| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I know, not the most interesting subject matter, but being the GM this is rather intriguing to me.
Do you guys know anything about npc classes in the playtest?
Do you have any thoughts? Opinions?
Will we see the commoner, warrior, adept, expert and aristocrat again? Will anyone from the dream team be missing? Will somebody be added?
Will we have a single more streamlined and modular npc class, 1 npc class to rule them all?
Will we have NO npc class - just lower level npcs with normal adventuring classes? (Okay, this doesn't sound likely now that I say it out loud).
Will npcs be built as monsters - i.e., they do what they need to do?
What would you like, and do you think your wish will come true?
And what's the sound of 1 hand clapping - no sorry, just got carried away ;P
I'd like an NPC artisan class that chooses a lore or craft skill as a "favored profession" and progresses at the fighters favored weapon proficiency rate, E.G. Expert at lvl 1, Master at lvl 3, Legend at lvl 13. That way RAW master artisans don't need to be high level characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I both think and prefer that NPC classes are gone.
Most characters who use NPC classes are non-combatants; just listing their training in relevant skills should be enough. For those who are combatants, I hope the monster creation rules can cover them.
I'd like an NPC artisan class that chooses a lore or craft skill as a "favored profession" and progresses at the fighters favored weapon proficiency rate, E.G. Expert at lvl 1, Master at lvl 3, Legend at lvl 13. That way RAW master artisans don't need to be high level characters.
Mmm, and what do you accomplish with that? And isn't it a bit too strong for an npc class? I'd like an "expert" who becomes legendary *in one skill* only at level 20. As for the rest, very small hp pool, no training in any weapons or armors or saves... some skills, sure. And some feats... but perhaps I wouldn't give class feats to npc classes, just to accentuate the difference.
Just some thoughts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope NPC classes are gone.
I say build expert/commoner/aristocrat types like monsters.
Warriors can be lower-level fighters etc. Adepts clerics or druids etc.
Adventuring-type NPCs, though (potential cohorts or enemy wizardsj I’d prefer if they WEREN’T built like monsters but rather had to abide by same rules/choices as PCs.
But I really don’t want or need NPC classes as such.
I both think and prefer that NPC classes are gone.
Most characters who use NPC classes are non-combatants; just listing their training in relevant skills should be enough. For those who are combatants, I hope the monster creation rules can cover them.
I think it's very possible - 4e got away from npc classes, 5e doesn't have them, old D&D never had them except for 3.5 (which isn't a small slice considering how hugely influential it was, but still).
If they're essentially monsters I too really hope we get rules to create them. Maybe something like a single class to create all NPCs, though. Something like the commoner or the expert. With general feats and a decent amount of skills, but not too many, and rather slow progression.
Or, sure, monster npcs... but then... what if I wanted an npc with some npc levels and some adventurer levels? I know it's niche, but it's not completely unreasonable...
Monster npcs... mmm... so essentially the same stat block for everyone regarding combat stats, and only different skills and levels with those. Could be done. They've probably done it, actually. Very curious!
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
They've specifically said that there are two ways to build NPCs:
#1. As a PC with all that entails.
#2. As a monster using the monster creation rules, which tend to be simpler by all indications.
'NPC Class' NPCs would thus fall into category #2 pretty universally.
I'm pretty much fine with this as long as they don't give a Fighter-themed NPC stuff a PC could never get without some supernatural reason or something like that.
I really hope NPC classes are gone.
I say build expert/commoner/aristocrat types like monsters.
Warriors can be lower-level fighters etc. Adepts clerics or druids etc.
Adventuring-type NPCs, though (potential cohorts or enemy wizardsj I’d prefer if they WEREN’T built like monsters but rather had to abide by same rules/choices as PCs.
But I really don’t want or need NPC classes as such.
Mmm, I have some questions for you too (mainly the same I already voiced) - What if I want an npc who also has an npc class, like Ameiko Kaijitsu, aristocrat1/bard3/rogue2, stuff like that?
Also, if a warrior is a low-level fighter, aren't they already a bit too powerful? Shouldn't fighters be a bit better at the same level?
Same for cleric/druid and adept. Do we want a population of low-level clerics in villages around Golarion (or whatever setting you use of course)? Should they be trained in simple weapons and medium armor? Or are we gonna make them "monsters" with a couple domain spells at best and done deal?
And if we need to model cohorts... sure, we can use adventuring classes, but what if we use npc classes for them instead? Since we don't really want monsters, it appears (I too would prefer they were built along class-like lines).
I can tell you this: I've been playing 5e for a while now, and monster npcs don't always work - you want to tinker with them, make them higher level, lower level, give them different abilities, skills, and so on. Sometimes you'd need to build an adventurer - but *sometimes* you'd prefer something more low-key.
If there are guidelines to build monster npcs... well, I can see that.
Oh, btw: who is your avatar? She's stunning. Who's the artist?
I think they'll be gone. But I liked them, so I hope not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like an NPC artisan class that chooses a lore or craft skill as a "favored profession" and progresses at the fighters favored weapon proficiency rate, E.G. Expert at lvl 1, Master at lvl 3, Legend at lvl 13. That way RAW master artisans don't need to be high level characters.Mmm, and what do you accomplish with that? And isn't it a bit too strong for an npc class? I'd like an "expert" who becomes legendary *in one skill* only at level 20. As for the rest, very small hp pool, no training in any weapons or armors or saves... some skills, sure. And some feats... but perhaps I wouldn't give class feats to npc classes, just to accentuate the difference.
Just some thoughts.
I often run campaigns where the PCs end of collecting a group of followers; ships crew, fellow rebels, mercenary bands, whatever is appropriate. In the past I used NPC classes to help stat out these characters. So if they recruited a master smith or a surgeon to their side through general gameplay I would have a good way to stat out and advance that character in a way that the players understand. The Artisan NPC class I proposed would be an NPC which would be s@#*e in combat (I'm also assuming NPC class would have no weapon/armor/save proficiencies 6HP per level probably just no class feats at all) but still provide something useful to the PCs. Obviously if one of the PCs is specializing in a skill I won't include an NPC that would upstage them.
Separate from that I dislike having NPCs follow fundamentally different rules than PCs and NPC classes help with that. The world needs master artisans that are not high powered adventurers and I would prefer to generate them with an NPC class than with the monster creation rules. It seems more fair to me that the NPC got their master artisan status at a relatively low power level because they advanced in a specialized NPC class than I just did it by GM fiat.
Of course this is all more a GM issue than a player one so it's probably not worth the space in the main book. I just like NPC classes.
