| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Err, if he just wanted weapon proficiency, why didn't he take a much more useful level in fighter? Aristocrat doesn't get any profs they don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I concur with Fuzzy. There's nothing outright keeping him from taking NPC classes, save GM fiat and possibly PFS rules, but there isn't any NPC class level he could take that wouldn't be better off as a PC class level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no, but seriously thinking of running a campaign where only npc classes are available at level 1 (characters will be expected to multi at 2)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might want to look over the rules for young characters; they start with NPC classes, then retrain to PC classes when they reach adulthood.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there are ways to cripple your character with out taking npc classes
It's not necessarily "crippling" - though in a moderate to highly optimized group, it may well feel that way, relative to the other players.
I've never taken an NPC class after-the-fact myself, but I know my wife considered it on a character of hers in order to get both proficiency and skills plus a will save boost. She opted out, though, if only because going into aristocrat didn't make sense for the character in-character.
Also, as has been noted elsewhere and before, adepts - though they are NPC classes - can actually make decent PCs (though not exceptional).
no, but seriously thinking of running a campaign where only npc classes are available at level 1 (characters will be expected to multi at 2)
You may wish to consider the Uncommon Commoners mini-AP!
(The other thread I made about it.)
Sorry for the lack of reviews - time is not on our side, I'm afraid, and we keep falling short of playing this thing from time constraints.
EDIT: the whole list of his stuff! All seven adventures are now available - I'm going to purchase the last two today!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starting out with NPC classes and then retraining or multiclassing out of them is one thing, but actively picking up an NPC class later on when all one had was a PC class is quite another, and makes little sense. Unless you gained that new level doing nothing but attending court, taking a level in aristocrat makes little sense and yields no benefits.
One of my favorite compromises for the perceived imbalance of aasimars and teiflings is having the characters first level be in an NPC class. It gives a solid base that level adjustments never did, while also being an opportunity cost in class progression.
I've thought of this idea before, but in regards to really powerful or monster races like Svirfneblin, Drider, or maybe even Dragon.
If the player was a high skillpoint class like rogue they might pick an npc class with profiencies because of that. Figther give essentially no skillpoints.
That's actually why my wife considered it with aristocrat - she was a bard, this was 3.X, and it was painful losing so many skill points just for proficiencies.
But she ended up going with ranger instead, as it gave every proficiency she needed without sacrificing skill points, and granting a few added bits of utility beyond the aristocrat. The only thing she lost out on was the will save, but that wasn't really a problem for her. The only thing she would have gotten that she didn't would be armor, but that really isn't worth it for a caster of any stripe, due to the asf.
And, you know, with all the archetypes out now, you can find a fighter archetype that gives you skills - heck, you can find one that gives you a caster level. Similarly alchemists, barbarians, druids, gunslingers, monks, paladins, hunters, inquisitors, investigators, kineticist, medium, mesmerist, occultist, rangers, swashbucklers, slayers, vigilantes, any number of PrCs, and even rogues make a better one-level dip.
While any of them might not be individually ideal, among that huge selection, in PF there's generally more than enough reason to choose anything other than aristocrat - just like, although they're perfectly serviceable, there's plenty of reasons to choose anything other than an adept.
(The expert is entirely replaced by any other six-skill class - just choose the one with the skills you want - while the warrior is replaced by fighter, and commoner is replaced by literally everything, including a wizard without spells.)
It's certainly not wrong to choose an NPC class, but it will never be the strong option, and there are almost always alternates available that are much better and more interesting to most.
(Unless, I believe, you're playing a psionic game. Then you might want to take a level of expert for the skills.)
I think you misunderstood or misread something: that's exactly what she did.
To be clear, (as I might not have been) she only "missed out" on heavy armor proficiency, and a will save boost (the latter of which was already strong). This was a pretty old game, though, and she wasn't going for super-optimization - ranger just made sense as she was outdoors most of the time.
(Aside: your name is a reference to the old G.I. Joe character, yes? If so: awesome! She was always one of my favorites! If not: okay! :D)
The AC boost is a fine thing.
I did not meant to imply otherwise.
Mage armor and shield are, to me, a phenomenally better investment.
While you can certainly push your AC higher with other methods, it cost less and is easier to replace. If you're not a caster with those spells, it's not too expensive to craft something with the aid of someone who is - which is what Leadership is for, more or less. That +8 - when taken with other casty tricks - tends to more than make up for the +11 you'd generally max out at, otherwise, for a vastly lower price. I've not yet found that +3 to be relevant.
If custom creation isn't allowed (like in PFS), than yes, such things are certainly worth reconsidering. I was, I suppose, definitely over-generalizing and presuming home games.
