I am wondering why we need to bother with NPC classes at all? Wouldn't it be simpler to have templates and build NPCs by applying a template to the race to create the desired NPC and giving racial hit dice if higher than first level NPCs were desired?
Or at most, we could have one NPC class - Commoner/Everyman/Man/Whatever. The class would have the lowest progressions in everything and no special abilities and skills and the level in the class would determine the level of the NPC. A template would then be applied if a more capable character were desired thus giving the non-player character appropriate abilities and skills.
Example:
We want to create a 7th level blacksmith:
Step 1 has two options:
Option 1: Give the character 7 racial hit dice
Option 2: Give the character 7 levels in the Commoner/Everyman/Man/Whatever class which grants no abilities nor skills
Step 2:
Apply the blacksmith template to grant the NPC skills and perhaps special abilities.
I am wondering why we need to bother with NPC classes at all? Wouldn't it be simpler to have templates and build NPCs by applying a template to the race to create the desired NPC and giving racial hit dice if higher than first level NPCs were desired?
Or at most, we could have one NPC class - Commoner/Everyman/Man/Whatever. The class would have the lowest progressions in everything and no special abilities and skills and the level in the class would determine the level of the NPC. A template would then be applied if a more capable character were desired thus giving the non-player character appropriate abilities and skills.
Example:
We want to create a 7th level blacksmith:
Step 1 has two options:
Option 1: Give the character 7 racial hit dice
Option 2: Give the character 7 levels in the Commoner/Everyman/Man/Whatever class which grants no abilities nor skills
Step 2:
Apply the blacksmith template to grant the NPC skills and perhaps special abilities.
that would be a huge number of templates, I am fine setting it up as an or commoner, assuming average stats it is pretty easy to figure out what the skill check is going to be. if you want to make it a 'full' npc you can give it elite scores a player class, it works fine. PRPG isn't aiming to make the old system obsolete, this isn't something that needs fixing badly.
As an even simpler alternative, we could rely solely on templates to build the backround NPCs (as opposed to powerful actors that need to be built like PCs). This would be almost like a pre-made NPC system, the only difference being that racial specifications and ability scores would still need to be added to complete the character.
Templates would go something like this:
[u]Blacksmith[/u]:
Novice/Apprentice:
Basics: Level Equivalence 1, 1d8 (4) hp, AC 10, Attack: +0 (1d8 - hammer)
Skills: Craft (Weaponsmithing) +5, Craft (Armorsmithing) +5
Special Abilities: none
Possible Customization: one other skill at +2 (usually...), one feat (usually...), raise one craft *.smithing skill by 2 points and decrease the other by 3 points
Average/Journeyman:
Basics: Level Equivalence 3, 3d8 (12) hp, AC 10, Attack: +1 (1d8+1 - hammer)
Skills: Craft (Weaponsmithing) +9, Craft (Armorsmithing) +9
Special Abilities: +2 to Strength
Possible Customization: one other skill at +3 (usually...), two feats (usually...), raise one craft *.smithing skill by 3 points and decrease the other by 4 points
Etcetera...
Note 1: Special abilities at higher orders of expertise could enable the NPC to excell in the non-adventuring class he does beyond what the PCs could accomplish in that field.
Note 2: I am rounding down all the numbers for NPCs, including hit points of each hit die, but maybe standard practice could be used instead.
One of the things that always bugged me about the NPC classes was how oddly powerful and out of character it made some them. Some of it I do like, an example being, the grizzled watchman or afore mentioned blacksmith willing to teach a fresh bunch of arrogant adventures a lesson if need be. I know the current NPC creation system is intended to keep important NPCs from being obliterated by what would be a flesh wound to higher level PCs as well giving the PCs a more challenging minor adversary.
I'll use a historical example to show what irks me. Take Albert Einstein. To have quantified the theory of relativity the man must have had a lot of ranks in knowledge: physics, and other scientific skills, as well as all the skill focus feats and a high intelligence. To have a lot of feats and skill ranks one must have a good number of levels. When you look at what a mid to high level expert gets, Einstein could hold off a small horde of goblins. Even if you made him a commoner he'd still do okay. Now Conan the Barbarian can have a new sidekick, Albert the Relative Butt Kicker.
Let's face it. As much as the world owes Einstein if faced with even a handful of goblins he would just be the smartest meal they had ever eaten.
To sum it up, I'd like to see a system where highly skilled and competent NPCs could be created without their combat abilities and general survivability being so out of sorts with their basic concept.
