|
Frankly, I hope that Paizo omits anything about NPC Classes. I've found them to be wasted space. It seems more sensical to simply allow NPCs access to the core classes. And if people are concerned that the NPCs shouldn't be as strong as the players' characters, there are two ways to do this:
1. Don't make them as strong. Lower level.
2. Don't give NPC characters access to all class perks. d20 Modern handled this the best - heroic v. ordinary characters. Heroic characters have access to action points, talents, and bonus feats where ordinary characters do not. I don't know how this would translate to Pathfinder's core class versions, but it'd be nice to see it entertained.
Of course, Paizo could also consider creating just a generic "nonheroic" class, like Star Wars' Saga Edition, to handle the multitudes of Joe Schmoes.
The only time I've dealt with commoners, adepts, experts and warriors has been when they are in a module. I've never made any for the games I run and I've never come across any in the games where I play. (Except where an official module is used.)
I think the NPC classes are fantastic, and remove the horrible inconsistencies of a world where everybody ends up having
You know what? I am not getting into an argument about it. I think the NPC classes are essential tools for a DM who wants to craft believable NPCs. They are also critical to backwards compatability and are also pretty much perfect as is, so don't require a lot of energy for inclusion in the final products. I would rather see the game have no prestige classes than have no NPC classes. They add tremendously to the game, and are not used by munchkins, so don't need to be so obsessivley balanced.
If they are removed, P.Cs become either abberantly powerful compared to everybody else, or trivial, because everybody has class levels.
What were you thinking?
Don't bother replying to this post.
Yes, I know it is snotty and insensitive for me to reply like this, but I seriously doubt the critical faculties of anyone who can blithely ask to remove the most useful pages of the DMG.
|
I would not favour the removal of the NPC classes, though I agree you can get by with just commoner and expert. I doubt the farmer with his cow would be a PC class for example.
I do think the CR of them needs adjusting - a lvl 19 adept offers nothing like the challenge of a lvl 18 wizard or cleric. I suggest NPC level divided by 2 as the appropriate CR.
|
|
I think the NPC classes are fantastic, and remove the horrible inconsistencies of a world where everybody ends up having
You know what? I am not getting into an argument about it. I think the NPC classes are essential tools for a DM who wants to craft believable NPCs. They are also critical to backwards compatability and are also pretty much perfect as is, so don't require a lot of energy for inclusion in the final products. I would rather see the game have no prestige classes than have no NPC classes. They add tremendously to the game, and are not used by munchkins, so don't need to be so obsessivley balanced.
If they are removed, P.Cs become either abberantly powerful compared to everybody else, or trivial, because everybody has class levels.
What were you thinking?
Don't bother replying to this post.
Yes, I know it is snotty and insensitive for me to reply like this, but I seriously doubt the critical faculties of anyone who can blithely ask to remove the most useful pages of the DMG.
Not trying to spark a flame war here, bud. And neither should you. If you think they are useful. Great. For me, wasted space.
Dump PrCs? Is that also a crass remark to spark a flame war or do you truly believe that? While a great many PrCs became ludicrous, there remain some that provided an impressive flavor to a character. One of my favorites being Knights of the Raven.
That said, because Pathfinder is going to be backwards compatible, NPCs and PrCs will exist whether they are put in Pathfinder or not. As such, I'd much rather have a small chapter on how to "update" classes (core and NPC), as well as PrCs, than see them re-written in the Pathfinder RPG.
If you want to continue to use non-player classes, then you'll always have the SRD and the ole DMG. (Tangent: I saw the leather-bound DMG for sale at Hastings yesterday for $30. That's $40 off the list price. Impressive, but my DMG's still in good shape.)
I am sorry for my last post. It is a bit strong, I admit. I should have not worried about this issue at all, let alone got pissed off about it.
You are giving your opinion. Just because I have a different one doesn't mean I should have called your intelligence into question, and did little to further my arguments.
About PrCs. Never used one. I Get by well with core classes. I Can see the appeal in the abstract, but play the game for verisimmilitude. I have run more games where one of the players was an adept in a low magic game, than any where people became arcane archer artillery or Purple Dragon Knights or whatnot. I am more interested in world builds than character builds, and think the NPC classes were an inspired thing for the makers of the game to build in.
BTW. Pathfinder will not have the luxury of referencing the PHB or DMG or SRD. It must be self contained. It will not be a list of changes and updates. It will be the game entire. Read the announcement again.
Contributor
|
I like npc classes conceptually, but I do have one problem with them, and that is that they don't scale in the CR rules in the same way as PC classes, and they open up other CR issues. Frex, What's the CR difference between a Level 3 Fighter and a Level 3 Fighter with an additional level of Warrior? Zero. This drives me crazy, even while I abuse the hell out of it to make my challenges tougher than they should be for the CR.
I like that the npc classes are simpler to build than PC classes for making up mooks, but I'd prefer they be more in line with the regular CR scale.