I really hope NPC classes are gone.
I say build expert/commoner/aristocrat types like monsters.
Warriors can be lower-level fighters etc. Adepts clerics or druids etc.
Adventuring-type NPCs, though (potential cohorts or enemy wizardsj I’d prefer if they WEREN’T built like monsters but rather had to abide by same rules/choices as PCs.
But I really don’t want or need NPC classes as such.
Mmm, I have some questions for you too (mainly the same I already voiced) - What if I want an npc who also has an npc class, like Ameiko Kaijitsu, aristocrat1/bard3/rogue2, stuff like that?
Also, if a warrior is a low-level fighter, aren't they already a bit too powerful? Shouldn't fighters be a bit better at the same level?
Same for cleric/druid and adept. Do we want a population of low-level clerics in villages around Golarion (or whatever setting you use of course)? Should they be trained in simple weapons and medium armor? Or are we gonna make them "monsters" with a couple domain spells at best and done deal?
And if we need to model cohorts... sure, we can use adventuring classes, but what if we use npc classes for them instead? Since we don't really want monsters, it appears (I too would prefer they were built along class-like lines).
I can tell you this: I've been playing 5e for a while now, and monster npcs don't always work - you want to tinker with them, make them higher level, lower level, give them different abilities, skills, and so on. Sometimes you'd need to build an adventurer - but *sometimes* you'd prefer something more low-key.
If there are guidelines to build monster npcs... well, I can see that.
Oh, btw: who is your avatar? She's stunning. Who's the artist?
Based on the monster blog and general guidelines from unchained and starfinder, as well as new proficiency rules. You could have a generic "Barkeep" npc, and merely inflate/deflate the numbers, occasionally adding or removing abilities to fit the NPC, and adding a class level and all that entails is 100% doable, as they're not completely incompatible like unchained and starfinder, and even PF1. Ameiko might best be represented by building a full bard or rogue with multi-classing though with maybe a level drop, since her NPC levels mostly exist to help her fill out skills and inflate her numbers across the board.
They also probably keep the grafts from UC/SF, which included grafts that gave you a track for what/how many abilities a monster version of a class could have at a given monster level. We won't have rules for monsters in the playtest, but the monster blogs and the work on unchained monsters and starfinder are a good jumping point for what it might look like.
They've specifically said that there are two ways to build NPCs:
#1. As a PC with all that entails.
#2. As a monster using the monster creation rules, which tend to be simpler by all indications.'NPC Class' NPCs would thus fall into category #2 pretty universally.
I'm pretty much fine with this as long as they don't give a Fighter-themed NPC stuff a PC could never get without some supernatural reason or something like that.
DMW, you're the most knowledgeable huecuva I've ever known. Sure, you're also the only one, but don't let that detract from the compliment.
So the devs have spoken? You know, I had a feeling those were the options. It doesn't handle very niche "npc class 3rd level/fighter 4th level" multiclass combo npcs, but I think I'll survive. Most of all if there are simple and well-executed monster creation rules that can be used for npcs of all levels.
Yeah, a "warrior" who inexplicably can do things a fighter can't would annoy me. In 5e there's an incredibly high level gladiator who can shield bash. Shield bashing is not an option for pcs. That's... a bit of a facepalm. Or even more than a bit considering how much I and one of my players like shield-bashing.
So... cohorts. I *think* they'll mostly be monsters, as in: in the Bestiary (if there is one - given your near-omniscience concerning Playtest matters can you confirm there'll be one or whether instead it will be a single book?) there will be stat blocks for various archetypal npcs, and among them there'll be generic guards/soldiers (I think an officer/general would be best built using PC classes).
(Hey DMW - thank you! It's good to have you around with the straight dope when one has a question about the Playtest, and you're always very nice! Cheers!)
I suppose that one way to build commoner NPCs might be to create a character with the minimum number of hit points per level (from all classes in the core rules -- so maybe the 6 + Con mod per level of a wizard?) and no class feats but all other universal abilities gained for a given level.
I would have to see the playtest rules to get any idea of how to replicate the more capable NPC classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like an NPC artisan class that chooses a lore or craft skill as a "favored profession" and progresses at the fighters favored weapon proficiency rate, E.G. Expert at lvl 1, Master at lvl 3, Legend at lvl 13. That way RAW master artisans don't need to be high level characters.Mmm, and what do you accomplish with that? And isn't it a bit too strong for an npc class? I'd like an "expert" who becomes legendary *in one skill* only at level 20. As for the rest, very small hp pool, no training in any weapons or armors or saves... some skills, sure. And some feats... but perhaps I wouldn't give class feats to npc classes, just to accentuate the difference.
Just some thoughts.
I often run campaigns where the PCs end of collecting a group of followers; ships crew, fellow rebels, mercenary bands, whatever is appropriate. In the past I used NPC classes to help stat out these characters. So if they recruited a master smith or a surgeon to their side through general gameplay I would have a good way to stat out and advance that character in a way that the players understand. The Artisan NPC class I proposed would be an NPC which would be s*+%e in combat (I'm also assuming NPC class would have no weapon/armor/save proficiencies 6HP per level probably just no class feats at all) but still provide something useful to the PCs. Obviously if one of the PCs is specializing in a skill I won't include an NPC that would upstage them.
Separate from that I dislike having NPCs follow fundamentally different rules than PCs and NPC classes help with that. The world needs master artisans that are not high powered adventurers and I would prefer to generate them with an NPC class than with the monster creation rules. It seems more fair to me that the NPC got their master artisan status at a relatively low power level because they advanced in a specialized NPC class than I just did it by GM fiat.
Of course this is all more a GM issue than a player one so it's probably...
You know, I quite liked npc classes too, at least as a concept (and as I mentioned, for multiclassing purposes).
But it appears we're not getting them, and I doubt we'll feel such a need for them during the playtest that we'll beg Paizo to put them back in, together with millions other players world-wide, all united in combating for the rights of the poor npc classes... someone stop me ;P
So we'll have to create those cohorts using the monster rules. Although, if there are rules, you're not just pulling numbers from your derrière. I dig that.
That should work for most npcs who aren't expected to be as cool as pcs of equal level. Of course, as Yolande was saying, there's also the possibility of using a few levels of a pc class, mostly for the cream of the crop, I would suppose. I'd be totally behind making the captain of a mercenary band a fighter of 4-8th level for instance.