I already houserule this when the occasion arises but I wouldn't mind seeing an official version or hearing what other people have come up with.
that would be a huge number of templates, I am fine setting it up as an or commoner, assuming average stats it is pretty easy to figure out what the skill check is going to be. if you want to make it a 'full' npc you can give it elite scores a player class, it works fine. PRPG isn't aiming to make the old system obsolete, this isn't something that needs fixing badly.I am wondering why we need to bother with NPC classes at all? Wouldn't it be simpler to have templates and build NPCs by applying a template to the race to create the desired NPC and giving racial hit dice if higher than first level NPCs were desired?
Or at most, we could have one NPC class - Commoner/Everyman/Man/Whatever. The class would have the lowest progressions in everything and no special abilities and skills and the level in the class would determine the level of the NPC. A template would then be applied if a more capable character were desired thus giving the non-player character appropriate abilities and skills.
Example:
We want to create a 7th level blacksmith:
Step 1 has two options:
Option 1: Give the character 7 racial hit dice
Option 2: Give the character 7 levels in the Commoner/Everyman/Man/Whatever class which grants no abilities nor skills
Step 2:
Apply the blacksmith template to grant the NPC skills and perhaps special abilities.
I think the template-based system could be made with about 10 templates.
Consider:
Blacksmith/Metalsmith
Woodworker/Carpenter
Jeweler/Finesmith
Painter/Artist
Performer/Musician
Bureaucrat/Scribe
Thug/Robber
Guard/Soldier
Noble/Aristocrat
Hunter/Gatherer
Inventor/Technologist
Magician/Herbalist
That's 12 templates - I might have missed something important, but probably not too much and some of those could be combined further to be more generic. Besides, this would enable campaign settings to have setting-specific or region-specific professions/templates. Obviously, peasants, laborers and so on would not get a template at all.
One of the things that always bugged me about the NPC classes was how oddly powerful and out of character it made some them. Some of it I do like, an example being, the grizzled watchman or afore mentioned blacksmith willing to teach a fresh bunch of arrogant adventures a lesson if need be. I know the current NPC creation system is intended to keep important NPCs from being obliterated by what would be a flesh wound to higher level PCs as well giving the PCs a more challenging minor adversary.
I'll use a historical example to show what irks me. Take Albert Einstein. To have quantified the theory of relativity the man must have had a lot of ranks in knowledge: physics, and other scientific skills, as well as all the skill focus feats and a high intelligence. To have a lot of feats and skill ranks one must have a good number of levels. When you look at what a mid to high level expert gets, Einstein could hold off a small horde of goblins. Even if you made him a commoner he'd still do okay. Now Conan the Barbarian can have a new sidekick, Albert the Relative Butt Kicker.
Let's face it. As much as the world owes Einstein if faced with even a handful of goblins he would just be the smartest meal they had ever eaten.
To sum it up, I'd like to see a system where highly skilled and competent NPCs could be created without their combat abilities and general survivability being so out of sorts with their basic concept.
I already houserule this when the occasion arises but I wouldn't mind seeing an official version or hearing what other people have come up with.
Yeah, depending on how it was done, a template system would enable that.
I know I say this a lot, but my thought on this is, why change it? I can understand all sorts of theories if the game were being designed from the ground up, but the way 3.5 has been designed, its assumed that there are "lesser classes" that many NPCs have, and only elite types tend to have normal classes.
The only real complaint I have for NPC classes is that I wish the hedge wizard type were more separate from the adept class, and that the adept class was a bit more "generic" as a "lesser" divine caster as it is skewed towards a kind of tribal/rural type priest.
One of the things that always bugged me about the NPC classes was how oddly powerful and out of character it made some them. Some of it I do like, an example being, the grizzled watchman or afore mentioned blacksmith willing to teach a fresh bunch of arrogant adventures a lesson if need be. I know the current NPC creation system is intended to keep important NPCs from being obliterated by what would be a flesh wound to higher level PCs as well giving the PCs a more challenging minor adversary.
I'll use a historical example to show what irks me. Take Albert Einstein. To have quantified the theory of relativity the man must have had a lot of ranks in knowledge: physics, and other scientific skills, as well as all the skill focus feats and a high intelligence. To have a lot of feats and skill ranks one must have a good number of levels. When you look at what a mid to high level expert gets, Einstein could hold off a small horde of goblins. Even if you made him a commoner he'd still do okay. Now Conan the Barbarian can have a new sidekick, Albert the Relative Butt Kicker.
Let's face it. As much as the world owes Einstein if faced with even a handful of goblins he would just be the smartest meal they had ever eaten.
To sum it up, I'd like to see a system where highly skilled and competent NPCs could be created without their combat abilities and general survivability being so out of sorts with their basic concept.