I have an idea for how to make weaker npcs that works with the system more or less, and probably actually works better with Pathfinder. I won't go into too much detail, but the gist is that a 1st level PC is in many ways like a 4th level creature; what I mean is they get more bonuses (such as 4x skill points, big jump on good save)) at first level than at other levels. I think that there could be substandard levels for npcs that are basically 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of first level. Or something like that.
Honestly, I'd like it a lot better if this design philosophy had been applied to monsters too, but that is probably too massive a change for most tastes.
I also like the NPC classes. I admit that I may be excessively detail oriented, but for me, the world makes more sense with professions like Commoner, Expert, Adept and Aristocrat. I like to have crunch supporting *everything*. What class would the average tavern owner or blacksmith be? Surely not everyone is a bitter ex-adventurer? The average peasant out working in his field? What about the mysterious old lady in town that all the children say is a witch? I think the NPC classes have a definite place. As for how many levels...five might do the trick, I think ten would certainly be enough.
Of course, I also liked the Cloistered Cleric from Unearthed Acana to represent the well read, scholarly town priest who isn't necessarily a fellow dungeon delver, but who is likely to know a good deal about religion, history, etc.
|
|
f you want to continue to use non-player classes, then you'll always have the SRD and the ole DMG.
Maybe I am missing something but since Pathfinder RPG is a modified and updated version of the SRD and is designed to replace the PHB & DMG going forward, shouldn't it include everything in the SRD that survives the translation? The way I am reading Paizo's intentions, this is to stand alone. A better, stronger, faster, version of what the SRD gives you. Also how much space does it really waste? They are targeting 420+ pages for the hardbound. You can cover NPC classes in 2.
To be fair, I use NPC classes extensively. Our house rules have removed the Adept and replaced them with dedicated Arcanist (Arcane) and Dominie (Clerical) spell casting classes to help me populate our cities. We also over the years added a Magician class (minor spell using entertainers) and adopted the magewright from Eberron. But our games tend toward very high magic.
The NPC classes are very important and I'd only condone the removal of them if Paizo were to come up with a simpler mechanic that serves the same purpose.
Same here..but with paizo working on it they just might.
|
Contributor
|
Didn't any one let you know CR is nearly meaningless and you should just balance your encounters to suit the ablities and weakness of the party.
That's useful if you are writing for a group you know and adjusting experience awards as needed as well. What if you are writing professionally and need to force the CR system to work for you? It would be a lot easier in both cases if it just worked on its own.
I'll speak up in favor of NPC classes. The commoner and expert classes are a good way to handle noncombatant NPCs that get caught in combat or are otherwise in need of stats. The aristocrat is, essentially, the politician class -- without it, all socially adept NPCs would be required by the game rules to also know backstabbing, magic powers, or martial arts.
I don't see the point of the adept, myself, and I could live without the warrior class, but I don't really mind them being there. I'm not going to assume that the space they take up* would be filled with enough pure awesomeness to make up for the people who get use out of adepts and warriors.
* If memory serves, the cleric takes up about as much space as all five NPC classes combined.
Assuming they stay in the game, though, I'd also like to speak up in favor of fixing the 20th-level commoner, AKA "the XP farmer." If he's a CR 19 encounter, then so am I.
Creative Director
|
I suspect that while each of the 5 NPC classes will still go to 20... we'll have text in there saying that MOST of the NPCs in the world aren't much above 5th level At The Most. And some of those classes (notably commoner) DON'T have anyone above, say, 8th level or whatever we choose the "cutoff" to be.
A 20th level commoner is by no means a believable CR 19 creature. Whatever we go with for CR or its replacement will spell that out.
I suspect that while each of the 5 NPC classes will still go to 20... we'll have text in there saying that MOST of the NPCs in the world aren't much above 5th level At The Most. And some of those classes (notably commoner) DON'T have anyone above, say, 8th level or whatever we choose the "cutoff" to be.
A 20th level commoner is by no means a believable CR 19 creature. Whatever we go with for CR or its replacement will spell that out.
Never say never. Someday a writer will come up with a good reason to have an 18th level commoner, and no matter how brilliant it is, you'll have a slew of people saying that you guys let something "out of continuity" into the setting since you used an absolute.
But yeah, I get the just what you are saying here.
|
Creative Director
|
Never say never. Someday a writer will come up with a good reason to have an 18th level commoner, and no matter how brilliant it is, you'll have a slew of people saying that you guys let something "out of continuity" into the setting since you used an absolute.
But yeah, I get the just what you are saying here.
True... but 18th level commoners are a pretty good example of something I don't see us EVER doing, no matter how brilliant the idea. Because honestly, once a commoner hits 10th level... he's certainly not "common" anymore. He may not be the equivalent of a 9th level fighter, but he's certainly hale and hearty enough to hold his own against lower level foes. At which point, the "brilliant idea" would not only have to convince me why the high-level commoner exists in the first place, but why he never took a level of a REAL class.