It would also be nice to have Paizo tell us what levels *actually* mean from a setting point of view. Like, I think 1st level is a novice, and 20th is an epic demigod, but all the levels in between - if I'm a 5th level alchemist am I an expert? A champion? A hero? A seasoned adventurer? One can look at the highest proficiency/skill of the character (since a 13th level fighter is legendary with weapons, he's probably a legend, an incredibly masterful combatant) but... I'd like a little more in terms of what to expect, how characters of different levels are seen by people at large, stuff like that.
And of course... that kind of info not to be contradicted by Bestiary npcs (thanks again 5e).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone had a really brilliant guess about what we will see for a lot of scrub NPCs: ABCs which stop after background. (AB) They will get their ancestry boosts and feat. Next their boosts, lore, and skill feat from background. And then MAYBE the ability boosts. But no class, and no class level to checks.
So a dwarf blacksmith NPC might look like:
Dwarf +2 Wis/Con/Int, -2 CHA, Weapon Familiarity, 10 hit points
Blacksmith +2 Int/STR, Smithing Lore, Specialty Crafting (blacksmith)
Ability boosts +2 STR/INT/WIS/CHA
So you wind up with a dwarf who has
Str 14
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 16
Wis 14
Cha 10
Assuming they get trained from that specialty crafting feat, they add +0 to anything they are proficient in. our dwarf NPC looks like:
Dwarf Smith NPC 0
Lawful, Good, Dwarf, Humanoid, Medium
Perception +0, darkvision
Languages Dwarf, Common
Skills -2; Craft (smithing) +3, Smithing Lore +3
Str +2, Dex 0, Con +1, Int +3, Wis +2, Cha +0
Items, 6 javelins, battle axe
AC 10, TAC 10; Fort -1, Ref -2, Will +0
HP 10
Speed 20 feet
[[A]] Melee battleaxe +2 (INSERT TRAITS HERE), Damage 1d8+2 Slashing
[[A]] Ranged javelin -2 (thrown 30 feet), Damage 1d6+2
The only thing I want is for non-combat NPCs to be able to have decent skills without that arbitrarily improving their combat abilities. This includes HP for me. The master surgeon should not have buckets of HP just because he needs to be level x to get the skills.
To that end all I really need is an Expert class who gets no combat proficiences, 1HP per level and earlier restriction lifting on two Skills proficiency ranks. That way my players can rescue the master smith who can repay them each with a legendary weapon without her being so hardy that the threat they save her wouldn't actually have been threatening.
I absolutely agree Malk, high level experts who somehow are incredible combatants rub me the wrong way. Why don't *they* go into dungeons and fight liches?
So, anyways, we're not having npc classes it appears. I hope, and am fairly optimistic, that the rules for creating monsters will allow us to make some npcs who are very good at some skills and at the same time really sucky in an honest-to-goodness fight. If it doesn't work that way... well that we should signal during the playtest - if there are npcs with a million hps only because they need to be this level to actually be master smiths, surgeons, pizza-delivery-guys, what have you, that must be addressed imo.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DMW, you're the most knowledgeable huecuva I've ever known. Sure, you're also the only one, but don't let that detract from the compliment.
Ah! You recognized the picture. Most do not.
And thanks. :)
So the devs have spoken? You know, I had a feeling those were the options. It doesn't handle very niche "npc class 3rd level/fighter 4th level" multiclass combo npcs, but I think I'll survive. Most of all if there are simple and well-executed monster creation rules that can be used for npcs of all levels.
Yep. That's my basic hope and expectation.
Yeah, a "warrior" who inexplicably can do things a fighter can't would annoy me. In 5e there's an incredibly high level gladiator who can shield bash. Shield bashing is not an option for pcs. That's... a bit of a facepalm. Or even more than a bit considering how much I and one of my players like shield-bashing.
This is my one worry, and is almost certainly doable by individual GMs. I'm just hoping Paizo avoids doing it themselves.
So... cohorts. I *think* they'll mostly be monsters, as in: in the Bestiary (if there is one - given your near-omniscience concerning Playtest matters can you confirm there'll be one or whether instead it will be a single book?) there will be stat blocks for various archetypal npcs, and among them there'll be generic guards/soldiers (I think an officer/general would be best built using PC classes).
There will be a separate Bestiary. It will be PDF only, and basically solely mechanical stat-blocks converted over from PF1, but it will exist and be fairly sizeable in terms of number of creatures. I certainly hope it will include generic guards and the like.
(Hey DMW - thank you! It's good to have you around with the straight dope when one has a question about the Playtest, and you're always very nice! Cheers!)
You're quite welcome, I'm always happy to be of assistance. And thank you for the compliment. :)
I am not surprised that they won't be in the playtest they don't really require playtesting since they don't need to be balanced other than being significantly weaker then PC classes. It might be good for a future GM focused book though.
Based on the monster blog and general guidelines from unchained and starfinder, as well as new proficiency rules. You could have a generic "Barkeep" npc, and merely inflate/deflate the numbers, occasionally adding or removing abilities to fit the NPC, and...I really hope NPC classes are gone.
I say build expert/commoner/aristocrat types like monsters.
Warriors can be lower-level fighters etc. Adepts clerics or druids etc.
Adventuring-type NPCs, though (potential cohorts or enemy wizardsj I’d prefer if they WEREN’T built like monsters but rather had to abide by same rules/choices as PCs.
But I really don’t want or need NPC classes as such.
Mmm, I have some questions for you too (mainly the same I already voiced) - What if I want an npc who also has an npc class, like Ameiko Kaijitsu, aristocrat1/bard3/rogue2, stuff like that?
Also, if a warrior is a low-level fighter, aren't they already a bit too powerful? Shouldn't fighters be a bit better at the same level?
Same for cleric/druid and adept. Do we want a population of low-level clerics in villages around Golarion (or whatever setting you use of course)? Should they be trained in simple weapons and medium armor? Or are we gonna make them "monsters" with a couple domain spells at best and done deal?
And if we need to model cohorts... sure, we can use adventuring classes, but what if we use npc classes for them instead? Since we don't really want monsters, it appears (I too would prefer they were built along class-like lines).
I can tell you this: I've been playing 5e for a while now, and monster npcs don't always work - you want to tinker with them, make them higher level, lower level, give them different abilities, skills, and so on. Sometimes you'd need to build an adventurer - but *sometimes* you'd prefer something more low-key.
If there are guidelines to build monster npcs... well, I can see that.
Oh, btw: who is your avatar? She's stunning. Who's the artist?
It appears we'll have actual rules to build monsters (although you're saying, not in the Playtest, right?), which I prefer to pulling numbers off my ass, maybe b/c I'm almost OCD regarding my games. As for Ameiko, I totally agree you don't really need her single lonely aristocrat level to make or break the character - a bard/rogue would be perfect by itself.