I already houserule this when the occasion arises but I wouldn't mind seeing an official version or hearing what other people have come up with.
a little creativity, can make any npc work out fine, have a look at some flaws and traits in unearthed arcana to get your npc's work for you better, strip light armor proficiency in exchange for skillfocus, make something up. though I'd appreciate an article with some well thought out options for npcs, I just adjust them on the fly and it's easy enough for the rare times I actually need to have stats to describe them more accurately.
if I create an orc warrior I generally strip heavy armor proficiency and replace it with another feat and work from there to make it a little more compatible with barbarian elite warriors of the tribe.
if I want a mad scientist I fudge the ability stats to increase int and reduce str, con and wis, advance his age some, and reduce hitpoints and weapon/armor proficiencies in exchange for feats and other traits I find suitable.
The NPC classes give me a good base to work from however, and I dont actually see much wrong with it, the general survivability in the setting is a long stretch anyway, why would everyone caught in a fireball die and the PC's being the only lucky survivors.. everytime ?
NPC's are a DM's territory and he has alot of freedom fudging things to his/her liking.
As an even simpler alternative, we could rely solely on templates to build the backround NPCs (as opposed to powerful actors that need to be built like PCs). This would be almost like a pre-made NPC system, the only difference being that racial specifications and ability scores would still need to be added to complete the character.
Templates would go something like this:
[u]Blacksmith[/u]:
Novice/Apprentice:
Basics: Level Equivalence 1, 1d8 (4) hp, AC 10, Attack: +0 (1d8 - hammer)
Skills: Craft (Weaponsmithing) +5, Craft (Armorsmithing) +5
Special Abilities: none
Possible Customization: one other skill at +2 (usually...), one feat (usually...), raise one craft *.smithing skill by 2 points and decrease the other by 3 pointsAverage/Journeyman:
Basics: Level Equivalence 3, 3d8 (12) hp, AC 10, Attack: +1 (1d8+1 - hammer)
Skills: Craft (Weaponsmithing) +9, Craft (Armorsmithing) +9
Special Abilities: +2 to Strength
Possible Customization: one other skill at +3 (usually...), two feats (usually...), raise one craft *.smithing skill by 3 points and decrease the other by 4 pointsEtcetera...
Note 1: Special abilities at higher orders of expertise could enable the NPC to excell in the non-adventuring class he does beyond what the PCs could accomplish in that field.
Note 2: I am rounding down all the numbers for NPCs, including hit points of each hit die, but maybe standard practice could be used instead.
I would *greatly* encourage something like this for making basic townie commoner-folk. I *really* hate the current system.
To sum it up, I'd like to see a system where highly skilled and competent NPCs could be created without their combat abilities and general survivability being so out of sorts with their basic concept.
1000% agree. I *hate* the current system where just because you want someone to be extraordinarily smart they also get a decent BAB and hit points. Screw that, the dude is just smart as hell but one hit from a goblin and the dudes pushing up daisies. That's what I want to see, an NPC that can rock the universe in smartness but not also get all the other things that come along with the high class levels necessary to make him that smart and skilled.
I might appreciate some options, but as a whole I do not hate the system as a base, if you dont want it just dont give them a BAB progression.
+ 0 AB lvl 12 genius, like I said some options would be nice, but basically you run into the same thing for the PC's it's just not possible to be 1st level and have 20 ranks in knowledge.
Or at most, we could have one NPC class - Commoner/Everyman/Man/Whatever. The class would have the lowest progressions in everything and no special abilities and skills and the level in the class would determine the level of the NPC. A template would then be applied if a more capable character were desired thus giving the non-player character appropriate abilities and skills.
Maybe a sidebar for commoners as simple as:
"If you need a quick NPC who is not expected to play a significant role in the campaign or adventure, use the statistics in the table below and then give that NPC whatever skill ranks you think appropriate to that characters particular role in the campaign."
And then just list some simple stats and remove the entire list of NPC classes (commoner, warrior etc) and then just make significant NPC's using normal classes. This would reduce the overall book size by a not-insignificant amount.
Some cool stuff on NPCs...
I think this is a step in the right direction.
I would love to see streamlined creation rules for NPCs. I usually don't have much time to prepare all the NPC in any given game I run, and being able to have some simple guidelines would be a great help. Not that the current system isn't usefully, it's just time consuming and unwieldy.
Why spend 30 min designing a 5th lvl commoner when I could spend that time tweaking my cool BBEG?
To answer the original question "[NPCs] - Why bother with classes?" - Don't, unless you need to.
It's good for modules, when someone has to have stats for whatever the players might think up to do.
It's good when one of your PCs is a young countessa from the valley and the parents send the butler along to keep her out of trouble.
The rest of the time, you *might* bother with what level they are (to know things like max ranks for a Sage's Knowledge or how fast a blacksmith could make something). That's about it.
The NPC classes are a good backbone you can improvise off of.
However... there's a not bad idea here:
How about Commoner, d4 HD, No BAB? A new progression.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
However... there's a not bad idea here:
How about Commoner, d4 HD, No BAB? A new progression.