"I need you on the farm, Luke. Just one more season. You can go to the academy next year."
"Aww, Uncle Owen..."
You are just awesomeness on toast.
The problem with the NPC classes are that they follow the PC level system. An seventy years sage don't need ten DG to have thirteen ranks in Knowledge (History).
Please excuse my poor english.
By the time a Commoner has five levels, he's probably switched his levels to Expert, Warrior, or a PC class.
|
|
Give two or three drag and drop NPCs for each class - at least one low and one mid. IMO, that should suffice.
Sounds like perfect fodder for a Gamemastery product.
"Coming soon from Paizo, The Deck of Many NPCs
For hight level campaigns try our Paragons of the Ordinary booster pack"
Maybe 3"x4" cardstock with Statblock and "background" info on one side and a portrait on the other. Comes with little plastic holder that either clamp to the DM screen or stand on the table top.
Worst thing is if they put it out I would likely buy the darned things.
NPC classes are useful and a whole lot more scalable than "0-level" characters in 1st or 2nd Ed AD&D. I think making them 10 level base classes would make sense, and a couple of tweaks might be in order, but keeping them causes less problems than getting rid of them will.
Proposed tweaks:
Adept- spell progression equal to bard
Aristocrat- drop heavy armor proficiency and add followers (similar to Leadership, but without a cohort and class level equals Leadership level with no modifiers)
|
|
Give two or three drag and drop NPCs for each class - at least one low and one mid. IMO, that should suffice.Sounds like perfect fodder for a Gamemastery product.
"Coming soon from Paizo, The Deck of Many NPCs
For hight level campaigns try our Paragons of the Ordinary booster pack"Maybe 3"x4" cardstock with Statblock and "background" info on one side and a portrait on the other. Comes with little plastic holder that either clamp to the DM screen or stand on the table top.
Worst thing is if they put it out I would likely buy the darned things.
I'm pretty sure I would. But even just a spiral-bound (so it'll lay flat) book of generic NPCs would be cool.
|
By the time a Commoner has five levels, he's probably switched his levels to Expert, Warrior, or a PC class.
agreed, actually by the time a commoner is 3rd level, he's probably switched...
So what do commoners get XP for?
*repaired hole in fence, defeating weasel from getting to chickens* 300xp
*scared off pack of wolves with massive bonfire* 600xp
*defeated merchant in bartering to sell his crop of corn* 300xp
DING level 2
*stood up the the local bandits and called the townwatch* 300xp...
etc.
OOOO I love the idea of a Deck of Many NPCs...
The old D&D cards with NPCs on then were pretty good just for the pictures. Having a 101 NPC faces would be great. I'd buy that for MORE than a dollah!
The NPC classes won't be going anywhere. They most likely won't be receiving any modifications either. They do what they need to do as is.
Oh, thank god. I was afraid I was going to have to argue about how PCs are, by necessity, better than NPCs again. Thank you so much, Mr. Jacobs. Once again, you have saved me an awful lot of trouble.
It's also a trope to have the PCs start off at first level with NPC classes, then let them train out of them after that first harrowing adventure, as in DCC. Heck, the expert and aristocrat classes are playable, frankly.
As for questioning how they go up in level, well, you get XP for non-combat encounters too: surviving droughts, running to get the town doc in time, wooing your SO, completing your research on Ancient Thassilonian culture and getting it published, giving good advice to your neighbors, running that so-and-so's competing business into the ground by cutting prices, rush jobs on making items, raising a troublesome teen, finding the lost lamb, etc. I generally correlate NPC level with the character's age, expertise and social power.
And I can completely see a 20th level Expert being valuable, especially as the head of a large trade consortium, with all the manpower, political influence, wealth and magic items that that would entail.
And they need feat for the flavor, generally in the form of skill focus and trait feats, but it's always nice to have one with improved unarmed strike or with weapon focus: quarterstaff and two weapon fighting.
True... but 18th level commoners are a pretty good example of something I don't see us EVER doing, no matter how brilliant the idea. Because honestly, once a commoner hits 10th level... he's certainly not "common" anymore. He may not be the equivalent of a 9th level fighter, but he's certainly hale and hearty enough to hold his own against lower level foes. At which point, the "brilliant idea" would not only have to convince me why the high-level commoner exists in the first place, but why he never took a level of a REAL class.
Agreed, at that point the NPC should be dipping into the Local Legend NPC-only prestige class, that features such abilities as 'smack down smarmy low-level PC' and 'detect impure intentions toward daughter'.
|
|
The NPC classes serve the purpose they were meant to. Despite this, I have never used them in a gaming session except the Expert and the Adept. For the Aristocrat, I created a Noble core class. Something to encourage the players to step into the intrigue of the courts. Surprisingly, I used a similar idea of Minor Magic and Major Magic, as selectable Talents for the Noble to simulate the dabbling f the elite and bored.
"When I grow up, I want to be an 16th level commoner."
--Future Beaureacrat