Shouldn't my starting PC be a commoner 1/whatever 1? Or is the thought that at some point, PCs got "promoted" and traded in their NPC class levels for class levels? And if so, why do some characters retain a mix of NPC and PC class levels?
It almost makes me wish for the days of fighter 0s. Almost. :P
Don't over-think the situation. A typical humanoid player-race mechanically doesn't have any racial hit dice, so it can't "exist" without either a PC class level or an NCP class level. That decision is made when the camera swings over to include them in the ongoing movie that is adventure-life. Think of it like Schrodinger's Cat. A humanoid has either a PC class level or NPC class level, but that isn't determined until they are observed.
When you start up your character, there is no mechanical "before". You were always Barbarian 1, or Wizard 1, or whatever 1, only you didn't exhibit most/any of that abilities of that PC class level until your back-story says you did.
There's no need to back-track mechanically "how did I get here". The game isn't designed for that reverse-engineering.
Back when PF was looking at extra hit points at 1st level, I considered a "free" level of an NPC class as a way to give background (and the hit points). After messing with it, I gave it up. Once you've made your character, their backstory is just a story.
My PCs are busy escorting a princess with aristocrat levels and a single level of sorcerer (destined). They don't know much about her, except for her snooty princessiness, but she has enough hit points to survive a round or two if they're having a hard time protecting her (and they are! >:-)). I'm glad I can give her levels of "important to other people, but she's not an adventurer."
As a PC, she'd be boring to play, unless playing a spoiled, snooty princess appeals to you. If they weren't trying to protect her, they'd flip her off and go do something else. That's pretty much what all NPCs are to my group, like Anguish said.
Don't over-think the situation. A typical humanoid player-race mechanically doesn't have any racial hit dice, so it can't "exist" without either a PC class level or an NCP class level. That decision is made when the camera swings over to include them in the ongoing movie that is adventure-life. Think of it like Schrodinger's Cat. A humanoid has either a PC class level or NPC class level, but that isn't determined until they are observed.
When you start up your character, there is no mechanical "before". You were always Barbarian 1, or Wizard 1, or whatever 1, only you didn't exhibit most/any of that abilities of that PC class level until your back-story says you did.
There's no need to back-track mechanically "how did I get here". The game isn't designed for that reverse-engineering.
If that were the case, though, then we wouldn't have stat blocks that include both PC and NPC classes...but we do. To me, that implies exactly the sort of reverse engineering you describe (so and so was a aristocrat before becoming an adventurer, and so has 3 levels of an NPC class...).
It seems to me that Pathfinder is a bit schizophrenic about whether it is simulationist or not when it comes to NPC classes. Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating for either view...it's just that it seems very inconsistently handled as opposed to, say, Savage Worlds, where the normal person/special person divide is explicit.
|
Don't over-think the situation. A typical humanoid player-race mechanically doesn't have any racial hit dice, so it can't "exist" without either a PC class level or an NCP class level. That decision is made when the camera swings over to include them in the ongoing movie that is adventure-life. Think of it like Schrodinger's Cat. A humanoid has either a PC class level or NPC class level, but that isn't determined until they are observed.
When you start up your character, there is no mechanical "before". You were always Barbarian 1, or Wizard 1, or whatever 1, only you didn't exhibit most/any of that abilities of that PC class level until your back-story says you did.
There's no need to back-track mechanically "how did I get here". The game isn't designed for that reverse-engineering.
If that were the case, though, then we wouldn't have stat blocks that include both PC and NPC classes...but we do. To me, that implies exactly the sort of reverse engineering you describe.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating for either view...it's just that it seems very inconsistently handled as opposed to, say, Savage Worlds, where the normal person/special person divide is explicit.
Some NPCs are ordinary persons full stop. Some NPCs mixed "ordinary" and "heroic" activities in their life.
PCs are heroes full time. That's where the divide happens: PCs use PC classes only.
Some NPCs are ordinary persons full stop. Some NPCs mixed "ordinary" and "heroic" activities in their life.
PCs are heroes full time. That's where the divide happens: PCs use PC classes only.
It depends on the campaign.
In general, PCs are assumed to be "special" and start with PC class levels. Note that many of the BBEGs and other "special" NPCs also start with PC class levels. Effectively, PCs and "special" NPCs are the best of the best.
Some NPCs (and PCs in some campaigns) are assumed to be a bit more "ordinary" and start with NPC class levels. Effectively, these NPCs (and PCs) "grew into" their "true calling;" for some concepts/storylines this can be an effective technique.
Most NPCs (and PCs in a few non-standard campaigns/one-shots) only have NPC class levels. Note that even characters with only NPC class levels can be effective in many circumstances; maybe not as effective as they would be with PC class levels, but still effective. The biggest discrepancy is in spellcasting, since the only NPC class that can cast spells is the adept. However, these may be desired features for a low-magic, "gritty fantasy" campaign.