If anything, I think the commoner should have the medium BAB progression and the expert get a low or no BAB progression. Commoners are farmers, fighting off wolves, coyotes, goblins, bandits, etc.
I don't think experts really need a downgrade either - the class does include bookish homebody sages, but also burly blacksmiths that can brawl with the best of them.
Personally, I've always been fine with the commoner and expert NPC classes. The other NPC classes are good too.
I think they are fine too, basically I treat everyone in the campaign world as a 1st level commoner unless I want it to be something more and advance from there, I give even PC's 1 HD of commoner to reflect their humble beginings.
having a few standard NPC's is really easy imo, nocs dont need that much detail that it is time consuming to create. I rather spend my time on personality traits and roleplaying than stats for most of them.
|
The only real complaint I have for NPC classes is that I wish the hedge wizard type were more separate from the adept class, and that the adept class was a bit more "generic" as a "lesser" divine caster as it is skewed towards a kind of tribal/rural type priest.
I'd like to see Adept stay for basic, non-adventuring mages (your hedge wizards) and Acolytes for pretty much the same thing, only divine. I'd also like to see something like a Thief as a Rogue-lite class. That would mean we'd have a NPC class for all the main PC classes. I know we already have Experts but I'd like to see an NPC class for all the little street urchins and cut-purses out there who have a few skills commoners don't but aren't quite Experts either.
One reason I like NPC classes is because sometime I have PCs start with a level in NPC classes to represent what they did before beginning their life of adventure. Especially now that the skill point system has been changes so 1st level works like other levels (rather than x4), there's no penalty for doing this anymore.
|
As an even simpler alternative, we could rely solely on templates to build the backround NPCs (as opposed to powerful actors that need to be built like PCs). This would be almost like a pre-made NPC system, the only difference being that racial specifications and ability scores would still need to be added to complete the character.
Templates would go something like this:
[u]Blacksmith[/u]:
Novice/Apprentice:
Basics: Level Equivalence 1, 1d8 (4) hp, AC 10, Attack: +0 (1d8 - hammer)
Skills: Craft (Weaponsmithing) +5, Craft (Armorsmithing) +5
Special Abilities: none
Possible Customization: one other skill at +2 (usually...), one feat (usually...), raise one craft *.smithing skill by 2 points and decrease the other by 3 pointsAverage/Journeyman:
Basics: Level Equivalence 3, 3d8 (12) hp, AC 10, Attack: +1 (1d8+1 - hammer)
Skills: Craft (Weaponsmithing) +9, Craft (Armorsmithing) +9
Special Abilities: +2 to Strength
Possible Customization: one other skill at +3 (usually...), two feats (usually...), raise one craft *.smithing skill by 3 points and decrease the other by 4 pointsEtcetera...
Note 1: Special abilities at higher orders of expertise could enable the NPC to excell in the non-adventuring class he does beyond what the PCs could accomplish in that field.
Note 2: I am rounding down all the numbers for NPCs, including hit points of each hit die, but maybe standard practice could be used instead.
Well, if "NPC Templates" are implemented into the game mechanics, they should definitely need to be weaker than any benefits from PC classes. And they shouldn't feel "shoehorned" into the system in the way I feel 4E NPC/monster creation rules working. For example, I think most players wouln't mind picking that 'Average/Journeyman'-template, since you get +2 to strength (in addition to the racial modifiers). And I know several players who could be very convincing in why their "Blacksmith's apprentice turned into a mercenary/adventurer" PCs should be allowed to get that Template.
I don't think potential templates should be an option for players characters. The different skills an ability bonusses should grant the NPC different stats than ordinary commoners. It is therefore not equivalent to a level rating system and should not be something to choose from instead of levels, although GMs could let their players start the game with a template and no players levels if it fits their wishes.
Why not just assign the NPC stats that are appropriate for their job? After all it's the players that are supposed to shine not the NPCs.
I'll use a historical example to show what irks me. Take Albert Einstein. To have quantified the theory of relativity the man must have had a lot of ranks in knowledge: physics, and other scientific skills, as well as all the skill focus feats and a high intelligence. To have a lot of feats and skill ranks one must have a good number of levels. When you look at what a mid to high level expert gets, Einstein could hold off a small horde of goblins. Even if you made him a commoner he'd still do okay. Now Conan the Barbarian can have a new sidekick, Albert the Relative Butt Kicker.
Let's face it. As much as the world owes Einstein if faced with even a handful of goblins he would just be the smartest meal they had ever eaten.
Yeah, well that's modern era with modern education and research opportunities. Contrast that with earlier eras and you find a lot more people with broad experiences behind them and long years of toil (and gaining experience) that aren't as out of place with the class system.