So if we won't have monster creation rules in the playtest we'll at least have npcs in Doomsday Dawn, and perhaps some generic npcs too in the Playtest document. We should be able to see how they work, a little at least, and decide if they meet our expectations or, say, have too many hit points, or are better than pcs at what the pcs do. That kind of stuff.
For now, good enough for me.
Someone had a really brilliant guess about what we will see for a lot of scrub NPCs: ABCs which stop after background. (AB) They will get their ancestry boosts and feat. Next their boosts, lore, and skill feat from background. And then MAYBE the ability boosts. But no class, and no class level to checks.
So a dwarf blacksmith NPC might look like:
Dwarf +2 Wis/Con/Int, -2 CHA, Weapon Familiarity, 10 hit points
Blacksmith +2 Int/STR, Smithing Lore, Specialty Crafting (blacksmith)
Ability boosts +2 STR/INT/WIS/CHASo you wind up with a dwarf who has
Str 14
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 16
Wis 14
Cha 10Assuming they get trained from that specialty crafting feat, they add +0 to anything they are proficient in. our dwarf NPC looks like:
Dwarf Smith NPC 0
Lawful, Good, Dwarf, Humanoid, Medium
Perception +0, darkvision
Languages Dwarf, Common
Skills -2; Craft (smithing) +3, Smithing Lore +3
Str +2, Dex 0, Con +1, Int +3, Wis +2, Cha +0
Items, 6 javelins, battle axe
AC 10, TAC 10; Fort -1, Ref -2, Will +0
HP 10
Speed 20 feet
[[A]] Melee battleaxe +2 (INSERT TRAITS HERE), Damage 1d8+2 Slashing
[[A]] Ranged javelin -2 (thrown 30 feet), Damage 1d6+2
ABC, I hadn't noticed that, hah. Anyways, yeah, that would work, although if you want someone with a high skill bonus you won't be able to stop at B. Which is the point of the *master* smith who's worth s%~@ in an actual fight, for instance.
Anyways DMW says we'll create them like monsters. My gut instinct is to believe him, as he's proven a reliable source many times. Of course we'll be 100% sure only once we have the Playtest in our grubby little paws, but I'm really curious to see some Doomsday Dawn npcs now. I hope we'll be able to make experts and masters without phenomenal quantities of hps and combat skills to devastate a 4-people party ;)
DMW, you're the most knowledgeable huecuva I've ever known. Sure, you're also the only one, but don't let that detract from the compliment.Ah! You recognized the picture. Most do not.
And thanks. :)
You're very welcome, and furthermore, I feel the need to alert you to the fact I recognized the pic only b/c I was browsing Bestiary 3 right this morning ;P Undead look all the same to me XD
So the devs have spoken? You know, I had a feeling those were the options. It doesn't handle very niche "npc class 3rd level/fighter 4th level" multiclass combo npcs, but I think I'll survive. Most of all if there are simple and well-executed monster creation rules that can be used for npcs of all levels.
Yep. That's my basic hope and expectation.
Yeah, a "warrior" who inexplicably can do things a fighter can't would annoy me. In 5e there's an incredibly high level gladiator who can shield bash. Shield bashing is not an option for pcs. That's... a bit of a facepalm. Or even more than a bit considering how much I and one of my players like shield-bashing.
This is my one worry, and is almost certainly doable by individual GMs. I'm just hoping Paizo avoids doing it themselves.
That's what matters - I don't care what other GMs do at the end of the day, but I hope Paizo don't make mistakes. At worst we'll come back and start The Revolution ;)
So... cohorts. I *think* they'll mostly be monsters, as in: in the Bestiary (if there is one - given your near-omniscience concerning Playtest matters can you confirm there'll be one or whether instead it will be a single book?) there will be stat blocks for various archetypal npcs, and among them there'll be generic guards/soldiers (I think an officer/general would be best built using PC classes).
There will be a separate Bestiary. It will be PDF only, and basically solely mechanical stat-blocks converted over from PF1, but it will exist and be fairly sizeable in terms of number of creatures. I certainly hope it will include generic guards and the like.
Now this is interesting! Very nice, I like their way of thinking!... Now that I think about it I had heard something about a bestiary without fluff, maybe from you by the way, but I had effectively forgotten. Nice... That lets me build some more adventures to keep the kids - ahem! MY PLAYERS... happy - that's what I meant.
(BTW I hope Reynolds will get to illustrate that bestiary. I don't think so... but crossing fingers here).
(Hey DMW - thank you! It's good to have you around with the straight dope when one has a question about the Playtest, and you're always very nice! Cheers!)
You're quite welcome, I'm always happy to be of assistance. And thank you for the...
Well, you'll just offer me a coffee when I pass by. Or I'll offer one to you. Or we'll offer one to each other, that would totally not be pissing in the wind ;P
I am not surprised that they won't be in the playtest they don't really require playtesting since they don't need to be balanced other than being significantly weaker then PC classes. It might be good for a future GM focused book though.
It might! But let's first see how these rules work - if they're sufficient for our purposes I scarcely see the motivation to publish optional npc classes. Not exactly a waste of pagecount, but still, there are other options I'd like best. Again, *if this works*. We'll need to be patient for a while longer, check the Playtest bestiary, and Doomsday Dawn of course.
I'm really looking forward to it.
Jeez I need something to take it off my mind XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the problem with using Monster Rules for non-combat NPCs, giving them a proficiency absed on their skill (Masters have Master in their craft). It certianly sounds better than what I've seen on this thread of "I want NPC classes, but they cant get HP, Attack bonus or special abilities", at which point I don't even see the point of using classes if you ignore everything a class does.
If an NPC craftsman must have a high leatherworking skill, they get a high proficiency in it + some level modifier to it that doesn't correspond to their other abilities.
Of course full GM fiat is dangerous. I do want guidelines of how an average person statblock looks like before adding the proficiencies.
Hell, we could have a "Commoner" statblock that you can add a template to that gives Proficiency + skill feats in a field or two. Really don't see the point of a class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone had a really brilliant guess about what we will see for a lot of scrub NPCs: ABCs which stop after background. (AB) They will get their ancestry boosts and feat. Next their boosts, lore, and skill feat from background. And then MAYBE the ability boosts. But no class, and no class level to checks.