That said, I tended to think of it as self-evident that if asf doesn't apply to a class, than it doesn't apply - also, in the system that I was referring to in that post, which I explained for context in the first line, rangers do not get any better proficiency than bards; unlike in PF FAQ, mithril breastplate was considered light armor - at least if my recollection of official WotC stuff is correct - and thus it didn't matter whether or not she went with ranger. She actually didn't get any armor proficiency increase - only weapons. Soooo... different systems.
It's easy to get them muddled, though - PF is so very similar in some regards to 3.5, but so fundamentally different in others. It makes memories less reliable, and causes you to question things sometimes. :D
And fair enough on the name! Though if you're into really bad 80s cartoons that were used as vehicles for selling really awesome action figures, I recommend G.I. Joe - it's painfully terrible to watch now, but I know some people really enjoy it, and I have fond nostalgia from the days of my youth.
(But daggum was it hard to find a Lady J. action figure. Her and April O'Neal - why was that so hard?!)
wile its true it is cheaper to use mage armor and shield you also don't have enemy wizards dispelling your full plate or +3 heavy steel shield each has its benefits and drawbacks
... but if you're a caster (at least an arcane one) you're not going to be in full plate or have a heavy steel shield equipped - or if you are, you're not going to be casting spells. At least not without very specific prestige classes (or, perhaps, some extremely specific feats in PF, and even then there's a strong limit) - most of which are rather lackluster compared to your other options: it's not wrong to choose them, but if you're arguing for superiority, as an arcane caster, heavier armor isn't it.
And if a) your foe is bothering to dispel you're stuff, they've probably prepared poorly for action economy or outnumber you by a lot, and b) your other stuff should be continuous - and you've got a ton of other defensive things that mostly render AC superfluous extras. That means that whatever is dispelled is only dispelled for 1d4 rounds - exactly the the benefits of your magic armor and magic shield of whatever values they have.
Beyond that, the dispel can only handle so much, you know? At least unless they're spending lots of actions to dispel your stuff, by which point you're probably just going to destroy them through other means (which likely involves overwhelming numbers).
Really, what you'd have to worry about is disjunction, but by the point that one is being slung around you're either in over your head by a large margin, or you're (if you're really optimizing, which we seem to be presuming) slinging Aroden's Spellbane and explicitly warding against disjunction, antimagic and spellbane.
All of this is strictly hypothetical, though.
Worrying about whether a character is wearing some sort of physical armor or going for purely magical whatsits is relevant only to the specific table at which that player finds themselves - exactly like whether or not an NPC class is fun or useful.
plenty of casters can cast spells in full plate though
This is a strong aside from the topic, but if you'd like to enlighten me, either by PM or spoiler tag, or a new thread, I'd be interested to hear your ideas on this. "Plenty" seems like a very big stretch for a straightforward few.
Bear in mind that, prior to this, I've striven to clarify arcane casters: it is called "arcane" spell failure, after all. Any divine faster is, by default, not subject to "arcane" spell failure, unless a specific archetype modifies their casting - this if that's what you're trying to get at, it is a point I've attempted to clarify previously.
(Alternatively, "plenty" could just be vague wording - as in "plenty for my purposes" but that would be rather strictly relative and thus misleading, rather than generally accurate.)
The kind that do that don't use mage armor anyway.
One of the best things about PF crafting is that you don't even need to have the spell: just the rest. Then pretty much whatever you like is yours with time and effort.
(Not arguing your point, T, as it is accurate, but expanding the seemingly implied group of those who could be using Mage armor - of course a properly crafty martial could as well, I suppose!)
EDIT: hopefully for clarity. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no, but seriously thinking of running a campaign where only npc classes are available at level 1 (characters will be expected to multi at 2)
Well, in the long term, yes.
But if this is just a "you are an NPC at level 1, and then retrain later" then it is fine. At level 1, there is only so much difference between an NPC and a PC class.
Only a few stand outs like barbarian give enough bonuses to really take a note. Everything else is either minor, or a 1/day thing at that point. Or situational (sneak attack) or time consuming (studied target early on). Honestly, it is more about hit dice, stat points, and weapons at that point.
Admittedly, I would not want to play a campaign of startin NPC level 1 and then going PC level 1. Because, as stated- level 1 does not have much going on. I would at least want to go from NPC level 1 to PC level 2 (ie- retraining and leveling at the same time). That would both get me closer to class features and allow for enough hit points that I am not instantly bleeding out if a goblin dagger crits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Inquisitor wanted weapon proficiencies... I went with Fighter- Unarmed fighter. Got ALL the martial weapons... AND the monk weapons... improved unarmed combat, and Snake Style feat. And a +1 BaB.
One of the few times I dipped that I haven't looked back with at least SOME regret.