You could also figure that the fantasy world of D&D is a lot more rough and tumble and the relatively soft nature of modern scientists wouldn't necessarily be the case. Even historically you have cases like Tycho Brahe who lost a chunk of his nose in a duel and later achieved his fame through years of painstaking observations. Socrates was supposedly a veteran of the Peloponnesian War before he "corrupted" the youth of Athens.
So using Einstein as an example only gets you so far.
|
|
I don't think potential templates should be an option for players characters. The different skills an ability bonusses should grant the NPC different stats than ordinary commoners. It is therefore not equivalent to a level rating system and should not be something to choose from instead of levels, although GMs could let their players start the game with a template and no players levels if it fits their wishes.
The trouble is that in principle this reminds the templates in 4E (which a lot of people, myself included, found it a bit weird and internally inconsistent). Now the NPC classes are more or less "suboptimal" choices for PCs, but some of the templates (especially if there are stat bonuses included) could be tempting. And many players would probably argue, that "If my character's father and brother have this 'Blacksmith'-template with +2 to STR and +2 CON, why can't my guy have it? That's just so unrealistic..." and so on, ad infinitum. I think internally consistency and class-based NPCs are the better way to go here.
It seems to me that HP and BAB should be separated from skill progression in NPCs. As the game stands an expert librarian can seriously thrash a low level fighter. If an NPC should have BAB or HP for toughness or to represent militia training then it's easy enough to give them levels in a class that has BAB/ HP advancement. Perhaps something as simple as giving a situational bonus to skills based on the age of the NPC. If the game system doesn't support it then I will certainly craft it into house rules.
Those templates seem more like condensed stat blocks for existing classes.
The other issue to point out is that the Expert isn't exactly a 'Sage' class. It is also the 'Rogue Lite' class which is why it has an average BAB. It's pulling double duty where it really shouldn't. I'm almost to the point of agreeing that the commoner and expert should swap BABs. Under the PFRPG skill rules an average BAB commoner could work just fine as your basic thug thief, just without the +3 for Stealth as a class skill.
You could also convince me to split the Expert into Expert (good ref, Skills 4+ Int) and Sage (poor BAB) classes.
3.5ish Einstein Knowledge (physics) 11 [small](4 int, 4 ranks, 3 focus)[/small] + 2 [small](circumstance or synergy?, reading patents)[/small] + 2 [small](tool, well stocked library)[/small]. Assuming a 'modern' feat that allows a person to take 20 research based Knowledge checks... 35? Even without that take 10 is still 25, which is in the realm of "really tough question." I guess it's a question of what you think the DC for developing a new physical model the how the universe works should be. I guess I could seem his fantasy equivalently being a 6th level Expert, t10- 30, t20- 40.
|
|
Given my druthers for NPC classes:
Commoner: As is. Maybe reduce BaB progression to 1/4?
Warrior: As is. Maybe even reduce BaB progression to 3/4
Expert: Reduce BaB progression to 1/2, or maybe 1/4?
Aristocrat: As is.
Adept: Maybe reduce BaB progression to 1/4.
New NPC classes;
Gleaner: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/gk7uKJeF296jRcx1NJw.html
Something like this really fits within a game world.
if we could separate out the Adept's divine type spells, leaving them mostly arcane, we could add an Acolyte to be the "cleric-lite" as well.
I like NPC classes. I've used them for player characters to fun effect, and they're easy to remember and grab for use when creating NPCs. I see no reason to introduce a new mechanic for NPCs, myself.
One of the things that always bugged me about the NPC classes was how oddly powerful and out of character it made some them.
This is one of my beefs with classes and level based abilities.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
3.5ish Einstein Knowledge (physics) 11 [small](4 int, 4 ranks, 3 focus)[/small] + 2 [small](circumstance or synergy?, reading patents)[/small] + 2 [small](tool, well stocked library)[/small]. Assuming a 'modern' feat that allows a person to take 20 research based Knowledge checks... 35? Even without that take 10 is still 25, which is in the realm of "really tough question." I guess it's a question of what you think the DC for developing a new physical model the how the universe works should be. I guess I could seem his fantasy equivalently being a 6th level Expert, t10- 30, t20- 40.
I'd also argue that Einstein simply is off the charts for his Int. While a normal human couldn't have more than 20 (18 +2 bonus to any one stat) Einstein is simply in the top .0000000000001% and got a 30 Int via DM fiat.
|
|
It seems to me that HP and BAB should be separated from skill progression in NPCs. As the game stands an expert librarian can seriously thrash a low level fighter. If an NPC should have BAB or HP for toughness or to represent militia training then it's easy enough to give them levels in a class that has BAB/ HP advancement. Perhaps something as simple as giving a situational bonus to skills based on the age of the NPC. If the game system doesn't support it then I will certainly craft it into house rules.