So a dwarf blacksmith NPC might look like:
Dwarf +2 Wis/Con/Int, -2 CHA, Weapon Familiarity, 10 hit points
Blacksmith +2 Int/STR, Smithing Lore, Specialty Crafting (blacksmith)
Ability boosts +2 STR/INT/WIS/CHASo you wind up with a dwarf who has
Str 14
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 16
Wis 14
Cha 10Assuming they get trained from that specialty crafting feat, they add +0 to anything they are proficient in. our dwarf NPC looks like:
Dwarf Smith NPC 0
Lawful, Good, Dwarf, Humanoid, Medium
Perception +0, darkvision
Languages Dwarf, Common
Skills -2; Craft (smithing) +3, Smithing Lore +3
Str +2, Dex 0, Con +1, Int +3, Wis +2, Cha +0
Items, 6 javelins, battle axe
AC 10, TAC 10; Fort -1, Ref -2, Will +0
HP 10
Speed 20 feet
[[A]] Melee battleaxe +2 (INSERT TRAITS HERE), Damage 1d8+2 Slashing
[[A]] Ranged javelin -2 (thrown 30 feet), Damage 1d6+2
ABC, I hadn't noticed that, hah. Anyways, yeah, that would work, although if you want someone with a high skill bonus you won't be able to stop at B. Which is the point of the *master* smith who's worth s~!@ in an actual fight, for instance.
Anyways DMW says we'll create them like monsters. My gut instinct is to believe him, as he's proven a reliable source many times. Of course we'll be 100% sure only once we have the Playtest in our grubby little paws, but I'm really curious to see some Doomsday Dawn npcs now. I hope we'll be able to make experts and masters without phenomenal quantities of hps and combat skills to devastate a 4-people party ;)
True, but that's not a new problem. We always had to pump up someone's level to get their skill bonuses high, and that always inflated their HP. Ever notice how the town's cleric is always a much higher level than the PCs starting out? I share your hope that the build rules allow for an easy solution here. If nothing else, the rules let you voluntarily lower a stat, so you always tank your strength and con.
I share your hope Paizo provides a more elegant solution, though. But for the particular example of a blacksmith, I actually feel like it isn't a big leap to say a hearty person swinging a hammer all day would be good to have around for a fight. :)
I don't see the problem with using Monster Rules for non-combat NPCs, giving them a proficiency absed on their skill (Masters have Master in their craft). It certianly sounds better than what I've seen on this thread of "I want NPC classes, but they cant get HP, Attack bonus or special abilities", at which point I don't even see the point of using classes if you ignore everything a class does.
If an NPC craftsman must have a high leatherworking skill, they get a high proficiency in it + some level modifier to it that doesn't correspond to their other abilities.
Of course full GM fiat is dangerous. I do want guidelines of how an average person statblock looks like before adding the proficiencies.
Hell, we could have a "Commoner" statblock that you can add a template to that gives Proficiency + skill feats in a field or two. Really don't see the point of a class.
But that's exactly what I'm saying.
I mean, let's have monster creation rules for npcs, I'm down for it. I hope we can make npcs who are experts or masters at a certain skill and yet aren't good in a fight, but you don't see me clamoring for an npc class of any type. It will be sufficient if it's done well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roswynn,
Especially if archetypes or new classes appear to emulate PF1's shamans and witches, I don't really think we need adepts at all. I feel like most tribal spell casters can be modeled somewhere in the cleric/druid/shaman/witch axis.
Likewise, saying that most trained military people are 1st level fighters (or paladins or cavaliers etc.) doesn't bother me at all. I don't think this steals thunder from PCs as long as most of these characters stay pretty low-level.
As for Ameiko, I don't think much gets lost if, in exchange for her aristocrat level, you add another level of rogue for instance (maybe buying armor or weapon profs w/ feats?) It isn't like the aristocrat class really gives you a signature ability--just skills and proficiencies, really.
I bet you've played a lot more 5e than I have, but when I have DM'd it, I had your exact same problems with the difficulty customizing their NPC stat blocks. I totally agree that I want to make sure I can customize stat blocks for the inevitable times when the PCs take a prisoner among the goblins and decide to adopt him as party mascot or something and he starts leveling up. This seems to happen in every single campaign.
But, on the other hand, I'm sure looking forward to never ever ever having to pick skill ranks for an NPC again.
(Oh, and as for my avatar, I really have no idea who she is or who the artist is--I just found her in the avatar library. She was simply so interesting I had to choose her! But I'd love to know what the source for the art is.)
ABC, I hadn't noticed that, hah. Anyways, yeah, that would work, although if you want someone with a high skill bonus you won't be able to stop at B. Which is the point of the *master* smith who's worth s~!@ in an actual fight, for instance.
Anyways DMW says we'll create them like monsters. My gut instinct is to believe him, as he's proven a reliable source many times. Of course we'll be 100% sure only once we have the Playtest in our grubby little paws, but I'm really curious to see some Doomsday Dawn npcs now. I hope we'll be able to make experts and masters without phenomenal quantities of hps and combat skills to devastate a 4-people party ;)
True, but that's not a new problem. We always had to pump up someone's level to get their skill bonuses high, and that always inflated their HP. Ever notice how the town's cleric is always a much higher level than the PCs starting out? I share your hope that the build rules allow for an easy solution here. If nothing else, the rules let you voluntarily lower a stat, so you always tank your strength and con.
I share your hope Paizo provides a more elegant solution, though. But for the particular example of a blacksmith, I actually feel like it isn't a big leap to say a hearty person swinging a hammer all day would be good to have around for a fight. :)
I swear, the quotation system! Are you people fine with it? I find it a little frustrating. It's a good forum from an options point of view (I particularly like focus and defocus) but it could use a revamp in the quotation code.
Anyways? Oh absolutely, not a new problem - just one I hope 2e solves, that's all.
You say the rules let you voluntarily lower a stat... as in SF? Because last I glanced at it, sure, you could lower a stat, for no return at all. Not a fan of that option. Nor of artificially lowering someone's con just to make them less formidable in battle, even when their concept would require them to be quite hardy. I'd like a con 14 farmer, for instance, with about 10 hp tops. And a Master chirurgeon (medicine of course) with the same quantity, maybe 5 points more if absolutely necessary according to the rules.
Of course we can always follow the rules just until they start spawning stuff we're not okay with, we can always ignore rules and make a ruling, that's in our job description - but if the rules are good the game (and prep!) goes swimmingly, as I think most of you will have noticed.