Skills DID take a hit... but really, he gained a lot more then he lost there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My Inquisitor wanted weapon proficiencies... I went with Fighter- Unarmed fighter. Got ALL the martial weapons... AND the monk weapons... improved unarmed combat, and Snake Style feat. And a +1 BaB.
One of the few times I dipped that I haven't looked back with at least SOME regret.
Skills DID take a hit... but really, he gained a lot more then he lost there.
Besides the other advantages (which are acceptable), are the monk weapons worth it?
I can't really think of any that are really useful when compared to martial weapons. At most, maybe a maneuver thing? But general numbers....yeah, they are about as disappointing as most exotic weapons. At best, their most notable quality is that they can be used in flurries (...which you don't have).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did that seven or eight years ago in the last 3.5 campaign I played.
My character was Baron Drax von Stryker, who started play as an aristocrat 1, then multiclassed to fighter. As he progressed in level, he only took fighter levels, and at the end of the campaign was an aristocrat 1/fighter 14.
I made that choice purely for character background reasons: He was the heir of a decadent drunkard nobleman who had squandered the barony's treasury. After his father died of the drink, he left an unprepared Drax with little more than a title and a mountain of debt. (Well, and his grandfather's greatsword, which was a legacy magic weapon.) His quest was to make enough money as an adventurer to bring his barony back to its former glory.
Mechanically, it wasn't that bad a build in 3.5. It meant that his BAB was 1 lower, he had 2 fewer hit points, and had to wait until L5 to take Weapon Specialization. He gained lot more skill points at first level, so from a game mechanics perspective, it was more-or-less a wash. (Okay, slightly less, but it was still a fun character!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never did this, but from a story point of view switching to aristocrat should make sense sometimes. Kingmaker comes to my mind.
From a mechanical point of view, most of these classes offer +2 to one save at level 1 - better than Core monk (all good saves) with 'just' +1.2 per level, averaged over 20 levels.
Adept adds a mix of sorc/wiz and cleric spells, and you are not bound to any deity. Aristocrat has quite a few class skills and comes with typical martial proficiencies. Expert can even cherry pick his 10 class skills - take the most useful or those useful your other classes don't have. Warrior isn't superior to fighter in any way, the only little benefit would be to combine both for the Fortitude boost. Commoner is tough to justify - might need some bonus from the GM (e.g. +1 level) to somehow pay off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My Inquisitor wanted weapon proficiencies... I went with Fighter- Unarmed fighter. Got ALL the martial weapons... AND the monk weapons... improved unarmed combat, and Snake Style feat. And a +1 BaB.
One of the few times I dipped that I haven't looked back with at least SOME regret.
Skills DID take a hit... but really, he gained a lot more then he lost there.
Besides the other advantages (which are acceptable), are the monk weapons worth it?
I can't really think of any that are really useful when compared to martial weapons. At most, maybe a maneuver thing? But general numbers....yeah, they are about as disappointing as most exotic weapons. At best, their most notable quality is that they can be used in flurries (...which you don't have).
It's true. My main image was going to be kind of a cross between Snipe's Blade and Jackman's VanHelsing who had a bunch of daggers and shurikens and just a TON of weird exotic weapons and if he was in a tavern or somewhere civilized could beat the crap out of people with his barehands too... Plain inquisitor just didn't do that.
I have a 'couple' of monk weapons like the 3 section staff... but I usually do end up going back to the Longsword +1 and my Hunga Munga for range... Mostly because I like saying 'Hunga Munga'...
So yeah, Getting ALL monk weapons is fun... but not particularly useful. I just really find it ironic that the 'Unarmed fighter' Archtypes is proficient with MORE weapons then the armed fighter... and more monk weapons then the Monk... O.o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, mostly because most of them aren't worth the effort past the mild novelty as a bonus like that.
They added some of the basic staples to the monk proficiencies soon after core- temple sword for 'basically a long sword with monk quality' for str builds, and the cestus for dex builds and people that want punching without unarmed rules.
Outside of that, out of what monk weapons offer.... it is mostly just minor upgrades like 'same as temple sword, but 1d10 and bludgeoning'. Nothing really comes out as 'amazing' to me.
I suppose I am just a person that prefers smaller weapon lists though, and using general weapons as representations (such as 'let scimitars cover most curved swords and leave out katanas'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best class to play as after you build up a trillion different weapon proficiencies is Magus with the Mindblade archetype. Mindblade reigns supreme in its ability to f@%~ around and maintain usefulness. You can entirely switch to literally any weapon at will for free and they're all decent magic weapons, not to mention the weapons that have other functions like a kunai as a crowbar, a boarding axe for climbing, a machete as... well... a machete, or a battle ladder as... a stepladder.
I could see adept as a dip, but that's about it.