply doesn't meet the unwritten requirements of mastering the basics to become a Druid, and so, no matter how hard they try, they will advance as an Adept. Pros: Reasonably realistic. The assumptions required (as outlined in the Cons), tend to be relatively easy to accept, and so are easy enough to incorporate into any story. Cons: Requires the following assumptions: The core abilities represent ones full range of potential. One achieves the height of this potential at the age of majority outlined in the PHB. There is still some unexplained meta system that determines who has what in terms of potential, and this is set at birth. In addition this version is not officially supported by the core books. Fighters do not have a Str 13 requirement as entry into the class. D) Campaign specific reason. This involves a specific campaign setting that lays out who becomes a Fighter, and who becomes a Warrior. For example, in the Oriental Adventures source books featured campaign setting, Rokugan, the Bard class is banned. Anyone who wishes to be an interaction based character is an Expert or a Rogue. Those who don't train as a Rogue (for any of a number of reasons), are simply Experts. The Adept class is taken by those who focus on folk magic a more minor form of magery than that practiced by Shugenja or Sorcerer. This still leaves a bit of a gap between these sorts and Wu Jen, but nonetheless, a reasonable method of differentiation. The reasons for the difference are usually different from setting to setting, and are a result of specific story elements native to that setting. Pros: It has all the pros of the first solution (Because they just are), and deals with the cons in a very simple manner, by defining them. Any given individual develops along the lines of their class, be it PC or NPC, because of factors that are defined as part of the setting. Cons: Many settings don't have these factors taken into account. Nor do they address them, requiring the DM to either make up some of their own that are campaign specific, or to rely on one of the other systems outlined above. E) Tempering. In order to gain levels in any class that grants more powerful abilities, one must face powerful opposition. Most people don't face life and death situations on a regular basis. These people have the NPC class levels. Whether by choice or chance, these people simply do not face the challenges that your average Barbarian or Fighter does, and so do not develop equivalent skills. Pros: Similar to training, it mimics the real world. One acquires ability through regular testing of that ability. I can read all the theory I like, and do all sorts of simulations and exercises, but unless and until I actually go out and do something, I'm going to be an amateur at best. In addition, it has the side benefit of explaining why there are more NPC classed characters than PC classed characters. Those who don't court disaster aren't visited by her. Cons: It's not at all supported by the rules, and in fact runs contrary to them. Everyone needs the same amount of experience to advance to any given level in any given class. It doesn't matter if one acquires this experience by killing one goblin a day for a month, or wiping out an entire goblin tribe in one day. The only difference between those two scenarios (rules wise) is that the first will involve slower advancement, and will not have any bearing on whether one learns how to Cleave in the process (gains a Fighter level rather than a Warrior level). This sort of thing can be defined by a DM beforehand, but would involve an increase in the number of arbitrary rules, rather than a decrease. *Physiognomy: The relationship between ones face and ones character. “The face or countenance, with respect to the temper of the mind; particular configuration, cast, or expression of countenance, as denoting character.” Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.