Oh and yeah, the trope about dwarven smiths is that you don't wanna get them angry, for sure. But not every dwarven smith needs to be a 4th level fighter. Your AB expert dwarven smith is pretty good, I have no problem with their attack bonus and hit points, actually it's something else - they have -2 untrained skills b/c they don't have a class, so even being an expert blacksmith they're not all that good. Again, give me a monster creation ruleset allowing me to make a dwarf who's a decent fighter and an absolutely master weaponsmith and armorer - possibly with a couple feats as well. Then I'll be happy as a clam.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roswynn,
Especially if archetypes or new classes appear to emulate PF1's shamans and witches, I don't really think we need adepts at all. I feel like most tribal spell casters can be modeled somewhere in the cleric/druid/shaman/witch axis.
Likewise, saying that most trained military people are 1st level fighters (or paladins or cavaliers etc.) doesn't bother me at all. I don't think this steals thunder from PCs as long as most of these characters stay pretty low-level.
As for Ameiko, I don't think much gets lost if, in exchange for her aristocrat level, you add another level of rogue for instance (maybe buying armor or weapon profs w/ feats?) It isn't like the aristocrat class really gives you a signature ability--just skills and proficiencies, really.
I bet you've played a lot more 5e than I have, but when I have DM'd it, I had your exact same problems with the difficulty customizing their NPC stat blocks. I totally agree that I want to make sure I can customize stat blocks for the inevitable times when the PCs take a prisoner among the goblins and decide to adopt him as party mascot or something and he starts leveling up. This seems to happen in every single campaign.
But, on the other hand, I'm sure looking forward to never ever ever having to pick skill ranks for an NPC again.
(Oh, and as for my avatar, I really have no idea who she is or who the artist is--I just found her in the avatar library. She was simply so interesting I had to choose her! But I'd love to know what the source for the art is.)
Hey Duchess of Lorraine!
I absolutely agree re: shamans and witches.
You're also not wrong about most soldiers possibly being 1st level fighters. That's actually the Eberron route - essentially, 1st level is the limit of many people's potential, 2nd and 3rd level are often elite troops, by 4th-5th level you're really damn good, at 8th-9th level you're a master. Keith Baker limited levels so to avoid inflation, make it all the more noteworthy when someone was really high level, and so that pcs ended up being the real heroes of the story (instead of the half dozen 15th level paladin kings ruling nations in other settings. Not that I have anything against Queen Galfrey! I love her, but I prefer she's an awesome exception instead of the rule).
I also completely agree with the aristocrat class being quite useless - Ameiko is definitely better off built along pc lines, with a mix of bard and rogue levels. The fact she comes from nobility might be her background, or maybe - even better, considering how little her noble blood actually matters outside Jade Regent and how soon she ran away from home - the fact she's a great innkeeper and hosteler should be her background.
Hah! I don't know whether I've actually played more 5e than you - 1 single campaign ending with the pcs at level 17, the first they published, against Tiamat and her cultists - but there were too many identical warriors in there, lots of veterans with exactly the same stats and gear and moves. My players never complained (they loved that campaign actually) but I was a little nonplussed. Also, WotC likes to publish stat blocks of 18 hit dice warrior and clerics and archmages, and I still haven't seen a single actual paladin. So yeah, it will be nice using PF to create npcs as monsters or along pc outlines. And monsters with classes! That's gonna count for a lot too.
Brief aside, never happened to me that my players decided to take a goblin or kobold as a mascot - I think they're not really down for much Gollum action ^___^
Hah, skill ranks! That was the least of my worries in PF - the huge number of spells, feats and magic items was way worse for me ;)
So no idea who that beautiful lady is, huh? I've used my Google-fu but this is all I found. I'd love a bigger, unframed pic for my pinterest boards. It appears she's some random Mwangi npc, so I guess I'll just have to browse my books!
Cheers, Your Grace! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey! Apparently I am Ajyka Ntombi--who must be from Skull and Shackles or Serpent's Skull or something? Who knew?
I wonder who else I am!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how d20 is primarily a symetrical system, which means the same rules apply to all characters, pcs, npcs, and monsters.
It sounds like paizo is moving away from that sadly.
That said, to me, I always wanted npc classes on par with pc classes.
Why?
Because stories if heroes is a miniscule portion of all possible stories, even adventure stories.
There are tons of stories if ordinary people in exteaordinary circumstances.
I want to be able to run and play games like that where there are no heroes around to save the day so the ordinary folks have to do it themselves. Perhaps a campaign about college students studying to be mechanics, smiths, and scholars when suddenly the college comes under attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how d20 is primarily a symetrical system, which means the same rules apply to all characters, pcs, npcs, and monsters.
It sounds like paizo is moving away from that sadly.
It's really not. Yes, there's a separate NPC/Monster creation system, but monsters and NPC Classes were always asymmetrical with PCs, and you can still use the PC creation system to make NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how d20 is primarily a symetrical system, which means the same rules apply to all characters, pcs, npcs, and monsters.
It sounds like paizo is moving away from that sadly.
That said, to me, I always wanted npc classes on par with pc classes.
Why?
Because stories if heroes is a miniscule portion of all possible stories, even adventure stories.
There are tons of stories if ordinary people in exteaordinary circumstances.
I want to be able to run and play games like that where there are no heroes around to save the day so the ordinary folks have to do it themselves. Perhaps a campaign about college students studying to be mechanics, smiths, and scholars when suddenly the college comes under attack.
You know, at first while reading I was like, "Well, it's not that important..." ... then you come up with this wonderful idea of playing what are traditionally npcs, and damn! You're so right! It's a pity we're losing the npc classes if we consider that. It's really niche, but it would be really cool!
Possible solutions... play a 1st level character without levelling up for a good while? Also, make the stories themselves be more similar to the daily life of typical npcs in Golarion (or any setting) - like, okay, I'm a fighter, but I'm primarily a blacksmith, and I'm staying in my village and working at my job while my friend the ranger goes hunting deer and my sister the rogue... oh sheesh. She found a body. The guards say they'll take care of it but who believes that handful of lazy bums? Let's see if someone knows something...
... Get it? More social interaction, less adventuring in dungeons fighting your way through bestiaries worth of demonic creatures and looting unholy temples. Something less action-y and more... costume drama? Dramedy? Murder mystery? I mean, yeah, we don't have the npc classes anymore, but we can still tell those stories if we want to...
Hey! Apparently I am Ajyka Ntombi--who must be from Skull and Shackles or Serpent's Skull or something? Who knew?
I wonder who else I am!
I'm getting back to you once I find out, Your Grace! (I'm browsing through all my pdfs to find this woman - I'm not even sure Ajyka Ntombi's her real name, but still - I'mma find her!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to be able to run and play games like that where there are no heroes around to save the day so the ordinary folks have to do it themselves. Perhaps a campaign about college students studying to be mechanics, smiths, and scholars when suddenly the college comes under attack.You know, at first while reading I was like, "Well, it's not that important..." ... then you come up with this wonderful idea of playing what are traditionally npcs, and damn! You're so right! It's a pity we're losing the npc classes if we consider that. It's really niche, but it would be really cool!