... you don't believe that a librarian could trash a low-level fighter? I'm a librarian, and I could wrestle a *bear* or a mid-level fighter, and *OWN* them! Anyone who has a differing opinion may challenge a librarian for a fight at his/her Friendly Local Public Library! ;P
(on-topic: I suggest that all NPC classes should get far less HPs and use the 'poor' progression for all saves and BAB -- except for the Warrior, which should use 'average' BAB and 'Good' Fort at best.)
... you don't believe that a librarian could trash a low-level fighter? I'm a librarian, and I could wrestle a *bear* or a mid-level fighter, and *OWN* them! Anyone who has a differing opinion may challenge a librarian for a fight at his/her Friendly Local Public Library! ;P
I totally believe you could do that. People dismiss the strength that comes from moving all those books and stuff. Remember people - Conan was a Librarian!
(on-topic: I suggest that all NPC classes should get far less HPs and use the 'poor' progression for all saves and BAB -- except for the Warrior, which should use 'average' BAB and 'Good' Fort at best.)
Commoners going up to d6 *is* my biggest beef with NPCs. Though at the same time, it's nice not to have to worry *too* much about evil 1st level clerics walking around channeling negative energy and killing *more than* 50% of the commoners they run into.
Of course you could run into the baby with a level in Commoner who can not be killed by an Ogre before a charging Barbarian can kill the Ogre.
Of course you could run into the baby with a level in Commoner who can not be killed by an Ogre before a charging Barbarian can kill the Ogre.
Aren't most commoners going to have something like 3 hp? I think an ogre can manage.
I'll use a historical example to show what irks me. Take Albert Einstein. To have quantified the theory of relativity the man must have had a lot of ranks in knowledge: physics, and other scientific skills, as well as all the skill focus feats and a high intelligence. To have a lot of feats and skill ranks one must have a good number of levels. When you look at what a mid to high level expert gets, Einstein could hold off a small horde of goblins. Even if you made him a commoner he'd still do okay. Now Conan the Barbarian can have a new sidekick, Albert the Relative Butt Kicker.
Let's face it. As much as the world owes Einstein if faced with even a handful of goblins he would just be the smartest meal they had ever eaten.
I'm sorry, I don't see it at all. Einstein would be, what, a level 8 Expert? And a Very Old one at that. Even if he started out hale and hearty at 10 Con, he'd have 4 at that point. That's -3 hp per level, and he only averages 4.5 on his d8's. So, he's got somewhere in the vicinity of 15 hit points. He doesn't wear armor. He doesn't use a weapon. How is he supposed to hold off a horde of goblins, again? Two or three decent hits and he's down for the count.
As a GM I like the NPC classes and use them fairly often.
We once ran an entire campaign setting where most of the players started as first level commoners -- it was great fun.
Einstein would probably use d20 Modern classes and stats. He would be a Smart Hero of some sort.
Also, I'm not sure if folks were aware of this...but D&D is not a reality simulator. It is a table top game. So...trying to have it reflect any sort of reality isn't really possible.
CJ
... you don't believe that a librarian could trash a low-level fighter? I'm a librarian, and I could wrestle a *bear* or a mid-level fighter, and *OWN* them! Anyone who has a differing opinion may challenge a librarian for a fight at his/her Friendly Local Public Library! ;P
(on-topic: I suggest that all NPC classes should get far less HPs and use the 'poor' progression for all saves and BAB -- except for the Warrior, which should use 'average' BAB and 'Good' Fort at best.)
My fiance is a librarian. She is also a black belt in tae kwon do and has been trained in krav maga.
Never judge the book by its cover.
|
|
I posted this in another thread, but it seems more relevant here.
Creating NPCs - Are these rules simple and easy to use? Are there any parts that could be more clear or user friendly?
I think it would be rather helpful to streamline the NPC Class rules altogether by making one NPC Base Class, with the differences being assigned as starting packages.
For Example:
A NPC Warrior would have a +1 to BAB, +1 Fort save, and a free feat from the Fighter list (or Combat feat). A Aristocrat has an additional +4 skill points over base. Each would have specific skill sets to choose from, but the Expert package would allow any ten skills as starting skills.
Reading over my post, I realized that would make the NPC classses much like Non-Heroic characters from Star Wars Saga. Not necessarily a bad thing though.
Trying to keep it simple.
|
I'm Sorry. Maybe this is counter productive, but...
Isn't a DM supposed to be imaginative?
NPC templates are a crutch. Something for when your Barb. Decides to kill everyone in town. 3.5 had a table, At X level NPC has Y.
Great starting point, and you can pull it right from the book if needed.
