I've done similar things before, though in 3.5 not PF. I've found it fairly innocuous, and it can add to the characters' background and make them seem more "real". My only concern, specifically with the Pathfinder system, is the way class skills are handled. Once you get that +4 bonus, it's always there, so giving someone a bunch of +4 skills in addition to the class they take a first level might be slightly overpowered. As long as you take that into account when determining appropriate challenges, it shouldn't be an issue, IMO.
What do you guys think about each player, at start, take one NPC class and one Player class, with the NPC class to show their life before they became heroic? I would make the max level for player be 21 to compensate and they would follow the same CR and level progression as usual. This is for both flavor and mechanic reasons. I find that the game can be a little unforgiving to to first level PC's, so a little more hit points and some skills shouldnt hurt too much, right?
Personally I'd be against it. NPC levels add very little to back-story that can not be included in PC levels. Frankly the difference between fighter and warrior is a bonus feat. A fighter is just a warrior who is a little better. At one point he trained with all his warrior friends and he was just better faster.
If your worried about survivability just give double hit points at first level or hit points plus con score at first level.
|
I did this with a low-power Kingmaker I'm running. I didn't allow Adept, though, because I didn't want random people being able to cast spells. Commoner, Expert and Aristocrat were more like social class background, and their so low-powered that someone with Warrior and an extra +1 to BAB wouldn't hurt. It meant people had more skills to put into Knowledge and Craft/Profession.
I said the NPC level counted as "level 0" for all calculations of class level except:
1) max skill points (so max skill points will basically be "level+1" instead of "level"), and
2) HP (I told them do take max HP in whichever class, PC or NPC, was higher and 1/2+1 in the other) - two would have died in the first adventure w/o this!
So far, so good.
Funny you bring this up. Our DM is doing the very same thing in a new campaign we are starting next week end.
I am playing a Witch (Plague Patron) that started out as an Expert (Undertaker). It is helpful to me in that I can fill the role of party Knowledge checker and Diplomat due my broader skill set. My only problem is the book-keeping is a little clunky, with me now getting my feats and hexes at the same levels instead of at alternating levels.
Another thing to consider is Gestalt of NPC and PC class at the first level. You take the better of the two classes rather than adding them.
|
What if I limited their choice to be between aristocrat, commoner, and expert?
Warrior should probably be in there, too. +1 BAB isn't bad, and nothing else really reflects a background as a professional soldier.
Oh, and for balance purposes, you might want to give people who take Commoner a Bonus feat or something, as otherwise they're just being screwed for picking it instead of one of the others.
What if I limited their choice to be between aristocrat, commoner, and expert?
So your limiting it to just expert then? Seriously no one will pick aristocrat or commoner over expert. Unless they really really want proficiency with that one martial weapon.
I think it's a flavorful idea. Things you'll have to consider (none of which are game-breaking off the top of my head), some already mentioned:
1) Skills. NPC classes will add the trained-only bonus to the mix like normal, allowing PCs to have characters with a wide breadth of skills at low levels. Unlikely IMHO to be a problem.
2) BAB. If someone is a warrior/fighter (or paladin, ranger, barbarian, etc.), they'll eventually start getting multiple attacks "early". They'll also meet feat prerequisites sooner. I doubt that little +1 will be a problem as well.
3) Saves. Unless they all take commoner (and c'mon, who wouldn't :) ), they'll all start with a boost to saves, helpful for shoring up weaknesses down the road.
4) Hit points. Everyone will get a few more at "1st" level, for added survivability.
Overall, I like this idea. It's one I'd like to incorporate into some of my characters as well. Now, what about people who really shouldn't have levels in NPC classes, like the wizard who began his apprenticeship as a child and never developed as a commoner or expert? Or the sorcerer who manifested his gifts at age 5? How will you make allowances for those sorts of characters? Some people begin training for their careers from birth or nearly so; it seems those people might be harder to represent in this system. That said, the extra NPC level will allow for extra flavor and survivability at low levels, when luck arguably plays a larger role in PC survival. Go for it!
|
|
What if I limited their choice to be between aristocrat, commoner, and expert?So your limiting it to just expert then? Seriously no one will pick aristocrat or commoner over expert. Unless they really really want proficiency with that one martial weapon.
Aristocrat's not bad. If you want that skill list anyway, there's no real reason to pick Expert over it. Yeah Experts get two extra skill points, but Aristocrats get all Martial Weapons and Heavy Armor.
You are, of course, right about Commoners. At least without something to sweeten the pot.
|
|
Give me a scenario then where you can have the following:
Commoner gives some skills, but mostly just HP
Expert is almost purely skills
Aristocrat is a little of both
You really can't give Commoners enough HP to make up for the Save and Proficiencies. If you just give everyone the same Proficiencies (maybe Light Armor and simple Weapons), and Commoners +2 Fortitude Save (or something like that), then giving the Commoner D10 HD, the Aristocrat d8, and the Expert D6 might give you what you want.
Does that sound workable?
If doing this, you might want to shuffle the Expert +2 Save from Will to Reflex, that way all three saves are covered as well as everything else.