This was the specific situation that I (and, in fairness, like three other people almost simultaneously) came up with the suggestion to do AB, and then later C and D after you earned that first level, for "commoner" characters.
NPC classes intrigue me. The mage-smith in Eberron was cool, and I've come up with a couple of caster classes on my own to fill more niches than the Adept can cover. I'm still proud of my spontaneously casting Covert, if it's still around. But in almost any situation, I think using the unchained and starfinder NPC systems will result in more interesting and useful NPCs. Certainly for combat, but also non-combat. The reduction of spells will help here: an NPC can simply cast Cure as an innate spell and your removal spells are mostly covered, for a price (Abadar demands his tithe).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like most concepts for 'NPC Class' groups work just as well with seriously unoptimized (or, more accurately, optimized for something that is not remotely combat) PC Class characters. Or, for low level ones, just skipping Class entirely, as noted.
I'll bet once we have the books I can build a level 7 'Rogue' (actually a polymath Expert-type) who is eminently a 'scholar trying to do an adventurer's job'. I can probably do similar things for most classes, though prepared casters are hard to make non-combat specialized to quite the same degree (since they can swap out spells on a daily basis).
Which doesn't make such a game a bad idea by any means, I'm just not sure you need 'NPC Classes' for it.
I want to be able to run and play games like that where there are no heroes around to save the day so the ordinary folks have to do it themselves. Perhaps a campaign about college students studying to be mechanics, smiths, and scholars when suddenly the college comes under attack.You know, at first while reading I was like, "Well, it's not that important..." ... then you come up with this wonderful idea of playing what are traditionally npcs, and damn! You're so right! It's a pity we're losing the npc classes if we consider that. It's really niche, but it would be really cool!
This was the specific situation that I (and, in fairness, like three other people almost simultaneously) came up with the suggestion to do AB, and then later C and D after you earned that first level, for "commoner" characters.
NPC classes intrigue me. The mage-smith in Eberron was cool, and I've come up with a couple of caster classes on my own to fill more niches than the Adept can cover. I'm still proud of my spontaneously casting Covert, if it's still around. But in almost any situation, I think using the unchained and starfinder NPC systems will result in more interesting and useful NPCs. Certainly for combat, but also non-combat. The reduction of spells will help here: an NPC can simply cast Cure as an innate spell and your removal spells are mostly covered, for a price (Abadar demands his tithe).
The mage-smith was the magewright. Love Eberron.
You homebrewed your own npc casters? Well done! I don't think I'd be able. Sorry Covert or *Convert*? Covert as in, incognito?
Anyways yeah, I think using a set of rules to make npcs without any class is gonna be alright. As long as they tell us how to do it, it should work.
I feel like most concepts for 'NPC Class' groups work just as well with seriously unoptimized (or, more accurately, optimized for something that is not remotely combat) PC Class characters. Or, for low level ones, just skipping Class entirely, as noted.
I'll bet once we have the books I can build a level 7 'Rogue' (actually a polymath Expert-type) who is eminently a 'scholar trying to do an adventurer's job'. I can probably do similar things for most classes, though prepared casters are hard to make non-combat specialized to quite the same degree (since they can swap out spells on a daily basis).
Which doesn't make such a game a bad idea by any means, I'm just not sure you need 'NPC Classes' for it.
No, I don't think you do. And that's a good idea, making seriously combat-deficient pc class characters. It's easier with some more than others (alchemist just begs to be an npc with an abysmal dex and no chances of catching you with their bombs, if they even craft them, that is) but it can always be done - the fighter with Str 14 or even 12 and the various backgrounds to point you towards their actual profession, for instance. Same for any other class really, just focus on their background and keep the class level low and seriously unoptimized. They just HAPPEN to have a few levels in a class, it wasn't their choice XD
I don't think prepared casters are so difficult. I mean, my alchemist is an artificer/mage in 5e, and she does have some spells... and not even one of them can be used for combat. Because that's just not who she is. She uses rituals and other utilities, not magic missile or gods forbid, fireball. She has her alchemical grenades for fighting (and I could take them away and give her a construct with absolutely no combat capability whatsoever, all scouting and helping out around the lab).
Although, the cleric is a different beast - they can choose their spells from the whole list, right? So if they see it coming they can't say "I don't have that spell in my book", they'll always be able to become marginally useful in a fight. But I think it's still a very feasible concept. I bet most would go around with a simple staff or knife, no armor, and all their starting money spent on religious paraphernalia ;)
Anyways. Spreading the hype to my players. One seems to really dig the art. I hope they'll dig a little deeper and start checking out Golarion as a setting. If not, crash course as soon as we see next.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to be able to run and play games like that where there are no heroes around to save the day so the ordinary folks have to do it themselves. Perhaps a campaign about college students studying to be mechanics, smiths, and scholars when suddenly the college comes under attack.You know, at first while reading I was like, "Well, it's not that important..." ... then you come up with this wonderful idea of playing what are traditionally npcs, and damn! You're so right! It's a pity we're losing the npc classes if we consider that. It's really niche, but it would be really cool!
This was the specific situation that I (and, in fairness, like three other people almost simultaneously) came up with the suggestion to do AB, and then later C and D after you earned that first level, for "commoner" characters.
NPC classes intrigue me. The mage-smith in Eberron was cool, and I've come up with a couple of caster classes on my own to fill more niches than the Adept can cover. I'm still proud of my spontaneously casting Covert, if it's still around. But in almost any situation, I think using the unchained and starfinder NPC systems will result in more interesting and useful NPCs. Certainly for combat, but also non-combat. The reduction of spells will help here: an NPC can simply cast Cure as an innate spell and your removal spells are mostly covered, for a price (Abadar demands his tithe).
The mage-smith was the magewright. Love Eberron.
You homebrewed your own npc casters? Well done! I don't think I'd be able. Sorry Covert or *Convert*? Covert as in, incognito?
Anyways yeah, I think using a set of rules to make npcs without any class is gonna be alright. As long as they tell us how to do it, it should work.
Covert as in incognitom, yes. This was written well before Psychic casting was a thing, but the idea was similar to magewrights or beguiler (though my earliest iteration may well have predated even that class), in that they did not have flashy or direct damage spells at all, but instead specialized in debuffs and enchantments. I also gave them good ref and one version had the ability to find and disarm magical traps. If adepts were elders, and magewrights middle class, I wanted another class that represented entertainers, theives, and marginal folks take took inspiration from bards and rogues, but didn't replace them OR adepts.