But if you want a random intelectual in the area, make something up that sounds right. It is called 'on the Fly'. in al reality you will get exactly what you want, and if the PC's are supposed to fight them, then you are going to put more work into that NPC anyway. Why reinvent the wheel and ask Piazo to think for you?
Isn't a DM supposed to be imaginative?
But if you want a random intelectual in the area, make something up that sounds right. It is called 'on the Fly'. Why reinvent the wheel and ask Piazo to think for you?
The best answer I can give you is, "why have rules at all, then?" I mean, if game play requires one to break all the existing rules to get what one wants, then those rules are meaningless. Throw 'em out and just have storytelling hour.
Or accept the rules as written, as flawed as they are, becuase this is probably a minor issue in the overall scheme of things (as KEJR points out).
Or change the rules to allow what you want (my personal preference).
While on the topic, I hate the Warrior and, to a lesser degree, Adept class.
Yeah, I get that you don't want to make the town guards better fighters than the fighter PCs. There is already a mechanic for that. It's called "lower level".
Keep in mind though, that monsters like orcs and goblins are warriors. If they were members of a PC class they'd have a higher challenge rating.
I think the NPC chapter in Pathfinder is good as written. Simple enough, works fine. The only thing I miss is having the charts of pregens, but that's more of a space issue.
I think it would be rather helpful to streamline the NPC Class rules altogether by making one NPC Base Class, with the differences being assigned as starting packages.
For Example:
A NPC Warrior would have a +1 to BAB, +1 Fort save, and a free feat from the Fighter list (or Combat feat). A Aristocrat has an additional +4 skill points over base. Each would have specific skill sets to choose from, but the Expert package would allow any ten skills as starting skills.Reading over my post, I realized that would make the NPC classses much like Non-Heroic characters from Star Wars Saga. Not necessarily a bad thing though.
Trying to keep it simple.
Simple maybe, but a significant change to a set of rules aiming at backward compatibility with 3.5. Imo the current NPC classes work fairly well. I have to admit the Adept is not my favorite class (I think they could have used seperate arcane / divine NPC classes or skipped these as an NPC class) but the others (Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior) do what you need done. I do my own adventures / have my own setting (house rules and all) but I can think of an awful lot of products with stat blocks for charcacters with NPC class levels that see heavy use for others. Significant alterations to things like NPC class rules are probably something better left to a book of optional / expanded rules. Of course ymmv.
One of the things that always bugged me about the NPC classes was how oddly powerful and out of character it made some them. Some of it I do like, an example being, the grizzled watchman or afore mentioned blacksmith willing to teach a fresh bunch of arrogant adventures a lesson if need be. I know the current NPC creation system is intended to keep important NPCs from being obliterated by what would be a flesh wound to higher level PCs as well giving the PCs a more challenging minor adversary.
I'll use a historical example to show what irks me. Take Albert Einstein. To have quantified the theory of relativity the man must have had a lot of ranks in knowledge: physics, and other scientific skills, as well as all the skill focus feats and a high intelligence. To have a lot of feats and skill ranks one must have a good number of levels. When you look at what a mid to high level expert gets, Einstein could hold off a small horde of goblins. Even if you made him a commoner he'd still do okay. Now Conan the Barbarian can have a new sidekick, Albert the Relative Butt Kicker.
Let's face it. As much as the world owes Einstein if faced with even a handful of goblins he would just be the smartest meal they had ever eaten.
To sum it up, I'd like to see a system where highly skilled and competent NPCs could be created without their combat abilities and general survivability being so out of sorts with their basic concept.
I already houserule this when the occasion arises but I wouldn't mind seeing an official version or hearing what other people have come up with.
It's not as much a problem as you might think. It's important to remember that people in real life likely never reach mid levels, much less high levels. Check out this article: Calibrating Your Expectations - it deals with your concerns pretty well IMO, and it even addresses Einstein as an example. He needs to be no more than level 5 to do what he did, it seems. ;)
|
|
... you don't believe that a librarian could trash a low-level fighter? I'm a librarian, and I could wrestle a *bear* or a mid-level fighter, and *OWN* them! Anyone who has a differing opinion may challenge a librarian for a fight at his/her Friendly Local Public Library! ;P
(on-topic: I suggest that all NPC classes should get far less HPs and use the 'poor' progression for all saves and BAB -- except for the Warrior, which should use 'average' BAB and 'Good' Fort at best.)
My fiance is a librarian. She is also a black belt in tae kwon do and has been trained in krav maga.
Never judge the book by its cover.
You do know that basic lessons in 'Krav Maga' and 'Tae Kwon Do' (in a class called 'How to deal with impolite patrons') are part of the first year's studies? I've personally expanded my "repertoire" with Greco-Roman wrestling and Karate, just to be sure. ;)
So, as an exception, I'd rule that all librarians should have a few levels in Monk, Bard and Loremaster.
|
|
... you don't believe that a librarian could trash a low-level fighter? I'm a librarian, and I could wrestle a *bear* or a mid-level fighter, and *OWN* them! Anyone who has a differing opinion may challenge a librarian for a fight at his/her Friendly Local Public Library! ;PI totally believe you could do that. People dismiss the strength that comes from moving all those books and stuff. Remember people - Conan was a Librarian!
(OFF-TOPIC):
You could treat a librarian as a mechanical exception -- I like internal consistency, but you should give him/her all the abilities of a 20th level Bard and Monk and 10th level Loremaster ("reflavour" the 20th level Bard Ability as 'Deadly Shushing'). Include Heavy Tomes and Folios (1D10 / X3) as a Monk Weapon. Don't forget the +4 Circumstance Bonus to all skill checks from an extensive book collection (all of which have 'Shocking Grasp'-traps triggered to react to dirty/greasy hands).
Finally, if a librarian witnesses anyone mishandling a book, you should give him a free access to 'Rage Powers' of a barbarian equal to his/her level.
Commoners going up to d6 *is* my biggest beef with NPCs. Though at the same time, it's nice not to have to worry *too* much about evil 1st level clerics walking around channeling negative energy and killing *more than* 50% of the commoners they run into.
That's true. It might be a bit weird, if a 1st level evil cleric channels in a city square, and people start dropping all around. Still, I might prefer d4 for the commoners, and "non-heroic" (1/4) BAB and Save progression for them.
I mentioned this in another thread, but really.. this article should be 'required reading' for these kinds of discussion:
"Calibrating your Expectations"
We have to remember that in D&D, anything over 5th or 6th level is basically getting into ridiculously fantastic levels of power.
3e is fairly well designed for the average person, creating and participating in normal human peak capabilities.
When we get into "fantastic" things though, you need "fantastic" people to be able to participate.
Here's a quote regarding the "Einstein factor":
This can be a little bit difficult for some people to accept, so let’s run the math. At 5th level an exceptional specialist like Einstein will have:
* +8 skill ranks
* +4 ability score bonus
* +3 Skill Focus
In the case of our 5th level Einstein, that gives him a +15 bonus to Knowledge (physics) checks. He can casually answer physics-related questions (by taking 10) with a DC of 25. Such questions, according to the PHB description of the Knowledge skill, are among the hardest physics questions known to man. He’ll know the answers to the very hardest questions (DC 30) about 75% of the time.
And when he’s doing research he’ll be able to add the benefits of being able to reference scientific journals (+2 circumstance bonus), gain insight from fellow colleagues (+2 bonus from aid another), use top-of-the-line equipment (+2 circumstance bonus), and similar resources to gain understanding of a problem so intractable that no one has ever understood it before (DC 40+).
(This 5th level Einstein can also be modeled with as few as 5 hit points – 1 per hit die. Even if he rolled an average number of hit points on each hit die (3 each), as an old man his average Constitution of 10 will have dropped two points. With the resulting Constitution penalty, he still only has 10 hit points.
Granted, some factual information is wrong (can't take 10 normally on a a Knowledge check), but the idea is there. Researching things, he'd have a minimum roll of 22, and an average of 32. The highest DC the skill entry for Knowledge even mentions is 30 "for real tough questions", and is lumped in with 20.
On the flipside to this... if you want a guy who can come up with mathematical equations to figure out how often a particular day of the week a certain date lands over the course of a century.. or can speak backwards as easily as forwards (like rewinding a tape), all in his head, within seconds, then you might need something more on the genetic side (like a template... no added HD). *
.
With regards to the OP suggestion.. I'm all for it! NPC classes might still be appropriate to have around, however a list of templates to slap onto any particular race would be nice to quickly build NPCs (or create an NPC on the fly you might suddenly require).
I believe the E6 crowd was making a similar concept over on ENWorld. Someone had started a list of NPC stats between 1st and 5th level to use as plug and play NPCs. Boiling down those builds into templates would basically be what is being looked for here.
.
*
Spoiler Info Below: Don't read if you intend to watch the show mentioned in the link above.
I guess we could have an autistic template as well.. it could be pertinent if you wanted such game themes in your campaign. However, a genetically superior "computer brain" is what I was talking about adding.
|
|
The best answer I can give you is, "why have rules at all, then?"Not every character has to be broken, but if you want Albert in your game, usea level one commoner/expert, and crank the 9 hells out of his knowledge(plains) skill. That makes more sence than designing a whole system that will give you exactly what you want.
And the Autistic thing. Yeah, my wife(a special ed. teacher) would so hunt someone down and cut off there testicals for making fun of Special needs children/adults.:p