Covert as in incognitom, yes. This was written well before Psychic casting was a thing, but the idea was similar to magewrights or beguiler (though my earliest iteration may...I want to be able to run and play games like that where there are no heroes around to save the day so the ordinary folks have to do it themselves. Perhaps a campaign about college students studying to be mechanics, smiths, and scholars when suddenly the college comes under attack.You know, at first while reading I was like, "Well, it's not that important..." ... then you come up with this wonderful idea of playing what are traditionally npcs, and damn! You're so right! It's a pity we're losing the npc classes if we consider that. It's really niche, but it would be really cool!
This was the specific situation that I (and, in fairness, like three other people almost simultaneously) came up with the suggestion to do AB, and then later C and D after you earned that first level, for "commoner" characters.
NPC classes intrigue me. The mage-smith in Eberron was cool, and I've come up with a couple of caster classes on my own to fill more niches than the Adept can cover. I'm still proud of my spontaneously casting Covert, if it's still around. But in almost any situation, I think using the unchained and starfinder NPC systems will result in more interesting and useful NPCs. Certainly for combat, but also non-combat. The reduction of spells will help here: an NPC can simply cast Cure as an innate spell and your removal spells are mostly covered, for a price (Abadar demands his tithe).
The mage-smith was the magewright. Love Eberron.
You homebrewed your own npc casters? Well done! I don't think I'd be able. Sorry Covert or *Convert*? Covert as in, incognito?
Anyways yeah, I think using a set of rules to make npcs without any class is gonna be alright. As long as they tell us how to do it, it should work.
That sends me down memory lane. 3.5, first rpg I *tried* to run. Results... somewhat lacking XD But at least I learned D&D's core mechanics.
I'm digging it. Lots of skills, no armor, simple weapons, few hps, nice spell selection... interesting npc class.
Thematically would make for a great archetype or variant rogue. You should try to pick it up again when we get the document.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The NPC classes in in PF1 and D&D3.5 divided into two camps: non-combatants like the village blacksmith (Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat), and mooks like the hundred mad cultists you have to wade through to get to the boss (Warrior, Adept).
As has been suggested, backgrounds are relevant to ordinary people. So how about this: a single NPC class that advances the background. It would take background, ancestry or skill feats in place of class feats, and have an emphasis on skill points over any sort of fighting ability. That way you can have a "Level 3 blacksmith", which is a character with the blacksmith background and three levels of NPC. Their identity would largely be defined by their background, because that's what they're doing with life. To specialise they could even take an archetype, if you want to build a "Level 3 blacksmith pirate", as long as you're careful about feat prerequisites.
The second case, cheap fighters that have some fighting or spellcasting ability but are just quick to build, can be covered by a streamlined method of building ordinary characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is still a scholar with 50 odd HP, sneak attack and even unoptimised swinging a +7 and good saves.
I'm pretty sure all of that (except the Sneak Attack) would be true of an 'NPC Class' version as well at the same level. It certainly was in PF1.
I mean, compare a 7th level Rogue to a 7th level Expert in PF1. The Rogue has Sneak Attack and Evasion, but an equal bonus divided among Saves (better Reflex, less Will), identical HP, and an identical BAB.
That is still a scholar with 50 odd HP, sneak attack and even unoptimised swinging a +7 and good saves.I'm pretty sure all of that (except the Sneak Attack) would be true of an 'NPC Class' version as well at the same level. It certainly was in PF1.
I mean, compare a 7th level Rogue to a 7th level Expert in PF1. The Rogue has Sneak Attack and Evasion, but an equal bonus divided among Saves (better Reflex, less Will), identical HP, and an identical BAB.
Depends on the objective here.
If DMW wants to build a scholar who's only tangentially a rogue, he can totally use the method he outlined.
If you, Malk, want an actual scholar with s**t combat ability and hps, you'll probably be way better off with the monster creation rules, if they're as good as I hope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The NPC classes in in PF1 and D&D3.5 divided into two camps: non-combatants like the village blacksmith (Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat), and mooks like the hundred mad cultists you have to wade through to get to the boss (Warrior, Adept).
As has been suggested, backgrounds are relevant to ordinary people. So how about this: a single NPC class that advances the background. It would take background, ancestry or skill feats in place of class feats, and have an emphasis on skill points over any sort of fighting ability. That way you can have a "Level 3 blacksmith", which is a character with the blacksmith background and three levels of NPC. Their identity would largely be defined by their background, because that's what they're doing with life. To specialise they could even take an archetype, if you want to build a "Level 3 blacksmith pirate", as long as you're careful about feat prerequisites.
The second case, cheap fighters that have some fighting or spellcasting ability but are just quick to build, can be covered by a streamlined method of building ordinary characters.
Yeah, that sounds pretty solid. I imagine for mechanical consistency background NPCs probably would still have to add level to everything, but to nerf their combat ability you could not give them training in any sort of weapons, armor, or saves, and have the class HP granted be really low.
Meanwhile, NPCs with the Gladiator or Warrior background can advance on the latter, getting weapon, armor, and save proficiency to whatever level makes for the best mathematical benchmarks. Plus better HP. No real need for class feats, or maybe even feats in general, but they can be added to taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the new lore skill will get around some of this. Sure, my local herbalist might be only level 1, but he's a level 1 with Lore (the temple of doom). Do YOU know anything about the temple of doom? Of course you don't. So buy this map, or don't. Your choice,
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is (and it was an issue in PF1 as well) that I don't want a master scholar who can also take 5 crossbow shots. I want it to be believable when that scholar comes to the level 3 PCs that he has foreseen an upcoming calamity and needs their help. If he needs to be a level 7 with all the strength that entails from a full class, he could solve any issue those PCs could while hardly breaking a sweat. Thats a big problem with the world in my eyes. The two ways round it is to have either weak NPC classes or a rule stating NPCs can have any level of Skill without effecting their other statistics.
Well, as a compromise, the monster creation rules seem to indicate that NPCs can count as up to 2 levels higher for skills specifically (possibly more, though I actually hope not for various reasons involving challenge calibration). If that includes Proficiency, then you can have an Expert Scholar who is level 1 but level 3 for Skills (and has 10-15 HP), and a Master Scholar who is level 5, but level 7 for Skills (and likely has 35 HP or so, though they could be as low as 30).
I'm comfortable with that degree of competence being required to be a real expert in things in a level based system. This is somewhat speculative, but seems a workable solution for the issue in question in many ways.